Saturday, June 8, 2013

Adam the Priest, not the Farmer

In his masterful work, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus, L. Michael Morales examines the creation, de-creation, and exodus themes of the Bible in relation to ancient Near East literature, in order to present a compelling case for approaching the divine presence of God via a tabernacle/temple system. The codified narratives of the Torah in connection with the rest of Scripture symbolically portray a mediated return to the Garden of Eden, the original telos, or goal, of all creation. Regarding the thematic connection between Adam and the law pertaining to priesthood, Morales notes:
Within the overall context of viewing creation as a macro-temple in Genesis 1 and Eden as its holy of holies in Genesis 2-3, the priestly nature of humanity becomes apparent. That the garden narrative indeed portrays Adam as an archetypal priest ministering before YHWH is supported also by use of the verbs defining the divine intent, to "work/serve" (עבד abad) and to "protect/guard" (שׁמר samar) being used together again within the Pentateuch only to describe the duties of the Levites.1 These terms may more suitably be translated as "to worship and obey." ...Further, there is the parallel, already noted, between Adam's post-fall vestments and the investiture of the Levitical priests, both needing their nakedness covered (Gen 3.7, 21; Exod 20.26, 28.42) and utilizing the noun כתנת (tunics) and the hiphil form of the verb לבשׁ (clothe): 
Gen 3.21:  YHWH God made for Adam and for his wife tunics (כתנת) of skins and clothed them (וילבשׁם) 
Lev 8.13:  And Moses brought Aaron's sons and clothed them (וילבשׁם) with tunics (כתנת). 
Likely then, Adam was placed in the garden to fulfill his priestly office.
...There has been, in fact, a continuous tradition with respect to Adam as priest and sacrificer, from Jubilees (second century BC) to the Rabbinic period, Adam sometimes portrayed specifically as a high priest. Consistent, then, with creation's being a cosmic temple and with the garden being a holy of holies, Adam is portrayed as an archetypal priest -- not a farmer.2

1.  Numbers 3:7-8, 8:26, 18:5-6
2.  L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus [Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2012] pp. 99-100

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Adam as the Priest-King of Eden

