Here are the first 4 sermons of a series on a Biblical Theology of the Lord’s Day from an Orthodox Catechism Q. 1114-5. I’ll add more links as more sermons are uploaded:
Here are the first 4 sermons of a series on a Biblical Theology of the Lord’s Day from an Orthodox Catechism Q. 1114-5. I’ll add more links as more sermons are uploaded:
As I give this overview of some key Messianic prophecies in this lesson I will be doing so via Biblical Theology. Rather than examining Messianic prophecies separately I will show the development of Messianic prophecies that build upon Genesis 3:15. Here is a basic definition of biblical theology to explain this approach by Geerhardus Vos,
“Biblical Theology deals with the material from the historical standpoint, seeking to exhibit the organic growth or development of the truths of Special Revelation from the primitive pre-redemptive Special Revelation (Revelation prior to the recording of Scripture, prior to Moses) given in Eden to the close of the New Testament canon”.
Biblical theology is distinguished from systematic theology because it seeks to show the development of a doctrine or motif in scripture progressively i.e. Paul’s theology of Justification in the Pauline epistles, whereas Systematic Theology organizes theology by doctrine logically rather than tracing the development of the doctrine gradually with progressive revelation compared to Biblical theology. The analogy of a seed developing into a tree helps to give a mental picture to understand what Biblical Theology is as a discipline in Theology,
“The organic process is from seed-form to the attainment of full growth; yet we do not say that in the qualitative sense the seed is less perfect than the tree. The feature in question explains further how the soteric (salvific) sufficiency of the truth could belong to it in its first state of emergence: in the seed-form the minimum of indispensable knowledge was already present. Again, it explains how revelation could be so closely determined in its onward movement by the onward movement of redemption…But redemption, as is well known, is eminently organic in its progress. It does not proceed with uniform motion, but rather is ‘epochal’ in its onward stride (it isn’t a straight line of development, but has sharp peaks at certain points i.e. Isaiah 53)”.
This is not a novel approach to studying scripture, but is well attested by Reformed Confessions demonstrating that reformed theologians didn’t study theology only systematically, but also observed the progressive nature of revelation as the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith explains covenant theology via the progressive revelation of the covenant of grace as first promised in Genesis 3:15 and inaugurated by the shed blood of Christ in the new covenant,
“1689 LBC Chapter 7 Paragraph 3: This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the5 seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full6 discovery thereof was compleated in the New Testament; and it is founded in that* Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were7 saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency”.
Before proceeding to examine some Messianic prophecies I need to define a few important terms for studying Messianic prophecies, you may not use all of these terms in evangelism, but they are important to know for doing any research on Messianic prophecies. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew with a few small portions in Aramaic, during about the 7th century the Masoretes added vowel points to the Hebrew Text, which was passed down orally and is what you will find in a Hebrew Bible today. Related to this is an important point on textual criticism for the Old Testament called the Qere (what is read) and Ketib (what is written). Textual criticism is the study of comparing ancient manuscripts of a document to examine places in which the manuscripts differ (textual variants), so that the original text can be derived from the manuscripts and distinguished from scribal errors i.e. minor spelling errors of similar letters. This is significant for some Messianic prophecies as I will discuss later with the Shiloh prophecy in Genesis 49:10; here is a basic definition of the qre and ktib from the renown Hebraist and Arabist Joshua Blau,
“In some cases, words in the text of the Bible [Old Testament] are unvocalized (called ktib, i.e. “written” in Aramaic), because the version represented by them has been rejected by the Masoretes (as אסור Genesis 39:20). The version preferred to that of the ktib, called qre (i.e. “read” in Aramaic), is written, fully vocalized [with vowels], on the margin of the Biblical text (as אֲסִ֯ורֵ֥י ibid). As ill-fortune would have it, in many Bibles the ktib is exhibited in the text with the vowels of the qre (!) (as אֲסִ֯ורֵ֥י ibid), and the unvocalized qre on the margin (as אסירי ); yet one has always to bear in mind that only the vocalization of the qre is traditionally transmitted, whereas the proper vocalization of the ktib can only be surmised”.
