New testament writers often
utilized Old Testament texts to indicate a direct fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecy. Because they had a Christotelic mindset, their use of certain
seemingly unrelated Old Testament texts elicited claims of arbitrary and
embellished use of the Scriptures. Both Matthew and John utilize Messianic
typological interpretive methods in revealing Jesus to their audience.
Zechariah
was a priest and one of “the greatest post-exilic prophets.”[1] He had more to say about the Messiah than
all other prophets except Isaiah and “his message included rebuke, exhortation
and encouragement.”[2] The surrounding context of the pericope
finds the Israelites as a vassal of the Medo-Persian empire (539-334 BC).[3] God
assigns Zechariah to convey a symbolic message to the nation in response to
their rejection of him. He will use multiple metaphors to deliver the message.
In chapter 11, verses 1-3, Zechariah describes the national apostasy using
“picturesque language of trees (nations)wailing, fire (judgment) devouring,
shepherds(kings/leaders) weeping and lions (kings) roaring.”[4] In a
magnificent display of power, Zechariah prophetically describes desolation from
Lebanon in the north to Bashan to the South. “The figurative of shepherds and
lions describe the leaders of Lebanon and Bashan lamenting the destruction of
their pride and livelihood, which is the timber of the region.”[5]As part of his Messianic prophecy, the
message he develops is that when the “Good Shepherd” is rejected, the people
will be led like sheep to the slaughter by evil, insensitive, ungodly and
wicked leaders (11:6-7). There will be rampage as all they have will come to
ruins (v. 3). “Resistance is futile, so Lebanon should open her doors (like the
gates of a fortified city) to the fire of God’s judgment awaiting her.”[6] Miller suggests that Jewish rabbis
interpreted Lebanon as representative of temple and the devastation would be so
complete that what the fire did not destroy would be cut down.”[7] The destruction Zechariah alludes to is the
Abomination of Desolation realized in Jerusalem when the Roman armies descended
in A.D. 70.
In vv. 4-11 leading up to the
immediate context (vv. 12-13), God asks Zechariah to portray him as Israel’s
true Shepherd-Messiah by working the field. Seeing that this is a messianic
prediction, the focus of Zechariah’s message is the ministry of Jesus and the
response of the people. He gives Zechariah “ambiguous instructions, telling him
“Pasture the flock marked for slaughter” (11:4).[8] The “flock” is the people of Israel, and
their moral corruption was intolerable to the point that they are marked for
the killing and designated for slaughter.[9] God would no longer have pity on the people
but give them over to the surrounding nations, specifically the Romans (v. 6). Zechariah continues to describe the Jesus’
role in performing his ministry with the use of “two staffs”: “Favor”,
representing blessings and God’s divine favor via the covenants since Abraham
and “Union,” representing the unity of the Hebrew tribes into one nation (v.
7).[10] This is coming to an end as Jesus dismisses
the ministry of the prophets, priests and kings (v. 8). In light of the
rejection of Christ’s ministry by his own people, the old covenant would be
replaced as signified by the breaking of “Favor” (v. 10).
In the immediate context (vv.
12-13), Zechariah allegorically portrays
the true Messianic Shepherd as demanding
payment for work done (ministry). They (leaders) could choose not to pay since
he broke the contract/covenant with them (Israel) (v. 12). Continuing the
allegory, the leaders determined that Jesus (portrayed by Zechariah) is worth
thirty pieces of silver (v. 12b). A bit of sarcasm is employed here as the Lord
commands Zechariah to “throw it to the potter in the house of the Lord” (v.
13). This drama played out by Zechariah will find its typological fulfillment
in the passion narrative (Mat. 26-7): Jesus would be betrayed by Judas for
thirty pieces of silver (Mat. 26:15;27:3,9); Judas feeling remorse returns to
the temple and after finding a non-cooperative group of leaders will throw his
thirty pieces of silver into the temple (Mat. 27:3-5); the chief priests not
wanting to deal with blood money will use the silver to but a potter’s field as
a burial place for foreigners.[11]
The
immediate contest of Matthew 27:9-10 finds Jesus in the hands of the
authorities (chief priests, elders, Pilate) awaiting or engaged in an illegal
trial (Jn. 18:12-24; Mat. 26:57-67, 27:1-2, 11-14). Jesus had already predicted he would have
been handed over for trial and it was now fulfilled (Mat. 20:18-19).[12] In this passion pericopae, Matthew begins
with Jesus being bound and led away to Pilate (27:1-2). The author then switches
to the details of Judas’ betrayal. Matthew here employs interpretive
assumptions seeing that his target audience was the Jewish populace.
He utilizes a
fulfillment formula in verse 9. Judas’s actions were predicted in Zechariah
11:12-13: Judas asks the leaders what they believe Jesus is worth (26:14-15);
They assess Jesus’ worth to be thirty pieces of silver (27:15; cf. Zech.
11:13); Judas shows remorse and throws the silver in the temple (27:5); the
leaders agree to buy the potter’s field with the thirty pieces of silver
(27:7-8).
There is a perceived interpretive challenge with Matthew’s
use of Zechariah (11:12-13) that is blended with Jeremiah (19:1-13). While
Matthew attributed the prophecy to Jeremiah, he quoted Zechariah (11:12-13). C.