In The Temple and the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God, G. K. Beale describes the Garden of Eden as the place of God's presence and of God's first Priest-King, Adam. He writes:
  Israel's temple was the place where the priest experienced God's unique presence, and Eden was the place where Adam walked and talked with God. The same Hebrew verbal form (stem) mithallek used for God's 'walking back and forth' in the Garden (Gen. 3:8), also describes God's presence in the tabernacle (Lev. 26:12; Deut. 23:14 [15]; 2 Sam. 7:6-7).1  
  Genesis 2:15 says God placed Adam in the Garden 'to cultivate [i.e., work] it and to keep it'. The two Hebrew words for 'cultivate and keep' are usually translated 'serve and guard [or keep]' elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is true that the Hebrew word usually translated 'cultivate' can refer to an agricultural task when used by itself (e.g., 2:5; 3:23). When, however, these two words ...occur together in the Old Testament (within an approximately 15-word range), they refer either to Israelites 'serving' God and 'guarding [keeping]' God's word ...or to priests who 'keep' the 'service' (or 'charge') of the tabernacle (see Num. 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14).2 
  The best translation of Adam's task in Genesis 2:15 is 'to cultivate (work) it and to keep it [the Garden]'. Regardless of the precise translation, however, the preceding observations suggest that the writer of Genesis 2 was portraying Adam against the later portrait of Israel's priests, and that he was the archetypal priest who served in and guarded (or 'took care of') God's first temple. While it is likely that a large part of Adam's task was to 'cultivate' and be a gardener as well as 'guarding' the garden, that all of his activities are to be understood primarily as priestly activity is suggested not only from the exclusive use of the two words in contexts of worship elsewhere but also because the garden was a sanctuary... If this is so, then the manual labour of 'gardening' itself would be priestly activity, since it would be maintaining the upkeep and order of the sanctuary. 
  After telling Adam to 'cultivate' and 'guard/keep' in Genesis 2:15, God gives him a specific 'command' in verse 16. The notion of divine 'commanding' (sara) or giving of 'commandments' (miswot) not untypically follows the word 'guard/keep' (samar) elsewhere, and in 1 kings 9:6, when both 'serving' and 'keeping' occur together, the idea of 'commandments to be kept' is in view. The 1 Kings passage is addressed to Solomon and his sons immediately after he had 'finished building the house of the Lord' (1 Kgs. 9:1): if they do 'not keep My commandments . . . and serve other gods . . . I will cut off Israel from the land . . . and the house [temple] . . . I will cast out of My sight' (1 Kgs. 9:6-7). Is this a mere coincidental connection with Genesis 2:15-16?
  Hence, it follows naturally that after God puts Adam into the Garden for 'cultivating/serving and keeping/guarding' (v. 15) that in the very next verse God would command Adam to keep a commandment: 'and the Lord God commanded the man . . .' The first 'torah' was that 'From any tree of the Garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die' (Gen. 2:16-17). Accordingly, Adam's disobedience, as Israel's, results in his being cut off from the sacred land of the Garden. This is an indication that the task of Adam in Genesis 2:15 included more than mere spadework in the dirt of a garden. It is apparent that priestly obligations in Israel's later temple included the duty of 'guarding' unclean things from entering (cf. Num. 3:6-7, 32, 38; 18:1-7), and this appears to be relevant for Adam, especially in view of the unclean creature lurking on the perimeter of the Garden and who then enters.
  ...Adam's priestly role of 'guarding' (samar) the garden sanctuary may also be reflected in the later role of Israel's priests who were called 'guards' (1 Chron. 9:23) and repeatedly were referred to as temple 'gatekeepers' (repeatedly in 1 and 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah: e.g. 1 Chron. 9:17-27) who 'kept watch [samar] at the gates' (Neh. 11:19, 'so that no one should enter who was in any way unclean' (2 Chron. 23:19). Consequently, the priestly role in both the Garden and later temple was to 'manage' it by maintaining its order and keeping out uncleanness.3 
  There may also be significance that the word used for God 'putting' Adam 'into the garden' in Genesis 2:15 is not the usual Hebrew word for 'put' (sum) but is the word typically translated as 'to rest' (nuah). ...That this verb ...was intentionally chosen is pointed to further by the observation that it is used elsewhere to refer to the installation of sacred furniture (2 Chron. 4:8) and divine images into temples (2 Kgs. 17:29; Zech. 5:5-11) and especially of God's 'resting place' (so the noun form) in his heavenly palace-temple (Ps. 132:7-8, 14; Is. 66:1). Thus, the implication may be that God places Adam into a royal temple to begin to reign as his priestly vice-regent. In fact, Adam should always best be referred to as a 'priest-king', since it is only after the 'fall' that priesthood is separated from kingship, though Israel's eschatological expectation is of a messianic priest-king (e.g., see Zech. 6:12-13).4

1. G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; 2004], p. 66
2. Ibid., pp. 66-7
3. Ibid., pp. 68-9
4. Ibid., pp. 69-70

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Tabernacle and Altar as Holy Mountain

In his ambitious and inspiring book, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World, James B. Jordan presents an intriguing case of the Tabernacle (and Temple) being structured according to Israel's encounter with Yahweh at Mount Sinai, where Yahweh came down and visited His people. And as a "cosmic house," it symbolized the place where the heavens met with earth as God's dwelling places. Concerning the former, Jordan writes:

