Leithart on Pentecost as Salvation and Judgment

Scot McKnight (A Community Called Atonement, 75-6) observes that the prophecy of Joel 2 that is fulfilled at Pentecost is a prophecy of political catastrophe. Pentecost, he concludes is both justification - “God’s act of justifying and making His judgment clear” by the gift of the Spirit that creates a community where God’s will is done - and a “judgment on the unjust rulers of this age.” Read more here.

Jesus', the New-True Adam's, Wilderness Probation

As the heading suggests, I’m cautious of the title “the temptation” for its restrictive connotations. The ‘the’, in ‘the temptation’, seems to indicate that the whole of Jesus’ cosmic level struggle against Satan, sin, and the wicked world system in its defiant rebellion toward God is summed up in the forty days and nights in the wilderness. We know, however, that this is not the case. There are, perhaps, even greater problems if we are to place the accent on the ‘temptation’ of ‘the temptation’, as it averts attention away from the event’s divine purpose in God’s redemptive program and poises our focus on merely a single perspective and design for the event, namely Satan’s. In so viewing it, from the vantage of Satan’s schematic purposes, we are bound to be deprived of much of the critical theological content and the particularly messianic nature of the trial.

Probation is, I believe, the best designation for this inaugural event in Jesus’ Messiahship, for it better represents the Father’s design, the Son’s dealings, and the Holy Spirit’s “driving” (Mk 1:12). And it is these that form the intention or purpose underlying the entire experience. Moreover, probation resonates with the allusive OT paradigms the gospel writers were both assuming and including: Adam’s probation in the Garden (per Lk, and maybe in Mk as “he was with the wild beasts...[harmoniously perhaps?]” 1:13; cf. Is 11:6—9; 32:14—20; 65:25; Hos 2:18), and Israel’s first exodus in all three of accounts, which is obvious from Jesus’ citations from Deut 6 and 8. Thus, the weight and results from the failings of both Adam and Israel, as ‘sons of God’ who were created to accomplish all God’s will on earth, were coming to bear on the only Son of God, the second Adam, the true Israel. His obedient submission to the Father throughout this probative period would thus test and prove what kind of Messiah he would be, therefore, determining the entire course of redemption. The meaning of the wilderness experience of Jesus was the means of demonstrating and defining the Father’s purposes for the Son’s Messiahship, being conferred upon Jesus at the baptism through the Holy Spirit’s anointing and the Father’s declarative pronouncement (“My Son...well pleased”). The Son, upon successfully passing this probative period through submission and suffering (Deut 8:2), would enter into the Father’s messianic mission as Victor in the full power of the Spirit.

The broader context of the passage in all three gospels is, in general, identical: (1) the baptism/Father’s pronouncement; (2) the 40 days in the wilderness; and (3) Jesus’ victorious return onto the public scene, “in the power of the Holy Spirit,” to begin his messianic mission. This consistency is coupled with language in every account that clearly connects the baptism to the probation. The authors, then, intend the two to be treated as a unit; the latter can only be understood in light of the former.

The voice of the Father at the baptism not only declared Jesus’ Sonship, but also defined it. The words: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” brings together to critical strands of messianic expectation from the OT. “This is my beloved Son...” is surely drawn from Ps 2:7, which describes Yahweh’s coming Anointed One, the hope and fulfillment of the everlasting Davidic covenant. It is more than mere coincidence that the very next verse of this Psalm (v. 8) speaks of the Father’s promise to the Son, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” Thus, it should not surprise us that Satan’s final assault (per Mt) came in a similar form to the very same promise. It is not as though Satan’s offering Jesus the same thing (Mt 4:8—9) as the Father, “the nations...their glory,” was tempting in itself. Consider the weight of this dilemma—seemingly same promise, one from the Father of Light, the other from the father of lies. It appears the there would be little, if any, struggle in the rational mind when faced with such a choice. But Matthew treats this as the climax of the battle; the very point on which redemption swings. But how can this be?