In addition to the Hebrew Old Testament, the Masoretic text (sometime abbreviated as MT) there is also the Septuagint (abbreviated as LXX), a Jewish ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament dated between 200-400 BC. Lastly, there are the Aramaic Targums, Jewish paraphrases/translations of the Old Testament, this was important for Jews at the time because by about 2,000 BC Aramaic was the language of international trade in the ancient world, hence the need for Aramaic paraphrases/translations of the Old Testament after the exile when many Jews had forgotten Hebrew and were more familiar with Aramaic.
Genesis 3:15 occurs within the context of God’s judgment upon Adam and Eve having broken His command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17), but in the midst of God’s pronouncement of judgment comes a glimpse of hope with the promise of a coming seed of the woman that will crush the serpent’s head, as God pronounces judgment on the serpent (Genesis 3:14-15) often called the “first Gospel”: “And enmity I will place between you and between the woman and between your seed and between her seed, he himself will crush you (2ms) (on the) head and you (2ms) yourself will strike him (on the) heel”.
Jewish objections to this passage include viewing the curse on the serpent as referring to the natural hatred that women have of serpents such as Nahum Sarna suggests,
“This curse seeks to explain the natural revulsion of humans for the serpent. Clearly, when it entered into conversation with the woman, it could not have been so regarded; indeed, it posed as her friend, solicitous of her interests”.
However this ignores the common usage of ’ēbāh in the MT, which according to HALOT means, “enmity or hostile disposition”.
The use of this word both in Genesis 3:15 and its other occurrences in the OT suggests that this refers to more than merely a dislike of snakes but a real adversarial enmity with the serpent. The second common objection is that seed is used collectively and therefore cannot refer to the Messiah in this passage, but this ignores other uses of zera’ as HALOT says it can refer to both descendents and a descendent, also the seed that will crush the serpent is described using the third person masculine pronoun in this passage hū’ in both the MT and Targum Onkelos, and autos in the LXX, if the seed were collective in this passage then a plural pronoun would have been used instead of a third person singular pronoun. Paul commenting on this passage in Galatians 3:16, he applies this text to Christ specifically as the seed prophesied in the text.
The second major messianic prophecy in the Pentateuch is Genesis 49:10, a prophecy for the tribe of Judah given before Jacob passed away giving both patriarchal blessings and curses to his sons, which translated from the Masoretic Text is: “A scepter will not depart from Judah nor a scepter from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him belongs the obedience of the peoples.” Nahum Sarna gives two predominant Jewish interpretations of Shiloh,
“The present rendering, that of the Yalkut and Lekaḥ Tov, takes shiloh as a combination of shai, “tribute,” and loh, “to him.” Several ancient versions understand it as in late Hebrew shello, “that which belongs to him,” that is, until he obtains the monarchy,” and the second view is that Shiloh is a messianic reference, “An early tradition, found in texts from Qumran, in the Targums, and in rabbinic literature, sees in shiloh a messianic title, although no biblical passage supports this. It has even been noted that the numerical value of the consonants y-b-ʾ sh-y-l-h, “Shiloh will come,” is equal to that of mashiaḥ, “messiah”: 358 [the Rabbinic references he gives in the footnote are: 4QGen. 49:10, Sanh. 98b, Gen. R. 98:13, Lam. R. 1:16. ].”
There are two messianic interpretations of this passage; the first is given by E.W. Hengsetnberg, a well known 19th century conservative OT Lutheran theologian. He observes the similarity of Shiloh with Solomon’s name in Hebrew and argues that Shiloh is an adjective meaning peace based off of his view that Shiloh comes from the noun Shilon for rest,
“The analogy of the name shlmh which is formed after the manner of shīlh, indicates that it has here an adjective signification, and, like Solomon, Shiloh denotes “the man of rest,” corresponds to the “Prince of Peace” in Is. 9:5, and, viewed in its character of a proper name, is like the German “Friedrich’ = Frederick, i.e., “rich in peace,” “the Peaceful one”.