Illustration from Through New Eyes, p. 208
  While the altar complex was a holy mountain, leading toward heaven, in a wider sense the entire Tabernacle complex was a holy mountain, or extended ladder to heaven. What makes this clear is the connection between the Tabernacle and Mount Sinai. ...Mount Sinai was a world model that transferred itself to the Tabernacle. When the people left Mount Sinai, they took the Mountain with them. 
  God's cloud covered the top of the mountain, thus establishing it as a Most Holy Place. Moses and Moses alone was allowed to enter this place, just as later on the only the High Priest would be allowed to enter the Most Holy of the Tabernacle (Exodus 19:19-24). At the top of the mountain God gave the Ten Commandments, which were later put in the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle. 
  Midway down the mountain was the Holy Place. ...The courtyard of the mountain was marked off with a boundary, and anyone who trespassed was put to death (Exodus 19:12). Inside this boundary was placed an altar, and only certain select young men might approach it (Exodus 24:4, 5; cp. 19:22, 24). ...The boundary around the mountain correlates to the boundary inside the courtyard that kept the people from approaching the altar.
  In this way, then, the Tabernacle (and later the Temple) were models of the ladder to heaven, of the holy mountain. Israel did not need to go back to Mount Sinai, or regard it as anything special, after the Tabernacle was built. The Tabernacle was God's portable mountain.1 

Concerning the latter, Jordan writes: 

Illustration from Through New Eyes, p. 162
  The Bible tells us that the Tabernacle and its courtyard symbolized the heavens and the earth, God's dwelling places. Heaven was God's throne, and the earth His footstool (Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:35; Acts 7:49). This was set out in two ways in the Tabernacle. In the Most Holy Place, the heavenly throne was pictured by the winged cherubim. God sat enthroned on the outspread wings of the cherubim, with His feet on the mercy seat that covered the Ark of the Covenant.
  ...Second, the whole Tabernacle proper was a model of heaven (Hebrews 8:5; 9:23-25). The Most Holy Place itself was a model of the highest heavens, with the firmament or earthly heavens pictured in the Holy Place, and the earth pictured in the courtyard. The Courtyard altar was the holy mountain that reached toward the sky, pictured in the Holy Place behind the first veil, a veil of blue sky. ...As we pass through the firmament-heavens of the Holy Place, we come to a second altar, which is as it were a second ladder stretching from the firmament-heavens to the highest heavens. Beyond the cherubic second veil, behind this golden altar was the Most Holy Place, the Highest Heavens.
  The courtyard thus represented the earthly garden-sanctuary. Adam had been cast from this sanctuary; and it was only under very tight restrictions, codified in the laws of cleanness, that anyone might be admitted to it in the Mosaic system. Even so, the layman might only come into the forecourt. He was forbidden on pain of death the approach the holy mountain of the altar.2 

1.  James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing A Biblical View of the World [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999] pp. 212-3
2.  Ibid. pp. 207, 211

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Cosmos, Garden, & Tabernacle: A Three Story House for Yahweh

In his book, A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament, Peter Leithart discusses the connection between the Creation & Garden symbolism of Genesis 1-3 and the Tabernacle/Temple symbolism as outlined in God's Law. Dr. Leithart writes:

The Bible's story begins by telling us about the world where the story takes place. In the Bible, the world is the real world that we live in, the world that God created. But the Bible describes the world in a particular way. In some places, the Bible describes it as a house. Talking to Job from the whirlwind, Yahweh asks:

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you know understanding,
Who set its measurements, since you know?
Or who stretched the line on it?
On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?  (Job 38:4-7)