This question draws us back again to the Father’s voice at the baptism, namely to the second clause: “...with whom I am well pleased.” This allusion points back to Is 42:1ff, a passage that Matthew cites directly in 12:18—21, as does Luke, twice (1:79; 2:32; with allusions in Acts 3:26; 4:27). The opening pericope of this chapter (Is 42:1—9) begins a section of Isaiah known as the suffering Servant songs. Here Yahweh’s Servant is identified with a role of suffering, meekness, and humiliation, one that finally ends in the disgraceful death in Ch. 53, an end administered by none other than the Servant’s “well pleased” Father. This depiction of the hoped for anointed Messiah, although an accepted vein within 1st century messianism, seems to stand in stark contrast, if not out right contradiction, to the exalted, victorious anointed Davidic King of Ps 2! These two streams of messianic hope—humiliation-Servant/exaltation-King—converging in the same figure were formerly inconceivable in Jewish eschatology. However, it is precisely this paradox that informs a right understanding of the wilderness phase of Jesus’ Messiahship and answers the question above regarding Matthew’s final temptation. Concerning the question, the weightiness of Satan’s offer of the glory of the nations was to seemingly grant Jesus his rightful exaltation as the Messiah, thus attaining, at least in part, the end goal of his messianic work while altogether avoiding the demanded humiliation, suffering, and death that were part and parcel of the Father’s plan for his Son/Messiah. Thus, the questions facing Jesus at every point in the wilderness probation were, what kind and, whose Messiah would he be?

This, I believe, explains best the perspective and burden of Jesus in the crisis. The perspective of the Father, as this would be, for his Son, a time of testing, trial, that is, probation. Even Satan’s perspective is best illuminated from this angle. Satan’s primary objective was not to bring uncertainty directly upon Jesus’ Sonship or even his sinlessness; but, at first subtle then in sudden desperation, an attempt to derail or, better, abort the Father’s plan to establish his Messianic King, his kingdom, and consequently destroy the very works of the Devil himself (I Jn 3:8). Satan’s awareness of the ultimate doom he would face as a result of Jesus’ success, which began principally at the end of the wilderness probation, is also revealed in his citation of Ps 91:11—12. While Satan rightly observes the promise of special providence for the trusting One of Ps 91, he must too have been fully aware of the promise of v. 13 as well, “...the serpent you will trample underfoot!” (cf. Lk 10:19; Mk 16:18; Gen 3:15).

Unlike Adam, who failed in a state of perfection; Jesus, cloaked in humiliation, came out unscathed from his struggle on a sin torn battlefield! More than that, Adam’s success would have kept him from suffering loss; Jesus’ success first recovered Adam’s loss, and then gained the Messiah’s mantle. Hence, in the desert wilderness Jesus proved what was in his heart—humble, absolute trust in the Father’s promises—the kind of submissive obedience God requires of all people, yet never given by a person before, was offered up by Jesus in the harshest of conditions, thus gaining his Messiahship and our much needed righteousness! Our True Joshua, leading us in to conquer the Promise Land (II Cor 2:14)!

Revelation: Three Identities Considered

Identity of the Four Horsemen of Rev. 6:1—8

In some measure, the general identity of the four horsemen is somewhat bound up in the more particular question concerning the identity of the first horseman, he that rides the white horse.  I understand this to be none other than Christ, who has conquered, is the Conqueror, and is coming as Conqueror in the unity and context of the book (Jn. 16:33; Rev. 1:13ff.; 2:26—27; 3:21; 5:5; 6:2, 16; 11:15; 12:11; 14:1, 14; 17:14, and of course 19:11).  As Hindson noted, this view has some historical traction.[1]  That notwithstanding, I would argue that it has the most promising exegetical traction as well. 

All perspectives, even those opposed, recognize that there is as obvious correspondence between the color of the horse ridden in 6:2f. and that of the pony in 19:11, where Christ is clearly identified as the rider.[2] Hindson, however, argued that apart from the color of the horse “there is no point of similarity between Christ and this [in 6:2f.] rider.[3]  However, consider the parallels between the contexts (from which the meanings arise).  In 19:11f. Christ “judges and goes to war” (cf. 6:4ff).  In both contexts, the rider is wearing a royal-victor headdress (6:2; 19:12); a blood issuing from judgment is highlighted (6:12; 19:13); white linen/robes occurs in both passages (6:11; 19:14); the judgment involves a sword in both contexts (6:4; 19:15), and both are understood to be the result of the Lamb’s/God’s wrath (6:16; 19:15).  So, yes, there are other similarities. 

Although Hindson seems to minimize the significance of the horse’s color as a clue to the rider’s identity, Ladd makes much of it.  As Ladd mentioned, “white is always a symbol of Christ, or of something associated with Christ, or of spiritual victory.”[4]  The antichrist in white is oxymoronic and counter to a most important motif in the book. 