I side with the messianic view of Geerhardus Vos and others who view Shiloh as composed of three parts, translated together as “he to whom it belongs”, Vos explains this position well,
“I resolve the word Shiloh, after leaving off the vowels, into the three characters sh-l-oh. Then sh- is taken as the abbreviated form of the relative asher; l-, I take as the preposition lamedh; the –oh at the end of the word is the suffix of the third-person singular bearing the possessive sense of “his.” Taken cumulatively, this yields the rendering “he to whom.”
This interpretation is also supported by an intertextuality with Ezekiel 21:27,
“That this is not an arbitrary or prejudicial explanation appears from the passage in Ezekiel that must evidently be accounted for as a conscious echo of the Jacob-blessing…the mysterious characters sh-l-oh reappear here. It is true, the subject to which, in each case, the relative belongs differs as between Genesis and Ezekiel; but it differs only in form, not in substantial meaning In Genesis it is the scepter and the judge’s staff held by Judah, while in Ezekiel, it is designated as “the government”.
In addition to this, the translation of Shiloh as “to whom it belongs” is supported by the qre of this passage is shīlō, which supports the translation “to whom it belongs” explaining that the final he in Shiloh is used to mark a vowel, rather than being consonantal, so the messianic view of “to whom it belongs” is supported by the Hebrew Text, whereas you have to change the Hebrew root to shlmh to defend Hengstenberg’s position.
The last prophecy that will be examined concerning the Messiah in the Pentateuch is Numbers 24:17-19. This messianic prophecy comes in the last of Balaam’s three blessings that he gives to Israel instead of the curses that King Balak of Moab had commanded Balaam to call upon the nation of Israel. All of the New Testament references to Balaam describe him as wicked warning believers not to follow in his ways (Jude 11, 2 Peter 2:15, Revelation 2:14). Even in spite of Balaam’s greedy motives to curse Israel to gain a great reward from King Balak of Moab (Numbers 22:15,), in the Lord’s providence Balaam’s curses become blessings to Israel (Nehemiah 13:2) and Balaam utters a messianic prophecy despite the fact that Balaam by no means is a prophet. Numbers 24:17 translated from the Masoretic Text: “I see him, but not now, I see him but (he) is not near, A star will come from Jacob, and a scepter will rise from Israel, and he will smash the corners of Moab, and he will tear down all the sons of Seth.”
Baruch Levine in the JPS commentary series gives the Jewish interpretation of this passage, arguing that it refers to David rather than Christ because of the parallelism between kokāb “star” and šēbeṭ “staff”,
“some commentators have taken their cue from kokāb “star,” and sought a parallel meaning for šēbeṭ, citing Aramaic šebiṭ, “the name of a star,” referring to a meteor or shooting star that leaves a “tail” in its wake, having the appearance of a staff or scepter (Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 58b, Levy IV, 496, s.v. šebîṭ), extending the usual meaning of Hebrew šēbeṭ. Alternatively, one could take a cue from šēbeṭ in its figurative connotation of “sovereign, head,” namely, one who bears a scepter. Thus Genesis 49:10: “The ‘scepter’ (šēbeṭ) shall not depart from Judah, nor the magistrate (meḥoqeq) from the issue of his loins”.
This interpretation still runs into the same dilemma as Genesis 49:10, that the conquest described in this passage exceeds the size of what David’s kingdom ever was, and Levine’s second interpretation does support a messianic view of the passage connecting it to Genesis 49:10. By comparing other ancient translations it is clear that this is a messianic prophecy in addition to the clear allusions to Genesis 3:15 and 49:10, according to the LXX the Hebrew word šēbeṭ (scepter/tribe) is replaced with anthrōpas (man), and Targum Onkelos has mɘshīḥā’ (the messiah).