Earth, and especially mountains, are set on "foundations" (Deuteronomy 32:22; 2 Samuel 22:8, 16; Psalm 104:5) just like the foundations that hold up a house. Blue sky is stretched out above like a "tent curtain" (Isaiah 40:22). Pillars support the earth (Job 9:6) and heaven (Job 26:11). When God first appears in the Bible, He is building a house. 
...It takes God six days to build His house, six days that are just like our days with the sun coming up in the morning and going down in the evening. After that, God rests on the seventh day, a day known as the Sabbath day. 
...And so, at the end of the six days of creation, God has finished a "three story" house. Above is the "tent curtain" of blue sky, then the dry land, and finally the waters "below" the earth. 
The Bible mentions this three-story house many times. In the second commandment, God forbids us to bow down to an image of anything in "heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth" (Exodus 20:4). That means we must not bow down to images of anything. "Heaven, earth, and sea" means "the whole universe."1
...Once God has made His three-story house, He puts Adam and Eve in it and gives them a job to do.2 ...When Adam is first created, he is put in the garden of Eden. The Garden is one of several different areas that God makes in the world. Remember that God initially makes a "three-story" world. In Genesis 2, we learn that the middle floor, earth, is divided into three "rooms." The Garden is only one of them. Genesis 2:8 tells us that the Lord God plants a garden "toward the east, in Eden," which means that the Garden is on the east side of the land of Eden. Eden is larger than the Garden, and outside Eden there were other lands, which are named in Genesis 2:11-13. If Adam had taken time on the first day to make a map, he would have drawn a map with several areas: the Garden, the land of Eden, and the larger world. 
It is interesting to notice how these three "rooms" of earth match up with the three "stories" of the universe. To see fully how this works, another portion of the creation has to be considered, namely, the "firmament." Made on the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6), the firmament is not just the flat surface of the sky but the whole region that we call "outer space." We know this because the sun, moon, and stars are "in" the firmament (Genesis 1:14-19). It is also called "heaven" (Genesis 1:8). This means that God created a world with two "heavens": The heavens where God dwells and the visible heavens of outer space. When we add this to our picture of the three-story house, we see that the "attic" is divided into two sections.3
The house that Israel builds at Mount Sinai is a tent called the tabernacle. ...Within the tent are two rooms. The first is the Holy Place, and the second is the Most Holy Place or "Holy of Holies." The courtyard makes a third area. The tabernacle has three zones, and each of these zones is governed by a different set of rules. Any Israelite layman may enter the courtyard, but only priests may enter the Holy Place. Only the High Priest may enter the Most Holy Place, and he may do it only once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1).4

With these observations in mind, the arrangement of the tabernacle can be understood this way5

Cosmic boundaries        Earthly boundaries         Tabernacle boundaries
Highest Heaven               Garden of Eden               Most Holy Place (2nd tent, High Priest only)
Firmament "heaven"        Land of Eden                   Holy Place (1st tent, Priests only)

Land                             Land surrounding Eden      Courtyard (Covenant people)

World & Sea                  Nations across the sea       Outside the Courtyard (Gentiles)

Dr. Leithart also makes this following observation concerning the Tabernacle and the Garden of Eden:
A number of things in the tabernacle remind us of the garden of Eden. Like the Garden, it has a doorway on the east side (Genesis 3:24). The cherubim embroidered into the tabernacle curtains and built above the ark remind us of the Garden (Exodus 26:31-37). When a priest enters the Holy Place, he looks at the veil that has cherubim on it and is reminded over and over of the cherubim with the flaming sword in Genesis 3. Like the garden and land of Eden, the tabernacle is mostly off-limits. From the time of Adam to the time of Jesus, no one is allowed to go back into the Garden, past the cherubim, to enjoy God's presence. As Paul put it, the Old Covenant ministry is a ministry of death (2 Corinthians 3:7; see Hebrews 9:8-10). The tabernacle is a way of keeping the people of God at a distance.6 

1.  Peter J. Leithart, A House For My Name:  A Survey of the Old Testament [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000] pp. 43-45
2.  p. 50
3.  p. 51
4.  p. 82
5.  The formatting presented here is my own, and is not identical with the formatting of Leithart in his book (p. 85), but the the arrangement is similar.
6.  Ibid. p. 85.