Ladd himself denies that Christ is the rider.  Rather he understands it to represent the victory of the gospel.  “The rider is not Christ himself but symbolizes the proclamation of the gospel of Christ in all the world.”[5]  I know of no other instance were the victory or proclamation or expansion of the gospel enjoys the device of personification, which would be required here, if Ladd were correct.  It seems to me that Ladd is confusing the Who of the passage with the means of accomplishment.  Indeed, Christ rules with the Word of his mouth, the gospel; however, the text indicates the Rule, not how he rules.  What’s more from the context is judgment.  Of course the apostate world’s rejection of the gospel brings judgment, the context here suggest direct judgment for idolatry and the persecution of the saints.  

Furthermore, in his argument against this position and for the view that the future antichrist is the rider, Hindson remarked, “This rider’s [of 6:2] crown is called a stephanos, “victor’s wreath,” whereas, Jesus wears the diadema, “royal crown” (19:12).  This much must be granted; however, it is not very significant.  In 3:11, the word-keeping saints at Philadelphia were promised a stephanos that no one could take, as those worn by the white-linen clad twenty-four elders in 4:4, 10.  In 12:1, the remnant-woman of Israel is said to have had a stephanos of twelve stars.  And in 14:14, the Lord Jesus is wearing a stephanos.  On the contrary, as Hindson pointed out, in 19:12, Christ is wearing many diademata; but, so is the seven-headed dragon in 12:3, as is the seven-headed beast in 13:1.  Therefore, Hindson’s objection, based on the differences in headdress between Christ and the antichrist, is question-begging. 

Many other positive arguments point to Christ as the rider in 6:2.[6]

From the premise that Christ is the rider, it would seem that the three subsequent horsemen signify the various means by which Christ executes his judgments (cf. Lev. 26:18—28; Eze. 14:12—23; Zech. 1:8—15; 6:1—8 for formative OT background). 

The Identity of the 144,000 of 7:4—8, 14:1—5

Like Nathaniel, these are “Israelite(s) indeed, in whom is no guile” (Jn. 1:47; Rev. 14:5).  It must be agreed with Hindson, that “it is clear that these are literal Israelites.”[7]  The reference to mount Zion in 14:1 points plainly to Jerusalem.  In earlier chapters, the Revelator had scotching words for the blasphemous Jewry, “they that call themselves Jews, but are not,” rather they “lie” and are of the “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9).  The 144,000 therefore represent true Israel, the remnant church, which serve as a foil to these apostate Jews.  YHWH had promised to gather to himself the remnant of Israel, who would be settle among a throng from the nations.  As YHWH announced through the prophet Micah, “I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men” (2:12).  And, again, as Zephaniah described them, “The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth” (3:13), so too here in Revelation 14, for “in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless” (v. 5). 

However, my perspective is greatly at odds with Hindson’s, regarding when these “firstfruits” were/are harvested.  Hindson pushes this group into the indefinite future of a yet-to-come tribulation period.[8]  In contradiction, first, I believe the number is figurative rather than literal, whereas Hindson tends toward a literal reading.[9]  The remnant’s number is the tribes of Israel squared and multiplied by a thousand (12 x 12 x 1000), which is clearly symbolic, especially being found in the foremost symbolic and numerological book in the entire canon.  The number signifies Israel consummated, complete, and perfected.  The thousand multiple is likely based on the most basic military division used of the camp of the hosts of Israel in the OT (see Num. 10:2—4, 35—36; 31:1—5, 48—54; 2 Sam. 18:1; 1 Chron. 12:20; 13:1; 15:25; 26:26; 27:1; 28:1; 29:6; 2 Chron. 1:2; 17:14—19; Ps. 68:17).[10]  It is also worth noting that twelve and one thousand are later multiplied in the dimensions of eschatological City of the New Jerusalem, which is measured 12,000 cubed (Rev. 21:16).  Does this mean that the consummated Temple[11] will have the literal floor space of 2,250,000 square miles?  No.  Rather it is 12,000 times 12,000, which provides the sum of 144,000,000.  It is symbolic. 

Secondly, James addressed his epistle to the “twelve tribes in the dispersion” (1:1), which were the Jewish Christians that made up the primitive church, especially that in Judea.  These, said James, made up a “kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (Gk. aparchē; cf. Rev. 14:4).  In the context of the Paul fleshing out the redemptive-historical relationship between Jews and gentiles under the new covenant economy, he refers to the Jews as “firstfruits” (Rom. 11:16).  Elsewhere, Paul alludes to the firstfruit motif by referring to the first generation of Jewish converts to Christ as “we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:12).  Therefore, I understand the 144,000 to be the first generation of Jewish converts to the Messiah, and that their number is symbolically representing that of completion. 

