SAMPLES OF CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO (unformatted and without footnotes) Chapter One Jesus the Jew In recent years there has been an increased interest among Bible students in the Jewishness of Jesus. There have also been periodicals to appear which are dedicated to studying the Jewish background, culture, and language of the carpenter from Nazareth. As a result, people are increasingly aware of the need to see Jesus and his sayings through the eyes of first century Jewish culture. This has led believers in Jesus to strive to view his sayings from a culture other than their own. They have come to realize that Jesus did not live in a vacuum, but rather moved about within his own defined culture. Jesus would have had to communicate in a way that was intelligible to the people he was trying to reach, using their language, idioms, and cultural biases in his speech and actions. Thus it has become necessary to define Jesus within the culture in which he lived, rather than our own. This has long been recognized as important to understanding the teachings of Christ by well-recognized scholars such as C. H. Dodd, Joachim Jeremias, and Kenneth Bailey, to mention a few. Kenneth Bailey goes further than the others mentioned, combining an examination of the poetic structure with an understanding of the Eastern culture which affects the text. Until Bailey, the internal aspects, i.e., the personal relationships and attitudes that characterize Middle Eastern society, had been either ignored or only been imprecisely understood. Dr. Bailey draws heavily upon Middle Eastern culture through which to interpret Christ's parables. Whether or not we accept all of Dr. Bailey's conclusions, he clearly supports the necessity of studying Jesus and the New Testament documents from within the culture in which they occurred. An excellent work dealing precisely with this issue is the book Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, by Marvin Wilson in which he strongly supports the Jewish nature of the entire Christian system. Commenting on the necessity of reorienting ourselves in our approach to the Bible he says: "'Western eyes' must be replaced by 'Eastern eyes' if modern Christians intend to read the Bible the way it was written. The Bible can make sense only when it is viewed and studied in the light of its own distinctive Near Eastern setting and cultural context." He goes on to say: "Such a challenge to today's Church has been issued nowhere more emphatically than in the words of the late Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth: 'The Bible is a Jewish book. It cannot be read and understood and expounded unless we are prepared to become Jews with the Jews.'" Joseph Shulam, since I have known him, has insisted that Western Gentile Christians simply cannot properly understand the Bible without first becoming students of that time, culture, and even the Hebrew language. His point is that the only proper way to interpret Jesus and the New Testament documents is not through Western Gentile eyes, but through the eyes of those who wrote them and received them: Middle Eastern Jewish eyes of the first century. Though Joseph's statement seems drastic and even brusque to some Western Christians, we need to strive to understand the basis of such a statement. Jesus spoke to a people who already had firmly– established Messianic expectations that were based upon an hermeneutical approach to God's Word and long-recognized tradition passed down to them by their rabbis. The question that must be addressed is, "Did Jesus fit into their expectations, and did the writers of the New Testament present him as doing so?" The answer to the first part of this question is immediately— "no" and "yes". No, Jesus did not fit into everyone's expectations of Messiah. That is clear from the several arguments Jesus entered into with the religious leaders of his day because they were convinced, based upon their own Messianic expectations, that he lacked the necessary credentials. But, simultaneously, the answer has to be "yes" in that Jesus did fit into some people's Messianic expectations— or else none of them would have accepted him as Messiah. We see from the Book of Acts that literally thousands of Jews did accept him as their long-awaited Messiah. The different reactions to Jesus is largely based upon the kind of Messiah expected—Zealots' expectation would be different from the kind of Messiah expected by those of the Sanhedrin—one more political, the other more priestly. The Essenes were looking for two Messiahs. Just what kind of Messiah were the first century Jews looking for? What hermeneutic did they apply to their Sacred Writing to form their expectations? It is in this that we are precisely interested. If that hermeneutic can be discovered and if it can be shown that the New Testament writers used that established hermeneutic to present Jesus of Nazareth to the Jews as Messiah, then that particular approach has immediate bearing on our own understanding of the New Testament, and especially, for this study—the Gospel of John. Chapter Two Looking Through the Glass FIRST CENTURY JEWISH HERMENEUTIC OF MESSIAH Several excellent works suggest an hermeneutical approach to Messiah possibly different from that with which the West might be accustomed. It is not uncommon for Western Christians to hear taught that one of the proofs of Jesus' Messiahship is found in his fulfillment of the many specific Old Testament verbal