Keep up your Greek
Today I would like to recommend three tools that will assist busy pastors and students when it comes to learning and retaining useful knowledge of New Testament Greek. The value of these books surely exceeds their posted prices. The first was recently published in 2012. But commendation of this first book prompts me to mention two other useful books in the same genre, both of which were published earlier, 2010 and 2004, respectively.
The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek: Grammar, Syntax, and Diagramming (The Handy Guide Series) (Greek Edition)
Keep Your Greek: Strategies for Busy People
English Grammar to Ace New Testament Greek
Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.
On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, part 9
By Ardel Canaday–
[Editor’s Note: The previous parts in this series include: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7, Part 8]
At last, after setting the table with Parts 7 and 8 where I address the theological significance of Mark’s literary sandwich spanning 6:6b-44 wherein he makes use of many allusions to the Old Testament, I now offer comments upon Mark’s noteworthy Old Testament allusions in 6:45-52.
___________________
As I indicated in Part 6, when I promised to address this passage, I told of how while in the very act of teaching my eyes and ears would suddenly open to behold something in the biblical text for the first time. It was many years ago, but I remember it vividly. While teaching on Mark 6:45-52, I was teasing out some of the Old Testament allusions within the passage. One insightful student who was tracking well with me raised his hand to ask, “What about Mark’s statement, “Jesus ‘intended to pass by them,’ is it possible that this is an allusion to the same kind of statements as in passages like Exodus 33 and 1 Kings 19 when the Lord tells Moses and Elijah that he will ‘pass by them’ as he reveals himself to them on Mount Sinai?” To my shame, I had to acknowledge that while it certainly seemed likely, I would have to study the matter, for I had failed to catch the Old Testament allusion. I returned to class the next session to affirm that my student, whose name is Phil, had become my teacher and to thank him for doing so.
___________________
In addition to literary structural features that link the episode narrated in 6:45-52 with what precedes, not to mention with what follows, Mark makes the connection explicit when he explains that after the Twelve had struggled for a long time to make progress by rowing their boat against a strong wind, Jesus came near them by walking upon the sea, announcing his presence to console them, and then “climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened” (6:52). The disciples’ response of astonishment exhibits their failure to understand Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the multitude in the wilderness, because their hearts were hardened. For they failed to understand that by miraculously feeding the multitude in the wilderness Jesus was revealing himself as the Shepherd-King as he purposefully engaged a re-dramatization of the miraculous feeding of Israel with manna long ago in the wilderness. By this act of re-dramatizing the miraculous feeding of Israel Jesus was disclosing that he is much more than a Shepherd-King like all those who foreshadowed him, including Moses, Joshua, David, and his kingly line. Indeed, Jesus reveals himself as the messianic Shepherd-King who inaugurates the latter day exodus foreshadowed by the exodus of old, but for all who have eyes that lift upward from the shadows to see him who cast the shadows, they will understand what the disciples failed to apprehend. Those with eyes that truly see and ears to hear Old Testament echoes will recognize that Jesus’ actions, born out of compassion, of miraculously feeding the multitude in the wilderness and of treading upon the wind-tossed sea and stilling the wind upon arrival at his disciples’ boat, that these actions reveal that he is Yahweh himself. For the one who tends his flock like a shepherd and who gathers the lambs in his arms and bears them close to his heart while gently leading those who have young is none other than Yahweh (Isaiah 40:10-11). Likewise, for the one whose way, announced long ago by the prophet Isaiah (cf. Mark 1:1-3), entails re-dramatization of passage through the sea by treading upon the waters as he makes a path upon the sea, is no mere Shepherd-King like all others but is none other than Yahweh (cf. Isaiah 51:9-10; 43:15-17). This is what the disciples’ hardened hearts prevented them from understanding even after Jesus displayed right before their eyes Yahweh’s strong arm of salvation both in the wilderness feeding and in his treading upon the sea. This, then, brings us to the focal point of this installment, the various Old Testament allusions embedded within Mark 6:45-52.
Mark indicates that Jesus purposefully bids his disciples to get into the boat and to depart for the other side of the sea over to Bethsaida, for he has his own agenda to fulfill. First, like Moses, he ascends a mountain to speak with God and then late into the night Jesus approaches toward the vessel holding the Twelve as they labor to make headway against a powerful wind in the middle of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus’ purpose on this occasion upon the sea is not to rescue the Twelve from drowning, for though the wind requires that they strain hard at the oars, they seem not to be in any imminent danger. Nevertheless, Mark indicates that Jesus makes his way across the sea on foot toward his disciples because he sees them “straining at the oars, because the wind was against them” (6:48). Because the narrative features the distress of the Twelve as the reason Jesus approaches the boat, the episode evocatively states, “he intended to pass by them” (6:48). Mark subtly indicates that Jesus intends to make his disciples eyewitnesses of his epiphany by making his authority visible to the Twelve as he passes by to assure them of his presence.
As with his literary sandwich that immediately precedes 6:45-52, again, Mark’s narrative abounds with allusions to the Old Testament, particularly to portions of Isaiah the prophet but also to diverse portions elsewhere. Since Mark explicitly links Jesus’ treading upon the sea with his feeding the multitude in the wilderness it is fitting to take note of the prominent place held by themes emerging from Isaiah such as the wilderness (Isaiah 40:3; 43:19-20), the shepherd feeding the sheep (40:11), divine authority over the seas (43:2, 15-16), admonition “fear not” (35:4; 41:10); “I am” or “I am he” (41:4; 43:10, 13, 25) and deafness and blindness (42:16, 18, 20; 43:8) in Mark 6:53-56. Thus, if, as many have demonstrated that the evangelist is meditating upon the ancient prophet and using his text to expound the good news “as it was written in Isaiah the prophet” (Mark 1:1-2), so it should come as no surprise that Isaiah 40:11 prominently informs Mark’s understanding of Jesus’ miraculous feeding in the wilderness and that another portion of Isaiah, this time Isaiah 43:16, functions as the aperture through which diverse portions of Scripture may be seen as fulfilled when Jesus treads upon the sea as narrated in Mark 6:45-52. The verse is wrapped within a rich context.
“I am the Lord, your Holy One,
Israel’s Creator, your King.”
This is what the Lord says—
he who made a way through the sea,
a path through the mighty waters,
who drew out the chariots and horses,
the army and reinforcements together,
and they lay there, never to rise again,
extinguished, snuffed out like a wick:
“Forget the former things;
do not dwell on the past.
See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?
I am making a way in the wilderness
and streams in the wasteland,
to give drink to my people, my chosen,
the people I formed for myself
that they may proclaim my praise . . .” (Isaiah 43:15-21; cf. 51:10).[i]
True, Mark does not expressly cite this passage, though the prophet’s themes seem to guide the evangelist’s account concerning the Christ, especially as he inaugurates the new exodus theme of Isaiah. Nor does Mark explicitly cite any other Old Testament passage. Yet, as argued in the two previous installments in this series, Mark’s account provides numerous evocative allusions to the Old Testament. As already stated, Mark’s narratives concerning the miraculous feeding and Jesus’ trampling upon the sea are rich with allusions to Scripture. For example, anyone who knows the Old Testament reasonably well will likely hear dual echoes from Job’s reply to Bildad when he speaks of God—“He alone . . . treads on the waves of the sea [περιπατω̂ν ὡς ἐπʼ ἐδάφους ἐπὶ θαλάσσης]. . . . He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. When he passes me [ἐὰν ὑπερβῇ με], I cannot see him; when he goes by [ἐὰν παρέλθῃ με], I cannot perceive him” (Job 9:8, 10-11). Again, Mark’s account of Jesus walking upon the sea evokes other Old Testament allusions. Subtle though Mark’s phrase surely is, “he intended to pass by them” (ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς) evokes allusion not only to Job 9:11 but also to two prominent theophanies: one to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 33:19-33) and one to Elijah on the same mountain (1 Kings 19:11). Mark’s account concerning Christ, who “intended to pass by” his disciples in the middle of the sea, echoes both of these accounts of epiphanies that occurred with these prominent Old Testament characters, thus allusively foreshadowing the greater epiphany which Mark later recounts in his narrative concerning the Mount of Transfiguration when the epiphanic cloud on the mountain envelopes Moses and Elijah as they speak with Jesus who is transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John. So, long ago, after Moses has requested, “Now show me your glory” (Exodus 33:18), the Lord instructs him, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by [ἡνίκα δʼ ἂν παρέλθῃ μου ἡ δόξα], I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by [ἕως ἂν παρέλθω]” (Exodus 33:21-22). Once again, long ago, Elijah took refuge in a cave on Mount Sinai (Horeb), away from Ahab and Jezebel, when the Word of the Lord came to instruct him, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by [ἰδοὺ παρελεύσεται κύριος]” (1 Kings 19:11).
Such an allusion to theophanies that appeared first to Moses and later to Elijah should hardly be surprising following the earlier evocative references to Moses in the literary sandwich’s outer narrative (Mark 6:6b-13; 30-44 and the evocation of the Ahab-Jezebel-Elijah narrative within the large sandwich inset of 6:14-29. How like Mark to embed this allusive whisper, “he intended to pass by them,” as an echo of the theophany on Mount Horeb that “passed by” fearful Elijah not in the powerful wind nor in the earthquake that followed nor even in the subsequent fire but in the “gentle whisper” (1 Kings 19:11-13). Likewise, given the exodus imagery of Isaiah 43:16, how fitting is the allusion to the theophany on Mount Horeb when the Lord’s “glory passes by” Moses who craves reassurance of the Lord’s presence (Exodus 33:12-23).
Similar to the theophanies that Moses and Elijah experienced long ago, so Jesus presents a theophanic revelation of himself by treading upon the waves of the sea tossed about with a violent wind. This theophany brings to mind an earlier epiphanic revelation when Jesus, who was being rocked while sleeping upon a cushion, was awakened from his slumber to calm the wind and waves with a rebuke aptly cast to demons (cf. Mark 4:39 & 1:25, ἐπιτιμάω, φιμόω). On that occasion Jesus’ divine action terrified Twelve who were already frightened by the wind, for they asked, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” (4:41). Now, when Jesus provides a clear answer to his disciples’ question about his identity in the theophanic act of passing by the Twelve in the boat as the strong winds howl and impair their rowing, instead of recognizing him when they see him, again they cry out in terror. Out of the wind and as he treads upon the wind-tossed waves of the sea Jesus speaks words tailor-made for a theophany: “Take heart! I am! Fear not!”
Because the emphatic “I am” (ἐγώ εἰμι, 6:50) is ambiguous, it is conceivable that it may bear its normal sense, “It is I, Jesus.” Yet, because of his earlier mention of Jesus’ communication with God on the mountain (6:46) and that Jesus discloses himself to the Twelve in keeping with theophanic revelations of the Old Testament, it is likely that Jesus’ “I am” is an echo of the “I am who I am” of Exodus 3:14 refracted through the prophet Isaiah on whom Mark is meditating. For Jesus’ admonitions—“take courage” and “fear not”—which bracket “I am,” are regular elements of divine self-revelation (see Isaiah 41:4-6; 43:1-3, 10-13; 44:2-851:7-11). Suddenly the wind goes calm when Jesus climbs into the boat. Jesus’ actions astonish the Twelve (cf. 5:42). Because they fail to observe in Jesus’ actions as foreshadowed by dramatizations embedded within the Old Testament Scriptures, they do not have the framework or categories for comprehending Jesus’ presence within the boat in the middle of the sea and the wind’s sudden cessation.
Mark explains that the disciples “were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened” (6:51-52). This explanation itself, more evocative and enigmatic than explicative, preserves for Mark’s readers in literary form the need to puzzle out the connection between Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the multitude and his trampling upon the wind-tossed waves of the sea. Mark’s linkage requires readers to recognize that Jesus’ miraculous actions function symbolically as much as his parables do. Thus, if the disciples had recognized that Jesus’ miraculous multiplication of the loaves in the wilderness revealed him as the Shepherd-King foreshadowed by Moses, by Joshua, by David and by Israel’s line of kings, they would have acknowledged Jesus as Yahweh-Shepherd when he was about to pass by them while walking upon the sea.
Consequently, that Mark attributes their failure to “hardness of heart” indicates that at this point in Jesus’ ministry his disciples, though devoted to following him, are not substantially different from opponents who are allied against him, particularly Herodians and Pharisees (3:6), which accounts for Jesus’ urgent warning: “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod,” a rebuke that triggered another expression of misunderstanding (8:14-16) to which Jesus responds with his series of interrogatives: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” (8:17-21). So, when the Twelve persist in their misunderstanding concerning the loaves, even after a second miraculous multiplication of loaves for a large multitude (8:1-13), once again when they are in a familiar setting, within a boat upon the sea, Jesus’ interrogatives expose the fact that their misunderstanding is not a matter of intellectual memory but of faith (8:14-21). For the disciples correctly recall that from five loaves Jesus fed the vast multitude and that they gathered twelve basketfuls of bread pieces after the first wilderness feeding (8:19) and seven basketfuls after the second miraculous feeding (8:20). Their misunderstanding is failure to believe that Jesus is Yahweh, God’s Son.
Mark 6:45-52 is instructive for us today because if we would see Jesus correctly and acknowledge him rightly, our faith must transcend that of the Twelve who failed to consider his parabolic miracles and deeds within the proper framework, namely, the Old Testament Scriptures. Indeed, Jesus is God, but if we desire to acknowledge him rightly, we are obliged to recognize him as the one who fulfills Old Testament foreshadows, even as Yahweh himself who alone, has the power to rain down bread from heaven or to multiply five loaves large enough for a young lad to feed a multitude of 5000 and still have twelve basketfuls of leftovers and has authority both to tread upon wind-swept waves of the sea and to order the sea to be suddenly calm. Indeed, Jesus is Yahweh, the “I am” who fulfills the latter day exodus foreshadowed and foretold by the Law and the Prophets, distinctively so by Isaiah.
1 Allusion to Psalm 77:16-20 is also likely: “The waters saw you, God, the waters saw you and writhed; the very depths were convulsed. The clouds poured down water, the heavens resounded with thunder; your arrows flashed back and forth. Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind, your lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked. Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen. You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.”
