bare an irresistible relationship to one another and exist within a common framework of meaning and history. Similarly, we will not hesitate to assert that predictive prophecy does exist and that the prophets of the Old Testament did quite literally predict Jesus. If we accept God’s power and providence, as well as the witness of the New Testament, we should not have any intellectual difficulty with this concept.
Furthermore, in order to respect both the diversity and unity of the scriptures, our method will be essentially synthetic. We will examine the content of the different books and strains of tradition in the Old Testament, and correlate their meaning with one another. Isaiah, for example, speaks of the Messiah using different terminology than does Jeremiah. He also describes different aspects of the Messiah’s career. Nevertheless, both speak of the same Messiah and both have some commonalities in their predictions (a new covenant, forgiveness, etc.). Hence, both should be treated separately, while the results of exegesis for both can be correlated with one another in order to reveal a common witness to the truth.
In two opening chapters, our goal will be to expound common themes of mediatorship that emerged in the history of the Old Testament. This makes sense because the works of the Old Testament are addressed to a common audience (ancient Israel) over a long period of time. For this common audience there is a shared history, with a generally (though not completely) similar theological vocabulary. In discussing the New Testament in later chapters, we will divide our work up according to books or groups of books (i.e., Paul’s epistles, Johannine literature, etc.). The New Testament writings are occasional writings to different audiences (i.e., Gentile and Jewish, etc.), with different shared histories (think Hebrews vs. 1 Corinthians vs. the Johannine epistles, etc.). Hence, although there is a unity of witness, there is a greater diversity of theological terminology (Paul vs. John, John vs. the Synoptic Gospels, etc.). For this reason, we will divide up the New Testament by groups of books and correlate their common witness to Jesus with one another.
Exile and Return
In order to understand Christ and his coming, we must first understand the history of salvation in the Old Testament that his advent presupposes. In the twentieth century, there were a number of attempts to posit a central theme or concept of the Old Testament. This has tended to take the form of the identification of an abstract concept or idea as a central theme. Notably, this identification of the organizing principle of the Old Testament with an abstract concept has been the method of both Walther Eichrodt and Gerhard von Rad. In Eichrodt’s case, this was the “covenant,” whereas for von Rad it was the significantly more fluid, yet equally problematic concept of “recitation.”32
Instead of an abstract concept, we will choose a historical pattern. The pattern that we will identify as residing at the very heart of the history of salvation in the Old Testament is the theme “exile and return.” This theme is not an arbitrary decision of one historical pattern among many, but rather stands as the very contours of the history of salvation as it is presented to us in the scriptures. The foundational events in Israel’s story as recounted in both the historical and prophetic writings are in fact the redemption from Egypt and the settlement of Palestine. In the same way also, the preaching of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the pre-exilic prophets, and the later experiences of the Babylonian exile certainly must also be viewed as reinforcing this historical and theological pattern of existence upon Israel’s psyche. As we will observe, such a pattern prefigures the narrative of Christ’s death and resurrection. From the perspective of confessional Lutheran theology this way of understanding the Old Testament is particularly important in light of the fact that both exile and return are the temporal manifestations of God’s law and grace.
Moreover, Israel did not merely view exile and return as being a quirk of their particular national history, but the pattern of cosmic and human existence. The account of Genesis 2 begins with the creation of human beings (Gen 2:15–25) and their subsequent placement in the garden of Eden. Although we will later return to the wider significance of Eden for the Israelite cult, here it is sufficient to say that Eden is described as a place where humanity works the soil (Gen 2:15) and where the fertility of the earth is guaranteed. Furthermore, YHWH is directly present to the first humans and guarantees his favor to them by his glorious presence (Gen 3:8). Humanity sins by disobeying the divine command and by listening to the serpent, a false mediator of God’s will (“Did God actually say . . . ?” Gen 3:10). This leads to the exile of Adam and Eve from the garden, which brings with it their removal from God’s gracious presence and the guarantee of the fertility of the soil (“cursed is the ground because of you” Gen 3:17). They are also denied immortality (v. 19). As many interpreters have recognized, such a narrative is echoed in Israel’s own story. G. K. Beale correctly observes the parallels between Adamic humanity and Israel in Genesis 2–3: “Israel, as representative of God’s true humanity, also separated themselves from the divine presence and failed to carry the commission . . . Israel failed even as had Adam. And like Adam, Israel was also cast out of the ‘garden land’ into exile.”33
If Genesis’s primal history suggests that humanity exists in a state of universal exile, the Pentateuchal narrative of the election of the patriarchs suggests that Israel itself is the beginning of the restoration of the Adamic humanity. In describing the structure of the Genesis narrative, N. T. Wright observes:
Thus, at major turning-points in the story [the Pentateuchal narrative] Abraham’s call, his circumcision, the offering of Isaac, the transition from Abraham to Isaac and from Isaac to Jacob, and the sojourn in Egypt—the narrative quietly insists that Abraham and his progeny inherit the role of Adam and Eve.34
Throughout Genesis, YHWH’s promise to the patriarchs, (realized in the exodus and the conquest), is that he will multiply their descendants and give them dominion in the land of Canaan.35 As Wright goes on to demonstrate, this status of Israel as the restoration of Adam and Eve comes across most strongly throughout the story because the dual promise of dominion in the land and of having many descendants directly parallels the promise made to the first man and woman at the end of the account of creation in Genesis 1: “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth’” (Gen 1:28).
The Pentateuchal narrative also reinforces the identification of Israel as the restoration of Adamic humanity in a number of other ways. The land that YHWH promises Israel is in some measure represented as a restoration of the pre-lapsarian blessing on the soil: “And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord” (Gen 13:10, emphasis added). For Israel, the restoration of the presence of God enjoyed before the Fall also occurs. We are told that YHWH’s glory (kavod) traveled with Israel during the entire period of the exodus under the form of a cloud (Exod 40:36–38). When the tabernacle’s construction was completed, a thick cloud filled the camp and the glory of YHWH descended into the tabernacle (Exod 40:34–35).
These descriptions of Israel’s early history suggest several things. First, the narrative strongly implies that the tabernacle and the later temple are in a sense the restoration of Eden, wherein humans dwelled directly in God’s gracious presence. In the same manner the promises to the patriarchs and the fecundity of creation are portrayed as a restoration of the true humanity. Secondly, these accounts imply that through entering into a covenant with the patriarchs, YHWH has pledged his own being to Israel as a pledge of his faithfulness. Indeed, to give an unconditional promise means always to give the self, because a promiser is logically tied to the enactment and fulfillment of the promise. The presence and the activity of the divine self now must conform to the situation of the one to whom the promise was made.
If then Edenic harmony and its restoration in the election of Israel means the renewal