Babylon the Great of Rev. 17 – 18

The epithet “Babylon the great” is likely based on Daniel 4:30, which couches it in worldly pride set in opposition to God’s kingdom.  Frankly, at this point I am divided between the view that posits Babylon as either the Roman Empire or the geographical Jerusalem of John’s day.  Although it is not without its difficulties (as though any view of the Apocalypse is!), I lean toward the latter, first century Jerusalem. Granting that no other book of the NT contains more OT allusions and echoes that Revelation, that must play an important interpretive role.  She is also called the “Mother of Harlots” (Rev. 17:5).  This title is said to be written on her forehead.  The forehead being a sign of hardhearted obstinacy toward YHWH (Eze. 3:6—9).  In Jeremiah 3:3, apostate Israel is said to have a “whore’s forehead.”  John’s most frequent appellation for Babylon, however, is the “great city” (Rev. 14:8; 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, and 21).  In 11:8 John said that “the great city…is where our Lord was crucified.”  This is clear reference to Jerusalem.  So, if Babylon is the great city, and the great city is Jerusalem, then it necessarily follows that Babylon is Jerusalem.  For a very competent consideration of the evidence for this position see D. Ragan Ewing’s “The Identification Of Babylon The Harlot In The Book Of Revelation,” especially chapter four.[12]   

While I have my reservations with either Rome, which has the vast majority of historical support, or Jerusalem, I am relatively sure that the Babylon of the Revelation is not some speculative revived Roman confederacy, as popularly held by many.  As Hindson recognized, Revelation is a sort of Tale of Two Cities.  “It sets forth the contrast between the…the city of the great harlot, and the city of the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem.  The great harlot is portrayed in direct opposition to the Bride of Christ.”[13]  If, however, the earlier observation that the true Jews, the 144,000 serve as a foil for the “synagogue of Satan,” then if Babylon is old Jerusalem it would specially serve as the foil for the New Jerusalem.  What I find most interesting is the view that posits Babylon as the apostate church.  What is interesting about this is that the same perspective argues that by Revelation 4:1, the true church is raptured out of the world.  One of the arguments for this is the idea that the church is not explicitly mentioned (by name I guess?) anywhere after that point in the text.  If that is the case, however, how then would these identify the false church here in chapters seventeen and eighteen?  Both conclusions rest on very shaky ground. 

---

[1] Edward Hindson, Revelation: Unlocking the Future (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002), 81.

[2] See, e.g., Hindson, ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1972), 97—98.  For an exhaustive list of the “white” stuffs in Revelation, see 98.

[5] Ibid., 99.

[6] Not least, there are strong parallels in the construction of the opening phrases. See, e.g.,

Καὶ εἶδον…καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος λευκός, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν…διαδήματα (19:11, 12)

καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος λευκός, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν…στέφανος (Rev. 6:2)

[7] Hindson, Revelation, 89.  As an aside, it bears pointing out that Hindson’s description of amillennialism on the same page, which began, “This approach sees no millennium of any kind on the earth.  Rather, amillennialists tend to view so-called millennial prophecies as being fulfilled in eternity,” is one of the poorer caricatures I’ve personally read.  

[8] Ibid., 93. 

[9] “The number seems to be literal.” Ibid., 89.

[10] David Chilton, Days of Vengence: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Horn Lake, MS: Dominion Press, 2006), 206—207.

[11]Note that the only other cube mentioned in the entire Bible is the holy of holies of the Solomonic temple (1 Kg. 6:20), which is where YHWH dwelt with his people, so too here.  

[12] As found at http://bible.org/series/identification-babylon-harlot-book-revelation.

[13] Hindson, Revelation, 173. 