On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, part 8
By Ardel Caneday–
[Editor’s Note: The previous parts in this series include: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7]
The last contribution to this series (Part 7) is incomplete apart from this entry because that installment considers Old Testament allusions within only the outer episode of Mark’s literary sandwich in Mark 6:6b-44 which consists of three segments: (1) Jesus sends out the Twelve in pairs; his reputation greatly increases (6:6b-13); (2) King Herod hears of Jesus’ burgeoning fame and is haunted with fear that John, whom he beheaded, has been resurrected (6:14-29); and (3) when the Twelve return from their apostolic mission Jesus takes them to the wilderness for rest (6:30-44).[i] As demonstrated, the episode of Jesus’ sending the Twelve on a mission to multiply with six teams his own proclamation of God’s reign accompanied by healings and his welcoming them upon their return, which wraps around the episode concerning King Herod’s haunted fear concerning his execution of John the Baptist, oozes with numerous OT allusions fulfilled by Jesus as he presents himself as Israel’s true shepherd-king. What remains to be shown is how Mark 6:14-29—the episode concerning King Herod, Herodias, and John the Baptist—relates literarily and theologically to the episode that frames it (6:6b-13; 30-44).
Mark’s penchant for framing one episode with another signals readers that he intends that the accounts are not to be disconnected from one another but read together because the two episodes, inseparably conjoined, mutually explain each other. Wherever he sandwiches two episodes together, surely his method is literary in that he exploits verbal connections. Yet, his objective is theological.[ii] Therefore, readers are obliged to tease out Mark’s literary hints from each episode that link the sandwiched accounts theologically. Of course, given the evocative nature of Mark’s Gospel, no informed reader expects that the theological interrelationship between Mark’s two intertwined episodes should lie limpidly on the surface to be easily perceived with the eyes, even though the evangelist even goes out of his way to make his literary links heard.
In response to Morna Hooker’s stymied puzzlement concerning the theological point of the sandwich in 6:6b-44, nowhere does Mark offer his readers a literary sandwich in which the inset episode simply establishes for hearers or readers the sense of the passage of time.[iii] Indeed, sometimes his literary sandwiches may prominently provide the effect of time’s passing as when Mark recounts the episode concerning Jairus’s dying daughter (5:21-24a; 35-43) wrapped around that of the dying “daughter” whose faith in Jesus brought her healing that reversed her hemorrhaging with which she would otherwise die (5:24b-34). Yet, even here the interlude does not merely signal Jesus’ delay that results in the girl’s death before he arrives at Jairus’s home. Jesus’ delayed arrival could have been signaled easily enough as in the case of Lazarus (see John 11:1-6). Instead, while Mark’s literary sandwich provides for time lapse, it also signals many verbal interconnections that inseparably conjoin the two episodes as mutually elucidating theologically.[iv]
Mark’s verbal and literary linkages that tie his sandwiched episodes together should be fairly evident. Yet, while pondering Mark’s literary genius, which has been gravely devalued historically but significantly recovered during the past few decades, readers must remember that the purpose of the evangelist’s sandwiches is not to display his literary genius but to evoke worthy theological connections. The verbal brilliance and literary genius of Mark’s story telling always serve his theological purpose which is to present Jesus Christ who is God’s Son and do so as he meditates upon the beginning of the good news as it is presented in advance particularly in Isaiah the prophet.
Within the sandwich inset of 6:14-29, among his literary and verbal hints juxtaposed with clues garnered from the outer episode (6:6b-13; 30-44), most noteworthy is the designation Mark gives to Herod. Unlike the parallel accounts where both Matthew (14:1) and Luke (9:7) refer to Herod with his official title, “tetrarch” (of Galilee, Luke 23:6-7), Mark calls him “King Herod” (6:14) followed by no fewer than four more uses of the designation “king” (ὁ βασιλεύς; 6:22, 25, 26, 27) within the episode and one use of “my kingdom” (ἡ βασιλεία μου; 6:23) spoken by King Herod to Herodias’s daughter whose sensual dancing overpowered the king’s lust, just as Herodias schemed in order to have the king execute her revenge against John.[v] Given Mark’s designation, it seems fully reasonable to infer that he designs his literary sandwich principally to contrast two kingdoms or dominions. God’s reign, shadowed and prefigured by the long succession of kings including wicked kings and promised to Israel as revealed in the Shepherd-King who miraculously feeds the multitude in the wilderness, stands in sharp contrast with Herod’s reign. King Herod, a poseur who was neither an Israelite nor of David’s lineage, reigned over Israelites in the same manner as a long succession of wicked kings did. As with their kingdoms, so King Herod distinguished his reign with opulence, moral depravity, extravagant banquets, excessive boasts, raw power, and murder, for like Israel’s kings of old Herod also murdered the Lord’s prophet and subsequently became haunted with paranoia at the burgeoning popularity of another prophet whom he mistakenly thought was the return of John whom he beheaded. Yet, it seems rather evident that the juxtaposition of God’s reign through the Shepherd-King and of King Herod’s reign by way of Mark’s literary sandwich entails much more than a simple contrast between God’s kingdom, characterized by humble simplicity with miraculous provisions, and Herod’s kingdom, marked by extravagant opulence with abuse of power. This is so because allusions to the OT that reverberate throughout the framed episode evoke strong resemblances between this narrative concerning King Herod, Herodias, and John the Baptist and the narratives concerning King Ahab, Jezebel, and Elijah (1 Kings 16:29-19:3 and 21:1-29).[vi]
Mark’s literary and theological interests which inseparably bind the two episodes together for readers are complex, not simplistic. Certainly his account features Jesus Christ as the Shepherd-King who stands in antipodal contrast to the line of Israel’s kings, especially vile kings climaxing with non-Israelite Herod, even as Jesus, not Joshua nor even David, fulfills Moses’ petition for God to “appoint a man over the congregation who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in, that the congregation of the Lord may not be as sheep that have no shepherd” (Num. 27:16-17), a petition that becomes a lament because, with occasional exceptions, Israel’s shepherd-kings fed themselves as they devoured the flock (e.g., 1 Kings 22:17; Ezek. 34:5-10; see Part 7).
So, the inset of Mark 6:14-29 serves many literary and theological functions. It clarifies the true and proper identity of Jesus by distinguishing him from John who was the Christ’s forerunning herald and whose murder by order of King Herod puts John in the stream of martyred prophets before him, foreshadowing Jesus’ impending passion and death.[vii] The preaching mission of the Twelve, which included exorcisms of demons and healings, exponentially increases Jesus’ renown and prompts a variety of misconstrued identifications. Chief among these is the circulating rumor that apparently reaches the King’s palace: “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him” (6:14). While Jesus’ burgeoning popularity generates other rumors also, including that he is Elijah or a prophet like those of old, one morsel of hearsay seems particularly persistent, for the Twelve mention it first when Jesus asks, “Who do people say that I am?” (8:28). This rumor captures King Herod’s imagination and does not relent but torments him with the thought, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised” (6:16). Mark explains, “For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife’” (6:17-18).
The sandwich inset now resumes where the brief account of John the Baptist’s ministry abruptly ended with the comment—“Now after John was arrested . . .”—at which point Jesus began his public preaching of the good news of God: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (1:14). Until chapter 6 Mark’s Gospel suspends further mention of John whose message Jesus takes as his own as he sustains the call for repentance. There is only one brief mention of John to indicate that his disciples fast, associating them with the Pharisees in distinction from Jesus and his disciples who are not fasting (2:18). Given the point he makes with his three parables—Fasting and the Bridegroom, Unshrunk Cloth on an Old Garment, and New Wine in Old Wineskins—Jesus is not severing ties with either John or his disciples any more than he is severing his continuity with the law covenant, for even his own disciples who follow his lead by not fasting act significantly better than their understanding of Jesus’ identity. Because it seems that it was a time for fasting in keeping with the law covenant, Jesus does not respond to the question with a rebuke. Rather, he presents himself parabolically as the one to whom the law covenant points, as the one in whom the law covenant terminates, for he is the one who supersedes the law covenant, a point he makes clear when he says, “So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath” (2:28).
Now that the evangelist resumes, by way of the sandwich inset, his account concerning John who “was arrested,” Mark is making the crucial theological point that unites the preaching done by the Twelve with John’s preaching. As John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (1:4) and Jesus preached the gospel that requires repentance (1:14-15), so Jesus sent the Twelve so “they went out and proclaimed that people should repent” (6:12). Thus, Jesus does not break with his forerunning herald but preaches a message in continuity with John’s, even though he does not have his disciples fast while he, the bridegroom is with them, when the law covenant (old cloth, old wineskins) calls for fasting, because the one “mightier” than John has such authority for he brings about the time of fulfillment (1:15). Mark makes the point that John fulfilled his role in preparing for “one who is mightier than” he and that his arrest, which terminated his prophetic ministry and eventuated in his execution carried out by King Herod, signals at least three significant aspects concerning the relationship between John and Jesus.
First, John’s execution unmistakably links him with the Lord’s “servants, the prophets” (2 Kings 17:13; Jer. 26:5; 44:4). While descending the Mount of Transfiguration with Peter, James, and John, Jesus obliquely confirms John the Baptist as Israel’s most recent prophet who had been subjected to unrestrained tyranny when he said, “But I tell you Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him” (Mark 9:13). Again, Jesus confirms the same first when he poses his question to the religious rulers in Jerusalem who refuse to answer—“Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me” (11:30)—and then he designs his Parable of the Tenants to provoke them to understand that he spoke of them as beating, abusing, and murdering the vineyard master’s servants sent to harvest the vineyard’s fruit (Mark 12:2-5; cf. the cursing of the fig tree, 11:12-25).
Second, if one has ears to hear evocative allusions to 1 Kings 16:29-19:3 and 21:1-29 in Mark 6:14-29, then John’s identity, hinted at early in the Gospel where Mark describes him—“clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist” (1:6) echo the description of Elijah (2 Kings 1:8)—now becomes even clearer as the latter day Elijah.[viii] In keeping with his provocative literary manner and his allusive uses of the Old Testament, at the outset Mark’s Gospel (1:2-3) melds Malachi’s more oblique promise of the latter day Elijah (Mal. 3:1) as fully integrated with Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 40:3) rather than incorporate the explicit, “Behold, I will send Elijah the prophet” (Mal. 4:5). By doing so, Mark’s evocative literary approach educes but shrouds John’s identity as Elijah until he provides additional hints now in the account concerning John’s execution. Yet, even here, as already noted, the allusive use of extended OT narratives concerning Elijah with wicked King Ahab and his vile wife Jezebel calls for unimpaired hearing. For then the narratives concerning Elijah’s abuse at the hands of Ahab and Jezebel and the account of John as the latter day Elijah whose message receives rejection from the king who does the bidding of his unlawful wife rather than of God find recurrence that links Elijah, the remarkable early prophet in Israel, with John, the last of the prophets who is the herald of the Christ. Thus, when Moses and Elijah meet with Jesus in the cloud on the Mount of Transfiguration they respectively signal that the Law and the Prophets reach their culmination in Christ Jesus. Hence, once again, Jesus’ response to the query of his three disciples on the descent from the Mount of Transfiguration evocatively identifies John as the last of the great prophets, as the promised Elijah, who precedes and shares in the sufferings of the coming Son of Man: “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him” (Mark 9:12-13).
Third, John’s execution by King Herod followed by his disciples’ retrieval of the body for burial (6:29) foreshadows Jesus’ own death by execution at the hands of the Sanhedrin, of King Herod, of Pilate, and of the Roman soldiers led by the centurion followed by burial of his body by Joseph of Arimathea (15:42-47). This role of John’s passion as a foreshadow of Jesus’ own passion finds reinforcement in portions of Mark’s Gospel already mentioned. Jesus purposefully requires the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders to ponder his relationship with John when he poses his question concerning the source of John’s baptism after they inquire, “By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you authority to do them?” (11:28). Like Herod who grasped power even as he was manipulated by the wiles of Herodias and her daughter’s seductive dance to do their bidding, these religious rulers cling to their positions of power defiant against the Lord’s prophets even as they refuse to declare their rejection of John because the crowds which have no official authority intimidate them. To his query that unmasks the religious rulers’ imitation of weak-willed but power craving King Herod, Jesus adds further provocation as he tells his Parable of the Tenants, constructed on the song of Isaiah 5:1-7, to expose their murderous intentions to preserve their positions of power in Jerusalem by putting him to death in keeping with the nefarious tradition of their forebears who held positions of power as they also murdered the prophets. Again, as noted earlier, while Jesus descends the Mount of Transfiguration, he conjoins John’s suffering and death with his impending passion when he responds to his three disciples whose minds fasten upon time relationships rather than the promised one who brings salvation when they inquire, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” (9:11). To this Jesus responds, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him” (9:12-13).
Now, after taking up two installments to ponder OT allusions throughout the literary sandwich of Mark 6:6b-44, I am prepared to return in the next entry with consideration of OT allusions in Mark 6:45-52 as promised in an earlier posting. By way of anticipation, the reason I took what may seem to be a detour, is that the evangelist inextricably ties the episode of Jesus’ Walking on the Sea with the account concerning the Feeding of the Multitude (6:52). Given this plainly stated continuity, it was rather presumptuous to suppose that I could address the OT allusions of the latter episode without doing so for the former. And once I committed attention to the former, I would have done violence to Mark’s literary and theological sandwich if I had not also addressed the sandwich inset. Hence, my delay.
Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Inter-Varsity, 2001).
1 On Mark 6:14-29 as the middle portion of a Markan literary sandwich, see James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 183. See also Larry W. Hurtado, Mark, NIBC (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1983, 1989), 94. On the pervasiveness of literary sandwiches throughout Mark’s Gospel see James R. Edwards, “Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives,” Novum Testamentum 31.3 (1989): 193-216; and Tom Shepherd, Markan Sandwich Stories: Narration, Definition, and Function, AUSDDS 18 (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1983).
2 See James R. Edwards, “Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives,” Novum Testamentum 31.3 (1989): 196. Concerning the sandwich in Mark 5:21-43 Edwards observes, The insertion of the woman with the hemorrhage into the Jairus story is thus not an editorial strategem [sic] whose primary purpose is to create suspense or ‘to give time for the situation in the main incident to develop’. The woman’s faith forms the center of the sandwich and is the key to its interpretation. Through her Mark shows how faith in Jesus can transform fear and despair into hope and salvation. It is a powerful lesson for Jairus, as well as for Mark’s readers” (p. 205).
3 Even though she acknowledges that the episode concerning Herod’s reaction to rumors about Jesus along with the story concerning John’s beheading (Mark 6:14-29) is an inset episode sandwiched between Jesus’ sending out of the Twelve (6:6b-13) and their return (6:30), Morna Hooker complains, “There seems no logical connection between the two themes, but the somewhat artificial insertion provides an interlude for the disciples to complete their mission” (The Gospel according to St. Mark, BNTC [London: A. & C. Black; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991], 158).
