Taken from:
http://www.salvationhistory.com/documents/scripture/LSJ3%20Hahn.pdf
Christ, Kingdom, and Creation: Davidic Christology and Ecclesiology in Luke-Acts
By Dr. Scott Hahn
....
Already in the infancy narratives, Simeon speaks of Jesus
as “a light of revelation to the nations” (2:32). Luke traces his
genealogy back to Adam, the father of all mankind (3:38). As
precedent for his ministry, Jesus cites the healing of Gentiles
by the prophets Elijah and Elisha (4:25–27), and he himself
heals the servant of a Roman (7:1–10), while praising his faith
above that of Israel (7:9). He predicts that “men will come
from east and west, and from north and south” to sit at table
38 Isa. 2:1–4; 56:6–8; 60:3–16; 66:18–21; Jer. 33:11; Ezek. 40–44; Dan. 9:24–27; Joel 3:18; Hag. 2:1–9;
Mic. 4:1–4; Zech. 6:12–14; 8:20–23; 14:16.
39 On the importance of the Temple in Luke 1–2, see Green, Luke, 61–62 and Nicholas Taylor,
“Luke-Acts and the Temple,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts, 709–21, at 709.
40 On the importance of the Temple in Luke-Acts generally, see James B. Chance, Jerusalem, the
Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1988); and Andrew C.
Clark “The Role of the Apostles,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard
Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 169–90, esp. 175–76.
41 2 Sam. 8:11–12; 10:19; 12:30; 1 Kings 3:1; 4:20–21; 10:15. See Carol Meyers, “The Israelite Empire:
In Defense of King Solomon,” in Backgrounds for the Bible, eds. Michael Patrick O’Connor and
David Noll Freedman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 181–97.
42 See Pss. 2:8; 18:43, 47; 22:27; 47:1, 9; 66:8; 67:2–5; 72:8, 11; 86:9; 89:27; 96:7, 99:1.
43 Isa. 2:3–4; 42:1–6; 49:1–7, 22–26; 51:4–6; 55:3–5; 56:3–8; 60:1–16; 66:18–19; Amos 9:11–12; Mic.
4:2–3; Zech. 14:16–19.
122 Scott Hahn
in the kingdom of God (13:29), and finally and most explicitly,
Jesus teaches the disciples that “forgiveness of sins should be
preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem”
(24:47).
7. Everlasting Rule. The Davidic monarchy was to be everlasting.
Throughout the psalms and historical books identified by
scholars as the work of the Deuteronomist, there is a recurrent
theme: that the Davidic dynasty is to be everlasting (2 Sam.
7:16; 23:5; Ps. 89:35–36). Indeed, not only the dynasty but the
lifespan of the reigning monarch himself was described as
everlasting (Pss. 21:4; 72:5, 110:4).44
In Luke, the angel Gabriel promises to Mary that Jesus “will
reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom
there will be no end.”45 Jesus’ everlasting reign is mentioned
frequently elsewhere in Luke, for example, in passages where
Jesus is the mediator of eternal life (18:18–30).
Thus it is clear that all seven major characteristics of the Davidic monarchy
are manifested in Jesus and his ministry. In Luke, Jesus is the royal son of David
who journeys to the city of David as part of his mission to restore the kingdom of
David. In sum, Luke’s christology is strongly Davidic and royal.
The Davidic Kingdom and the Covenant with Creation
Already in the Old Testament, the Davidic kingdom was viewed as a recapitulation
or renewal of God’s plan for creation. In what follows, I will pursue three lines of
argument which show that certain Old Testament texts understand the Davidic
covenant as a fulfillment of the creation covenant. In the first line of argument,
we will trace the temple concept in the Old Testament in order to show that the
Temple built by Solomon, so closely integrated into the Davidic covenant, was
understood as a microcosm and embodiment of the very creation itself. In the
second line of argument, I will show that Adam is portrayed in biblical texts as
king over all creation, and similar language and imagery is also applied to David.
In the third line of argument, I will show that the Chronicler, by tracing David’s
lineage back to Adam, means to suggest that David and his covenantal kingdom
holds significance for all Adam’s descendants, that is, for all humanity, and indeed
is the climax and fulfillment of God’s purpose in creating humanity.
44 For a discussion of the tension between these texts and others which imply the Davidic covenant
can be or has been broken, see Bruce C. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality within
Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K.
Harrison, ed. Avraham Gileadi (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988), 123–40.
45 See Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 116–17.
Christ, Kingdom, and Creation 123
Many scholars see in the first two chapters of Genesis the description of a
covenant between God and creation, in which the creation itself forms a cosmic
temple.46 However, since neither the term “covenant” nor “temple” is to be found in
Genesis 1 or 2, I must explain the exegetical basis for this view.
The Genesis creation account cannot be fully appreciated without comparison
with several other texts in the Pentateuch which, like Genesis 1, reflect the
priestly traditions of Israel. One such text is Genesis 9, the account of the covenant
between God and Noah. The language of this chapter so obviously reflects the
language of Genesis 1 (“be fruitful and multiply,” “birds of the air, fish of the sea,
and every creeping thing,” etc.) that it is not necessary to demonstrate the point.
God forms a covenant with Noah, and through him with all creation. However,
the Hebrew terms for enacting this covenant are not the usual combination tyrb
trk (literally, “to cut a covenant”) but tyrb myqh (“to confirm a covenant”).
It has often been argued that tyrb trk and tyrb myqh are synonymous
expressions that merely reflect the linguistic preferences of their presumably different
documentary sources (so-called Yahwist and Priestly sources, respectively).
However, William Dumbrell and Jacob Milgrom have both argued independently
of one another that tyrb myqh has a distinct nuance: outside of Genesis 6–9 it
is consistently used in contexts where a preexistent covenant is being confirmed
or, perhaps better, reaffirmed. The clearest examples are Genesis 17 (vv. 7, 19, 21),
where the Abrahamic covenant reaffirmed with his “seed.”47 By contrast, tyrb trk
generally indicates the initiation of a new covenant.
The question arises, how could tyrb myqh function in Genesis 9 to indicate a
confirmation of an existing covenant when no prior covenant is explicitly mentioned
in Genesis? Where could a covenant previously have been established? The heavy
repetition of the very language of Genesis 1 provides the clues and the answer. In
Genesis 9 God is reaffirming and perhaps restoring the covenant established with
the whole cosmos at creation.
Other texts seem to confirm an implicit covenant at creation. For example,
the exposition of the third commandment found in Exodus 31 sheds light on the
creation account:
Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of
solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the
sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel
46 For a discussion of the relationship between creation and the covenant(s), see Santiago Sanz
Sánchez, La relación entre creación y alianza en la teologia contemporánea: status quaestionis y
reflexiones filosófico-teológicas [The Relation Between Creation and Covenant in Contemporary
Theology: The Status of the Question and Philosophical-Theological Reflections], Dissertationes
Series Theologica 11 (Rome: Edizioni Università della Santa Croce, 2003); William J. Dumbrell,
Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1984).
47 Compare Lev. 26:9; Deut. 8:18; and Ezek. 16:60, 62.
124 Scott Hahn
shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their
generations, as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign for ever between
me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was
refreshed. (Exod. 31:15–17)
Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, commented on
this passage vis-à-vis Genesis 1:
To understand the account of creation properly, one has to read
the Sabbath ordinances of the Torah. Then everything becomes
clear. The Sabbath is the sign of the covenant between God and
man; it sums up the inward essence of the covenant. If this is so,
then we can now define the intention of the account of creation
as follows: creation exists to be a place for the covenant that God
wants to make with man. The goal of creation is the covenant,
the love story of God and man. . . . If, then, everything is directed
to the covenant, it is important to see that the covenant
is a relationship: God’s gift of himself to man, but also man’s
response to God. Man’s response to the God who is good to him
is love, and loving God means worshipping him. If creation is
meant to be a space for the covenant, the place where God and
man meet one another, then it must be thought of as a space for
worship.48
The fact that the creation account culminates on the Sabbath—which the
pious Israelite would recognize as the “sign” of the covenant (Ezek. 20:12, 20)—suggests
not only that creation is ordered to covenant, but that the covenant between
God and man is already present at creation.
....