The root mḥts occurs in Numbers 24:17 to describe the Messiah crushing Moab which is similar to Genesis 3:15 which describes the Messiah crushing the head of the serpent using the Hebrew verb shūp. James Hamilton suggests that one of the problems avoiding connecting Genesis 3:15 with similar passages (such as Numbers 24:17) is the word-concept fallacy, that because a word isn’t used therefore the concept isn’t present, and applied to Genesis 3:15 because the word shūp is used exclusively in Genesis 3:15 to describe the defeat of the serpent’s seed, therefore it can’t be connected to other passages using a different Hebrew word. If that method were employed for basing messianic passages solely on the occurrence of the noun for Messiah, then the only messianic prophecies in the Old Testament would be Psalm 2:2 and Daniel 9:25,26, but the Messiah is clearly mentioned in other prophecies without having to use the Hebrew word māshīaḥ. Hamilton lists several occurrences of the root mḥts which allude to Genesis 3:15 showing that it is within the semantic domain of shūp: Judges 5:26 uses the root mḥts to describe Jael crushing Sisera’s head, in Habakkuk 3:13 it describes salvation coming by your Messiah (’et-mɘshīḥekā) who crushed the head of the house of the wicked, In Psalm 68:22 [English 68:21] Yahweh’s triumph over his enemies is described, “Surely God will crush the heads of his enemies…”, and Psalm 110:6, “He has shattered (the) head over a broad country”.
One last overlooked OT text in this trajectory of the first messianic prophecy of the skull crushing seed of the woman is Psalm 110:6, most likely due to its traditional translation (heads/chief) which blunts the significance of this messianic prophecy.
David uses the word head (singular in Hebrew) to describe the federal head of the wicked one, referring to Satan as the federal representative of the evil seed, just as John describes Cain as being from the seed of the Devil in 1 John 3:10-12. Hengstenburg, a conservative Lutheran OT Theologian and commentator sees the connection with the singular head in Hebrew with other Old Testament passages, building his biblical theology based on intertextuality (similar occurrences of the same phrase in other verses in the Bible),
“That the rōsh [head] is used in its proper sense and cannot be translated: a head over great lands, is clear not from the ’al [upon/on]—against the assertion that it must necessarily have been rbh v‘sh ‘rts [רבה ואש ארץ] [this is an argument from liberal scholars that the Hebrew is corrupted here and Hengsetnberg is providing their proposed emendation/correction] comp. Ps. 47:2—but from the clause, “he shall raise the head,” in ver. 7, and from the parallel passage, Ps. 68:21, “God smites the head of his enemies, the hairy head of him who walketh in his sins,” and Hab. 3:13,—comp. ver. 14, rōsh māḥats occurs in like manner in the sense of a breaker of heads. On our verse we should compare the expanded description in Rev. 19:11 ss., comp. 16:1, ss.”
Although Hengstenberg missed the Messianic reference alluding back to Genesis 3:15 with the same language of crushing the head of the serpent Martin Luther (an Old Testament scholar by his academic training) did observe this motif in his lectures on the Psalms and understood Psalm 110:5-6 as referring to Christ crushing Satan, the federal representative of the wicked,
“Behold, in that He (Christ) preserves the soul, He is at his right hand, but in that He delivers him into the other’s hand, Satan comes to be at his left hand. Again, the devil stands at the right hand of the ungodly (Ps. 109:6), because he possesses them according to the soul and hinders them in the things that are for the salvation of the soul, though he may advance them on the left hand, that is, in temporal things”.