4 Besides the expectation that Jesus’ touch would bring healing (Mark 5:23, 28) and other conjoining features, two noteworthy verbal linkages are (1) use of “daughter” to describe the girl (5:23) and to address the woman (5:34) and (2) Mark’s notation of the girl’s age as “twelve years” by way of parenthetical insertion which corresponds to the “twelve years” the woman suffered from her hemorrhage.
5 It is also worthy of note that elsewhere both Matthew and Luke refer to Herod as “king” (2:1, 3; and 1:5 respectively; see also Acts 12:1 and 20). In fact, after designating him “Herod the tetrarch” in 14:1, Matthew refers to him as “king” in 14:9.
Some think that Mark’s designation, “King Herod,” entails irony, even mockery of Herod’s vain craving for the royal title which he thought should be rightly his. See, e.g., Hurtado, Mark, 97; and William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 211.
If Mark’s designation does entail mockery or irony, its full sardonic measure does not emerge until the Sanhedrin finally contrives the formal charge of treason against Jesus which Pilate orders to be inscribed on the placard bearing the charge: “The King of the Jews.” Certainly, the crucifixion narrative itself entails profound irony by all who exploited the criminal charge that Pilate had inscribed. First, in their sporting fun Roman soldiers heaped mockery upon Jesus as they hosted a mock coronation and saluted him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” (Mark 15:18). Then as Jesus hung upon the cross passersby but especially the chief priests and the scribes inadvertently spoke profound truth as they viciously mocked him, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe” (15:31-32). For, as Mark narrates Jesus’ crucifixion, it becomes evident that the cross entails his enthronement as “King of the Jews” following his impromptu coronation sportingly put on by the soldiers.
So then, the full sardonic measure of Mark’s deliberate designation “King Herod” in 6:14 begins to emerge when juxtaposed with the crucifixion narrative. Who, upon a first hearing or reading of the Gospel would catch Mark’s mocking irony, except those with exceptionally perceptive hearing coupled with a keen memory and with incisive literary and theological instincts? Others, such as myself, require many readings of the Gospel to ferret out the literary and theological subtleties of Mark’s masterpiece. If I am correct to follow the lead of Hurtado and Lane, then, it seems that Mark’s crucifixion account underscores that the Jews in general but the Jewish religious rulers of Jerusalem in particular indulgently endured the Roman appointed Herod, the pretentious King of the Jews, but in sharp contrast impatiently connived how to seize by stealth and to kill Heaven appointed Jesus, the rightful King of the Jews.
6 The OT allusions within this inner episode of Mark’s literary sandwich that concerns John the Baptist, Herod, and Herodias as linked back to Elijah, Ahab, and Jezebel in 1 Kings 16:29-19:3 and 21:1-29 receive helpful exposure by David M. Hoffeditz and Gary E. Yates, “Femme Fatal Redux: Intertextual Connection to the Elijah/Jezebel Narratives in Mark 6:14-29,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 15.2 (2005): 199-221.
Despite what seems obvious to many, some are not convinced that Mark’s account in 6:14-29 alludes to the narratives in 1 Kings. For example, see Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 331; Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 313. Others suppose that the principal OT backdrop for Mark’s episode is the story of Esther. See R. Aus, Water into Wine and the Beheading of John the Baptist (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 39-74; and A. Bach, “Calling the Shots: Directing Salome’s Dance of Death,” Semeia 74 (1996): 110-113.
Contrast Hurtado’s observations: “The similarities between John the Baptist and Elijah help to explain the way John’s death is narrated in Mark. Herod, who both fears John and resents him, is made to resemble Ahab, the king of Israel, in his attitude toward Elijah; Herodias, who schemes to kill John, resembles Jezebel, Ahab’s wife, who had a special hatred for Elijah (see 1 Kings 16:29-19:3; 21:1-29 . . .). Thus, several characteristics of Mark’s account help the reader see that John is the prophet like Elijah predicted in Malachi 4:5” (Mark, 95).
7 Lane observes, “The Gospel of Mark contains two ‘passion narratives,’ the first of which reports the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist. The detailed narration of the circumstances resulting in the death of John stands in sharp contrast to the brief description of his mission in Ch. 1:4-8. It is probably that the present narrative reflects a special source which circulated among the disciples of John. It is included here by Mark both to clarify the statements in Ch. 6:14, 16 and to point forward to the suffering and death of Jesus” (Mark, 215).
8 The wording of Mark 1:6—“he wore a leather belt around his waist” (ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ)—is almost identical to that of 2 Kings 1:8—“he wore a belt of leather around his waist” (ζώνην δερματίνην περιεζωσμένος τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, NIV).
On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Part 7
By Ardel Caneday–
[Editor’s Note: The previous parts in this series include: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6]
As promised in the previous entry in this series on the NT use of the OT this installment will focus upon more semi-veiled allusions to the Old Testament within the Gospel of Mark, this time from the sixth chapter. Yet, what was promised is now altered by expansion. Instead of consisting of one installment, considerations of OT allusions in Mark 6 will span three.
Several years ago I published the essay, “Mark’s Provocative Use of Scripture in Narration—‘He Was with the Wild Animals and Angels Ministered to Him.’” The general point I make in the essay is that Mark purposefully uses the Old Testament in a rather cryptic, enigmatic, and allusive manner that requires listeners to employ their imaginations to listen attentively to the echoes of the OT Scriptures within his Gospel narrative. Of course, the Gospel was written first to be heard rather than read silently as we moderns tend to do. Thus, for example, Jesus’ warnings that bracket his Parable of the Sower—“Listen!” and “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear” (Mark 4:3, 8)—persist to this day for everyone who hears. Likewise, Jesus’ queries put to the Twelve—“Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?” (8:18)—are not for them alone but for everyone who hears the Gospel read.
Mark’s allusive use of Scripture is in keeping with the design of his Gospel which replicates quite effectively in narrative form the concealing and revealing teaching method Jesus employed. Even so, Mark’s Gospel significantly privileges his listeners (and readers) with the announcement at the beginning by heralding, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet. . . (1:1-2)” Even though Mark privileges his listeners this way, he offers few explicit explanatory statements concerning Jesus’ words or actions. For example, unlike Matthew’s Gospel which frequently explains that Jesus’ words or actions fulfilled various OT passages, Mark’s Gospel uses the word “fulfilled” only twice and both uses are in words attributed to Jesus with reference to general fulfillment of Scripture (Mark 1:15; 14:49). Following his decisive affirmation in the first two verses, Mark crafts his Gospel with a starkness, with little plainspoken explanation of the Son of God’s words and deeds in such a manner that his Gospel intensifies a sense of the difficulties Jesus’ disciples experienced as they heard and witnessed his teachings in parabolic form, whether spoken or played out before their eyes with healing miracles or with dramatized signs.[i] If we are to have ears that hear and eyes that see who Jesus truly is, then we need to exercise our spiritual senses attentively, especially with regard to Mark’s allusive use of the OT. For proper understanding of Mark’s scriptural allusions does not lie on the surface any more than correct apprehension of Jesus’ parables and miracles is superficial. Mark’s Gospel is uncannily effective in replicating the concealing and revealing nature of Jesus’ ministry, for he writes his Gospel in parables and riddles.
The more frequently one hears Mark’s Gospel the more readily one realizes that the evangelist has skillfully woven into the fabric of his narrative many allusive words, phrases, and echoes that subtly and adeptly but surely conjoin the Jesus of his story to the “Coming One” of the Old Testament Scriptures. Many such allusions occur in Mark 6. My intention was to mention several allusions without being exhaustive but to offer only brief comments upon each and reserve fuller commentary for Mark’s statement concerning Jesus’ action when early in the morning he was walking upon the sea near the boat in which the Twelve strained at the oars as they battled the adverse wind: “He intended to pass by them” (6:48). However, as I prepared this blog entry it became evident that in order to do justice to the OT allusion in 6:48, more extensive consideration has to be given to the OT allusions in the context preceding it to provide convincing evidence. Therefore, the second installment following this one will focus upon Mark 6:48 while this and the next entries feature OT allusions earlier in the chapter.
It is instructive to take into account the fact that Mark 6:6b-44 makes up one of the evangelist’s “sandwiches” or “frames.[ii] These occur when Mark’s narrative recounts events in the life of Jesus by literarily welding two episodes together by wrapping one episode around another. A vivid example of sandwiching or framing entails the episode concerning the resuscitation of Jairus’s daughter, who was about twelve years old, wrapped around and thus inextricably linked with the episode concerning the healing of the woman who suffered hemorrhaging from twelve years (5:21-43). Mark goes out of his way to add parenthetically concerning Jairus’s daughter, “she was twelve years old,” corresponding to the duration of the woman’s hemorrhaging, a clue for hearers to listen for other correlations, which are numerous. That Mark recounts the episodes as inseparably intertwined indicates that they are interdependent, mutually interpreting one another, and should not be treated as independent of one another.
The sandwich of Mark 6:6b-43 consists of these episodes—Jesus sends the Twelve apostles on a preaching and healing mission concerning God’s reign and then welcomes them back wrapped around an account concerning Herod’s haunted fear concerning his execution of John the Baptist: (1) Jesus sends out the Twelve in pairs; his reputation greatly increases (6:6b-12); (2) King Herod hears of Jesus’ burgeoning fame and is haunted with fear that John, whom he beheaded, has been resurrected (6:13-29); and (3) when the Twelve return from their apostolic mission Jesus takes them to the wilderness for rest (6:30-44). Considerations of the OT allusions within the inset portion (6:13-29) will be offered in the next entry in this series.
Each of these three segments of Mark’s literary sandwich contains significant allusions to the OT, with the wrapping episodes, in particular, alluding to a “new exodus” motif that finds its fulfillment in Jesus’ mission. For example, Jesus’ directives to the Twelve concerning what they should (staff, sandals) and should not (bread, money, two tunics) bring with them on their mission echoes Moses’ instructions to the Israelites with regard to their preparations for the exodus (Exodus 12:11). If one does not observe the continuity between 6:6b-12 with 6:30-43, which Mark’s narrative requires, one will likely also isolate this allusion from OT allusions in 6:30-43. Yet, if one retains mindful continuity between the two episodes that wrap around the episode concerning King Herod, one is more likely to hear the allusive series of OT echoes as sketching a portrait of Jesus as the “new Moses” who is inaugurating the “new exodus” foreshadowed by the exodus of old and foretold by the prophets, especially by Isaiah, whose prophecy seems to hold a prominent place in the evangelist’s meditation upon Scripture, given Mark’s featuring of Isaiah at the beginning of his Gospel as already indicated above.[iii]
Consider, then, OT allusions in Mark 6:30-44 that confirm that the earlier allusion to Exodus 12:11 signals that the framing episodes (6:6b-13 & 6:30-44) do portray Jesus as a shepherd of the people who leads a “new exodus” foreshadowed long ago by the exodus from Egypt and prophetically anticipated especially by Isaiah on which Mark’s Gospel so heavily relies.[iv]
Though Jesus invites the Twelve to go with him into a wilderness region for a little rest, once they arrive they find the wilderness not uninhabited but filled with a large crowd of people who anticipated where their boat was headed and beat them to the landing shoreline. Mention of “rest” alludes to a frequent OT theme that is picked up by the NT as fulfilled in Jesus (cf. Heb. 3:7-4:13) and in Mark’s Gospel connects with Jesus as the fulfillment of the Sabbath; he is the True Rest (see Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6). The evangelist underscores the fact that this episode takes place in the wilderness by pointing this out three times—(1) in Jesus’ invitation to take rest in a wilderness region (6:31), (2) in Mark’s affirming that the boat sailed to a wilderness region (6:32), and (3) in the observation made by the Twelve concerning the time of day and geographical location when they said, “This is a wilderness region, and the hour is already late” (6:35). Jesus’ invitation that conjoins going into a “wilderness region” with finding a little “rest” should have provoked thoughtful recollection among the Twelve concerning the linkage of these two themes with Israel’s exodus long ago, and it will do the same for all who have ears to hear Mark’s telling of the good news as it is in Jesus as portrayed in the episode of his miraculous feeding of the multitude.
Likewise, Mark’s account reverberates with other allusions to the OT Scriptures but particularly to the exodus theme. He reports that when Jesus left the boat “he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd” (6:34). The allusion may be easily missed because we Christians tend not to know the OT sufficiently well to hear the echoes of various passages first in Moses’s petitioning the Lord for his replacement (Num. 27:17) and then extended throughout the nation’s history as two prophets, Michaiah (1 Kings 22:17) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 34:5), lament that Israel is like sheep without a shepherd. Given the theme-setting placement and function of Isaiah 40:3 at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel (1:1-3), it seems fully warranted to infer that the evangelist refracts these OT echoes of the sheep needing a shepherd through Isaiah 40:11—“He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young”—since Isaiah is the apparent portion of the OT Scriptures on which Mark principally meditates (Mark 1:1-3).[v] The phrasing of Mark 6:34 is much like that of Numbers 27:15-17—“Moses said to the Lord, ‘May the Lord, the God who gives breath to all living things, appoint someone over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the Lord’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd” (ὡς πρόβατα μὴ ἔχοντα with ποιμένα ὡσεὶ πρόβατα, Mark 6:34; οἱ̂ς οὐκ ἔστιν ποιμήν, Num. 27:17).[vi] It seems reasonable to infer from Mark’s account that the OT foreshadowing theme of a call for a shepherd to watch over Israel which begins with Moses’s prayer, as narrated in Numbers 27:15-17 and recurs in the prophetic voices of Michaiah (1 Kings 22:17) and Ezekiel (34:5), finds its fulfillment now in Jesus’ re-dramatization of the miraculous feeding of Israel with manna long ago in the wilderness.[vii] For the latter day Joshua (Ἰησοῦς [Jesus], Greek for Joshua; cf. Num. 27:18—“Take Joshua the son of Nun. . .”) has compassion on the Israelites because they were like sheep without a shepherd. Thus, not only is Jesus greater than Moses; he is also greater than Joshua, for he is God’s “amen” to the petition Moses prayed long ago, for Jesus leads his sheep in the greater exodus that was simply foreshadowed by the exodus led by Moses and sustained by Joshua.
Yet, there is more to Mark’s allusive use of Number 27:17, for the first portion of the verse—“to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in”—depicts the compassionate action that warrants Moses’s resultant statement, “so the Lord’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” The pastoral idiom, “to lead them out and bring them in” (ὅστις ἐξάξει αὐτοὺς καὶ ὅστις εἰσάξει αὐτούς, LXX), occurs only one other time in the OT where the tribes of Israel appealed to David, “In the past, while Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel on their military campaigns” (σὺ ἔσει εἰς ἡγούμενον ἐπὶ τὸν Ισραηλ). This idiom is followed by, “And the Lord said to you, ‘You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler” (2 Sam. 5:2). Space prohibits teasing out allusive connections with Psalm 78:70-72. More will be offered on this in the subsequent consideration of Mark 6:48 where Jesus’ miraculous provision of food for the multitude in the wilderness is linked with his power over the sea. By way of anticipation, Mark, himself, tightly links the miraculous feeding with Jesus’ treading upon waves of the sea, for after Jesus walks on the sea and climbs into the boat with the Twelve, Mark states, “They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened,” in concert with their forebears in the wilderness with Moses (6:51-52).
