Christ as Fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant
Not only is Christ the all encompassing God of History and the source of life and salvation, he is the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. As previously noted, Revelation 21:1-8 is lavish with covenant language: blessings and cursings, obedience and disobedience, and “I will be your God and you will be my people” language. In 21:3 we read, “He will dwell with them as their God: they will be his peoples,…” As previously mentioned, Revelation 21:6-7 is in the context of covenantal blessings and cursings which hearken back to Deuteronomy 28. It is more specifically a fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant made in 2 Samuel 7:14:
2 Samuel 7:14 (NRSV) 14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. | Revelation 21:7 (Writer’s) 7The one who is overcomes will inherit these things and I will be his God, and he will be my son. |
The Davidic covenant is ultimately fulfilled in the singular masculine son1 of 2 Samuel 7:14. The covenant language of Revelation 21:3 has been narrowed from people or peoples to a singular son. Ultimately the peoples and the people are by nature covenant breakers in dire need of a covenant keeping son to fulfill the Davidic Covenant. That son, clearly not being Solomon, is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Kistemaker suggests that this is a mere allusion to the Davidic Covenant; rather, it appears that John the Apostle is exclaiming, “Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. Stop playing in the shadows and worship Him!”
__________
1 As important as I deeply believe gender inclusive language to be in general, this is an instance where attempts to be gender-inclusive eradicate the OT connection to the NT fulfillment. Rev. 21:7 in the NRSV reads, “Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children.” The substantival participle ο νικων is not plural and it is masculine. Further God is spoken of in reference to a singular masculine son, not people or children in general because it is in direct reference to 2 Sam 7:14 which is also with reference to a single masculine son, not to children in general. That is to say, let’s be gender-inclusive in a conceptual way not simply on the basis of words.
0 comments:
Post a Comment