Near Emmaus

Tag Archives: Old Testament in the New Testament


by 10 Comments

Jesus and Psalm 22

The primary phrase shared between Jesus on the cross and Psalm 22 is “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Psa 22:1; cf. Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34). I could see how Jesus had the whole psalm in mind during the event of the cross, since much of it is specifically connected with events that surround the cross. Knowing this makes me think that Jesus probably identified himself with the psalmist, seeing and experiencing at the same time both the troubles of that day and the strength, trust-, and praiseworthiness of the Lord. The traditional interpretation that the Father abandoned the Son would not be as strong here, since the psalm speaks of the ultimate nearness of the Lord (Psa 22:10-11, 19-21, 24). Bauckham sees the quoted words of Psalm 22:1 as Jesus’ experience on the cross, but recognizes that the entire psalm lends context to understanding the quotation (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 255).

As with Bauckham (see Jesus and the God of Israel [2008]), I see Psalm 22 as Christologically rich. In John 19:28, Jesus’ admittance to being thirsty seems to be connected to Psalm 22:15. Like the psalm, the account of the crucifixion event in John 19 also has reference to the mother of the speaker. Psalm 22:6-8, 16, 18 are referred to very specifically in the New Testament as fulfilled by the cross experience. The first set (mocking) is seen in Matthew 27:39-44, Mark 15:29-32, and Luke 23:35. Verse 18 is found fulfilled in Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, and John 19:23-24. Further, we see a very human Jesus—one “taken from the womb” and “on [his] mother’s breast” (Psa 22:9)—who has to trust in the Lord as all human beings do. Lastly, we see in the Psalm—as we see in Jesus—someone who points others to the Lord and encourages them in their worship of God: “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters . . . I will praise you” (22:22); “You who fear the Lord, praise him!” (22:23).

About these ads


by 6 Comments

Christology and Methodology

In the Christology of the New Testament class I took in the fall of 2010, we were required to read the introduction to Contours of Christology in the New Testament, edited by Richard Longenecker, to respond to the question “How important is it to have a good methodology for understanding New Testament Christology?”

With the topic of Christology getting some coverage on the blogosphere (see diglot’s series here, here, here, and here; Joel’s thought on Mark’s Christology here; pf’s comment on Unsettled Christianity to Nick Norelli here), I thought I would muse on methodology here. Here was my response to the above question:

Methodology is important for Christology. The methodology must be sound and should aim to understand what biblical authors were trying to convey about Jesus. Presenting a list of various means of doing theology, Longenecker asks the question of what the primary method for doing Christology should be (xii). His solution is to approach Christology from a perspective of biblical theology, considering the various contexts of the biblical writers, and using the proper critical methods to get to these contexts accurately.

While I agree with the four that Longenecker mentioned, I also think that the theological and devotional aspects are part of what makes Christological methodology good and these should therefore not be neglected. The biblical writers were influenced by the theology they found in the Old Testament (who would ever get from a historical-grammatical point of view that Hosea 11:1 is speaking about Jesus?), and so Christology will ultimately take into account both testaments of the Bible. The devotional method of doing Christology can be found in the various believers throughout Christian history who have contributed to various disciplines, and so we should not neglect this aspect either.

Lastly, a good methodology will consider the tensions of the presentations of Jesus. For example, Mark’s presentation of Jesus could be considered the messianic secret; but in John, Jesus is presented with more messianic openness. These two apparently opposite presentations should not be seen as contradictory, but rather two sides of one coin that help give a fuller picture of Jesus.

The importance of a good methodology allows one to understand the various facets of Jesus, and it is hoped that in learning about these facets, one will expand in one’s relationship with Jesus and teach others ways that would help them love Jesus in their own unique ways.

So, how important is methodology to you? What disciplines do you tend to draw from to develop your methodology? What do you tend to avoid in your methodology?


by 2 Comments

"Out of Egypt I Called My Son": The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15

When asked to explain the justification for quoting Hosea 11:1 as a reference to Jesus in Matthew 2:15 the response that I am most familiar with is that of sensus plenior or “fuller meaning”. By this it is suggested that the author of the First Gospel, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explained a deeper, fuller meaning of the text that the original author may not have intended and that the original audience would not have recognized. While this explanation is possible it appears to create an image of the Evangelist as one who has flippantly used the First Testament as an attempt to “prove” what he wanted to say about Jesus.

In his marvelous book, Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns suggest another possibility:

“It may be that Matthew had in mind not simply one verse in Hosea 11, but the larger context of that chapter. There were no verse numbers in Matthew’s day. Quoting one verse may have been a way of saying “that part of Hosea that begins with ‘out of Egypt I called my son.’” “[1]

Enns suggest that the quote used by Matthew was intended to represent the entire first portion of Hosea 11 where God addresses Israel as His son. To grasp what Enns is suggesting we ought to look first at Hosea 11:1-11 and then we can return to Enns for a further explanation of his viewpoint.

Hosea 11:1-11 reads (NASB):

When Israel was a youth I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.
The more they called them,
The more they went from them;
They kept sacrificing to the Baals
And burning incense to idols.

Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk,

I took them in My arms;

But they did not know that I healed them.

I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love,

And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws;

And I bent down and fed them.

They will not return to the land of Egypt;

But Assyria—he will be their king

Because they refused to return to Me.

The sword will whirl against their cities,

And will demolish their gate bars

And consume them because of their counsels.

 

So My people are bent on turning from Me.

Though they call them to the One on high,

None at all exalts Him.

How can I give you up, O Ephraim?

How can I surrender you, O Israel?

How can I make you like Admah?

How can I treat you like Zeboiim?

 

My heart is turned over within Me,

All My compassions are kindled.

I will not execute My fierce anger;

I will not destroy Ephraim again.

For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst,

And I will not come in wrath.

They will walk after the Lord,

He will roar like a lion;

Indeed He will roar

And His sons will come trembling from the west.

They will come trembling like birds from Egypt,

And like doves from the land of Assyria;

And I will settle them in their houses, declares the Lord.

 

Several observations should be made regarding this text. First, v. 1 that is quoted in Matthew is not a prediction by Hosea at all, but a reflection on the Exodus from Egypt when God delivered Israel and called Israel to be His son. Second, it should be noted that a lament begins because Israel has forsaken God in favor of idols. Third, Israel was threatened with exile as a form of punishment for their sin against God. Fourth, God decides to forgive Israel although Israel does not deserve forgiveness (vv. 8-11).

Enns makes this observation:

“The son in Hosea and the son in Matthew are a study of contrast. Israel came out of Egypt, was disobedient, deserved punishment, yet was forgiven by God (Hos. 11:8-11). Christ came out of Egypt, led a life of perfect obedience, deserved no punishment, but was crucified–the guiltless for the guilty. By presenting Jesus this way, Matthew was able to mount an argument for his readers that Jesus fulfilled the ideal that Israel was supposed to have reached but never did. Jesus is the true Israel.” [2]

In other words, Matthew did not see the words of Hosea being fulfilled in the sense that Hosea predicted or spoke directly of a Christ figure. Rather, Hosea spoke of the calling of Israel, her failure, and God’s forgiveness while Matthew showed that where Israel failed, Jesus fulfilled by doing for Israel what Israel could not do for herself. The fulfillment is found in Jesus as the new, better Israel.
______________________________________________________________
[1] Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. 134.
[2] Ibid.