The shepherd-sheep (ποιμήν-πρόβατα) motif explicitly occurs again in Mark 14:27-28 when Jesus tells the Twelve—“‘You will all fall away, for it is written: “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Surely, not to link this account with the compassionate shepherd who miraculously provides sustenance for the large crowd in the wilderness would be a failure to hear correctly the message the evangelist conveys concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Jesus’ saying of verse 28—“I go ahead of you into Galilee” (προάξω ὑμᾶς), the action of a shepherd that reflects the OT idiom echoing from Numbers 27:17 mentioned above—prepares for two more uses of the shepherd-sheep imagery without express mention of either “shepherd” (ποιμήν) or “sheep” (πρόβατα). Thus, given the explicit shepherd-sheep imagery of 14:27 united with the idiom concerning the action of the shepherd who “goes ahead” of the sheep, the more veiled version of the same imagery, stated in 14:28, all attentive listeners will hear two additional idiomatic uses of the shepherd-sheep motif in Mark’s Gospel. The first occurs when Mark describes Jesus leading his disciples as a shepherd leads sheep on “the way” to Jerusalem where he will lay down his life on their behalf—“They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid” (προάγων αὐτούς, 10:32). The second comes at the close of the Gospel when at the empty tomb the heavenly witness instructs the women, “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you’” (προάγει ὑμᾶς). Again, the same verb and idiomatic shepherd imagery are used. The shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep has risen to return as their shepherd just as he promised. I must be content simply with piquing imaginations as I resist temptation to provide further unpacking of the richness and fullness of Mark’s shepherd-sheep imagery worthy of extensive study.[viii]
Another allusion to the OT also links Jesus’ compassionate feeding of the Israelites in the wilderness region with the exodus theme. The manner in which the latter day Moses instructed the Twelve to have the hungry Israelites arranged in the wilderness region to feed upon the miraculous meal echoes how Jethro directed Moses to organize the Israelites during their march across the wilderness—“But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain —and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” (Ex. 18:21). Mark reports, “Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties” (Mark 6:39-40). Yet, a more vivid allusion to the OT immediately precedes how the people were organized to receive the miraculous feeding. Though John’s Gospel indicates that the place where Jesus directed his disciples to have the Israelites recline had “much grass” (John 6:10), among the Synoptic Gospels Mark alone reports that Jesus told the Twelve to have all the Israelites recline in groups “on the green grass” (Mark 6:39). Given the richness of the shepherd-sheep motif and the many allusions to the exodus theme that punctuate this episode, it seems inescapable to hear rightly a strong echo of the shepherd psalm’s words, “The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing. He makes me lie down in green pastures . . .” (Psalm 23:1-2a). Even the two verbs—respectively translated “sit down” and “sat down” (NIV)—which within the ancient Eastern culture depict a reclining posture, adapt well to the shepherd-sheep imagery that dominates the episode concerning the Feeding of the Five Thousand. Thus, Mark’s episode concerning the miraculous feeding features Jesus as the true shepherd who is foreshadowed by Moses in his prayer, by Joshua whom the Lord told Moses to receive as his successor, and by David who is the premier OT foreshadow of the Coming Shepherd-King. Jesus alone is able to fill the role for which each of the OT prefigurements fell short because they all succumbed to death, for Jesus alone has the power to give his life for the sheep and to take it up again to shepherd his sheep as borne witness to by Mark’s use of the shepherd-sheep imagery as predictive of Messiah’s sacrificial death and as resumptive of his role as shepherd-king after resurrection, as explicated above (cf. John 10:17).
It is true, of course, that all the above explanations of Mark’s allusions to the OT reflect my firm conviction that all that Israel experienced as narrated throughout the OT took place typologically and was written down for our instruction, a crucial affirmation I develop in part 5 of this series. As readers might expect, I am also fully convinced that my exposition of Mark 6 does not entail an imposition of an interpretive grid upon the evangelist’s narrative but reflects Mark’s own understanding of and use of the many OT allusions. Otherwise, I have no plausible explanation for his perceptive uses of all these allusions that contribute to his sketch that leads to his initial heralded proclamation—“The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet” (1:1-2)—that the Coming One foreshadowed throughout the OT is none other than Jesus who mingles words and deeds to reveal himself as the promised one.
Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Inter-Varsity, 2001).
1 See my, “He Wrote in Parables and Riddles: Mark’s Gospel as a Literary Reproduction of Jesus’ Teaching Method,” Didaskalia 10.1 (Spring 1999): 35-67.
2 See, e.g., James R. Edwards, “Markan Sandwhiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives,” Novum Testamentum 31.3 (1989): 193-216; see also Tom Shepherd, Markan Sandwich Stories: Narration, Definition, and Function, AUSDDS 18 (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1983).
3 For fuller development of the “new exodus” theme in Mark’s Gospel see Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1997; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000).
4 In addition to the work by Rikki Watts, others have also demonstrated the prominent shaping impact Isaiah has upon the Second Gospel. See, e.g., Richard Schneck, Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark, I-VIII, BIBAL DS 1 (Vallejo, CA: BIBAL Press, 1994). See also Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992).
5 See Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, which makes a convincing case that Isaiah’s prophecy is the OT backdrop on which the Second Gospel hangs. Rikki Watts confirms my prior and independent observations concerning Num. 27:17 in “Mark,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 158-161.
6 See 1 Kings 22:17—“I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd” (ἑώρακα πάντα τὸν Ἰσραηλ διεσπαρμένον ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν ὡς ποίμνιον, ὥ οὐκ ἔστιν ποιμήν, LXX); and Ezekiel 34:5—“So they were scattered because there was no shepherd” (καὶ διεσπάρη τὰ πρόβατα μου διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ποιμένας, LXX); 34:23—“I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd” (καὶ ἀναστήσω ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ποιμένα ἕνα καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς, τὸν δοῦλόν μου Δαυιδ, καὶ ἔσταιν αὐτῶν ποιμήν, LXX).
7 The OT is replete with the shepherd-king motif featuring David and his coming messianic son, foreshadowed by each successive king. Many resources are available concerning the shepherd-king motif of the OT. One easily accessible resource is Beth M. Stovell’s, “Yahweh Shepherd-King and the Restoration of Justice: Metaphors of Shepherding and the Constellation of Kingship,” unpublished essay for Directed Study: Kingship in the OT, at MacMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, October 2009.
8 Cf., e.g., Beth M. Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King. Linguistic Biblical Studies 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2012).
On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Part 6
By Ardel Caneday–
[Editor’s Note: The previous parts in this series include: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.]
As I reflect upon my many years of teaching the Scriptures, it is right to admit that I have learned more of the Word of God and incarnated it than during all the years of my formal undergraduate and graduate studies. I say this not to slight any of my instructors or professors. Rather, my point is that anyone who responsibly teaches a subject to others engages the subject from a fresh angle, learning to impart understanding to others rather that to absorb knowledge for oneself.
Sometimes, while in the very act of teaching, my eyes become opened to see something in the text for the first time. This installment and the next will each offer insights that suddenly dawned upon me in the act of teaching. Both come from the Gospel of Mark, and both concern semi-veiled allusions to the Old Testament.
Several years ago, as I was teaching a classroom full of college students on the transfiguration and the following narrative in Mark 9:14-32, the words of the text caught my attention as never before and stirred my imagination. Immediately upon returning down from the Mount of Transfiguration, the narrative says, “And when they [Jesus, Peter, James & John] came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd around them, and scribes arguing with them. And immediately all the crowd, when they saw him, were greatly amazed and ran up to him and greeted him” (Mark 9:14-15; ESV). I posed a question to the students. Why do you suppose the text says that when the crowd saw Jesus they were greatly amazed? It is noteworthy to point out that elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel the same verb in 9:15, ekthambeō (ἐκθαμβέω), occurs three times, once in 14:33 and once in 16:5 and 16:6, respectively. In 14:33, ekthambeō (ἐκθαμβέω) is used of Jesus in tandem with adēmoneō (ἀδημονέω). The sense is that Jesus “began to be distressed and troubled.” In 16:5 and 16:6, ekthambeō (ἐκθαμβέω) is used first of the women who came to the tomb and found it empty and were amazed, and then of the young man who had been seated at the right side of the tomb who cautions, “Do not be amazed!” The verb speaks of deep movement of emotions, particularly of trembling astonishment. Thus, in Mark 9:14, the verb ekthambeō (ἐκθαμβέω) bursts upon the reader with unexpectedness. Given the fact that Mark’s other uses of the verb ekthambeō (ἐκθαμβέω) denote intense emotion, we would be amiss to devalue the verb’s intensity in 9:14.
The unexpectedness of this verb at this juncture of the story is underscored by the fact that throughout Mark’s narrative, verbs that speak of astonishment, such as ekplēssomai (ἐκπλήσσομαι) in 1:22 signal the crowd’s reaction to some remarkable teaching or miracle done by Jesus. In Mark 9:14, the crowd had not just seen any miracle nor had they just heard any extraordinary teaching from Jesus to trigger the response of being greatly amazed. Nevertheless, the narrative expressly states that the crowd’s astonishment came when they saw Jesus. This surely indicates that there is something about Jesus’ personage that incited the crowd’s wonderment.
It seems much too weak to take Mark’s verb that signals intense emotion as does James Edwards who says,
On the other hand, if Jesus’ countenance still radiates the glory of the transfiguration, the command “not to tell anyone” (v. 9) seems rather pointless. Moreover, if Jesus’ countenance is substantially affected, we might expect the crowd to retreat in fear (Exod 34:30) rather than advance in avid pursuit. . . . On balance, the astonishment of the crowd appears to owe to Jesus’ unexpected appearance and the hopes it raised (Mark, 276-277).
Likewise, the comment by R. T. France seems too weak to satisfy the narrative when he explains, “More likely Mark uses the verb rather extravagantly to denote the powerful impression which Jesus’ personal presence by now created: ‘this authority emanates from him even before he speaks or acts’” (Mark, NIGTC, 364).
It seems more likely that my imagination, activated by the text of Mark that day during class time, was intuitively right to direct the students to consider a recapitulation of Moses’ descent from the mountain as recorded in Exodus 34:29-35.
When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. Aaron and all the people of Israel saw Moses, and behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. But Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the leaders of the congregation returned to him, and Moses talked with them. Afterward all the people of Israel came near, and he commanded them all that the Lord had spoken with him in Mount Sinai. And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.Whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he would remove the veil, until he came out. And when he came out and told the people of Israel what he was commanded, the people of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face was shining. And Moses would put the veil over his face again, until he went in to speak with him.
Jesus has just come down the mountain after being transfigured in the cloud along with Elijah and with Moses who had joined him on the mountaintop and left Jesus and his three disciples without descending the mountain. The one who descended is the one who ascended, who was transfigured, and whose visage and garments shone with glory. Echoes in the transfiguration account of Moses’ experience of the theophany on Mount Sinai (Exodus 33:17-23) are too strong to ignore. This is all the more so when we find Mark using ekthambeō (ἐκθαμβέω) to describe the crowd’s response to Jesus. Thus, it seems right that Morna Hooker says,
[Mark] must mean that there was something about Jesus’ appearance which gave them good reason to be astonished. The only possible explanation seems to be that Mark means us to understand that Jesus’ appearance is still in some way affected by the transfiguration. If Moses, coming down the mountain after speaking with God, reflected the glory of God from his face without knowing it, and so caused all the people to be afraid (Exod. 34:29f.), it is not surprising if Jesus also, coming down the mountain from a similar experience, caused astonishment among the crowd (The Gospel according to Mark, 222-224).
Robert Gundry also seems to get it right when he adds, “And something so striking as the heavenly whiteness of Jesus’ garments seems required to account for a word so strong as ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. The extremity of the circumstances leading to later use of this word support this judgment” (Mark, 488).
Gundry adds that the “immediacy (εὐθύς) of the crowd’s extreme awe, the inclusion of ‘all’ of them—large crowd though they are—and the placement of ‘all the crowd’ before both the circumstantial participial phrase and the verb emphasize the impact which the sight of Jesus makes on the crowd” (Ibid.). Additionally, the crowd rushes to Jesus to hail him (ἠσπάζοντο).
What about James Edwards’ objections to this understanding of the passage? What about his objection that this interpretation makes Jesus’ command to the three apostles on the mountain “not to tell anyone” (v. 9) seem “rather pointless”? What about Edwards’ objection that this interpretation should cause one to expect that the crowd would “retreat in fear (Exod 34:30) rather than advance in avid pursuit”?
It seems to me that any proper understanding of the interplay between Jesus’ revealing and concealing his identity throughout Mark’s narrative (the Secrecy Motif) has to acknowledge that Jesus’ prohibition announced to his disciples on the mountain can hardly be taken the way Edwards does. In each of Jesus’ acts, in each of his parables, and in each of his miracles he both reveals and conceals. This is the nature of revelation; in the very act of revealing there is also concealing, for never does Jesus pull back the curtains to disclose everything all at once. Jesus forbade the three disciples to speak of what they had seen on the mountain, but this prohibition hardly prevented him from carrying an afterglow of his transfigured glory with him for his other disciples and for the crowd below to glimpse, to be astonished, and to receive the revelatory hint that he is the one who is greater than Moses whose visage and garments shone long ago, whose shining prompted the Israelites to shield their eyes so that Moses veiled his face.
If the crowd got a glimpse of the glory with which Jesus had been clothed when the heavenly cloud descended upon him on the mountain, then why did the crowd not “retreat in fear” as the children of Israel did when Moses approached them after he came down from the mountain? Is it not reasonable for us to suppose that the evangelist tells us that the crowd was astonished but ran to him and greeted him because Mark wants us to realize that, even though the crowd likely acted better than they understood, their reception of Jesus who came down from the mountain with apparent glory yet shining from his clothing and visage signals that Jesus truly is the one greater than Moses of whom Moses prophesied when he said, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him” (Deut 18:15; NIV). The heavenly voice on the mountain quotes this passage with the command, “Listen to him!” (Mark 9:7), signifying that Jesus is the True Moses, the one greater than Moses, the one of whom Moses prophesied.
