Part 9: Luke's list: Nathan: part A
Aug 21, 2016 0:31:15 GMT
Post by Colossians on Aug 21, 2016 0:31:15 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
In part 8 of this series we showed that the man who immediately precedes Christ in Luke’s list, His father Joseph, was a prophet.
In this part (9), as well as parts 10 and 11, we show that the one who immediately follows David in Luke’s list, Nathan, was not, as is invariably presumed, prince Nathan, but Nathan the prophet, and that the whole interpretation of Luke’s list in fact hinges on this understanding.
___________________________
LUKE’S LIST: NATHAN: PART A
“And [Hezekiah] set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets” 2 Chr 29:25.
Note that here in this passage of 2 Chronicles where Hezekiah is busy reversing the damage his father Ahaz had done, in referring specifically to David and Nathan1 as the commandment-givers with regard to the musical instruments which were to be used in the house of the Lord, but/and then summing up with “for so was the commandment of the Lord by His prophets”, it is irresistibly implied that David and Nathan spoke for all the prophets – that they summed them up – that their commandment was of sufficient ‘rank’ to be taken to be given on behalf of all the (other) prophets.
1 We deliberately overlook Gad here, for although he was a prophet he is nevertheless declared “the king’s seer” and thus and in contrast to Nathan functionally-defined in terms of the king and in this sense therefore part of the king: we never see “the king’s prophet” in scripture.
For if all that the writer wished to do was convey the fact that David and Nathan had commanded (such and such), he would have simply left it at: “according to the commandment of David and Nathan the prophet”.
But in immediately following up such with the summary statement he has provided, he has necessarily subsumed all prophets under David and Nathan. This is the sense of it.
___
Further, it is conspicuous that Nathan is incorporated in such an administrative act – that he is said to have directed matters of worship in tandem with the king, indeed even to the point of seeming to hold the same rank in such regard.
The reason for this will become apparent.
___
In part 6 of this series we pointed out that Christ summed up (i.e. exhausted) the prophets, and that David did the same thing, only from the other end, he being the consummate foreshadow of Christ. But here at 2 Chr 29 we see that it is not David alone who sums up the prophets, but David and Nathan – a David-Nathan duo, if you will.
Now recall that we also said that the title of Christ and “the Prophet” were to the mind of the Jew one and the same thing – that they were interchangeable – as they of course should be to our mind also.
What we are alluding to is this:
In general terms David stands as (complete) prophetic foreshadow for Christ; however when he shares such role with Nathan, we understand that he stands as prophetic foreshadow for Christ as King, and Nathan as prophetic foreshadow for Christ as “the Prophet”, for the two aspects of our Lord – His kingship and His prophethood – must both be covered in the types.
And there is necessarily also another side to it:
In that David and Nathan were (nevertheless) two separate persons, then given that it is (therefore) two persons who (together) stand as type for One (Christ) who exhausts the prophets, of necessity one of the two will stand as type for the Father, and the other as type for the Son, for Christ has declared: “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).
In such composite then Nathan will stand as type for the Son, for Nathan means “given”, and David as type for the Father. For just as we might say that the ‘sum’ of the Father and the Son is no greater than the Father (for the Son proceeded out of the Father), so also we might say that the ‘sum’ of David and Nathan is no greater than David (for David was head overall). (See also 1 Cor 15:28.)
And so we see in the (composite) type that is David–Nathan, that which speaks to the necessary ‘contradiction’ in the Trinity, and that which is summed up so beautifully by the prophet Isaiah:
“For unto us … a son is given … His name shall be called … The everlasting Father” Is 9:6.
Amen.
Forward
In part 8 of this series we showed that the man who immediately precedes Christ in Luke’s list, His father Joseph, was a prophet.
In this part (9), as well as parts 10 and 11, we show that the one who immediately follows David in Luke’s list, Nathan, was not, as is invariably presumed, prince Nathan, but Nathan the prophet, and that the whole interpretation of Luke’s list in fact hinges on this understanding.
___________________________
LUKE’S LIST: NATHAN: PART A
“And [Hezekiah] set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets” 2 Chr 29:25.
Note that here in this passage of 2 Chronicles where Hezekiah is busy reversing the damage his father Ahaz had done, in referring specifically to David and Nathan1 as the commandment-givers with regard to the musical instruments which were to be used in the house of the Lord, but/and then summing up with “for so was the commandment of the Lord by His prophets”, it is irresistibly implied that David and Nathan spoke for all the prophets – that they summed them up – that their commandment was of sufficient ‘rank’ to be taken to be given on behalf of all the (other) prophets.
1 We deliberately overlook Gad here, for although he was a prophet he is nevertheless declared “the king’s seer” and thus and in contrast to Nathan functionally-defined in terms of the king and in this sense therefore part of the king: we never see “the king’s prophet” in scripture.
For if all that the writer wished to do was convey the fact that David and Nathan had commanded (such and such), he would have simply left it at: “according to the commandment of David and Nathan the prophet”.
But in immediately following up such with the summary statement he has provided, he has necessarily subsumed all prophets under David and Nathan. This is the sense of it.
___
Further, it is conspicuous that Nathan is incorporated in such an administrative act – that he is said to have directed matters of worship in tandem with the king, indeed even to the point of seeming to hold the same rank in such regard.
The reason for this will become apparent.
___
In part 6 of this series we pointed out that Christ summed up (i.e. exhausted) the prophets, and that David did the same thing, only from the other end, he being the consummate foreshadow of Christ. But here at 2 Chr 29 we see that it is not David alone who sums up the prophets, but David and Nathan – a David-Nathan duo, if you will.
Now recall that we also said that the title of Christ and “the Prophet” were to the mind of the Jew one and the same thing – that they were interchangeable – as they of course should be to our mind also.
What we are alluding to is this:
In general terms David stands as (complete) prophetic foreshadow for Christ; however when he shares such role with Nathan, we understand that he stands as prophetic foreshadow for Christ as King, and Nathan as prophetic foreshadow for Christ as “the Prophet”, for the two aspects of our Lord – His kingship and His prophethood – must both be covered in the types.
And there is necessarily also another side to it:
In that David and Nathan were (nevertheless) two separate persons, then given that it is (therefore) two persons who (together) stand as type for One (Christ) who exhausts the prophets, of necessity one of the two will stand as type for the Father, and the other as type for the Son, for Christ has declared: “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).
In such composite then Nathan will stand as type for the Son, for Nathan means “given”, and David as type for the Father. For just as we might say that the ‘sum’ of the Father and the Son is no greater than the Father (for the Son proceeded out of the Father), so also we might say that the ‘sum’ of David and Nathan is no greater than David (for David was head overall). (See also 1 Cor 15:28.)
And so we see in the (composite) type that is David–Nathan, that which speaks to the necessary ‘contradiction’ in the Trinity, and that which is summed up so beautifully by the prophet Isaiah:
“For unto us … a son is given … His name shall be called … The everlasting Father” Is 9:6.
Amen.