A New Creation

In The Temple and the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God, G. K. Beale offers some significant parallels between the creation account of Genesis and the construction of the tabernacle found in the book of Exodus. Beale compares Genesis 1:31; 2:1, 2, and 3 with Exodus 39:43, 32, and 33, and he references M. Fishbane's work as part of his commentary on these passages:
   ...Moses' work of constructing the tabernacle is patterned after God's creation of the cosmos, using the same language: 'Thus, "Moses saw all the work" which the people "did" in constructing the tabernacle; "and Moses completed the work" and "blessed" the people for all their labors. Fishbane concludes that the tabernacle's construction was intentionally portrayed in the image of the world's creation. 
   More specifically, both accounts of the creation and building of the tabernacle are structured around a series of seven acts: cf. 'And God said' (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26; cf. vv. 11, 28, 29) and 'the Lord said' (Exod. 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34, 31:1, 12).1

This symbolism does not merely connect the construction of the Tabernacle and it's liturgically rich laws with the creation of the heavens and earth itself; it also connects God's dwelling-place with man as seen in the Garden of Eden with God's dwelling-place with man in the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle provided access to God by means of symbolically returning to the Garden of Eden -- the Garden as it was accessible before Adam fell into sin. 

1.  G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; 2004], p. 61

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Shall we be nothing for him?

  We may say, "Lord, condemnation was yours, that justification might be mine; agony was yours, and victory mine; pain was yours, and ease is mine; stripes were yours, and healing mine; vinegar and gall were yours, that honey and sweet might be mine; the curse was yours, and the blessing mine; a crown of thorns was yours, that the crown of glory might be mine; death was yours, and eternal life mine!"
  ...He left the highest enjoyments in his Father's bosom, to set himself apart for death and suffering for you. Are you ready to leave the bosom of the best and sweetest enjoyments you have in this world to serve him? He did not refuse the worst and hardest part of service for you, even bleeding, groaning, and dying. O Happy souls that are so engaged for Christ! Was he all for us, and shall we be nothing for him?
-- John Flavel, Works, 1:101 

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Instructions to the Twelve (C and C')

Matthew's chiastic framework for chapter ten, in which this section can be derived, is seen below:

A)  Instructions to the twelve apostles  (10:5-15)
   B)  Persecution and family division  (10:16-23)
      C)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:24-25)
         D1)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear them..." (10:26-27)
            D2)  "Do not fear those who... but Fear Him who can..." (10:28-30)
         D3)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear, therefore..." (10:31-33)
      C’)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:34-36)
   B’)  Persecution and family division  (10:37-39)
A’)  Reception of the twelve apostles  (10:40-42)

The text for sections C and C' is as follows:
A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. 
...Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 

According to these sections, Jesus is preparing his twelve apostles for soon-coming persecution from God's enemies. Jesus illustrates the relationship between a disciple and his teacher, as well as a servant and his master; and his apostles would have understood why this illustration was relevant to the entire discussion of chapter ten. For the Twelve apostles, this illustration was relevant for at least two reasons: first, Jesus was going to "give them authority over unclean spirits" (10:1), with a unique and crucial mission within Israel to "heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons" (10:8). But Jesus didn't give this authority merely to anyone who wanted it, or everyone capable of possessing it. He was going to give it to them, and only for this unique mission until the Son of Man would come in judgment upon that generation (culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and Herod's Temple in 70 A.D. as seen in the previous posts here, here, here, here, here, and here). And so, one thing which we learn here is that these twelve apostles needed to consider the  authority given to them very seriously, and to guard themselves against the wiles of the Devil which would tempt them to use their authority foolishly. Foolish abuse of God's authority would only aid the enemies of God and harm God's people. 

Secondarily, Jesus doesn't just want them to merely think of themselves as ones with the authority of the Messiah. He wants them to think of themselves as servants of God's household. The Twelve would have understood this language about household servants. They would have recognized the family aspect as well as the priestly aspect of household terminology, for priests were servants of God's house1 -- the Tabernacle/Temple. Jesus is not merely instructing his Twelve apostles concerning their authority. He is instructing them concerning their priestly authority in the midst of Israel, and the expectations which accompany their priestly duties that conflict with other priests in Israel. These "Twelve" apostles were to become the new rulers and representatives of God's new Israel.