So, as I reflect upon that day several years ago when I was teaching on Mark 9, I marvel at how many times I have read the words of Mark 9:14-15 and have read numerous commentaries on the passage and yet the text struck me as though it were the first time. The words leaped off the page and struck my imagination, prompting me to raise questions for my students, questions that I also needed to search out. I never cease to marvel that, if my students learn nothing when I teach, that I always learn no matter how many times I have taught the same portions of the text before. Even though we who teach the text of Scripture repeatedly, year in and year out, there is something about the richness and fullness of the landscape of biblical narrative that we never take it all in at once. Even for us who teach there is much for us yet to learn. For we all are subject both to the revealing and concealing character of Scripture as God’s word revelation and to the revealing and concealing work of the Holy Spirit who opens our eyes afresh to truth formerly veiled from us (cf. Luke 24:13-35; 45).
I like the imagery which seems to have originated with Gregory the Great when he describes the nature of Scripture—“Scripture is like a river . . . broad and deep, shallow enough here for the lamb to go wading, but deep enough there for the elephant to swim” (Moralia, Epistle 4.177-78).
Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Inter-Varsity, 2001).
On the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament, Part 5 (Ardel Caneday)
By Ardel Caneday–
The second installment in this series promised further development concerning types and foreshadows. Not at all unrelated to these are the issues addressed in the third and fourth installments. Nevertheless, for the sake of timeliness, the last two entries interrupted and suspended the continuation of Part 2 until now. Thus, for the sake of greater continuity it may advisable for readers to review that entry which this one now continues.
During the middle decades of the last century, how the New Testament fulfills the Old tended to dominate disagreements and discussions between Classical Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians with arguments, counterarguments, rejoinders, and surrejoinders filling many pamphlets, journals, and books. As Vern Poythress skillfully points out, “nearly all the problems associated with the dispensationalist-nondispensationalist conflict are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation.”[i] Classical Dispensationalists tied their understanding of Scripture to the mistaken notion of “literal interpretation.” Unfortunately, many non-dispensationalists confounded the situation by committing the same mistake in the opposite direction by hitching their understanding of Scripture’s use of Scripture to what they called “typological interpretation” or “Christological interpretation.”[ii]
In various published pieces I have shown that to counter the problematic concept of “literal interpretation” by arguing for “figurative interpretation,” “typological interpretation,” “allegorical interpretation,” or even “Christological interpretation” is to slip into the same error at a different point, however much unintended. For to reject the adjective “literal” and then replace it with another adjective, such as “Christological” or “typological” or “figurative,” is to commit the same error of imposing one’s own interpretive grid or system upon the biblical text.[iii] For example, to characterize one’s beliefs concerning the relationship between the Old and New Testaments as “typological interpretation” is to overcorrect against the inapt designation “literal interpretation.” “Typological interpretation” no less than “literal interpretation” elevates the reader over the text. If “literal interpretation” tends to flatten the symbolic and figurative features of the biblical text and to suppress recognition of how features throughout the OT typologically foreshadow fulfillments in the New, “typological interpretation” inclines interpreters to forget that types are not the property of hermeneutics but of revelation. We ought to reject “typological interpretation” as descriptive of the relationship between the OT and the NT in favor of “typological revelation,” for types are imbued by revelation not forged by interpretation. Readers recognize types that are revealed in the text; they do not generate types. For this reason, “typological interpretation” bears at least two implications that misdirect and are problematic.
First, “typological interpretation” implies that what NT writers find concerning Christ in the OT Scriptures is rooted not in the OT itself but in the axiomatically transformed perspective those writers now share, a perspective brought about by the revelation of Christ to them. Such a designation positions one not far from that of others such as Barnabas Lindars who argues that the NT writers believed that the crucified and risen Jesus was the Messiah so they ransacked the OT to prove their new found belief, using OT proof texts without regard for context as they twisted them to serve their apologetic purpose.[iv]
Second, to counter “literal interpretation” with “typological interpretation” implies that types or foreshadows of Christ in the OT Scriptures are rendered foreshadows or types not by the OT text itself but by retrospect interpretation after Messiah has come, thus not adequately accounting for the fact that the foreshadows of Christ really are there to be seen in the events, persons, and institutions recorded within the OT, that they were given to function as shadows of heavenly things and of foreshadows of things to come for those to whom they were given, and they were written within the text of Scripture for the instruction of generations yet to come, albeit concealed in plain sight but capable of being recognized and understood if one’s eyes were opened. Contrary to this, some adopt the notion that OT types—persons, institutions, events—are discernible only retrospectively by observing patterns of “God’s activity in the history of his people.”[v] Accordingly, recognizing types is not concerned with elucidating the meaning of the OT text. According to this viewpoint, identifying types does not involve the work of doing exegesis of the biblical text but is simply a matter of historical retrospect, recognizing historical patterns recorded in the text, because biblical types are not revelatory foreshadows.[vi]
Indeed, the panoply of types embedded throughout the OT comes into clearer focus by way of retrospect from fulfillment in Christ. Yet, to explain OT types as shaped after the fact by the coming of Christ fails to account for the phenomena of types within Scripture, how they function, and what the NT writers actually say concerning OT types. The fact of the matter is that all the types really are there in the text of the OT Scriptures because types are revelatory both in their occurrence in history and in their being recorded in Scripture. Their having been written into the OT text itself as types, not rendered types by NT historical retrospect, endues events, persons, and institutions as biblical types that actually functioned for the faith of the ancient people as copies of heavenly things (Heb. 8:5) and as foreshadows concerning things to come for the faith of God’s last days people (Heb. 9:11; 10:1). Thus, when the writer to the Hebrews extensively quotes Jeremiah 31 to make his case that the new covenant promised to the houses of Israel and of Judah has come to fruition and fulfillment in the church of Jesus Christ that consists of Gentiles and Jews together in one covenant body, he is not pulling the OT passage out of context to prove his axiomatic conviction that Jesus is the Christ and that he has established a new covenant people. Furthermore, the writer to the Hebrews is not merely engaged in retrospectively identifying patterns of God’s working in history, having made a covenant with Israel long ago he now makes a covenant with a new people. Such a notion is entirely inadequate to account for (1) how the NT writers actually handle OT types and (2) what they believe concerning God’s providential supervision of the OT types.
On these matters Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 is greatly instructive concerning biblical types. Because English translations opt to feature the applicatory use Paul makes of Israel’s experiences they tend to obscure his uses of the noun “types” (τύποι, v. 6) and the adverb “typologically” (τυπικῶς, v. 11) by translating the words respectively “as examples” and “as an example” (e.g., KJV; ESV; NRSV; NIV). What translations obscure exposition and preaching needs to clarify.
So, after identifying several specific historical events that Israel experienced, the apostle indicates that these events “occurred as types for us that we might not desire evil as they did” (10:6) and “these things happened typologically, and they were written for our instruction, on whom the ends of the ages have come” (10:11). Though Paul distinguishes the events themselves from their being written down, it is manifest that he believes both the historical events and their being written down are divine revelatory acts. Israel’s experiences under the cloud, passage through the sea, eating food the Lord miraculously provided in the wilderness, and drinking water from the rock took place as types for us. Likewise, Israel’s numerous acts of unfaithfulness took place typologically and were written down for us as admonitions (vv. 7-10; cf. Ex. 32:6; Num. 25:9; 21:5, 6; 14:2, 29-37). Typological significance is embedded in the occurrence of the events and preserved prophetically in Scripture for posterity. Thus, it is evident that integral to Paul’s appeal to the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 that he believes God providentially directed Israel’s historical experiences and suffused them with figurative significances to have disciplinary and instructive significance not only for the Israelites who were alive to experience those events long ago but also “for us, on whom the ends of the ages have come.”[vii] As such, it is apparent that Paul believes that when God brought about those historical events and imbued them as earthly symbolic shadows or copies of heavenly things God also purposed that the events should function prophetically as foreshadows concerning the advent of those heavenly things in conjunction with Messiah who would come in latter days to bring redemption promised long ago, even from the beginning in semi-veiled ways (cf. Gen. 1:3; John 1:5; 2 Cor. 4:6; also Gen. 3:15). But, of course, not only did God design OT events to occur with suffused symbolic significance, he also made sure that these things were written down in order that by reading the Scriptures, Messiah’s last days people would be instructed not to follow the Israelites’ unfaithfulness that leads to perishing but instead to take heed not to fall and perish.
Short of such an understanding of the biblical types that fill the pages of the OT from beginning to end, it seems difficult to have anything resembling an adequate grasp of the OT Scriptures’ expansive richness and depth as described by Luke when he tells of Jesus’ instruction of two of his disciples when he appears to them incognito on the road to Emmaus: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Luke reinforces the significance of this point concerning Scriptures’ rich and full foreshadowing of the Christ as he recounts how Jesus instructs his disciples when he shows himself resurrected to them: “‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:44-47).
[i] Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, second ed. 1994, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987), 78. Emphasis added. The book is available on-line here.
[ii] See, e.g., Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, 35-80.
[iii] See my “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured: ‘Which Things Are Written Allegorically’ (Galatians 4:21-31),” SBJT 14.3 (2010), 66.
[iv] Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961).
[v] See, e.g., David L. Baker, Two Testaments One Bible, third ed. 2010 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976), 185, 179-181; idem, “Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament,” SJT 229 (1976): 152-153.
[vi] Idem, Two Testaments One Bible, 184-187.
[vii] Of course, the same must be said concerning Paul’s explicit identification of “Adam who is a type of the one to come,” namely Christ Jesus (Rom. 5:14). To be clear, this means that the apostle believes that when the Creator formed Adam from the ground and breathed the breath of life into him that he not only endowed Adam to be the head of the human race but he also imbued Adam with figurative or typological significance, for the Creator made the earthly son of God “in the image and likeness of God” as the earthly shadow of the heavenly Son of God “who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4; cf. Col. 1:15; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:3). This is the correspondence between earthly shadow and heavenly substance that warrants Paul’s understanding that “Adam is a type of the one to come.”
————————————————————————————————————————–
Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.
Would Paul Have Made A Good Evangelical? On the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament (Part 4)
By Ardel Caneday–
This blog entry is a continuation of yesterday’s “Would Paul Have Made A Good Evangelical? On the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament (Part 3).” The previous entry resumes here with repetition of the last two paragraphs.
Numerous points could be raised in response to Peter Enns’s two blog entries including the nature of progressive revelation, Scripture’s clarity (perspicuity), large biblical theological themes, the place and function of Israel in the land in relation to Christ and new creation, the relationship between the Mosaic law and Christ, the place of Gentiles within the promise covenant given to Abraham, and several other issues that Enns either ignores or runs over quite roughly. Others cited above have touched upon these in their lengthy and many responses to Enns’ earlier publications. Responses offered here to the two blog entries endeavor to keep the focus upon the theme of this series, the NT use of the OT.
Since Enns’s two blog entries tightly and rightly associate the apostle Paul’s use of the OT with what Enns calls a “high view” of Scripture, it is fitting that we ponder how Enns’s view concerning Paul’s use of the OT coheres with three passages that concern Paul’s appeal to Scripture to validate the gospel he preaches. Enns’s view does not and cannot account for these passages. Two are from Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 15:1-5; Rom. 16:25-27); the other is from the Book of Acts (Acts 17:1-12). Enns addresses none of these passages in his published materials concerning the NT use of the OT. Yet, it is quite reasonable to observe that these three passages serve as guardrails to constrain and to preserve us from positing the ideas Enns now advances concerning the NT use of the OT.
First, within the first installment in this series I touched upon Acts 17, particularly concerning the Berean Jews who distinguished themselves from those in Thessalonica because “they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (17:11). The Berean Jews, like those in Thessalonica, first heard Paul’s message in their synagogue for Luke explains, “As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead” (17:2-3).
Concerning Paul’s reasoning from Scripture to ground his gospel proclamation Luke sketches a scene quite different from the one Enns would have us accept. While Enns portrays Paul’s use of the OT Scriptures as “very creative,” even “manipulating scripture,” because Jesus’ coming “transformed” the OT so that the OT is “reshaped in order to conform to Jesus,” Luke describes Paul as reasoning with the Jews from Scripture (διελέξατο αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν), with “from Scripture” (apo graphōn) emphasizing the source of his reasoning, as though it is actually discernible from the Scriptures “that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead” and that this is not a construct superimposed upon the OT Scriptures by an adroit apostle.
Again, Luke describes the response Paul receives among Jews in Berea, “they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Luke hardly portrays these ordinary Berean Jews as though they had the ingenious skills of Jewish scholars during the Second Temple period, scholars who were adept at “manipulating scripture in the interest of supporting theological arguments.” Instead, Luke’s commendation of these quite ordinary Berean Jews underscores the plainness, clarity, and accessibility with which Paul’s message could have been proved false if he had engaged in any manipulation of Scripture in his proclamation of the gospel.
The significance of what Luke portrays must not be passed over as irrelevant to Paul’s use of the OT. What does Luke say Paul was proving from the Scriptures and which the Bereans were examining in their endeavor to be assured that what Paul was preaching was the truth? It is nothing less than this, “that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead.” If Paul creatively manipulated the OT (cf. “private interpretation,” 2 Peter 1:20), which now has to be read as “reshaped” so as “to conform to Jesus,” as he made his case from Scripture that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, how could the Bereans, regardless how diligent and inquisitive they may have been, trace the apostle’s argument and be convinced that what he proclaimed is the truth? The Bereans would have charged Paul with legerdemain, sleight of hand trickery, and would not have received his message as true.[i] If Paul’s proclamation that Messiah had to suffer death and rise again from the dead as foretold in the OT but his hearers could not trace his reasoning from Scripture or reproduce his exegesis of the biblical texts to which he appealed, then how could Jews or Gentiles be convinced that Scripture, not nimble manipulation of Scripture, leads to and warrants the apostle’s message as true?[ii]
Paul’s message, as recorded in Acts 17:2-3, agrees with the message Jesus imparted to his disciples when he was with them, as when he explained to two of his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning him” (Luke 24:27) and later reminded the others, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (24:44; NIV). When Jesus says, “everything must be fulfilled that is written about me,” this means that what Jesus and his apostles expound from the OT Scriptures concerning the Messiah was actually written into the biblical text; it was always there in the scriptural text. It was not brought to the text of Scripture by hermeneutical cleverness, ingenuity, genius, and manipulation by the NT writers.
Second, what Luke records in Acts 17 concerning Paul’s preaching, the apostle himself affirms in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:1-5). Though he is not setting out to prove the resurrection of Jesus, he is reasserting the belief the Corinthians hold in common with him as the ground from which he will bring a withering response to the foolish assertion “that there is no resurrection of the dead” (15:12). As he begins his argument to rebut the claim of some “that there is no resurrection of the dead” (15:12), he is burdened to remind the Corinthians concerning “the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you were saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain” (15:1-2).