Some commentators although not acknowledging the Messianic reference in verse 6 have shown some parallels between Psalm 110:5-6 with Psalm 2, which prophesies about Christ’s kingly office,
“Of special importance are the traditions that make their appearance in vv. 5* and 6*. Here Psalm 2 is to be considered an explanatory parallel. Corresponding to the melachim [kings] we have melache-erets [the kings of the earth] in Ps. 2:2*. Beside bǝyōm-appō yādin [in the day of his anger he will judge] we are to place the explanation of Ps. 2:5a*: az yedabber’ ēlēmō bǝappō [then he will speak to them in his anger]”.
These brief observations on Psalm 110:6 show that verses 5-6 have important messianic implications testifying to the Kingship of Christ, so when we observe the New testament quoting Psalm 110 we have a better foundation to understand that Psalm 110 refers to both Christ’s office as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:1-4), but also a conquering King (Psalm 110:5-6).
It has been demonstrated that the Messianic witness of the Pentateuch testifies to an organic nature of Messianic Prophecy in the Old Testament starting with Genesis 3:15 as each messianic prophecy cumulatively builds and expands upon previous messianic prophecies providing stronger evidence for the Messiah than viewing each messianic prophecy in isolation. As the case is with Numbers 24:17, it demonstrates there is much stronger evidence for this prophecy to be viewed as messianic when it is compared with Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 49:10, and Psalm 100:5-6, along with other OT passages building on similar motifs of the Messiah, being fulfilled in the person of Christ: the skull crushing seed of the woman, Shiloh, he to whom the scepter of the tribe of Judah belongs, the star and scepter who has dominion over all nations, the King at God’s right hand, and the head crusher of the evil one, Satan.
 Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975), v-vi
 Ibid, 7
5 Gen. 3:15.
6 Heb. 1:1.
7 Heb. 11:6, 13; Rom. 4:1, 2, etc. Act. 4:12; Joh. 8:56.
 W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia; Boston; Chicago; St. Louis; Toronto: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 239
 Joshua Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Gottingen, Germany: Porta Linguarem Orientalium, 1976), 21-22; for more resources on OT textual criticism a useful introduction is: Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), and a more thorough and technical treatment is: Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible 3rd Edition Expanded & Revised (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012)
 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 27
 HALOT, 39
 HALOT, 283; Walter Kaiser explains how both the individual and collective aspect of the seed can be taken into account with the principle of corporate solidarity, “However, the very fact that the noun “seed” is a collective singular deliberately provides for the fact that it may include the one who represents the whole group as well as the group itself. The fact that there is such a one specified in this text as a male descendent of the woman opens up this text to its messianic possibilities.” Walter Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 39
 Also Alfred Ralph’s LXX translates Shiloh as τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ, “whose it is.”
 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 336
4QGen Manuscript of Genesis from Qumran, cave 4, “Qumran text 4Q Patr. 3f (Lohse Qumran 246, 247): עד בוא משיח הצדק צמח דויד “until the one anointed with righteousness comes, the scion (offshoot) of David.” HALOT, 1478
 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 336
 ibid, 337
 E.W. Hengsetnberg, Christology of the Old Testament. Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1956), 69
 Ibid, 99; Walter Kaiser argues for the same interpretation of Shiloh as Vos, and adds that both the LXX and Targum Onkelos support this translation of Shiloh. Walter Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 51. HALOT after giving the three possibilities of what Shiloh refers to sides with Vos and Kaiser’s position viewing Shiloh as referring “to whom it belongs” and points out that the Qere in the Masoretic Text is שִׁילוֹ HALOT, 1478
 Geerhardus Vos, Edited by James T. Dennison Jr, The Eschatology of the Old Testament (Philsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2001), 99
 Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21-36, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 200