As the new rulers of God's new Israel, Jesus expects devilish malignity from those outside of God's household. Of course, all of Israel considered themselves to be adopted into God's household. They were children of God's promised inheritance. They were God's covenant people. But many of the rulers and their disciples throughout the land of Israel were opposed to Jesus, even refusing table fellowship with him, stating very clearly that they did not approve of Jesus' household. Many of the rulers even refused John's baptism which paved the way for their Messiah and fellowship into his household. And as Jesus notes here (and earlier in his ministry), the rulers of Israel had been accusing Jesus of having a devil all along, so this statement about Beelzebul shouldn't surprise us.

As Jesus noted in the previous section (B and B'), his ministry (along with his apostles) would divide the people of Israel even further. Jesus warns the Twelve that if the rulers of Israel and their disciples call Jesus Beelzebul,  a term derived from Baal-Zebulmeaning "Lord of the high dwelling-place," how much more will they malign those of this "Lord's" household? (Baal-Zebul was a derogatory term associated with a pagan deity whom the Jews believed to be the "Lord" of evil spirits and their "house.") Jesus is teaching that if God's enemies can't touch the Lord of glory himself, they will go after his children. And if they want to destroy the Lord of glory himself, they will pursue his children unto death as well. Jesus is warning his Twelve apostles about this reality, and the temptations that come with their priestly responsibility to guard and keep God's house and household.

As Jesus says, he did not come to bring peace to the earth. Far too often this verse is used by overly-zealous children of God to justify their foolish patriotism and nationalism. But by making this provocative claim, Jesus was teaching the very opposite of patriotic nationalism. He did not come --become incarnate-- to bring peace to the "earth." In Greek, the word translated here as "earth" is γη (pronounced ), which is the term used throughout the Old Testament for the tribal "land" of Israel. Jesus did not come to bring peace to the land surrounding them. What land? The land in which the lost sheep of the house of Israel dwelled. The land which Jesus had come to divide, including the division of its wheat from chaff, sheep from goats, and those who were with him from those who were against him.

Jesus did not come to bring peace. He came to bring a sword. His ministry as the Messiah to the nations would necessarily divide the land of Israel because the leadership of Israel had become idolaters just like the Canaanites long before them, worshiping a god of their own imaginations. But the rulers of Israel had actually done much worse than the Canaanites. Not only had they been worshiping a god of their own imaginations, but they had also repeatedly rejected the God who tabernacled in their midst. Jesus came to bring a sword against them. He came to set a man against his own biological father, and a daughter against her biological mother, and a daughter-in-law against her legal mother-in-law. The boundaries which defined God's people were being divided, chopped up with the sword of the Spirit, wielded by the Word of God dwelling in their midst. 

Jesus could assure his Twelve apostles that enemies would indeed be those of one's own household because he understood that God's family transcends the legal and blood-related households of Israel. God's family is more important than legal family ties and blood-relationships which bind the twelve tribes of Israel together; and in that sense, water really is thicker than blood. The waters of baptism which John the Baptist brought to the lost sheep of the house of Israel would be taken much more seriously by God than those who refused it. As noted by Luke 7:30, which stands in very close connection with the narratives of chapters 10 & 11 in Matthew's gospel, "the Pharisees and teachers of the Law rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by John." Jesus had come to bring a sword against those rulers and their disciples, for they were enemies of God's household; they were priests of Baal's Zebul.

1.  For a detailed explanation of "Priests" being "attendants" or servants of God's "house," see Peter. J. Leithart, The Priesthood of the Plebs [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003] pp. 48-86; See also L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus [Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA: Peeters; 2012], pp. 258-270; and G. K. Beale, The Temple an the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; 2004], pp. 66-70.