So Paul reminds the Corinthians concerning the gospel which they have believed: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve” (15:3-5). Even though Paul’s dual “according to the Scriptures” likely refers not to a single passage or to a collection of specific passages but to the whole of the OT as a unified witness, it is no insignificant assertion. That Paul does not identify individual passages but refers to the unified whole OT hardly validates the notion that he would resort to creative manipulation of the text in order to argue his case that the Scriptures are replete with testimony that the Coming One would “die for our sins” and be “buried” and be “raised on the third day.”
That we may find it difficult to marshal specific Scripture passages to verify Paul’s claim hardly leaves us to choose between two options: (1) that Paul’s claim is falsified by our paucity of undisputed Scriptural evidence; or (2) that Paul’s claim depends upon creatively manipulating Scripture in order to support his theological arguments. That we find the unified claims of Paul and Jesus that the Messiah had to die “according to the Scriptures” and had to rise from the dead “according to the Scriptures” difficult to replicate either for ourselves or for others ought to rebuke our dullness of heart (Luke 24:25) and our need to have our eyes and minds opened by Christ that we might understand (24:31, 45). For to posit that the NT writers use the OT Scriptures with inventive adroitness that entails wrenching passages out of contexts and labyrinthine arguments that only a few highly skilled initiates in Second Temple literary exegesis can trace and perhaps reproduce does not suffice when that which is at stake is nothing less than the good news as it is in Jesus.
Finally, Romans 16:25-27 is a third passage that Peter Enns nowhere accounts for in his published considerations of the NT use of the OT. This passage is highly significant because it speaks concerning mystery. Mystery as a word and concept entails the complex correlation of divine concealing and revealing, each of which entangle two dimensions, both the divine act of hiding truths in plain sight and the divine act of closing and opening human minds to the truth.
Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made know through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.
Whether the phrase, “in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,” modifies “the proclamation of Jesus Christ” or is dependent upon “to establish you,” which would make it parallel to “in accordance with my gospel,” the phrase explains the gospel Paul proclaims.
Paul’s reference to mystery here is consistent with uses of the concept in other letters (e.g. Rom. 11:25-27; 1 Cor. 2:7; 15:50-55), in order for humans to know a mystery some form of divine revelation is required at two dimensions. Here, Paul distinguishes these two revelatory dimensions by time span and by locality (i.e., where the revelation is lodged). As to time span of the mystery’s revelation, he depicts two temporal phases: (1) the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past but (2) now revealed. Given what Paul states next, this revelation entails a second dimension, the element of locality or the place where the mystery resides. Likewise, as to where the mystery is revealed, Paul depicts two situational phases: (1) God hid this mystery for long ages past in the prophetic writings, and (2) now according to the command of the eternal God this mystery is at last revealed and made known through the same prophetic writings. The obvious implication is that God first revealed the mystery by hiding it in plain sight within the OT Scriptures—the prophetic writings—but God now commands that this same mystery be revealed and made known in the preaching of the gospel, the proclamation of Jesus Christ.
Paul’s expression, “through the prophetic writings” (διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν), likely bears the sense “by means of the prophetic writings,” given his use of “through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” (διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις) in Romans 1:2. Paul’s message seems unambiguous. God hid the mystery in the OT Scriptures and now, in keeping with God’s command, the same OT Scriptures give up the mystery made plain by the preaching of Jesus Christ, for “the Law and the Prophets bear witness to” the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ Jesus.
Thus, to preach the gospel, which is to proclaim Jesus Christ, is to bring to light the mystery God hid within the OT Scriptures. God’s recent revelation of Jesus Christ now preached brings clarity to former revelation written down by the prophets of old. Former revelation concealed the mystery in plain sight within Scripture which now reaches fulfillment as the storyline of redemption comes to its climactic finale. So, now that Christ has come and God has commanded that the gospel be proclaimed to all the nations, the gospel reveals through the prophetic writings the same mystery God concealed in the prophets’ writings when he gave it by revelation.
Mystery novelists imitate God, the mystery storyteller par excellence. Thus, even though anachronistic, it is instructive to recognize that the biblical concept of mystery concealed in the OT and brought to light with the coming of Christ bears resemblance to how a well crafted mystery novel is written in order to unfold as it is read.[iii] As one progressively reads the mystery’s storyline with its characters, settings, and plotted conflict, the story escalates incrementally toward its dramatic climax at which point the mystery, with its numerous and diverse hints scattered throughout the earlier chapters, is finally revealed. Embedded within characters, events, settings, and plotted conflict throughout the story line from beginning to end are hints, foreshadows, prefigurements, and harbingers that presage the unveiling of the mystery concealed within its pages. Yet, the hints strategically and masterfully placed by the mystery novelist pose as puzzling enigmas, as riddles, as conundrums that tantalize and increase anticipation that builds toward the climax. Yet, once the mystery formerly hidden throughout earlier chapters is at last revealed in the climax, the reader begins to recall hints the author had dropped along the way, and these hints of mystery begin to coalesce toward the full disclosure of the mystery.
So it is with Scripture. As characters within the Bible’s storyline receive promises their hope stirs, for renewed covenant promises embed fresh hints concerning that which is promised. Yet, arrival of a promised child, taking possession of the promised land, blessing of conquest, or realization of a promised house of worship come as tokens of reassurance not as the promise itself (cf. Heb. 11:39-40). God’s promises call for trust in him who keeps covenant, for he will not disappoint. Thus, the OT Scriptures are written with hints hidden throughout to incite anticipation of full and final resolution of the mystery eventually to be revealed with surprises that invite deep reflection.
Is this not how we are to read the Bible’s storyline as it incrementally builds toward its dramatic climax with the arrival of the Coming One who reveals himself and his kingdom mission in keeping with the mystery concealed within the OT? Does not Jesus perform his miracles, engage his parabolic teaching, and design his dramatic signs to reveal but simultaneously to conceal his identity and his mission until the fullness of time arrives for him to lay down his life as a ransom for sinners? In each of the Synoptic Gospels Jesus specifically tells the Twelve, “To you have been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to those outside everything is in parables” (Mark 4:11; cf. Matt. 13:11; Luke 8:10). Though these are the only uses of the term “mystery” (μυστήριον) in the Four Gospels, mystery permeates each Gospel, but is especially featured in Mark.[iv]
Thus, the experience of the Jesus’ two disciples with whom he walked on the road to Emmaus is illustrative of the mystery’s concealment and dawning revelation in two dimensions. According to the account in Luke 24:13-25 Jesus’ act in which he revealed the Scriptures concerning the Christ accompanied an divine act that concealed his identity within plain sight by preventing their eyes from recognizing him, an act that did not exonerate their culpability for their blindness. For Jesus rebukes them for failing to believe all that the prophets have spoken concerning the Christ, that he should suffer and then enter into his glory (24:25-26). Jesus’ blessing and breaking of bread is the act that reveals his identity concealed from them until that moment. What had been hidden in plain view objectively within Scripture (24:25-27) and subjectively within their own line of vision (24:16) suddenly became revealed plainly to them (24:31), and they exclaimed to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was speaking to us on the road, as he explained the Scriptures to us?” (24:32).[v]
As indicated, Luke’s account illustrates divine concealing and revealing in two discernible dimensions: (1) the objective—divine concealing of recognition of Jesus while simultaneously revealing knowledge of the Christ made known in the Scriptures, and (2) the subjective–divine concealing of recognition of Jesus with full personal culpability for failure to recognize Jesus followed by divine revealing of Jesus’ identity as the promised Messiah. The objective constitutes the gospel mystery concealed in the OT and now revealed in Christ. The subjective constitutes the gospel mystery in Jesus veiled in plain sight in the presence of unbelief which necessitates divine revelation to impart sight that recognizes that the promised Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth.
What is now made plain is only what God hid in plain sight by way of revelation. What is now revealed in the gospel is what was always there hidden in plain sight to be seen by everyone who has eyes to see. This is the mystery of which Paul speaks in Romans 16:25-27. Mystery characterizes how the OT Scriptures testify that the Messiah is Jesus. Mystery also characterizes how Jesus reveals himself—by parables, by miracles, by dramatic signs, or by sacrificial death—as the Coming One who is bringing God’s dominion (Mark 4:10-13).
Peter Enns contends that NT writers manipulate the OT to serve their belief that the crucified and resurrected Jesus is the Christ. He believes and advocates the notion that Christ’s coming reshapes the OT Scriptures to conform to Jesus. He insists that the gospel transforms the Scriptures of the OT. None of what Enns argues concerning the NT use of the OT addresses or accounts for the prominent concept NT writers identify as mystery(μυστήριον), a concept that is operational even where they do not use the term. That NT writers speak of the revelation of the gospel as hidden within the OT Scriptures from ages past but now revealed and made known in the gospel seems neither to give Enns pause or to prompt him to ponder that the resolution to his difficulties in tracing Paul’s uses of the OT in passages such as Romans 9 and 10 may be found in the fact that the apostle’s uses of Hosea 2:23 and Isaiah 1:9 in 9:25-27 and of Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:13-14 in 10:5-8 are in keeping with God’s revelatory concealing of things pertaining the gospel within the OT Scriptures, puzzling things that would for long ages await the climax of the redemptive story to be realized in the Coming One. Indeed, the apostle Paul states things that are difficult to understand (2 Pet. 3:15-16), but to attribute to him creative skills that manipulate the OT Scriptures to constrain others to embrace his belief that Jesus is the Christ, at minimum, exposes hubris that resists Scripture’s constraints and that is impatient with Evangelicals who still believe that they should embrace and uphold Paul’s “high view of Scripture.”
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
1 Before he departed Westminster Theological Seminary, when he was still presenting his posture toward Scripture as evangelical, Peter Enns argued for a position similar to the one taken by Richard Longenecker in Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (214-220) as to whether we can reproduce the NT writers’ exegesis of the OT. At that time Enns adopted a much less strident position than he now holds, though it telegraphed where the trajectory of his position would likely lead him. He proposed an approach “not so much as the final word, but as a plausible, initial, attempt to remain faithful to the NT model: where we follow the NT writers is more in terms of their hermeneutical goal than in terms of their exegetical methods and interpretive traditions. The latter are a function of their cultural moment. . . . But whereas we do not share the cultural moment of the NT writers, we do share their eschatological moment, and it is here that the question of following or not following the NT writers should have its initial focus” (“Fuller Meaning, Single Goal,” 216). Enns further explains, “This means that they model for us a hermeneutical ‘attitude,’ so to speak, that is authoritative for us, even if that authority does not function as a five-step hermeneutical guide. It represents, rather, a frame of mind in which mature believers expect their reading of the OT to be ever more conformed to what the NT writers do. This is to say, we, in our interpretation of the OT, are on a pilgrimage of sorts, where our aim is to become as captured by the risen Christ as the NT authors were in their grappling with Israel’s story” (217).
2 Cf. my “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured: ‘Which Things Are Written Allegorically’ (Galatians 4:21-31),” SBJT 14.3 (2010): 54.
[iii] Peter Enns independently compares reading the OT to reading a novel. In the first quotation he draws the analogy similarly to my own analogy, but my analogy focuses upon explaining the biblical use of mystery. Enns states, “As an analogy, it is helpful to think of the process of reading a good novel the first time and the second time. The two readings are not the same experience. Who of us has not said during that second reading, ‘I didn’t see that the first time,’ or ‘So that’s how the pieces fit together.’ The fact that the OT is not a novel should not diminish the value of the analogy: the first reading of the OT leaves you with hints, suggestions, trajectories, and so on, of how things will play out in the end, but it is not until you get to the end that you begin to see how the pieces fit together. And, in the second reading you also begin to see how parts of the story that seemed wholly unrelated at first now take on a much richer, deeper significance” (“Fuller Meaning, Single Goal,” (201).
In the second quotation Enns draws the analogy between reading Scripture and reading a novel to make his distinguish his “Christotelic” hermeneutic from a “Christocentric” approach, thus emphasizing the controlling force the climax of the biblical story (Christ’s advent) has over the OT story. Enns observes, “Revisiting our analogy of reading a novel, it is like reading a story and finally grasping the significance of the climax, and then going back and reading the story in light of the end. It is to ask, ‘How do earlier elements of the dramatic movement of this book relate to where the book as a whole is going?’” (214).
It is doubtful that Enns has jettisoned all of what he wrote concerning the NT use of the OT while he was still wanting to identify himself with “conservative Evangelicals” who hold a “high view” of Scripture, namely, Scripture’s inerrancy and authority. Nevertheless, given his recent two blog entries concerning Paul’s use of the OT, it seems reasonable to infer that reading the OT is like reading a novel is no longer a suitable analogy. For, if a novel’s conclusion “transformed” and “reshaped” the elements and features of earlier chapters in order to bring those portions into conformity with the climax, who would not criticize the novelist harshly, judge the novel as disconnected or disjointed, and discourage others from reading it?
[iv] See my, “He Wrote in Parables and Riddles: Mark’s Gospel as a Literary Reproduction of Jesus’ Teaching Method,” Didaskalia 10.1 (Spring 1999): 35-67.
[v] See my “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured,” 52.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Inter-Varsity, 2001).
Would Paul Have Made A Good Evangelical? On the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament (Part 3)
By Ardel Caneday–
It is fitting to delay posting the planned next installment for this series (read Part 1 and Part 2) in order to respond to a couple of recent blog entries published by Peter Enns. In two recent blog posts Enns poses two integrated questions. First he asks, “Would Paul Have Made a Good Evangelical?” Noteworthy is the fact that his negative response to this query leads him to a second question: “Did Paul Have a High View of Scripture?”, which is the conclusion anticipated not only by his former blog entry but by his publication of Inspiration and Incarnation. Enns’s first blog entry contains the bulk of his argument that I will engage here while not ignoring the conclusion to which Enns presses his arguments.
So, why would Paul not have made a good Evangelical? Enns answers. Paul did not “treat the Bible” as Evangelicals do. He suggests that Evangelicals, some of whom he identifies—John Piper, John MacArthur, and R. C. Sproul—would not allow the apostle Paul to “lead a home Bible study” without supervision. What grounds this malapert assertion? Enns explains:
For Evangelicals, the Old Testament leads to the Gospel story. For Paul, the Old Testament is transformed by the Gospel.
For Evangelicals, the Old Testament, read pretty much at face value, anticipates Jesus. For Paul, the Old Testament is reshaped in order to conform to Jesus.
For Evangelicals, the Bible is God’s final authority. For Paul, Jesus is the final authority to which the Bible must bend.
