Prayerfully Support The Mission

Sunday, August 12, 2018

How The New Testament Authors Used The Old Testament: Examples



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.

[3]  Stephen Miller, Zechariah, 136.

[4]  Ibid., 266.

[5] Andrew Hill, Zechariah, 227.

[6]  Ibid., 267.  

[7] Ibid.
      
[9]  Ibid.

[10]  Hill, Zechariah, 232.

[11]  Miller, Zechariah, 270.

[13]  Miller, Zechariah, 280.

[15]  David Turner, Matthew, 650.

[16]  Miller, Zechariah, 288.

[17]  Hill, Zechariah, 238.

[18]  Miller, Zechariah, 288.

[19]  Hill, Zechariah, 247.

[20]  Beale, Handbook, 72.

[21]  Miller, Zechariah, 288-9.

[23]  G. K. Beale, Handbook, 95.

Written by Kevin A. Hall.


No comments:

Post a Comment