PSALM 24 IN REDEMPTIVE-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

PSALM 24 (AT)

The whole earth is YHWH’s,                                       1a

    and the fullness of it;                                                    b

the habitable world [is YHWH’s],                                      c

   and they that inhabit it.                                                        d

For he founded it upon the seas,                                 2a

   and established it upon the moving waters.                   b

Who shall go up into the mountain of YHWH?           3a

   Who shall stand up in his holy place?                           b

He who has innocent hands, and a clean heart;         4a

   who does not lift up his soul to vain things,                   b

   and he who does not swear deceitfully.                            c

He shall lift up a blessing from YHWH;                      5a

   righteousness from the God of his salvation.                 b

Such is the generation of them that seek him, 6a

   that seek his presence—[even] Jacob.  Selah.               b

Lift up your heads, O gates;                                        7a

   lift up, O eternal doors,                                                 b

   that the King of glory might come in.                               c

Who is this King of glory?                                           8a

YHWH, strong and mighty;                                              b

   YHWH, mighty in battle.                                                  c

Lift up your heads, O gates;                                        9a

   lift up, O eternal doors,                                                 b

   that the King of glory might come in.                               c

Who is this King of glory?                                           10a

YHWH of Hosts,                                                                 b

   he is the King of glory. Selah.                                           c

In Psalm 24, there are a number of eschatological trajectories that find their termini in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

The provisional piety that this psalm lays much stress on is high indeed, but it is just that, provisional.  The psalm intimates that the worshipper with “innocent hands” and a “clean heart” may enter in to the “holy place,” seeking the Presence of YHWH.   Who, though, really seeks the presence of the living God, who is a consuming fire?  None; no, not one (Rom 3:10—12).  David’s son himself rhetorically asks, “Who can say, ‘I have made my heart pure; I am clean from my sin’”? (Prov 20:9).  And, again, the answer is none; no, not one.  Something must happen in salvation history, if the communion between God and his people will be accomplished in the grandiose, eschatological intimacy foreshadowed in Psalm 24.  And it has.

           

Second Samuel 6 is the primary background that is commemorated in this psalm.  YHWH comes into Jerusalem, enthroned on the Ark between the cherubim.  This event, however, was only a type or foreshadow of the good things to come, then and now. 

           

In Matt 21, the type finds its antitype in the Person of Jesus.  In this pericope, Jesus himself fulfills the post-exilic promise of YHWH’s return to Jerusalem (Is 62:11; Zech 9:9; Matt 21:5).  With a mighty procession, preceding and following him (21:9a), Jesus rides into Jerusalem enthroned, as it were, sitting on the donkey with her colt as his footstool—an Ark (v 7).  As Jesus entered, the whole city was stirred, asking, “Who is this [King of glory]?” (Ps 24:8, 10 // Matt 21:10, brackets added).  Jesus is YHWH; Jesus is the King of glory, returning to Jerusalem, humble and gentle, enthroned on the Ark. 

           

Jerusalem did not know the time of their visitation, however (Lk 19:44); and they murdered the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8).  In this abortion of justice is precisely where Jesus, YHWH of Hosts, would show himself “strong and mighty, mighty in battle” (Ps 24:8b, c).  Taking the King of glory down from his cross of glory (think Johannine theology of the cross), they placed him in the true Ark, Jesus’ tomb.  On that first Easter morning, Mary peered into the Ark and lived (contra. 1 Sam 6:19)! 

           

Mary looked into the tomb and saw the true Ark.  “And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying” (Jn 20:12, italics added).  All that the Ark had been looking toward had been fulfilled in Mary’s sight.  The slab of the sepulcher of Jesus was flanked by two cherubim, one on each end; the slab is the true mercy seat, where the once-for-all atonement was made for God’s people.  The Father set forth Jesus as a propitiation, a hilasmos, for the sins of the world (Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10).^[1]  Paul, by applying this title to Christ in Rom 3:25, assures us that Christ was the true mercy seat, the reality of the cover of the Ark of the covenant (Heb 9:5).

           

Psalm 24:3b asks, Who shall stand up in his holy place?   The writer to the Hebrews answers; it is only Jesus who can stand up in the true holy place.  “[Jesus] entered the holy place once for all, having appointed eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12 NASBU).  Christ, however, “did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one,” as under the old covenant, “but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us!” (9:24 NASBU). 

           

How are we to apprehend the requisite righteousness from the God of [our] salvation (Ps 24:5b)?  By throwing ourselves on the Mercy Seat of God, God’s hilasmos, Jesus Christ, who with innocent hands and pure heart became sin for us, “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21; cf. 1 Pet 2:24).  In him, we will stand in the Most Holy Place,^[2] in the unmediated Presence of God.  We will ascend unto the true City of God, the new Jerusalem, where the gates are always open (Rev 21:25)!

           

This is just one of the many trajectories that are satisfied in Christ.  Another interesting one would be David, who was king of Israel, wearing the ephod, offering sacrifices, and pronouncing blessings over the people (2 Sam 6), thus blurring the strict distinctions between kingship and priesthood in Torah.  This would lead us straightway to the Melchizedekian motif of Ps 110, which too finds its fulfillment in the Priest-Kingship of Jesus (Heb 7, etc.).  