L. Feinberg explains this as Matthew’s employment of traditional Talmudic
tradition of alluding to prophetic writings according to the order they were
placed in Hebrew manuscripts.[13] With the Hebrew canons divided into Laws,
Writings and Prophets, Jeremiah would have been first in the record of
prophets. Hence Matthew’s reference which indicates “an assimilated use of the
Old Testament.[14] Another way to view this interpretive
challenge is that Matthew “read Zechariah in light of Jesus’ passions as
anticipated in biblical pattern and prediction,”[15] Matthew’s analogical use of Zechariah was
in-line with interpretive practices of the day.
II.
Problem Passages: Zechariah 12:10 & John
19:34-37
The
prophet Zechariah continues to deliver Messianic prophecies to the Israelite audience
in this pericope, but rather than a theme of judgment, he delivers a message of
hope and deliverance. The nation was still facing challenges in establishing a
post-exilic community. God asks Zechariah to deliver “an oracle” of things to
come (12:1). But the message includes an inditement of their rejection of
Messiah as well. In symbolic language (typical of the author), the Lord
describes the siege of Jerusalem and the fate of their enemies(12:2), the
judgment to come for Israel’s enemies (vv.3-4), then details about Israel’s
victory from her oppressors (vv. 4-9). “The nations will not merely be fighting
Israel; they will be doing battle with God; the result of divine intervention”
(12:8-9, 14:3-5).[16]
In keeping with his theme of Messianic hope
for the future, Zechariah prophecies about “a Spirit of grace to be poured out
upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem” in the surrounding context of vv.10-14.[17] It will be “by God’s grace that the Jewish
people will finally recognize their Messiah as Lord and Savior, but the Holy
Spirit will also convict Israel of its sin of rejection.”[18]
The
author will describe in the immediate context (v. 10), the ministry of the Holy
Spirit in not only producing a changed attitude upon the people but the
manifesting of the blessings realized at Pentecost (Joel 2:28; Gen 12: 1-3).
“Given the larger context of Zechariah’s message, some commentators view v.10
as speaking figuratively of the rejection of Yahweh’s prophets (1:4, 7:11-12)
and literally of one of God’s servants by the leadership of Judah.”[19] Zechariah’s second oracle, while filled
with symbolism was historically fulfilled in the death of Jesus Christ the
Messiah on the cross (Jn. 19:34,37; Rev. 5:6). At that time, the spiritual eyes
of the people will be opened, and they will “mourn their actions of rejecting
and crucifying Messiah” (v. 10). Zechariah employs the use of a simile,
comparing their mourning to the loss of a first-born child.
In
the development of Johannine doctrine, John makes the case for the passion
narrative by not only indicating a direct fulfillment of Old Testament
typological prophecy, but to “indicate an abiding authority carried over from
the Old Testament” in use of the supposedly unrelated texts.[20]
“It is not some unknown martyr of whom Zechariah is speaking, but of the coming
Messiah himself. Both Jewish and Christians interpreters agree to this and John
identifies Jesus as the pierced one” (Jn. 19:37).[21] John then, employs an “eschatological
hermeneutic that is Christotelic”[22] as he blends the immediate context with Psalms
34. As an eyewitness of Jesus’ death (Jn. 19:26-27), John pulls on Old
Testament prophesies related to Jesus death, that his bones would not be broken
and that he in fact was the lamb led to the slaughter (Ps. 34:20). Because the
purpose of John’s gospel was an apologetic for Jesus as the Christ (Jn.
20:31-31), it was necessary to support his argument with strong Old Testament
evidence. He affirms Jesus was dead (v.
33); his legs were not broken (Ps. 34:20 [in accordance with the Passover
tradition Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12]); making him the Passover lamb that takes away
the sins of the world (1 Pet. 1:19; 1 Cor. 5:7; Jn. 1:29). John also identifies
Jesus historically by way of the Roman soldier (19:34); the baptismal ministry
of Jesus as Savior (19:34b; 20:31); relates that he (John) was a witness
(19:35) then uses a fulfillment formula to affirm his apologetic (19:36-37).
Both
Matthew and John viewed the New Testament Scriptures as a fulfillment of the
promise of Messiah. As such, to support their argument they employed an hermeneutical approach that pointed to the eschatological figure of Christ.
This was obvious from the “problem passages” that were the focus of this
assignment. To underscore Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament
narratives, both authors wrote with presuppositions that the “Old Testament
Scriptures were sacred and were the Word of God.” Therefore, their blended us
of texts were authoritatively relative to the delivery of their God-inspired
account of biblical history.[23]
[1] Stephen R. Miller, Holman Old Testament Commentary: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi, ed. Max Andres, (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing
Group, 2004), 144.
[2] Andrew E. Hill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Tyndale Old
Testament Commentaries, Vol. 28, (Intervarsity Press, 2012): 103, accessed
August 9, 2018, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=4455243&query=A.+Hill%2C+Haggai%2C+Zechariah%2C+Malachi#
[5] Andrew
Hill, Zechariah, 227.
[7]
Ibid.
[8] John Goldingay and Pamela J. Scalise, Minor Prophets II, Understanding The Bible Commentary Ser., (Baker
Books, 2014): 292, accessed August 9, 2018, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=3117108&query=Goldingay%2C+John
[12] David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on
the New Testament, (Baker Academic, 2008): 646, accessed August 9, 2018, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3117026&query=Turner%2C%20David%20L.
[14] G. K. Beale, Handbook
On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
Baker Academic, 2012), 91.
[22] Peter Enns, “Fuller
Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the
Old in Its First-Century Interpretive Environment,” in Three Views On The New
Testament Use Of The Old Testament, ed. Kenneth Berding, Stanley N. Gundry,
and Jonathan Lunde (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 213.
No comments:
Post a Comment