 Jame Kugel provides some additional ancient translations of Numbers 24:17: the translation of Targum Neophyti of Numbers 24:17, “A king is destined to arise from the house of Jacob and a savior and ruler from the house of Israel,” and the Peshitta, “A star shines forth from Jacob and a leader from Israel.” James L. Kugel, The Bible As it Was (Cambridge; Massachusets: Harvard University Press, 1997), 489
 Hamilton, James, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15”,The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10.2 (2006), 34
 ibid, 35
 ibid, 37
 ibid, 37, this is my own translation of Ps. 68:22 from the MT
 E. W. Hengstenberg, John Thomson, and Patrick Fairbairn, Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869), 340–341
 Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 11: First Lectures on the Psalms II: Psalms 76-126, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 11 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955), 369–370; Henry Ainsworth takes a similar view, but views the head as referring to the Antichrist who will be overthrown or as a more generic term equivalent to the plural as in evil rulers, “the Head,] Antichrist, the man of sin, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, 2 Thes. 2:3,8, or head for heads, and land for lands, that is, all wicked governors wheresoever”. Henry Ainsworth, Annotations on the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses; The Psalms of David and the Song of Solomon (Ligoner, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, republished in 1991 ), Vol. II: 632
 Hans-Joachim Kraus, A Continental Commentary: Psalms 60–150 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 352
I’ve been reading through Henry Ainsworth’s Annotations on the Pentateuch to accompany my daily Hebrew translation from the Pentateuch and comparison with Targum Onkelos, an ancient Aramaic Jewish translation of the Pentatuech. Ainsworth’s commentary is far beyond its time as he employs a pre-enlighetnment hermeneutic, letting scripture interpret scripture, he traces biblical-theological themes through the Old Testament and into the New Testament, both the OT use of OT and the NT use of the OT, and he was a master of biblical languages since he compares the Hebrew text with the Greek Septuagint (LXX) along with the Aramaic Targums (Jewish paraphrases of the Old testament), which few modern commentators on the Pentateuch are able to do. Here are some quotations giving a biblical theology of the Lord’s Supper and Passover. When I have more time (primarily after I graduate from my undergraduate studies this May) I’ll try to post more quotes from Ainsworth’s exegetical and biblical-theological comments on the Pentateuch [these are only sections of quotes from Ainsworth’s commentary for each verse, not the entire section for each verse, to see the high points of his biblical theology and hermeneutics of Exodus 12 by juxtaposing them]:
“[Ainsworth’s comments on Exodus 12:1] Because this release of Israel was a figure of the church’s redemption by Christ, who reneweth the world, 1 Cor. 5:7,8; 2 Cor. 5:17; and who was to suffer death also in this month, John 18:28; therefore God made it the head and first of the year; that by it the church might be taught to expect ‘the acceptable year of the Lord,’ which Christ preached, Luke 4:19″. Henry Ainsworth, Annotations on the Pentateuch, Soli Deo Gloria edition, Vol. I: 290
“[Ainsworth’s comments on Exodus 12:8] These observations (those that Ainsworth lists in his comments on Exodus 12:8) of the Jews while their commonwealth stood, and to this day, may give light to some particulars in the passover that Christ kept; as why they lay down, one ‘leaning’ on another’s ‘bosom,’ John 13:23 (a sign of rest and security,) and stood not, as at the first passover, neither sat on high, as we use. Why Christ rose from supper, and washed, and sat down again, John 13:4,5,12. Why he blessed, or gave thanks, for the bread apart, and for the cup (or wine) apart, Mark 14:22, 23; and why it is said, he took the cup after supper, Luke 22:20; also concerning the hymn which they sung at the end, Mat. 26:30; and why Paul calleth it the ‘showing forth’ of the Lord’s death, 1 Cor. 11:26, as the Jews usually called their passover, Haggadah, that is, a Showing, or a Declaration. But specially we may observe, how the bread, which was of old a remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt, was sanctified by the Son of God, to be a remembrance of his death, and of our redemption thereby from Satan, 1 Cor. 11:24-26, for which we have much more cause to praise, honour, and magnify the Lord, than the Hebrews had for their temporary salvation”. Ibid, Vol. I:292