                

The purpose of Ps 24 is to point the people of God back to the future.  It points back to a most momentous event in salvation history, when both YHWH’s and David’s thrones were established in Jerusalem, bringing the Presence of God and peace with all of Israel’s surrounding enemies.  Likewise, it looks to the future, to a time when YHWH would return enthroned on the Ark to Jerusalem; therefore, it looked to the Messiah; it looked, though unwittingly, to the death, resurrection, and heavenly session of Jesus, the Lord of glory in his glory!  Looking still future, it points to the age to come, when, because of Christ our righteousness, all of the elect will enjoy and relish in the unmediated Presence of God in the new creation, the new Jerusalem.

           

Psalm 24 also quickens the heart and mind of the worshipper to the gravity and weightiness of his calling.  Whether then, for those who do not lift up their hearts to vain things or swear deceitfully (Ps 24:4b, c), now (Matt 5; 2 Cor 7:1), or future (Rev 21:27), this psalm stresses that there is a requisite holiness for the people of God, “without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14)!

---

[1] I am indebted to Israel Stevenson, my daughter (16 years), for her observation of the likely Ark/mercy seat imagery (antitype?) in Jn 20, in Jesus’ tomb, having the angels flank the slab as cherubim flanked the mercy seat.    

[2] The description of the new creation as a cube, since “its length and height and width are equal” (Rev 21:16), is surely an allusion to the temple’s Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:20).

New Exodus Typological Observations on Acts 12:1—24: Peter’s exodus and the judgment of Herod Agrippa I

1. Hints from the gospels (Matt and Lk). A Herod representing an antitypal Pharaoh has precedents in the early gospel traditions. Matt 2:13—18 provides a clear example of Herod serving as an antitypal Pharaoh, who tries to kill God’s firstborn Son, Jesus, True Israel.[1] Also, with great peculiarity, Luke, the author of our considered text, uses the term ἔξοδον "exodus" (Lk 9:31) to refer to Jesus’ death, resurrection, and exaltation he was about to “fulfill in Jerusalem” (πληροῦν ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ) (rightly so, NEB).

2. There is a broad framing of this pericope (Acts 12:1—24) that also serves to hint toward the original exodus. First, according to historical criticism, the story is a somewhat questionable, perhaps non-chronological interpolation couched between Paul and Barnabas commissioning and departure from the church in Antioch Syria (11:19—30) and their return from the famine relief mission to the Judean church(es) in 12:25. (There are dating questions with respect to the famine in Palestine [A.D. 41?] and the death of Agrippa I [A.D. 44?] that raise questions about the chronological ‘fit’ of the story of Peter’s imprisonment within the broader flow of the book.) Second, there is the conceptual inclusio that frames the pericope proper. This inclusio begins with Herod stretching out his hands in violence against the church; he killed James of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter (vv. 1—3). The end cap of the story presents the angel of the Lord stretching out his hands and strikes Herod dead in poetic justice (think lex talionis, of course). A strikingly similar framework surrounds the first exodus story. Exodus 1 – 2 tell of Pharaoh’s tireless efforts to kill all the firstborn of Israel. This section of the book closes with Israel’s Mighty Warrior, YHWH, striking dead the firstborn of Pharaoh and all of Egypt (Ex 12:29—32). Luke, like Moses, frames his pericope with ironic judicial inclusio.

3. Another stirring feature of the narrative that evokes the exodus motif in the reader’s mind is the parenthetical clause of 12:3b, which disrupts the flow of the report. “…[Herod] proceeded to arrest Peter / This was during the days of Unleavened Bread / And when he had seized him…” (vv. 3, 4a, italics added). By the time of writing, the festival of Unleavened Bread and the Passover had nearly become the same event (compare with v 4c). This feature conjures all the cultic imagery of Ex 12:43—13:16. The feast of Unleavened Bread was to be perpetually kept by Israel so as to recapitulate the event when “By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage” (Ex 13:14b KJV, italics added). One can hardly imagine a more appropriate paradigm for the telling of Peter’s deliverance or exodus.

---

[1]See Peter Leithart’s Jesus as Israel: The Typological Structure of Matthew’s Gospel here, http://www.leithart.com/pdf/jesus-as-israel-the-typological-structure-of-matthew-s-gospel.pdf