Yet, for anyone who knows the beliefs and messages of the three named Evangelicals and also the letters of the apostle Paul, a moment’s reflection suggests that Enns has committed a couple of logical fallacies. His first and second dichotomies beg the question because with these two disjunctions he simply assumes his conclusion to be true, namely, that for Paul the gospel “transforms” the OT and the OT is “reshaped in order to conform to Jesus.” Though he asserts these claims, nowhere does he actually demonstrate the veracity of his claims. With the third dichotomy he affirms a false disjunction that Evangelicals reject. Surely, Peter Enns realizes that his disjunction does not accurately represent any of the Evangelicals he identifies or their equals, for they do not affirm Scripture’s authority as final over and against Jesus’ authority. Which of the identified Evangelicals or any of their equals, whether in the church or the academy, would not affirm that Scripture’s authority is subordinate to the Son of God since Scripture’s chief role is to testify concerning the Christ (cf. John 5:39-40)?
Thanks are due to Peter Enns for his companion blog posts, however, because here he offers greater clarity concerning his “Christotelic approach” to the NT’s use of the OT.[1] Enns distinguishes his “christotelic eschatological hermeneutic” from confusion with “christological” and “christocentric,” for the latter two describe approaches that “are susceptible to a point of view” he does not advocate. He explains, “To read the Old Testament ‘christotelically’ is to read it already knowing that Christ is somehow the end to which the Old Testament story is heading.”[2] Despite their brevity in comparison to his two published works on the NT use of the OT, his recent two blog entries bring much greater clarity to the view he advocates concerning how the NT writers use the OT. What he formerly kept somewhat ambiguous he now plainly affirms. Now he unequivocally sets his own beliefs concerning the NT’s use of the OT over against the beliefs that characterize Evangelical scholars.
Among the many issues and questions that Enns’s book raised, one is the interest of this blog entry. His “christotelic” view of the NT’s use of the OT, which prompted some to raise significant observation and concerns, becomes explicit now that Enns is neither at Westminster Theological Seminary nor has a need to present himself as a scholar who shares the high view of Scripture Evangelicals affirm. Though not alone with this observation, D. A. Carson published his concern that the view advocated by Peter Enns makes his “sound disturbingly like” the view Barnabas Lindars promotes in New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations.[3] Lindars argues that because the NT writers came to believe that the crucified and resurrected Jesus was the Messiah, they ransacked the OT for proof texts which they often lifted out of context in their zeal to validate their message. They engaged in eisegesis as they twisted passages to serve their apologetic agenda. Evidently the gospel they needed to validate was more important than the methods they employed to advance their message. Concerning the NT use of the OT, Carson acknowledges that Enns affirms and develops how recognition and belief in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Son of God preceded the NT writers’ understanding concerning how the OT bears witness to his identity. Nevertheless, Carson links Enns with Lindars because like Lindars, Enns fails “to see how Christian belief is genuinely warranted by Scripture.”[4] Enns’s recent blog entries confirm Carson’s concern. Hints that Enns shared in common with Lindars a diminished view of the OT Scriptures are no longer subtle but clear and obvious.
According to Peter Enns the apostle Paul did hold “a high view of scripture” [sic], but his view does not correspond to “what conservative Evangelicals insist on when they talk about a high view of scripture” [sic]. To be sure, Enns allows that Paul and conservative Evangelicals agree that Israel’s story reaches its conclusion “in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the creation of a new people of God” consisting of Jews and Gentiles without discrimination. Enns insists, however, that for the apostle Paul, this conclusion could be seen only retrospectively. Hence, Enns contends that the end of the story “transforms” and “reshapes” the Old Testament “to conform to Jesus.” The obvious implication is that the Old and New Testaments do not hold together the way Evangelicals believe and teach, with the OT discernibly leading to and anticipating fulfillment in Jesus. Instead, the two testaments correlate because the coming of Jesus, a revelatory act so compelling and independent of the OT Scriptures, that it constrains Christians to become “very creative” with how they read the OT.
According to Enns, Paul had a “monumental theological and hermeneutical” problem in his mission to bring the gospel to the Gentiles and to proclaim that they are united with believing Jews as God’s one people, Abraham’s descendants. The OT centers upon Israel’s need to obey the Mosaic law to keep covenant with God and to retain the Promised Land. Yet, the gospel Paul is called upon to preach (1) renders the Mosaic law a parenthesis, (2) treats retention of the Promised Land as irrelevant, and (3) avails Gentiles the right to claim Israel’s God as their own without submitting to circumcision. Enns claims, “Clearly something has to give. For Paul, it was the Old Testament.” The Old Testament had to adapt to the message of the gospel in Christ and become malleable in the hands of skilled exegetes trained in the hermeneutical tradition of Second Temple Jewish Bible scholars.
So, “Paul claims that Gentile inclusion without circumcision was God’s plan all along.” As Enns would have us believe, given the apostle’s conviction concerning the veracity of this proclamation, Paul had to scrounge through the OT to identify passages to which he could creatively appeal to persuade Jews and Gentiles alike. So, when Paul appeals to the OT in a “string of quotations in Romans 9,” he “cites two passages from Hosea and two from Isaiah to support his claim that Gentile inclusion is part of God’s plan.” Yet, according to Enns, it should not be surprising that there is a problem, for “all four of these passages have nothing to do with Gentile inclusion. They are all aimed at God’s mercy at restoring Israel.”
Enns leaves readers without doubt concerning the extent to which he believes Paul’s reading of the OT is inventive. “This is not a minor point” of innovation that the apostle engages. “Paul is not getting a little creative with some passages, tweaking them a bit, teasing some fresh angle out of them. He is saying that these passages support his Gentile agenda, even though a plain reading shows unequivocally that they are about Israel.” Likewise, Enns directs readers to consider Paul’s uses of the OT in Romans 10, where he cites Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:13-14. Admittedly, every Christian scholar acknowledges the difficulties of tracing Paul’s use of these passages in his reasoning within Romans 10, but most restrain themselves from summarily asserting, “Either Paul can’t read or something else is up.” The “something else,” according to Enns, is that Paul uses the OT as he does because (1) he follows Judaism’s “long history of manipulating scripture in the interest of supporting theological arguments,” and (2) his overriding objective is “to make the case that Jews and Gentiles are on equal footing before God. Thus, in his effort to show that the Mosaic law had this in view all along obligates Paul to “get very creative with the Old Testament.”
Enns, now assured that his belief concerning the NT writers’ use of the OT is indisputably settled, mocks Evangelical scholars who remain benighted because they have not yet come to share the view he has adopted since he has shaken himself free from the shackles of Evangelicalism. So, he sardonically wonders. How do Evangelical Bible scholars allow Paul and other NT writers to get away with this inventive hermeneutic? Enns derisively answers, “If anyone else were doing this—me, you, the Pope, Jehovah’s Witnesses, an emergent pastor, a liberal theologian, a first year seminary student—Evangelicals would call it ‘distorting the inerrant Word of God.’” Enns can think of only two possible explanations why Evangelicals permit the apostle Paul’s alleged “distorting the inerrant Word of God.” Either (1) Paul gets a free pass because he is an apostle, “and apparently it’s OK for apostles to do this”,[5] or (2) “Paul’s reading of the Old Testament is defended as being consistent with the Old Testament meaning (which leads to overly subtle and backbreaking arguments).”
In keeping with his question begging throughout his entire blog entry, Enns once more assumes the very point he set out to prove as he deals his coup de grâce upon pitiable and unenlightened Evangelicals. “Here is the great irony. Without question, as a first century Jew, Paul believed his scripture was God’s Word. He had what Evangelicals like to call a ‘high view’ of scripture.” But, convinced that he understands how Paul used the OT, Enns asserts with confidence, “It’s just that Paul’s high view and an Evangelical high view are clearly not the same. I’m just glad Evangelicals weren’t around at the time to try to stifle Paul, to keep him from landing his gig as apostle to the Gentiles. We would have missed out on a lot.”
“For Evangelicals, the Bible is God’s final authority.” Not so for the apostle Paul, Enns confidently assures. Indeed, “Paul had a high view of scripture. It just wasn’t the final word. Jesus was.” The fact that we would not know Jesus apart from the authoritative testimony of Scripture does not seem to embarrass Enns as he asserts his false disjunction to insist that, “For Paul, Jesus is the final authority to which the Bible must bend.” On this basis, then, Enns asserts that Paul’s inventive interpretation of the OT sets the “trajectory the church” is meant to follow: “the Old Testament is God’s Word that has to be re-understood, re-thought, re-read in light of Jesus.” By saying this Enns does not mean that the apostles and first followers of Jesus Christ discovered that they needed to correct their own misunderstanding, misreading, and misappropriation of the OT because of their unbelief which led to their failure to see Christ as the one to whom the whole OT was leading. To reiterate, Enns is not saying that the coming of Christ corrects our faulty interpretation or our misreading and misunderstanding of the OT Scriptures. Rather, by “re-understood, re-thought, re-read in light of Jesus,” Enns means that the gospel “transformed” the storyline of the OT Scriptures to such an extent that “the Old Testament is reshaped in order to conform to Jesus.” The gospel story, which is rather disconnected with the OT storyline recasts and alters the OT story so that to read the OT Scriptures other than the way Enns does is to misread and to mishandle the Scriptures.
Numerous points could be raised in response to Peter Enns’s two blog entries including the nature of progressive revelation, Scripture’s clarity (perspicuity), large biblical theological themes, the place and function of Israel in the land in relation to Christ and new creation, the relationship between the Mosaic law and Christ, the place of Gentiles within the promise covenant given to Abraham, and several other issues that Enns either ignores or runs over quite roughly. Others cited above have touched upon these in their lengthy and many responses to Enns’ earlier publications. Responses offered here to the two blog entries endeavor to keep the focus upon the theme of this series, the NT use of the OT.
Since Enns’s two blog entries tightly and rightly associate the apostle Paul’s use of the OT with what Enns calls a “high view” of Scripture it is fitting that we ponder how Enns’s view concerning Paul’s use of the OT coheres with three passages that concern Paul’s appeal to Scripture to validate the gospel he preaches. Two are from Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 15:1-5; Rom. 16:25-27); the other is from the Book of Acts (Acts 17:1-12). Enns addresses none of these passages in his published materials concerning the NT use of the OT. Yet, it is quite reasonable to observe that these three passages serve as guardrails to constrain and to preserve us from positing the ideas Enns now advances concerning the NT use of the OT.
To be continued. Tomorrow watch for: “Would Paul Have Made A Good Evangelical? On the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament (Part 4).”
[1] See Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 113-165; and “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the Old Testament in Its First-Century Interpretive Environment,” in Three Views of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Kenneth Berding & Jonathan Lunde (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 167-217. Enns wrote these when he was still Professor of Old Testament & Biblical Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary. Now he affirms beliefs that he strongly denied holding prior to his departure from WTS. Now that he is less restrained he makes his views concerning Scripture, including Scripture’s use of Scripture, much clearer. While at WTS Enns presented himself as evangelical in his initial response and follow-up to Greg Beale’s critique and in his response to Beale’s critique in Themelios. See also Beale’s surrejoinder and subsequent publications, such as, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008). See Peter Enns, review of The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008, in Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.4 (2009): 628-631.
[2] Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 154. In “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal,” Three Views of the NT Use of the OT, Enns explains, “A Christotelic approach is an attempt to look at the centrality of Christ for hermeneutics in a slightly different way. It asks not so much, ‘How does this OT passage, episode, figure, etc., lead to Christ?’ To read the OT ‘Christotelicly’ is to read it already knowing that Christ is somehow the end (telos) to which the OT story is heading; in other words, to read the OT in light of the exclamation point of the history of revelation, the death and resurrection of Christ” (214).
[3] Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961). See Andrew Naselli’s instructive review of Lindars’s book.
[4] See the review of Inspiration and Incarnation by D. A. Carson, “Three Books on the Bible: A Critical Review,” available at Reformation 21 and in idem, Collected Writings on Scripture, compiled by Andrew David Naselli (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 197-235. Concerning the NT use of the OT, Carson acknowledges that Enns affirms and develops how for the NT writers their own recognition and belief in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Son of God came before their understanding concerning how the OT bears witness to his identity. Nevertheless, Carson criticizes Enns for failing “to see how Christian belief is genuinely warranted by Scripture” (Collected Writings on Scripture, 283).
[5] It is true that, for a time, some, perhaps many, Evangelicals followed the lead of Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). His argument that apostolic exegesis is not normative has largely disappeared from evangelical scholarly discussions of the NT’s use of the OT.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Inter-Varsity, 2001).
On the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament, Part 2
Ardel Caneday with Matthew Claridge–
This is part 2 of a short series on the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament with Credo blogger (!) and New Testament scholar Ardel Caneday, Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. Previous installments in the series can be found here (part 1).
I resonate with your comments that many evangelicals lack a serious and comprehensive understanding of the OT storyline. How would you recommend pastors and teachers to begin remedying this situation for their congregations?
It would seem that the most obvious way to begin to remedy the diminished understanding of how the whole storyline of the Bible holds together, especially how the Old Testament foreshadows the New and how the New Testament fulfills the Old, is to preach and to teach the Old Testament much more than is done in most churches. However, what seems most obvious may not be the best approach to rectify the situation. Many preachers, armed with belief that the Scriptures are perspicuous, have begun with Genesis 1:1 ploddingly preach through the whole Bible. To be sure, anyone who forebears a decade or more of trudging exposure to Scripture from Genesis to Revelation will acquire growing understanding of the Bible’s storyline. However, any preacher or teacher who trusts that mere plodding exposure to Scripture will make obvious the biblical storyline needs the axiomatic reminder Jesus offers: “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40). If there is mist in the pulpit, there will be fog in the pews.
Belief in Scripture’s perspicuity is commendable, but, as the Westminster Confession 1.7 affirms, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. . . .” There is an unevenness concerning Scripture’s disclosures in all its parts; from beginning to end Scripture is not equally clear. As we shall observe later, Scripture conceals much in plain sight so that the very Scriptures that formerly concealed Christ now reveal him (Rom. 16:25-27). Additionally, Scripture is not understood by everyone to the same degree, for insight and understanding are not equally apportioned to everyone (cf. Eph. 3:1-6). To whatever degree we have unimpaired eyes and clouded minds that are opened to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:31, 45), we are obliged to be grateful to the Lord, for he alone provides understanding to some while he keeps understanding hidden from others (Matt. 11:25-27; cf. Luke 24:16).