“[Ainsworth’s comments on Exodus 12:11] And as the festival time, so the lamb then killed is called the Passover, Luke 2:41; and 22:7; and the Lamb of God Christ is so named also, 1 Cor. 5:7; because for his sake God passeth over us, and destroyeth us no with the world, John 3:3,16,18. Seven famous passovers are recorded in scripture to have been kept. The first, this which Israel kept in Egypt. The second, that which they kept in the wilderness, Num. 9. The third, which Joshua kept with Israel when he had newly brought them into Canaan, Josh. 5:10. The fourth, in the reformation of Israel by king Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 30. The fifth, under king Josiah, 2 Chron. 35. The sixth, by Israel returned out of the captivity of Babylon, Ezra 6:19. The seventh, that which Jesus our Saviour desired so earnestly, and did eat with his disciples before he sufferred, Luke 22:15. At which time that legal passover had an end, and our Lord’s Supper came in its place. The memorial of Christ, our Passover, sacrificed for us.” Ibid, Vol. I: 294
“[Ainsworth’s comments on Exodus 12:22] This herb (hyssop) was used to sprinkle with in other services and purifications. See Exod. 24:6,8; Lev. 14:4; Num. 19:6,18; and signified the instrument whereby the blood of Christ is sprinkled upon, and applied unto our hearts, which is the preaching of faith; for faith purifieth the heart of sinners, Acts 15:9; and it cometh by the preaching of the Word, Rom. 10:14-17; which ministereth unto us the Spirit, Gal. 3:2; and we are elect through sanctification of the Spirit, ‘unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,’ 1 Pet. 1:2; which purgeth our consciences ‘from dead works, to serve the living God,’ Heb. 9:14. See Ps. 51:9″. Ibid, Vol. I: 297
“[Ainsworth’s comments on Exodus 12:46] A BONE,] To foreshadow that not a bone of Christ our Passover should be broken; as was fulfilled, John 19:33,36; which signified his victory and deliverance out of affliction and death, (from which he rose the third day;) as Ps. 34:20,21; the Lord ‘keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken.’ And, in hope of the resurrection, Joseph gave charge of his bones, and they were carried into Canaan, Heb. 11:22; Exod. 13:19″. Ibid, Vol. I:301
You can get an online copy of Anisworth’s commentary in PDF and google books for free; the Soli Deo Gloria edition is out of print and expensive:
I’ve been reading through Vos’ sermons that he preached at Princeton Seminary to better understand how a redemptive historical hermeneutic is used in preaching, in the book Grace and Glory:
Here are some quotes from Vos’ exposition of Hosea 14:8 pertaining to idolatry forming a small biblical theology of idolatry:
“In emphasizing the verdant, living character of Jehovah with reference to Israel, the prophet may have had in mind, by way of contrast, the pagan deity from which these qualities of life and fruitfulness and miraculous provision are utterly absent. There used to stand beside the altar of idolatry a pole rudely fashioned in the image of Asherah, the spouse of Baal and goddess of fruitfulness. Nothing could have more strikingly symbolized the barrenness and hopelessness of nature worship than this dead stump in which no bud could sprout, and on which no bird would alight, and of which no fruit was to be found forever. How desperate is the plight of those Canaanites modern no less than ancient, who must look for the satisfaction of their hunger to the dead wood of the Asherah of nature, because they have no faith in the perpetual miracle of the fruit-bearing fig-tree of redemption” (pg. 15, Solid Ground Christian books edition as in link).
“Yea, anything that is cherished and cultivated apart from God in such a sense that we cannot carry it with us in the Godward movement of our life, becomes necessarily a hindrance, a profanation, and at last a source of idolatry. Man’s nature is so built that he must be religious either in a good or a bad sense. Ill-religious he may, but simply non-religious he cannot be. What he fails to bring into the temple of God, he is sure to set up on the outside , and not seldom at the very gate, as a rival object of worship. And often more ostensibly spiritual and refined these things are, the more potent and treacherous their lure. The modern man who seeks to save and perfect himself has a whole pantheon of ideals, each of them a veritable god sapping the vitals of his religion. Nay, the prophet goes even farther than this: Jehovah Himself can be made an object of idolatry. If one fails to form a true conception of his character and weaves into the mental image formed of Him the false features gathered from other quasi-divine beings, then, whatever the name employed, be it God or Jehovah or even “the Father,” the reality of the divine is not in it. In such a case it is the perverted image that evokes the worship, instead of the true God” (pg. 23).
