Only Son (part 19)

Calling to mind the story of Abraham, and particularly the covenant and its purpose, not only brings to mind the failure of Adam, but also the story of Israel, along with its covenant and its purpose.  So with the simple use of a phrase such as “sand on the seashore,” Solomon (and his mission as the king over the Creator God’s chosen people) is intimately linked with Adam (son of God) and Israel (son of God), This link fostered by a reference to the Abrahamic covenant, which stands as the bridge between Adam and Israel, thus making sense of the covenant God referring to Solomon as His son.  If the author of the first book of the Kings is doing this, then one can reasonably suppose that Jesus is doing the same type of thing. 

Based on what one can go on to read about during the reign of Solomon, it will become apparent that Israel, during part of this time (and perhaps only during this time), is finally fulfilling its purpose of being a blessing to the nations.  It is during this period that Israel can be understood to be reflecting the glory of their God into the world, and causing all nations to seek the God of Israel because of the immense blessings that are being poured out on the nation in what it is suggested is an obvious way.  Israel under Solomon---presumably because the Creator God has gifted Solomon (upon his request) with “the ability to make wise judicial decisions” (3:11), so as to “distinguish right from wrong” (3:9) on behalf of the Creator God’s people---was approaching that which the Creator had intended for Adam, as well as what He had intended for Israel when they were called out of Egypt. 

Adam’s charge, of course, had been to secure the Creator God’s ongoing blessings for the whole of creation, with this charge also being reflected in the covenant with Abraham.  Israel’s charge had been to be and to do for their promised land what Adam was supposed to have been and done for the whole world.  Faithfulness to this charge would cause their God to enter in, and through Israel, extend His blessings to the whole of the world, as nations would look to Israel and subsequently to its God. 

It would be understood that this was occurring for Israel in the light of their knowledge of that which is reflected in records of the Levitical and Deuteronomic covenants.  So when one reads that “they had plenty to eat and drink and were happy” (1 Kings 4:20b), that “Solomon ruled all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt” (4:21a), that “these kingdoms paid tribute as Solomon’s subjects throughout his lifetime” (4:21b), and that kings and queens would come to Solomon (as representatives of the people that they ruled), these things are to be considered from within a state of reflection on the promised blessings of Leviticus twenty-six and Deuteronomy twenty-eight, with its blessings upon produce and livestock and the promise that “the peoples of the earth will see that you belong to the Lord, and they will respect you” (28:10).       

In addition, something to consider is the respective roles of Adam, of Israel, and of Solomon.  All three are referred to as the son of God, and all three are given a charge in relation to the dwelling place of the Creator God.  Adam was charged with being the Creator God’s representative throughout the whole of the creation.  If he was to properly perform in this role, the glory of his God would fill the whole of the world.  Adam failed.  Israel was then charged with being the representative of the Creator God in the land that had been promised to Abraham.  Their God is reported to have said that He desired to dwell among His people, and would do so as long as they obeyed Him and fulfilled the basic requirements of their covenant obligation.  Israel would fail at this from almost the very beginning.  Solomon was charged with building a Temple in Jerusalem that would be a dwelling place for the God of Israel.  While the Temple was constructed, and while the Lord is indeed said to have filled the Temple with His glory, in the end, though there was a time of great prosperity and blessing for Israel during his reign, Solomon would fail, falling to idolatry. 

Only Son (part 18)

More evidence that Israel wanted a king like Solomon---though they did generally believe that (because they didn’t truly remember the way that their God wrought their Egyptian exodus, though it was constantly referenced as was the ground for their self-understanding as God’s chosen people) before they could have such a king, who could enjoy such a rule, they would first have to see a warrior-king like David---was that when a portion of that people were said to have hailed their messiah-king, they did so when Jesus came riding into Jerusalem on “a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9, Matthew 21:5b).  According to Israel’s historical narrative, when Solomon was appointed to the kingship by David and anointed as king over the covenant people, he would come to the place of coronation by riding on his father’s mule (1 Kings 1:38).    

When it comes to Solomon, the Creator God reportedly speaks to King David about his dynasty and about his own son, saying “I will become his Father and he will become My son.  When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings.  But My loyal love will not be removed from him” (2 Samuel 7:14-15a).  This is joyous, ominous, and reassuring; and yet again, with these words, Israel’s God, the same one that is being referenced by Jesus when He says “For this is the way God loved the world,” speaks of His son.  It is understood that this reference is to Solomon, because before the words of verse fourteen and fifteen, one can find it said that “He will build a house for My name, and I will make his dynasty permanent” (7:13).  Solomon, of course, would build the Temple in Jerusalem, as a glorious house to represent the God of Israel (the God that built the creation itself as His own glorious temple). 

When one is to consider what it means for Solomon to be considered as a son of God, this must be done in the context of the Creator God’s intended role for Israel in the world (as the firstborn son of God), and that role as connected to the Abrahamic and Deuteronomic covenants.  As Solomon is firmly entrenched on the throne of Israel, the record insists that “The people of Judah and Israel were as innumerable as the sand on the seashore” (1 Kings 4:20a).  A few verses beyond that, it is said that “God gave Solomon wisdom and very great discernment; the breadth of his understanding was as infinite as the sand on the seashore” (4:29).  This is quite telling.  It tells the observer that the Creator God is blessing Israel. 

Of course, with these words, the author is connecting the prosperous blessings being enjoyed by the Creator God’s people under the rule of Solomon with the covenant promises that had been given to Abraham.  In Genesis, the covenant God informed Abraham, following His own intervention to spare the life of Isaac, that “I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore” (22:17a).  There, the Creator God is said to have gone on to say “Because you have obeyed Me, all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants” (22:18).    

As the author alludes to the promise to Abraham by his statement concerning “sand on the seashore,” he is not attempting to call to mind just one particular story from Abraham’s life, but rather, the whole of the story of Abraham.  The story of Abraham, naturally, is resolutely fastened to the story of creation and of the whole of the world, as the initial call of the Creator God to Abraham has Him speaking of all nations, along with Abraham’s exemplification of divine blessing (Genesis 12:1-3).  From the outset, the implication is that through Abraham and his descendants that the Creator God is going to accomplish the restoration of the world, in order to fulfill that at which Adam failed.  

Only Son (part 17)

In Acts, which contains the records of the first preached sermons proclaiming Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), there is an ongoing appeal to the history of Israel and to their God’s ongoing dealings with humanity and His creation through the vehicle of Israel, with this appeal offered in confirmation of Jesus’ messianic status.  The New Testament letters make almost constant reference to Israel’s history, which is an eminently reasonable thing to do, for if one is proclaiming Jesus as Messiah, one must appeal to history, for it would be absolutely and completely impossible to understand the nature or role of the messiah apart from a thorough grounding in that history. 

If Jesus is detached or removed from His thoroughly Jewish roots and from the thoroughly Jewish hopes within which He was operating and proclaimed Himself to be properly fulfilling, with this done without a concerted effort to come to terms with who He was and what He did for Israel, then He is removed and detached from all meaning, from all legitimacy, and from all relevance to those that believe in Him or to the world at large.  If Jesus does not have that anchor, then He was just another itinerant preacher, who said some nice things and might have done some nice things, but in the end was crucified for challenging the existing power structures of His day. 

If one does not understand the way in which Jesus first fulfilled the hope of Israel through His crucifixion and His Resurrection, and following that, understand what that meant for the wider world, for creation as a whole, and for the ongoing mission of those that believe in Him (as the church of Jesus Christ that proclaims a King and a kingdom) in the world that mirrors the mission of Israel, which mirrored the mission of Adam, then it does not matter one single bit if or why He was raised up from the grave.  He might as well have just laid there in that lifeless condition, and the Creator God could have saved Himself all of the trouble of taking up the tent of human flesh and enduring the pains of humanity and mortality. 

However, it is His attachment first to the providential and covenantal history of Israel, and secondly to the providential and covenantal history of the whole of the world (as it relates to the covenant God’s original intention for man and for His creation), that provides meaning for His life, His death, His life after death, and His presumed living through His church (life after life after death) that provides His chosen people with their hope of life after life after death.  It is for that reason (among others) that every effort must be made to understand His words in the light of what had gone before, and in the way in which His hearers would have understood them.  That is the purpose for this exercise in regards to His statements concerning the Creator God’s “one and only son.” 

So, returning to this important conversation, when Jesus speaks of the one and only Son of God, Nicodemus is not only going to consider Jesus’ statement in the light of Adam, and he is not only going to consider Jesus’ statement in the light of Israel and the exodus, but he is also going to consider Jesus’ statement in the light of Solomon.  Yes, Solomon, the son of David.  Solomon, who is remembered as the great and wise and powerful king of Israel.  Solomon, the type of king (owing to the scope of the territory of his kingdom, his riches, his fame, Israel’s great prosperity, the tribute paid to him by other nations, and the peace Israel enjoyed under his reign) that Israel truly wanted to see rise to power in Jesus’ day, as evidenced by the fact that the messiah is not referred to as a “king like David,” but rather, as the “son of David.”  

Only Son (part 16)

This scene first introduced into the Scriptural narrative through the Adam story, would repeat itself, on the whole, with Israel.  Primarily, the covenant people would repeatedly fall into idolatry.  Therefore, rather than perpetually enjoying the blessings of their God (though the record suggests that there were times of great blessing), times of cursing were their regular lot.  The cursing was exile, meaning they were relegated to a place outside of their God’s purposes for them.  This generally meant subjection to a foreign power (whether inside or outside of their promised land, though even in the exiles, the land was not emptied), which can be regularly seen from the time of the Judges (following the death of Joshua), right on through the entirety of their history that led up to Jesus. 

Their God’s cursing meant death, destruction, shame, and exile, which meant that Israel, which defined itself as a people according to their exodus, was in almost constant need of exodus.  Because shame and exile were the equivalent of death, Israel was constantly in need of resurrection.  They were in constant need of eternal life, which would mean rescue, deliverance, redemption, salvation, restoration, and new creation (not an endless eternity in heaven after death), all of which are well summed up in “resurrection.”  Their position however, because they did not trust a God that is shown forth as having continually proved Himself to be faithful in both blessing and cursing, was that of constant perishing. 

The Creator God’s intention for Israel was for it to be a light to all the world.  Not only does their history suggest that did they not achieve this, but by the time of Jesus, Israel is shown to have turned almost completely inward, choosing only to be a light for itself, to what would appear to be the exclusion of the rest of the world.  Clearly, this was not what the covenant God intended for His one and only son, be it Adam or Israel.  Thus, taking all of this into consideration, as would Nicodemus, it could be said that the Creator God of Israel loved the world that He had created so much, that He raised up Israel, His son (after the failure of Adam), and gave him a commission and an ordination to be the representative of His love and power into the world. 

This, of course, would be completely contingent on Israel believing in Him and in His covenantal promises.  Had they believed, then they, and the world through them, would have enjoyed eternal life.  However, they are shown to have not believed wholeheartedly in their God, so ultimately, the perishing of an almost continuous exile had been their experience.  Because of that, the world did not experience the Creator God’s glory and redemption, but remained in its perished condition as well.          

It has been demonstrated that both Adam and Israel were positioned as sons of God.  This has been done so that it would be possible to rightly comprehend the engagement between Nicodemus and Jesus, with its rooting in Jewish hope and expectation according to the history of the world and the history of Israel.  Both of those histories are related to the redemptive history that had been playing out according to the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness, and this is the framework that has been built for an understanding of Jesus and His mission. 

By using the language that is to be found in John 3:16, one can not only find that Jesus understands Himself along this historical-redemptive line, but that Jesus also wants Nicodemus to understand His purposes according to the historical-redemptive pattern set forth in the history of Israel as a nation, and in that of mankind as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. 

Only Son (part 15)

When a teacher of Israel, be it Nicodemus or Jesus, spoke of their God’s son, such language would not be restricted to thoughts of messiah and kingship, or to Adam alone.  Speaking in such a way would also direct one’s thoughts to Israel itself.  This would be in connection with Israel’s most powerful, popular, and deterministic story---that of the Egyptian exodus, which was believed to have been personally conducted by the Creator God via the instrument of Israel’s greatest leader, that being Moses. 

In the fourth chapter of Exodus, Moses is given his instructions.  He is said to have been told by the Lord God of Israel, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put under your control.  But I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go” (4:21).  This is the pretext for the especially important statement (for purposes of this study) that follows, which is “You must say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn, and I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’”’” (4:22-23a). 

So here, quite importantly, as it relates to the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, and what it is that Jesus seems to be attempting to communicate to Nicodemus about Himself and about His place within the Creator God’s long running redemptive plan for His creation, Israel can be found being referred to as the son of God.  With this, Israel, in a sense, is picking up the narrative from where it was left off by the first being to be recognized as the son of God, that being Adam. 

The son of God that was Adam, according to the story of Israel, was exiled from the garden and dragged all of humanity and creation down with him.  Here in Exodus the reader meets up with the son of God that is Israel, as they find themselves in an exilic state of oppression and subjugation.  This son, Israel, is going to be liberated from his bondage.  Following the liberation (essentially a restoration and a resurrection), this son of God is going to be brought under a covenant and given responsibilities related to that covenant.  That covenant comes to be known as “the law”; and the responsibility with which they have been charged, in essence, is to rightly bear the divine image and reflect their God’s glory into the world in such a way that it will cause all men to seek their God, especially as they see the blessings that are enjoyed by this particular people, Israel (understood as the “only son” of the Creator God). 

Israel was to be the representative of the Creator into the world.  Like Adam, they were given a realm of dominion that they were to occupy, in which they were to have dominion, and which they were to steward as a foretaste of the renewed creation to come.  Whereas for Adam the realm of dominion was the whole of the creation, Israel’s realm of dominion was the land that had been promised to them through the Creator God’s covenant with Abraham---the firstfruits of an entire creation that was to be redeemed (a microcosm of what would eventually come to be true, again, of the entire cosmos). 

There, in that place of dominion, they were to be fruitful and multiply.  Their successful occupation of their land, and all that went with it, would be accomplished by their adherence to the basic premises of the covenant, which were to avoid idolatry, to reverence the sanctuary, and to keep the Sabbaths that their God had ordained for them.  It was understood to be the case that if they succeeded in these areas, they would be blessed.  On the other hand, if they failed they would be cursed. 

On the whole then, this was a matter of trust.  In this area, Israel (son of God) would stand alongside Adam (son of God).  Adam’s successful occupation of the land would be accomplished by adherence to the premises of the covenant that the Creator God gave to him, which was to freely eat of all the trees of the garden, save one.  Blessing or cursing would result.  Of course, the narrative record indicates that Adam chose to violate the covenant, so it would be the curse (rather than the blessing) that came upon him and the creation. 

Only Son (part 14)

Eternal life, therefore, must be understood to be a part of the Creator God’s intentions for the beings that He created in and as His image, as well as the creation over which that being was set in rule.  For man, this can be extrapolated from the existence of the tree of life and the point made to bar the way of the fallen image-bearer from accessing the tree.  For the creation, this can be extrapolated from the insistence that all of the creation fell from a state of eternality of life when Adam (its steward) fell. 

The Apostle Paul would seem to be making an explicit reference to this type of understanding in the eighth chapter of Romans, when he writes that “creation was subjected to futility---not willingly” (8:20a), while also going on to make the point that the creation awaits a time of restoration when it “will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:21).  If only Adam had believed the Creator---trusted, relied upon, adhered to the commandment while believing in the associated promise---it could be surmised that neither he nor the creation would have experienced decay and death.  If he had believed, he would not have perished. 

Having covered so much ground, and having done so much to at least partially construct a more appropriate mindset in which to hear the words of Jesus, it is now possible to connect some of the dots, discovering part of what is being communicated in the Nicodemus/Jesus dialogue, and interpreting John 3:16 in light of the experience of Adam as revealed in the Hebrews Scriptures and as told as part of Israel’s historical self-understanding and as part of their God’s overall purposes for mankind, to which Jesus appeals in order to legitimate His mission as that of the promised and long-awaited Son of Man. 

The Creator God indeed loved the world that He is understood to have created and set in order.  He loved it so much that He made a being in His own image (as His image)---a son---and placed that being in the world.  As part of His creation, He also loved this son.  He is understood to have given that son responsibilities and a commandment, asking that son to believe in Him, so as to be able to faithfully and rightly perform His duties in the world, before his Creator.  If that son did in fact believe in the God that had created Him and given him his position, then we would have eternal life.

If he did not believe in his Creator, and did not exhibit trust in His word such that he did not live up to the terms of the covenant that had been set for and with him, then the result of that dis-belief and the forsaking of His expressed purpose in and for the world, would be that He would perish.  His fate would be shared by the much loved realm over which he had been set.  He would be exiled from that place of purpose, forfeiting access to that which granted eternal life, which, in reality, is the unbroken relationship with the Creator as His exact image, and thereby losing eternal life itself.  What ultimately perished was trust, and therefore his union with his Maker, which was the source of that life.  Quite naturally then, to perish at the hands of death was the only logical result.  Such was the history of the Creator God’s initial sending of His son into the world.  Coming to grips with this provides a portion of the much-needed framework for an understanding of Jesus’ mission. 

With all of this said and hopefully absorbed, one becomes able to more effectively peer into the historical context that surrounded these famous words of Jesus, reflecting on the fact that the Creator God’s love for the world, His sending of His Son, the necessity of belief, and the subsequent reception of eternal life, could and would cause Nicodemus to hearken to the “beginning of the story,” and the story of Adam and his fall.  

Only Son (part 13)

In the twenty-sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis, after God has pronounced everything as good and established an order in this world that He so obviously loved, He takes one final step and says “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth” (Genesis 1:26). 

Yes, the Creator God loved the world, and He showed forth that love by creating a being in and as His own image that would reflect His glory into the creation and be a reminder of His creative power and His rule.  He created Adam.  He sent the one originally understood, as part of the story of the covenant people, to be His one and only son into the world to rule the creation in proxy for Him.  If this is understood, then the one that has that understanding is one step closer to appreciating the full impact of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. 

Genesis insists that “God created humankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them” (1:27).  Furthermore, in relation to being created in and as the image of the Creator God, so as to bear that image in and for the whole of the creation, the language of covenant is employed when the author confirms that “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply!  Fill the earth and subdue it!” (1:28a)  What follows from that report is rounded off with “God saw all that He had made---and it was very good!” (1:31a) 

So humankind (Adam) is given a charge by their Creator.  It could easily be said that the covenant God of Israel loved His good creation (world).  Owing to that love, He created a son (Adam) in His own image and sent that son into the world with a specific purpose.  What was that purpose?  It was to rule and steward and subdue and represent the Creator to the world.  Ultimately though, there was something underlying all of that.  The foundation on which those purposes rested was belief.  It was trust. 

Trust in what?  “The Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (2:16-17a).  This was an obvious commandment and a test.  The Creator God loved the world and sent His one and only son into the world, and set up a perimeter to see whether or not His Son would follow the commandment as part of the charge to be reflect his Father’s glory into the world.  Would the word of the Creator be believed?  Of course, all live with the sad result of the failure associated with this relatively simple commandment, which was that it was not something to which Adam (the one originally thought of as the son of God) adhered. 

The corollary to the Creator God’s commandment to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is well known, as it was said “for when you eat from it you will surely die” (2:17b).  Genesis reports that Adam, as the divine image-bearer, had been offered up the fruit of every tree of the garden, save one.  One of those trees was the tree of life (2:9).  When Adam and Eve were exiled from the garden after violating their God’s clear commandment (thereby finding themselves outside of their God’s purpose for them), careful attention is paid to this tree of life. 

This demonstrates that the tree of life is of special concern to the Creator God, thus it is said that “When He drove the man out, He placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life” (3:24).  This is explaining in the report of the Creator saying “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” (3:22).  Clearly then, it is being communicated that the covenant God did not want His now fallen image-bearer to live forever in a state of corruption, so He made a move to limit access to the tree of life.  Apparently, it is to be taken that the fruit of this tree was designed to render possible such an eternal existence.