Consequently, perhaps a better approach to correcting deficient understanding of the biblical storyline, particularly arising out of the NT’s uses of the OT, is to preach or teach through a portion of the NT, such as one of the Gospels, and at every citation of or allusion to the OT take care to demonstrate how and why the NT text uses the OT as it does, showing how Jesus Christ brings to fulfillment the full array of OT Scriptures with their foreshadows and prophecies, however subtle or explicit they may be. Why not preach ploddingly through the Gospel of Matthew, with a keen eye to expounding uses of the OT that require demonstration of warrants or justification for both Matthew’s uses of the OT and the OT’s meaning and anticipation of the Coming One now announced as fulfilled in Christ Jesus?
As one whose primary responsibility is to teach the New Testament, I routinely linger over the NT’s uses of the OT to show textual warrants in both the OT and the NT for how and why the OT Scripture citation or allusion that is under consideration is justifiably used by the NT writer as fulfilled with the coming of Messiah Jesus. Thus, a significant outcome of my teaching through the Gospel of Mark, for example, is that students come to a richer understanding of how Jesus fulfills OT prophecies embedded within the narratives of the Pentateuch, in the worshipful verses of the Psalter, and within the inscribed words of the Prophets (cf. Luke 24:44-47). More than this, however, students’ understanding of Jesus himself becomes deeply enriched as it begins to dawn upon them that the OT is about the Christ, the Son of God, in that he is the climax of the unfolding drama that begins to be told in Genesis 1:1 and that Jesus came in the fullness of time (Mark 1:15) in order that he might bring into fulfilled convergence the replete and diverse array of categories with which the OT anticipated his coming. Thus, Jesus is the Light of the World. He is the Second Man, the Last Adam, the New Man. Jesus is the Lamb of God, the latter day Moses, the new Joshua, the Son of David, even the latter day David. He is the Passover Lamb, the Temple, the new Israel, and the fulfillment of other OT imageries too numerous to list.
How would I recommend that pastors and teachers address the truncated understanding of the biblical storyline that tends to focus almost exclusively upon the NT? The remedy resides within the NT itself. But it requires that pastors and teachers do the difficult and labor-intensive work of poring over every NT citation or allusion to the OT in order to be able to convey to their parishioners how and why NT writers use the OT as they do. Pastors and teachers should be inciting parishioners to become like the Berean Jews who searched the OT Scriptures to confirm that what Paul preached to them was in fact testified to by the Word of God.
There are many resources that will assist pastors and teachers in this work. Two helpful books are: G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), and G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, Sept. 1, 2012).
I appreciate your presentation of the differing views one can take to this topic and its consequences for one’s theological method. However, some have suggested a kind of third way, a via media if you will, between the liberal and conservative approach to the NT use of the OT. This third way is particularly evident among Dispensational interpreters. John Feinberg has argued that OT prophecies have one sense (what is known to the original author) but multiple references (future fulfillments in time) which the Holy Spirit revealed to his NT prophets. For example, the New Covenant is promised only to “the house of Israel” but the author of Hebrews applies it to the Jewish-Gentile church. This move can only be warranted if the OT prophecy had “multiple fulfillments” as revealed later by the Holy Spirit. What’s your response to this creative approach?
I anticipate that we will have an opportunity to return to the range of views concerning the NT’s uses of the OT that I mentioned in the first installment in this series to sketch in, for instructive purposes, differences among them. One such viewpoint on the spectrum, a viewpoint with variations depending upon who represents it, is that of Classical Dispensationalism. The example you raise in your question features the interpretive understanding of Classical Dispensationalists.
Before addressing the issue of the New Covenant promised to “the house of Israel” and to “the house of Judah,” it is necessary to comment upon the concept of “multiple fulfillments.” The concept that OT prophecies may have “multiple references” or “multiple fulfillments” is not exclusively the possession of Classical Dispensationalists. Other viewpoints, particularly those that Evangelicals tend to embrace, generally accept the concept as rooted in Scripture and not as the creation of Classical Dispensationalists to fit their system of belief, though the concept takes on a distinctive form within Classical Dispensationalism.
For example, while John 19:37 quotes Zechariah 12:10—“They will look on him whom they have pierced”—as fulfilled when the Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side, Revelation 1:7 uses the same OT passage but with reference to the second advent of Christ—“‘Look, he is coming with the clouds,’ and ‘every eye will see him, even those who pieced him,’ and all peoples on earth will mourn because of him.’ So shall it be! Amen.” Actually, this verse consists of a collocation of two OT passages in three segments: the first portion from Daniel 7:13, the latter two segments from Zechariah 12:10. It seems readily apparent that Zechariah 12:10 finds fulfillment in both Christ’s first and second advents. This should not surprise us, for his two advents are but two inseparable though distinguishable phases of Messiah’s coming.
Since Scripture makes it manifestly clear that Messiah’s first coming does not exhaustively fulfill the OT’s anticipations of Messiah’s coming but plainly states that “he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (Heb. 9:28), it seems reasonable to expect that various OT prophecies may have dual references, to both Messiah’s first and second advents with the first serving as the assured promise of the second. Because the Christ has come already and will yet come again, it is readily apparent that the NT depicts fulfillment of OT expectations in terms of fulfilled both “already” and “not yet.”
Thus, resurrection unto eternal life, of which Daniel 12:2 speaks, finds fulfillment in two phases—in “an hour yet coming” and in the hour that “is now here” (John 5:25). Though Daniel 12:2 seems to refer to the Last Day, the Day of Resurrection, there is fulfillment already for everyone who hears the word of God’s Son and believes in him, for these already receive eternal life (John 5:24). Nevertheless, Jesus affirms that the present age does not exhaust Daniel’s prophecy, for he says, “Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his [the Son’s] voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29).
With “multiple fulfillments” clarified, now for a few comments on how the writer to the Hebrews can appeal to Jeremiah 31:31-34 and apply the promise of the New Covenant to the church, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles, and do so without doing violence to the OT passage even though the passage clearly affirms that the Lord “will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (see Heb. 8:8-12; 10:16-17). Here is where significant difference emerges between Classical Dispensationalism and other evangelical viewpoints, including Progressive Dispensationalism, concerning the NT’s use of the OT. Lest this response get too long, I will leave the issue of these differences for another time even though I realize that the response I now offer anticipates that discussion.
Indeed, the text of Jeremiah 31 which Hebrews 8 quotes expressly states that the Lord promises the covenant to the houses of Israel and of Judah, though in Hebrews 8:10 it is simplified to the house of Israel. How, then, can the writer to the Hebrews make the claim that the new covenant promised to the house of Israel belongs to a covenant people who consist of believing Jews and Gentiles? It stands to reason, of course, that Israel, unfaithful as she was at the time the promise of the new covenant was announced by the prophet Jeremiah, served in a representative way for an Israel that would in latter days welcome and participate in the promised new covenant. Given latter day ethnic Israel’s unfaithfulness as manifest by her rejection of Messiah Jesus, it also stands to reason that the she did not receive the promised covenant.
From of old, Israel, and everything she experienced happened typologically and these things were written down for our instruction, for us on whom the end of the ages has come (1 Cor. 10:11). Thus, here in Jeremiah 31, earthly Israel, as in Hosea 11:1, bears the imprint of the heavenly Israelite and thus functions as his earthly shadow and copy. So, Israel serves as a type, a foreshadow, of the Coming One, Jesus Christ who is Abraham’s seed (cf. Gal. 3:16). Just as the promise was spoken to Abraham and to his Seed, who is the Christ (Gal. 3:16), so the promise of the new covenant is made to latter day Israel, who is the Christ with all his children (cf. Heb. 2:10-13).
Admittedly, this is an altogether abbreviated explanation of how the new covenant promised to the house of Israel came to be inherited by a mixed ethnic body of believing Jews and Gentiles. Even though it is a longer explanation than Hebrews 8 provides with its extensive quotation from Jeremiah 31, it may be less than satisfying for some. Fuller explanation concerning types and foreshadows awaits a later installment.
Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Inter-Varsity, 2001).
On the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament
This is part 1 of a short series on the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament with Credo blogger (!) and New Testament scholar Ardel Caneday, Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Why is the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament one of the most crucial areas of theological reflection that all Christians must grapple with?
The primary reason why all Christians must engage the questions concerning how the New Testament (NT) uses the Old Testament (OT) is that the NT itself compels believers to do so. This constraint is ours because the OT informs the NT writers in such a manner that as they speak of Christ, whether in the Gospels or in the Book of Acts or in their letters, their words routinely echo the OT with allusions, sometimes strong, at other times faint, and explicit quotations, sometimes strung together, frequently fill their pages. It is manifestly evident that the NT writers believe and proclaim that the OT Scriptures, with all their diverse portions and voices come to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. This is why all Christians must grapple with the NT’s uses of the OT.
Today, Christians have access to Bibles that flag OT quotations within the New for readers. Readers may readily find the sources of OT quotations by using a Bible’s reference column, regardless how brief the quotations may be. Even allusions to the OT may be identified within these reference columns, especially in study Bibles. Even though the average Christian today has significant advantages over believers in past generations, especially believers in ancient times, perhaps none excel first-century believers in Berea. Luke commends them: “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11).
It is important to state what should be obvious about preaching the gospel in the first-century. When Paul preached that the promised Seed of Abraham, the Messiah, the Christ, is Jesus of Nazareth, the only Scripture he had from which to preach was the OT. So, when Jews of Berea heard Paul’s message they had no NT. They had the OT, perhaps with much of it committed to memory. Thus, they examined the OT Scriptures with care to determine whether the things Paul was proclaiming were true. They were not about to permit the apostle Paul to engage in any hermeneutical trickery. They were not about to believe what Paul proclaimed just because he, as an apostle, preached that the Messiah, whom they anticipated, is none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and whose countrymen subjected him to death by handing him over to the Romans who crucified him though he rose from the dead on the third day.
We have the whole Bible readily at hand, accessible with a keystroke on a computer. We have volumes of commentaries on the Scriptures plus numerous specialized books on the NT’s uses of the OT for modern Christians. Nevertheless, Christians do not seem to grasp how the whole of Scripture holds together, culminating in Christ Jesus. This is so, in large measure, because so many read the climax of the storyline and thus think they know the whole of the biblical story. Many Christians read the Bible like college students read classic pieces of literature. Many either turn to CliffsNotes as a substitute while others think that they can read the last few chapters of a piece of literature and still grasp the core and essence of the storyline, which they may be able to do, but they fail to apprehend many things that require knowledge of the whole. It is similar with many Christians. Generally, if Christians turn to the OT, they tend to read portions of the OT, such as the Psalms or Proverbs, but because they have familiarity with the NT, they suppose that they understand the core and essence of the biblical storyline, which may be true, but their grasp is significantly truncated. Many preachers reinforce this mentality by rarely preaching from the OT. Yet, in order to proclaim the good news concerning Christ Jesus from the OT, both Christian readers and preachers must acquire a more profound understanding of the biblical storyline than a surface level knowledge that permeates the church today, for the categories of the NT’s message concerning Christ Jesus and what he has accomplished are grounded in and prepared for by the OT.
Could you provide a brief survey of the differing views one might hold on the “NT use of the OT” and to which of these you subscribe?
This initial accounting for differing views concerning the NT’s use of the OT is not at all as full as I offer in a course I teach on the subject. For the sake of simplicity, there is a range of views that cluster around two distinct beliefs.
On the one hand, some scholars contend that the NT writers became convinced that the promised Christ is Jesus of Nazareth. Convinced of this, they ransacked the OT Scriptures, even pulling passages out of their contexts, as proof of their new found belief. Those who hold this view are not concerned to show how the meaning of OT passages cited in the NT as fulfilled in Christ correlate and hold together. For them, uses the NT writers make of OT passages, nurtured by their imaginative and creative skills, is sufficient. As one might infer, those who affirm this view tend to hold a somewhat low view concerning Scripture’s authority and reliability. Thus, for example, some who hold this view are not embarrassed when they insist that Matthew 2:15 does violence to Hosea 11:1—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—by announcing that this passage is fulfilled in Joseph’s taking the infant Jesus with his mother to Egypt to escape jealous King Herod’s dragnet of murder in his effort to eliminate the birth of a child whom he thought would rival his family dynasty. Similarly, they have no qualms when they claim that the apostle Paul’s imaginative powers created the allegory to which he appeals in his argument that the Galatians cannot submit to the law covenant and at the same time reckon themselves Abraham’s descendants (Gal. 4:21-5:1).
While other scholars agree that the NT writers became convinced that the promised Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth, they affirm much more. These scholars affirm that Jesus (1) explained to his followers that all the Scriptures speak of him, (2) corrected their misreading and misunderstanding of the OT Scriptures, and (3) opened their eyes and minds to recognize him as the fulfillment of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:31, 45). Those who hold this second view also tend to embrace a high view of Scripture’s authority and reliability as the NT writers do. Therefore, they are persuaded that it is crucial, as much as possible, to demonstrate how both the OT passages cited and the NT uses of the OT passages justify or warrant their various uses as fulfilled in Jesus.
Consequently, Christian scholars who hold to this view are convinced that Matthew 2:15 does not rip Hosea 11:1 out of context but honors the fact that the prophet’s statement is not grammatically a future predictive statement but a retrospective and historical declaration of what God had done for Israel. Nevertheless, even though the passage is not grammatically future predictive, those who take this second view are also convinced that the passage is forward looking because of Israel’s role as foreshadowing the coming Messiah. Similarly, those who hold this second view are quite uneasy accepting the notion that the apostle’s imaginative powers created the allegory of Galatians 4:21-5:1. Some accept this concept but rescue it by appealing to Paul’s apostolic authority as the recipient of divine revelation in his encounter with the Christ (cf. Gal. 1:12-15).
These two examples serve to feature significant differences between the two schools of thought with regard to the axis of promise and fulfillment that spans the biblical storyline from OT to NT, with the old frequently being cited as fulfilled in the new. Other biblical categories promptly come into purview with any serious consideration of this promise-fulfillment axis. These categories include but are not limited to the nature and function of prophecy, of types or foreshadows, and of mystery. When these categories enter into scholarly consideration, the two schools of thought described above begin to multiply into a range of positions with varying ways to account for prophecy, types or foreshadows, and mystery along the promise-fulfillment axis. Consideration of these categories must await further discussion. As for me, I believe that Saint Augustine expresses the relationship between the two testaments quite well we he states, “The New Testament is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed” (Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, et Vetus in Novo patet.[Quaestionum in Heptateuchum, 2, 73]).
Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Inter-Varsity, 2001).
Matthew Claridge is an editor for Credo Magazine and is Senior Pastor of Mt. Idaho Baptist Church in Grangeville, ID. He has earned degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is married to Cassandra and has two children, Alec and Nora.
Follow Us!