“As the wife becomes like unto the husband, and the husband unto the wife, through the daily association of years, so Israel, the wife of Jehovah, is bound to undergo an inner change through which the features of God are slowly but surely wrought out in her character. The beauty of the Lord God is put upon her. This law works with absolute necessity. The prophet traces it even in the shameful pagan cult, which in other respects is the caricature of the true religion of Israel. Those who come to Baal-Peor and consecrate themselves to the shameful thing become abominable like that which they love. The principle laid down applies to all idolatry, open or disguised; an object of his supreme devotion not only turns into his master, but ends with becoming a superimposed character fashioning him irresistibly into likeness with itself. There is no worshiper but bears the image of his God” (pg. 30).
2 concise and useful articles from The Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary Blog concerning authorial intent, the dual authorship of Scripture, and the NT use of the OT:
Dr. Barcellos’ lectures that he gave in January for Biblical Theology I at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies, which can be audited for $20; there is a free sample lecture available:
I’m almost finished reading through Geerhardus Vos’ Biblical Theology and I wanted to cite a brief section about the purpose of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness, for brevity I’m not posting all that Vos says about Christ’s temptation in the wilderness, to read his full exposition see pg. 333-342 (of the Banner of Truth Edition) of Vos’ Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments:
The Lord’s Temptation and our own
“Our failure to gauge correctly the significance of the event springs to no small extent from the inclination and habit of finding in it an analogy primarilly to our own temptations. This being so we take it too negatively, and do not sufficiently place it in a class by itself. In our case temptation chiefly raises the question of how we shall pass through it and issue from it without loss. In Jesus’ case, while this consideration was not, of course, absent, the higher concern was not avoidance of loss, but the procuring of positive gain. And in order to see this we must compare it to the one previous occasion in Biblical History, when a procedure with an equally double-sided purpose had taken place, namely, the temptation of Adam related in Genesis, chapter 3. Nor is this purely a theological construction on our part; Luke at least seems to have something of this kind in mind, when first carrying back the genealogy (in distinction from Matthew) to Adam, and then immediately subjoining to it this account of the probation of the Second Adam. It should be remembered, however, that with the analogy there existed a difference between the two cases. Adam began with a clean slate, as it were; nothing had to be undone, whilst in the case of Jesus all the record of intervening sin had to be wiped out, before the positive action for the procuring of eternal life could set in. The clearest philosophy of this difference is given us by Paul in Romans 5 [cp. especially v.15]. This connection of the probation of Jesus with the atoning removal of pre-existing sin will likewise make plain to us that the temptation had to carry in itself for Jesus an element of suffering and humiliation on our behalf, and not merely the exertion of a strenuous will for obedience. Here again there is a difference between Jesus’ temptation and ours. To be tempted involves no special humiliation for us, because we are antecedently humiliated by the presence of sin in our hearts to which the solicitation merely has to address itself, which was quite different in the case of Jesus. All that has been said does not take away the fact that there is an analogy between our temptation and that of Jesus…” Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments, p.333 (Banner of Truth Edition)
Some useful lectures giving an overview of Biblical theology with an emphasis on how understanding biblical theology can be used for preaching Christ from the Old Testament rather than reducing Old Testament narratives to mere moral lessons. There are some useful topics that Dr. Clowney covers such as Biblical typology and how it is distinguished from allegory and how to preach Christ from the Psalms:
A brief preview posted by Dr. Barcellos for his upcoming class on Biblical Theology in January:
Some useful resources from Dr. G. K. Beale on Logos Bible Software on Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics: