The Prophet and His Day: Isaiah 1-39 - Free Bible Commentary

2. In the OT the enemies of God’s people are the surrounding nations of the Ancient Near East, but in the NT theyhave been expanded to all unbelieving, anti-God, Satanically-inspired people. The battle has moved from ageographical, regional conflict to a worldwide, cosmic conflict (cf. Colossians).3. The promise of a land which is so integral in the OT (the Patriarchal promises of Genesis, cf. Gen. 12:7; 13:15;15:7,15; 17:8) has now become the whole earth. New Jerusalem comes down to a recreated earth, not the NearEast only or exclusively (cf. Rev. 21-22).4. Some other examples of OT prophetic concepts being expanded area. the seed of Abraham is now the spiritually circumcised (cf. Rom. 2:28-29)b. the covenant people now include Gentiles (cf. Hos. 1:10; 2:23, quoted in Rom. 9:24-26; also Lev. 26:12;Exod. 29:45, quoted in II Cor. 6:16-18 and Exod. 19:5; Deut. 14:2, quoted in Titus 2:14)c. the temple is now Jesus (cf. Matt. 26:61; 27:40; John 2:19-21) and through Him the local church (cf. I Cor.3:16) or the individual believer (cf. I Cor. 6:19)d. even Israel and its characteristic descriptive OT phrases now refer to the whole people of God(i.e.,“Israel,” cf. Rom. 9:6; Gal. 6:16, i.e.,“kingdom of priests,” cf. I Pet. 2:5, 9-10; Rev. 1:6)The prophetic model has been fulfilled, expanded, and is now more inclusive. Jesus and the Apostolic writers do notpresent the end-time in the same way as the OT prophets (cf. Martin Wyngaarden, The Future of The Kingdom in Prophecyand Fulfillment). Modern interpreters who try to make the OT model literal or normative twist the Revelation into a veryJewish book and force meaning into atomized, ambiguous phrases of Jesus and Paul! The NT writers do not negate the OTprophets, but show their ultimate universal implication. There is no organized, logical system to Jesus’ or Paul’s eschatology.Their purpose is primarily redemptive or pastoral.However, even within the NT there is tension. There is no clear systemization of eschatological events. In many waysthe Revelation surprisingly uses OT allusions in describing the end instead of the teachings of Jesus (cf. Matt. 24; Mark 13)!It follows the literary genre initiated by Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, but developed during the intertestamental period(Jewish apocalyptic literature). This may have been John’s way of linking the Old and New Covenants. It shows the age-oldpattern of human rebellion and God’s commitment to redemption! But it must be noted that although Revelation uses OTlanguage, persons, and events, it reinterprets them in light of first century Rome (cf. Rev. 1:7).SECOND TENSION (monotheism vs. an elect people)The biblical emphasis is on one personal, spiritual, creator-redeemer, God (cf. Exod. 8:10; Isa. 44:24; 45:5-7,14,18,21-22; 46:9; Jer. 10:6-7). The OT’s uniqueness in its own day was its monotheism. All of the surrounding nations werepolytheists. The oneness of God is the heart of OT revelation (cf. Deut. 6:4). Creation is a stage for the purpose offellowship between God and mankind, made in His image and likeness (cf. Gen.1:26-27). However, mankind rebelled,sinning against God’s love, leadership, and purpose (cf. Gen. 3). God’s love and purpose was so strong and sure that Hepromised to redeem fallen humanity (cf. Gen. 3:15)!The tension arises when God chooses to use one man, one family, one nation to reach the rest of mankind. God’selection of Abraham and the Jews as a kingdom of priests (cf. Exod. 19:4-6) caused pride instead of service, exclusion insteadof inclusion. God’s call of Abraham involved the intentional blessing of all mankind (cf. Gen. 12:3). It must be rememberedand emphasized that OT election was for service, not salvation. All Israel was never right with God, never eternally savedbased solely on her birthright (cf. John 8:31-59; Matt. 3:9), but by personal faith and obedience (cf. Gen. 15:6, quoted inRom. 4). Israel lost her mission (the church is now a kingdom of priests, cf. 1:6; II Pet.2:5,9), turned mandate into privilege,service into a special standing! God chose one to choose all!THIRD TENSION (conditional covenants vs. unconditional covenants)There is a theological tension or paradox between conditional and unconditional covenants. It is surely true that God’sredemptive purpose/plan is unconditional (cf. Gen. 15:12-21). However, the mandated human response is alwaysconditional!The “if. . .then” pattern appears in both OT and NT. God is faithful; mankind is unfaithful. This tension has causedmuch confusion. Interpreters have tended to focus on only one “horn of the dilemma,” God’s faithfulness or human effort,God’s sovereignty or mankind’s free will. Both are biblical and necessary.This relates to eschatology, to God’s OT promises to Israel. If God promises it, that settles it! God is bound to Hispromises; His reputation is involved (cf. Ezek. 36:22-38). The unconditional and conditional covenants meet in Christ (cf.Isa. 53), not Israel! God’s ultimate faithfulness lies in the redemption of all who will repent and believe, not in who was yourfather/mother! Christ, not Israel, is the key to all of God’s covenants and promises. If there is a theological parenthesis in theBible, it is not the Church, but Israel (cf. Acts 7 and Gal. 3).44