Hey guys,
I have a question.
In a recent sermon from the book of Jude, I had to go back and read Genesis 19. What surprised me is that it seems to me that what is going on is a sort of proto-Passover. Two angels go into Sodom and tell Lot that he needs to leave town -- fast. The details take place at night, just like Israel's Passover. Angels are involved. The wicked who tormented the righteous (2 Pet. 2:8) were destroyed. But the key that tipped me off to the parallels is Gen. 19:3:
"He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate."
Am I off-base to suggest a Passover theme here?
Of course, then the next question is where does Lot and his family go? Well, Lot is the father of the Ammonites and the Moabites. We find out later in Deut. 2:9, 16-19 that Lot had a promised land that God told Israel to respect.
Have any of you thought about this? Have you ever heard of anyone teach on the "promised land of Lot"? We tend to think of the promised land as something unique to Israel. However, it appears that some Gentiles? in the Old Testament also had a land possession. Please correct me if you think I am wrong.
Now getting really wild, I wonder if this might match up with covenant creation. In the old creation there is both land and sea. This is modeled in the temple architecture with the holy of holies representing heaven, the inner courts land, and the outer courts sea.
Think visually of what we have after Joshua's conquest in the land. Israel is in the center of the Jordan valley with the tabernacle/temple. The Edomites are up in the hill country of Seir (Deut. 2:2-6) on one edge with their land possession. The Moabites and Ammonites are on the wilderness edge with their land possession.
Looks to me like a living representation of tabernacle/temple architecture. Israel, land, close to God's heart serving in the inner courts. Gentiles, sea, living around the outside of the worship of God, at a distance.
Am I totally nuts?
Tim Martin
co-author, Beyond Creation Science
www.beyondcreationscience.com
24 comments:
Tim,
Of course your totally nuts...but I'll research your post a little more and have a more in depth comment later.
Jesse
Jesse,
A few more items came to mind as I pondered this subject.
The story of Genesis 19 includes the destruction of Lot's wife (v. 26) when she disobeyed the instruction from the angel of the Lord (v. 17).
So we have a (rough) parallel between the Exodus of Lot and the Exodus of Israel. In both cases, God destroyed some of those whom he delivered because they lacked faith and turned back to Egypt/Sodom.
I find it interesting that Jesus referenced Lot's wife in Luke 17:32. Luke's audience is predominantly Gentile, but notice the context. Jesus told his disciples to flee Jerusalem, which was also called, figuratively, Sodom and Egypt in Rev. 11:8.
Now for something more wild. I'm wondering if there is a "super-theme" going on here. If my take on these connections is legitimate then who received their "promised land" first? Note that the "Gentiles" were living in their possession when Israel arrived from Egypt.
That means the Gentiles entered the land of God's promise before the Jews. Does that look familiar to anyone? Sort of like the story of the New Testament, isn't it?
Am I totally insane?
Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience.com
I thought I should mention, for everyone's benefit, that the seed concepts of what I brought up in this blog can be found in Beyond Creation Science on pp. 465-468.
It might be best to start there if anyone is really, really confused. The same content is also available online as the last flood question:
http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Flood_Questions6
Hope that helps!
Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience.com
Tim, you never cease to blow my mind!
What you are saying here makes sense but I'll have to do some more studying as well before I can fully grasp the magnitude of your conclusions. I think you've got another book in the making on your hands here...
unfortunately, my mind is on all the snow right now. I'll come back to this when the adrenaline wears off!!! yeeehaw!!!
Ryan,
Yeah, I figured you would be hopping busy with this storm. I actually slipped off the road (our country road - no big deal) on my way home. Man, was it slippery! My brother in law came and pulled me out. He only lives 1/2 a mile away from where it happened.
Anyway, what I now sense is that typical Christians have a truncated view of the Old Testament. We modern Christians tend to think of the Old Testament as the story of Israel. Sure, the Gentiles are mentioned every once in awhile, but we don't think they are all that important to the story.
Well covenant creation has caused a revolution in my mind. The old creation has both land and sea! The story is about both groups of people. Even though the Gentiles were "outside" or "at a distance," they still had interaction with God in some of the most interesting ways. Lot is one example. I think Pharaoah with Joseph is another. As well as King Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel. Lots more examples you can probably think of.
There were quite a few "converted" Gentiles in the Old Testament. We just can't make sense out of that because of our simplistic perspective regarding Israel as God's chosen people... Well, yeah, but there was a lot more to it than that.
I plan to write a bunch on this topic from various angles this winter. In fact, I had a lot to say about this in the response that Jeff and I just released today. You can view that here:
http://planetpreterist.com/news-5557.html
Full update about some recent happenings related to BCS is here:
http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Announcement_Dec_08
Would love any feedback/criticism you guys might offer before I stick my neck too far out. That is one thing I really like about this blog!
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience.com
While studying more on this issue today, I ran across this passage and it really set off light-bulbs for me:
Concerning the Ammonites: This is what the LORD says:
Has Israel no sons? Has she no heirs? Why then has Molech taken possession of Gad? Why do his people live in its towns....
Why do you boast of your valleys, boast of your valleys so fruitful? O unfaithful daughter, you trust in your riches and say, 'Who will attack me?'
I will bring terror on you from all those around you, declares the Lord Almighty. Every one of you will be driven away, and no one will gather the fugitives.
Yet afterward, I will restore the fortunes of the Ammonites, declares the Lord"
Jeremiah 49:1, 4-6
What an amazing passage. The prophet calls the Ammonites God's "unfaithful daughter." That should look familiar to you. Israel and Judah were called the same thing by the prophets.
Notice also that even though Jeremiah pronounced judgment on Ammonites, he also says that the Ammonites could look forward to a time when God would "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites."
Boy, that sure looks familiar, just like something Isaiah said about Israel!
Food for thought.
Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience.com
WARNING: I'M BACK!
It's great to be back and read such a thought provoking blog and the great comments. I am still recovering from such a long journey, but will enjoy studying Tim's thoughts.
Hey David,
Things are still coming together for me. Here is what I wrote recently to some friends:
There are also more connections that I am mulling over in depth. Isn't it interesting that Lot did to his daughters exactly what he offered the men of Sodom to do on that night? There is a sense of poetic irony in that. But it also bears a resemblance to what happened to Noah after the flood. He also became drunk and became naked in his tent, causing great sin to enter his family.
Yet, regardless of that detail in the story, God was gracious. We find out in the New Testament that Lot was righteous before God (2 Pet. 2). So it should not surprise us that Lot, being the father of 2 nations with an inheritance, received a double-portion inheritance outside of the land, just as Joseph received a double-portion inheritance inside the land. [end quote]
The story magnifies the grace of God and demonstrates powerfully that there is a righteousness that comes by faith being taught in Genesis. It applies to all of God's faithful, whether Abraham, the father of Israel, or Lot, the father of Gentile nations. Kind of toasts dispensationalism from an entirely new direction.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience
"Kind of toasts dispensationalism from an entirely new direction." I agree, maybe this will be the final nail in the coffin for a goofed-up theology.
I never knew Lot was a Gentile! I always assumed that he was Jewish like all other Old Testament characters. You have definitely discovered THE "super theme" here. I totally see it. The question I have for you then is now in our current era, does God have a similar covenant with the regime that occupies present day Israel? Of course he doesn't but where does this leave us today? The impact that this could have on the whole "modern Israel is prophecy fulfilled" argument is huge.
I can see you're on a roll here Tim. I can barely keep up with you at the rate you're going and with all the other stuff I'm trying to read. Thanks so much for sharing this.
"I never knew Lot was a Gentile!"
Ryan,
What divided Hebrews from Gentiles? I believe that division was objective: circumcision.
I'm leaning to the idea that Lot is uncircumcised and therefore a Gentile. He is the father of Gentile nations. He is also not listed in Heb. 11. Though he does come across as part of Abraham's household coming out of Haran, there is a division where Lot heads "East," toward Sodom and the cities of the plain. This happens before the arrival of circumcision.
That makes Lot's division from Abraham a pivotal point in Genesis. It comes full circle when Israel enters the land and must respect the inheritance given to Lot (Ammonites, Moabites) and Esau (Edomites) according to Deut. 2.
The division was permanent due to Deut. 23. Abraham had offered Lot his choice in the land. Lot's descendants did not return the favor to the children of Abraham when they came out of Egypt. It was a failure of hospitality that angered God. They should have brought bread and water out to Israel as they came out of Egypt, not hire a prophet to curse them so that Israel would not find a place in the land.
Still, the promised land presented a visual incarnation of the whole covenant creation. Israel (Land) at the center with the Tabernacle at Shiloh. Gentiles (Sea) on the outer edge, at a distance.
As to your other question, I believe that the new heavens and new earth has no sea (Rev. 21:1). God lives in covenant with those in Christ only, those who are the true children of Abraham by faith, who model the faith of Abraham.
The new creation is the body of Christ.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
Tim,
The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking your right. Wow...Lot the father of the Gentiles. It certainly makes sense. It's really neat that in Jer 49 the Gentiles were still included in God's Kingdom. I thought only the physically circumcised belonged to God in the Old Testament?
Jesse
Jesse,
Jeremiah 48-49 proves that what Paul and the apostles taught in the NT concerning the Gentiles was grounded in the Law and Prophets. The Gentiles had a rightful place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures. This countered the Judaizers who, in essence, denied their own Scriptures.
The Moabites and Ammonites (along with a number of other Gentile nations) had the hope of true restoration at the time of Israel's salvation. The time of Israel's salvation, of course, is the time of the end.
Let me clarify a bit about Lot.
The way I see it is that Lot is the father of the Moabites and Ammonites, specifically. These are Gentile nations, but there were other Gentile nations that descend from other sources. Egypt was a Gentile nation, as was Babylon and Greece. The first mention of the nations is Gen. 10:5.
With all that being said, I do believe there seems to be a microcosm of the old covenant order in the promised land by the time of Joshua. Deut. 2 seems quite compelling, given the stories back in Genesis. The whole truth is that the Gentiles had a promised land, as surely as Israel had a promised land. That fact sheds a lot of light on what is going on in the NT: Jews and Gentiles coming into the Kingdom.
Does that explain my perspective better?
Tim
This is very interesting. One thing that I might have missed, though. From where do you get that the sea is referring to the Gentiles? Chilton says in reference to Rev. 21:1, "There is no longer any sea or Abyss. There is heaven and earth, but no "under-the-earth," the abode of Leviathan."
Then in reference to where Leviathan and Behemoth are discussed in Job and in Rev., he says, "Israel, which was to have been a kingdom of priests to the nations of the world, has surrendered her position of priority to Leviathan and the Beast. Instead of placing a Godly imprint upon every culture and society, Israel has been remade into the image of the pagan, anti-christian State, becoming its prophet. Abraham's children have become the seed of the Serpent."
Is he saying that since there is no longer any sea that means the Dragon is destroyed in the creation of the new heavens and new earth? How does that relate to the Gentiles previously being being on the outside, in the sea? Did Chilton miss something here or am I just not getting it? I'm sorry, this might be straying down a rabbit-trail...
Ryan,
Check out BCS pp. 351-352 as an intro to my comments.
Leviathan is a sea-creature from Genesis 1:20-21.
I would take Rev. 21:1 slightly differently than Chilton. He approached Rev. 21:1 in terms of politics and the underworld, while I would prefer an approach in terms of worship.
Note how Terry connected the sea to the temple architecture (middle of p. 352 in BCS). The Hebrews understood well the connection between sea and Gentiles. The sea portion of the Temple was the outer courts. This is the place where Gentiles could come worship God "at a distance."
I also believe that the imagery of "fishers of men" in the NT is preshadowing the role the apostles had in bringing in the Gentiles. We can see this prophesied in places like Ezekiel 47:8-10.
So when John sees the "new heaven and new earth and there was no longer any sea" he sees the new covenant creation where there is "neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ" in the words of Paul. Isaiah 65:17 anticipates the fact that there is no sea in the new creation. Notice how the sea is absent in Isaiah 65.
Hope that helps a little. It's kind of more than a rabbit trail. It's background for what I'm suggesting for the promised land of Lot based on Deut. 2. The Ammonites and Moabites are "sea" while Israel (at the center) is "land."
Blessings,
Tim Martin
Tim,
This is great teaching! If you ever preach a sermon on this I would like to come and film it for you. Maybe someday Jesse, Ryan, and myself can come to hear you.
In Christ,
David
David,
I would love to meet you in person sometime.
I actually talked about some of this material last Sunday.
Jude 11 says that the scoffers have "rushed for profit in Balaam's error."
I pointed out that it was a Moabite who sought Balaam the prophet to curse Israel (Numbers 22-23).
Why would Jude bring up this story in his context? Because the Judaizers were attempting to curse God's true Israel as they were about to arrive in the true Promised Land of Rest. They rushed into Balaam's error for profit - it was self-serving to them and their way of life.
It gets even more interesting if you think about the connection to Deut. 23 which forbids a Moabite and Ammonite from ever entering the assembly of Israel. Notice what Deut. 23 bases this judgment on. It is based on the fact that the Moabites and Ammonites did not come out and meet Israel with bread and water when they arrived from Egypt.
What a powerful story!
Remember that Abraham (the father of Israel) had offered land to Lot (the father of Moabites and Ammonites) back in Genesis 13. This is the basis for what Israel was told in Deut. 2. Israel could not drive the Moabites and Ammonites from the land entirely, because Abraham had offered Lot a place in the land. To drive them out would be unjust.
But what did Moab and Ammon do in return to Abraham's grace to their father? Note that the error of the Moabites and Ammonites (Deut. 23) was a failure of hospitality. Father Abraham had taken care of father Lot. However, the children of Lot (Moabites and Ammonites) did not return the favor to the children of Abraham. Thus the condemnation upon the Moabites and Ammonites in Deut. 23.
That context makes Jude 11 light up. He referenced the scoffers/judaizers as Moabites! That means the condemnation of the Moabites would also apply to these scoffers. They too, would be cut off from the assembly of Israel forever because they did not accept the early Christians as they were receiving the true promise.
The bottom line is that the Jews should have embraced believing Gentiles who were coming into covenant with God through the Gospel. They should have known from their history that Gentiles were also given a land inheritance by God. That historical fact was a type of what was to come when both Jews and Gentiles would inherit the true land of Promise together.
Can't wait to get the article done, guys. It is such a powerful story in the context of Israel's history and New Testament theology.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience.com
Tim,
Your piecing this story together very beautifully. Do any other commentators touch on this subject? Do the Moabites and Ammonites ever given the Law?
Jesse
Jesse,
The Ammonites and Moabites were never given the Law. That was for Israel, and Israel alone. Yet, Israel was to be a light to the nations through obedience to the Law.
I think the best way to phrase it is to think of Israel as the special priest to the nations (Gentiles). They had a specific role to play in the old creation. This is highlighted beautifully by the story of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar was blessed as he listened to Daniel (as was Darius after him). It's the same model as Israel's purpose to bring light to the Gentiles.
Notice that Nebuchadnezzar (and Darius) became believers in the One True God, yet they were never called to be circumcised or participate in Israel's worship system. These are believing Gentiles.
As far as the commentaries go, there is some humor. Here is about the standard comment I have seen so far on Deut. 2:
"What strange insight does this parenthesis of four verses give into the early history of Palestine!"
JFB (Jamieson-Faussett-Brown) Commentary on Deut. 2:19-23.
Yeah, that one cracks me up...
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience.com
The reason for my dumb question, (which you answered) was because I always thought the saved in the Old Testament had to follow the law. I also understand from reading Galatians that the law does not save or never did.
How do we apply this concept in Kingdom living?
Tim,
Regarding Jeremiah, if the unfaithful daughter the Ammonites were saved, how could they be if they didn't have the law to point them to the messiah?
Merry Christmas
Jesse
Jesse,
That's a good question.
My immediate thought is that they had the prophet speak God's Word of promised restoration to them (Jer. 48:47 and 49:6).
Of course, only believing Gentiles would be redeemed (just like Israel).
The Law was given to Israel, but the promise was given to other nations as well through the prophets.
Paul was working in this Old Testament context when he began his ministry to the Gentiles. The prophets had foretold the restoration of many nations with the coming of Messiah. The nations would have hope when Israel's hope arrived.
Does that make sense?
Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience.com
Jer 48:42 Moab shall be destroyed and be no longer a people,
because he magnified himself against the Lord.
It sounds like they were once in favor of the Lord. Verse 47 is very significant, I'm sure the latter days do point to the early Christian church.
This is all making sense.
Jesse,
Yes, Moab (as a nation) would be destroyed. But that is also the case in regard to national Israel. Daniel foresaw another destruction of the city and temple.
The Moabites and Ammonites still had the hope of restoration by becoming a part of a new nation by faith.
It's a lot like the Ethiopian Eunuch who would never be allowed to serve in God's temple because of crushed/destroyed testicles (Lev. 21:16-24). Yet here is the Ethiopian Eunuch reading from the book of the prophet Isaiah (Acts 8:31-ff). But guess what is in the context of that portion of Isaiah?
Check out Isaiah 56:
"Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, 'The LORD will surely exclude me from his people.'
And let not any eunuch complain, 'I am only a dry tree.'
For this is what the LORD says: 'To the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant - to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.
And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant - these I bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer...
for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'" Isaiah 56:3-7 (and following, too)
Jesse,
You see, the Eunuch had hope to enter God's courts and worship God. (Isaiah would be very close to his heart for this very reason!) This hope could never be realized with the old law and old temple. There would have to be a new law and new temple where this could be possible.
And the prophet includes other nations, foreigners, who would bind themselves to the LORD and "keep covenant."
That is a reference to the Ammonites and Moabites (and many others) just like Jer. 48 & 49.
The old creation had both land and sea. In the new heavens and earth there is no sea... which is but another way of saying that "in Christ" there is neither Jew nor Gentile, etc.
The Gentiles (along with the circumcision) had a hope in salvation rooted, ultimately, in Genesis. That explains Luke 2:32. Simeon didn't get that from Paul. He got that from the Old Testament...
Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience.com
Post a Comment