predictions about the Messiah. Specific passages are quoted in the light of some particular event in Jesus' life. While the fact that Jesus fulfills the passages quoted is undeniable, just how Western Christians understand Jesus' fulfillment of these passages may be quite different from how a Jew of the first century understood Jesus' fulfillment of the same passages. Alfred Edersheim says regarding Messianic expectation by the first century Jews: “Perhaps the most valuable element in Rabbinic commentation on Messianic times is that in which, as so frequently, it is explained, that all the miracles and deliverance of Israel's past would be reenacted, only in a much wider manner, in the days of the Messiah. Thus the whole past was symbolic, and typical of the future—the Old Testament the glass, through which the universal blessings of the latter days were seen.” Dr. Edersheim's comments would lead us to understand that the Jews of Jesus' day viewed all the Old Testament as typifying the Messiah and His age rather than containing only a few verbal predictions spoken directly about the future Messiah. He goes on to state that the great number of passages in the Old Testament that the ancient synagogue called Messianic were more than 558. Yet he says: “But comparatively few of these are what would be termed verbal predictions. Rather would it seem as if every event were regarded as prophetic, and every prophecy, whether by fact, or by word (prediction), as a light to cast its sheen on the future, until the picture of the Messianic age in the far back-ground stood out in the hundredfold variegated brightness of prophetic events, and prophetic utterances.” Could the Jews of the first century have understood correctly, and could it be true that every event and every prophecy was typifying the Messiah and His age? And could it be true, as stated in the previous quotation, that all the miracles and deliverance of Israel's past would be reenacted in the days of the Messiah? And even if it can be shown that the Jews of the first century did indeed view the entire Old Testament as typifying the Messiah and His age, did the New Testament writers incorporate this view in their presentation of the Messiah and His age? That the Jews of the first century did look for such a fulfillment of the Old Testament events is confirmed by others. R. T. France makes reference to F. Foulkes and says that he proposes the following definition to Christian typological use of the Old Testament: “We may say that a type is an event, a series of circumstances, or an aspect of the life of an individual or of the nation, which finds a parallel and a deeper realization in the incarnate life of our Lord, in His provision for the needs of men, or in His judgments and future reign. A type thus presents a pattern of the dealings of God with men that is followed in the antitype, when, in the coming of Jesus Christ and the setting up of His kingdom, those dealings of God are repeated, though with a fullness and finality that they did not exhibit before.” France agrees with Foulkes' definition and goes on to say that this statement “indicates the conviction which lies at the root of New Testament typology. It is that there is a consistency in God's dealings with men. Thus his acts in the Old Testament will present a pattern which can be seen to be repeated in the New Testament events; these may therefore be interpreted by reference to the pattern displayed in the Old Testament. The New Testament writers are aware not only of being involved in this continuous process, but also of being witnesses of the climax and culmination of it.” We see a pattern of hermeneutic begin to emerge. That is, instead of looking only for a few specific verbal predictions to be fulfilled in the life and times of the Messiah, they were looking for a reenactment of the salvation history of Israel. The Jews of Jesus' day were looking for the events and miracles of their divine history to be repeated in the Messianic age. Edersheim goes as far as to say that they were expecting all miracles and deliverances of Israel's past to be reenacted. While we as Western Christians might be prone to look for the proof of Jesus' Messiahship through the fulfillment of a few specific verbal predictions (of which Edersheim says there are very few), the Jews of the first century were looking for the Messiah and his age to be the antitype of the type set forth in the Old Testament salvation history of Israel. The New Testament writers interpreted the events of Messiah by reference to the pattern displayed in the Old Testament. France goes on to say: “This same conviction is already apparent in the Old Testament. The prophets frequently looked forward to a 'repetition of the acts of God'. The Exodus especially provided a model for prophetic predictions both of acts of deliverance within the national history of Israel, and of the more glorious eschatological work of God. Following the lead of the prophets, Jesus and the New Testament writers saw in the coming of Jesus a parallel and yet greater redemption.” France sets forth the proposition that not only were the Jews of Jesus' day expecting such a Messiah, but that Jesus and the New Testament writers had the same concept of Messiah. France is not alone in this position. E. Earle Ellis puts forth the same position. He says in speaking of the central place the Exodus event played in ancient Jewish thought: “The rabbis also drew a parallel between the 'first deliverer' (Moses) and the 'last deliverer' (the Messiah). The Messiah was, like Moses, to bring plagues upon the oppressors of Israel, bring forth water from the rock, and perform a miracle of manna. The final deliverance, like the deliverance from Egypt, would take place at the Passover.” The NT writers set forth the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfillment of these expectations. The picture of Christ in Matthew is particularly suggesting the rabbinical parallels between Moses and Messiah: Like Moses he is saved from Herod's slaughter, comes forth out of Egypt, calls out the 'twelve sons of Israel', gives the law from the mount, performs ten miracles (like Moses, ten plagues), provides 'manna' from heaven. When the writers referred to above examine the literature of the period under consideration, they come to the same conclusion —i.e., the Jews of Jesus' day were expecting the Messiah to reenact their divine salvation history. They were not so concerned with specific verbal predictions being fulfilled, as they were looking for patterns of events and persons set forth in the Old Testament to be fulfilled. They applied the whole Old Testament to Messiah and his age. THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS' USE OF SCRIPTURE What do we see when we examine the New Testament in light of this hermeneutical approach to the Old Testament? Did the New Testament writers meet the expectation of their contemporaries and use the Old Testament as a type through which to present Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah? Did they interpret the events of the life of Jesus by referring to the pattern displayed in the Old Testament as the rabbis had taught the Messiah would? Just how the New Testament writers use the Old Testament is a very broad study with no simple explanations. The difficulties of such study is well expressed by Neale Pryor in his contribution to the book Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practice in which he comments on this in the chapter "The Use of the Old Testament in the New". He says: “The relationship between the two testaments is not as simple as might seem at first, especially in the way New Testament writers make use of passages from the Old. The problems fall into two general categories. First, some Old Testament passages that are applied to the New Testament situations do not seem in their original context to refer to the events of the Christian era. Second, the New Testament sometimes does not seem to quote the Old's text faithfully, sometimes even changing the reading to fit the purpose of the writer.” Is there evidence of dishonesty in the New Testament writers? Do they take unallowable liberties with the text? How could the Jews be convinced that the Old Testament predicted New Testament events by inaccurate quotes or strained exegesis? Or, did the New Testament writers employ exegesis from the Old Testament that was accepted in their day? Really, the logical conclusion is that which is lastly suggested by Pryor: “Or, did the New Testament writers employ exegesis from the Old Testament that was accepted in their day?”. It would not make sense that they would attempt to prove Jesus to be Messiah by violating the hermeneutic of the people to whom they were writing. It does appear that New Testament writers may have accommodated their usage of the Old Testament to that which was common in the first century A.D. as that which is found in the Midrashim, or that of the Qumran community called pesher. Examples of this usage of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers are abundant. One example can be found in Eph 4:8 in which the apostle Paul says: “Therefore it says, 'WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN.” The quote he provides is from Ps. 68:18 which says: “Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led captive Thy captives; Thou hast received gifts among men, Even among the rebellious also, that the LORD God may dwell there.” The M.T. and the LXX both agree in saying that He received gifts rather than give gifts as Paul quotes it. Paul takes the liberty to change the wording of the text. He does so to show how Jesus fits its fulfillment. This may seem to 20th Century Bible Scholars an abuse of Scripture. If you want to use a proof text, you don't begin by misquoting it. But this is a rather common usage of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers and reflects their notion that the whole Old Testament referred to their age, that they were living in the last days to which the Old Testament pointed. Changing the wording of the text to show exactly how it fit was fully acceptable. Another example of how the Old Testament is variously used in the New Testament can be seen from Isaiah 6:9-10, because it is quoted so many times in the New Testament each with a different application. J. T. Willis comments about this saying: “(1) It is quoted by Jesus when he explains that he teaches in parables so that the Jews would not understand his message (Matt. 13:10-17; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-10). (2) It is used by John to explain why the Jews would not understand Jesus' message in spite of his many signs (John 12:37-41). (3) It is quoted by Paul as a parting comment to the Jews in Rome who refused to believe the Gospel he preached (Acts 28:23-28). (4) It is cited by Paul to explain why most Jews were hardened against Christ (Rom. 11:7-8) It seems obvious that these four applications were not specifically in mind when the Lord commissioned Isaiah to preach to his fellow Judeans in 6:9-10.” In the Matthew 13 passage, Jesus says that his speaking in parables was because “in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled….” In John's Gospel, John explains the reason the Jews rejected Jesus' signs was so that “…the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke…” (v. 38). In what way was Isaiah's prophecy being fulfilled in Messiah, when it is clear from Isa. 6 that it was fulfilled in the time of Isaiah? And how does Isaiah's prophecy fulfill both the instance in Matthew and in John since their situations are very different? Jesus and John both say that their differing situations were a fulfillment of the same prophecy. These various approaches used by the New Testament writers can all be seen throughout their writings. And there is always debate on how to explain them. However, each method has a basic underlying principle that is often overlooked—that which Edersheim verbalizes: “all the miracles and deliverance of Israel's past would be reenacted, only in a much wider manner, in the days of the Messiah. Thus the whole past was symbolic, and typical of the future—the Old Testament the glass, through which the universal blessings of the latter days were seen.” No matter what usage Jesus, or New Testament writers, might be making in any particular place, it will have as its basis the idea that the whole Old Testament was a pattern for Messiah and his age. Thus any use of Old Testament found in the New Testament fits well into the hermeneutic of the first century A.D. Jews. It fulfilled the basic need of seeing Messiah through the lens of the Old Testament. As Ellis says: "Its not so much a system of interpretation as a spiritual perspective from which the early Christian community viewed itself." (0p.cit., Ellis, Prophecy.). If Edersheim and the others quoted above are correct, then virtually any prophecy could correctly be used to refer to Messiah and his age. Even when a prophecy is clearly referring to the prophet's immediate situation and not the future, it could be used by New Testament writers as though it was fulfilled in Messiah since to them it was. This could also very well explain the places in which the New Testament writers use the Old Testament text to suit their own application to Messiah and his time, even to the extent that they seem to be taking unallowable liberties. Applying a particular prophecy to more than one situation (as with the Isa. 6 passage cited above) would not be a problem. In fact, it would be expected. If the whole Old Testament were a glass through which to see the New, then even making alterations in the wording of the text (as the example stated above in Eph. 4:8) to show how it looks when seen through that glass would be a perfectly legitimate approach. Applying this approach to the Old Testament was commonly practiced by the Jews in their own commentaries, the Midrashim of the Rabbis and the Pesharim of Qumran, and the New Testament writers are simply practicing what was common to their time. LOOKING THROUGH THE GLASS This understanding of how Jesus and the New Testament writers viewed the Old Testament would help alleviate difficulties created in trying to explain some of their Old Testament quotes. Bible teachers have always faced a problem when attempting to approach Old Testament quotes with a Western mind set—as direct verbal predictions applying only to Messiah, rather than as a pattern having application to both the time of the Old Testament situation and the future Messiah. One example would be Matthew's use of the Old Testament passage of Hosea 11:1 which says: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” From the context, the passage is clearly referring to the nation of Israel as God's son. It is not even a verbal prediction about the Messiah. Yet Matthew uses it as a proof text to show Jesus as Messiah. He says: “And he arose and took the Child and His mother by night, and departed for Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Out of Egypt did I call My son.” (Matt. 2:14-15). If we take the approach that Old Testament quotes used in such a way by New Testament writers were verbal predictions referring only to the coming Messiah, we are hard pressed by the context from which the quote was taken. It is also clear from the text of Hosea that it is not a prediction at all making the idea of a double fulfillment of a prophecy impossible. If, on the other hand, we accept that the New Testament writers were simply agreeing with the then current Jewish expectation of Messiah, and thus presented Jesus as reenacting the divine history of Israel, this passage makes perfect sense as a proof text for Jesus' Messiahship. Israel was called forth out of Egypt as God's son (part of the salvation history of Israel), just as Jesus as God's Son was called forth out of Egypt (the salvation history of Israel in the later days but in a greater sense). As Ellis put it: “The prophets frequently looked forward to a 'repetition of the acts of God. The Exodus especially provided a model for prophetic predictions both of acts of deliverance within the national history of Israel, and of the more glorious eschatological work of God.” The New Testament writers did indeed view the Old Testament, and especially the wilderness wanderings, as a type of the Christian age. One important passage that indicates this is 1 Corinthians 10:1-5: “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.” Then according to verse 6 “Now these things happened as examples for us.” The text has the word examples for the Greek word tuvpoi from which our English word type is derived. It most commonly means a pattern. Elsewhere, it is made clear that the deliverance from Egypt corresponds to the salvation wrought by Christ; he is himself the Passover lamb, as in 1 Cor. 5:7f. and 1 Peter 1:18f. When on the Mount of Transfiguration reference is made to the departure he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem, the word used for departure is e;xodon - exodus (Luke 9:31). The Christian counterpart of the crossing of the Red Sea is the resurrection of Christ: Heb. 13:20 (reflecting Isa. 63:11). Jesus and the New Testament writers saw the Old Testament events as a type of Messiah and his age. They did use the historical and prophetic events of the Old Testament, through which to define the life of Jesus. They did indeed present Jesus as the greater fulfillment of Israel's salvation— the central event of which was the wilderness experience. This could partly explain why the members of the Qumran sect went into the desert and settled by the wady Qumran. John the Baptist carries out his work in the desert. Josephus mentions first-century rebels who were connected with the wilderness. Theudas led his followers to the Jordan with a view to dividing the waters; and other unnamed leaders led the people into the desert. The early church continued to recognize, even in later times, the pattern established by the Old Testament as their hermeneutic. In the Epistle of Barnabas, the writer speaking of the brazen serpent says: "Again Moses maketh a type of Jesus, how that He must suffer, and that He Himself whom they shall think to have destroyed shall make alive in an emblem when Israel was falling." Eusebius in his Demonstratio Evangelica draws out a dozen points of comparison between Moses and Christ. They include the following: both were legislators; Moses appointed 70 elders, and Jesus appointed 70 disciples; Moses fed the people in the wilderness, and Jesus fed the crowds in the wilderness; the shining of Moses' face is coupled with the Transfiguration; both fasted for 40 days. He goes on to say: "But why need I seek further for proof that Moses and Jesus our Lord and Saviour acted in closely similar ways, since it is possible for anyone who likes to gather instances at his leisure?" (III.2). In the New Testament reference is made again and again to the wilderness wandering, especially as a type of the Christian age. As mentioned earlier, increasing attention has been paid to the importance (for understanding of the New Testament generally) of seeing the Messianic hope in terms of a new Exodus, and of recognizing the Messiah as a second Moses. In the following pages it will be seen that this approach, looking through the Old Testament glass, recognizing the Moses Connection, is key to understanding John's Gospel. John will use the established hermeneutic of his day. He will trace the footsteps of Jesus, revisiting the salvation history of Israel at every juncture. It will be seen that John's approach was quite different from his fellow Gospel writers. Rather than simply quote Old Testament passages to show how Jesus fulfilled the salvation history of Israel, he used the living acts of Jesus to present to his readers in a way that needed little Old Testament quotation. The most obvious were those words and acts of Jesus that were done in the context of Israel's redemptive history—their feasts. The Feasts would have acted as strongly a proof as quoting Old Testament Scripture. They knew their history. They knew how their history had been interpreted Messianically by their rabbis. The feasts functioned as the setting for their salvation history—a stage ready set with scenery and props. All that was lacking were the actor and his lines. When Jesus stepped into their feasts and made the statements he made and did the acts he did, they could not miss the Moses Connection

SAMPLES OF CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO

(unformatted and without footnotes)

Chapter One

Jesus the Jew

In recent years there has been an increased interest among Bible students in the Jewishness of Jesus. There have also been periodicals to appear which are dedicated to studying the Jewish background, culture, and language of the carpenter from Nazareth. As a result, people are increasingly aware of the need to see Jesus and his sayings through the eyes of first century Jewish culture. This has led believers in Jesus to strive to view his sayings from a culture other than their own. They have come to realize that Jesus did not live in a vacuum, but rather moved about within his own defined culture. Jesus would have had to communicate in a way that was intelligible to the people he was trying to reach, using their language, idioms, and cultural biases in his speech and actions. Thus it has become necessary to define Jesus within the culture in which he lived, rather than our own.

This has long been recognized as important to understanding the teachings of Christ by well-recognized scholars such as C. H. Dodd, Joachim Jeremias, and Kenneth Bailey, to mention a few. Kenneth Bailey goes further than the others mentioned, combining an examination of the poetic structure with an understanding of the Eastern culture which affects the text. Until Bailey, the internal aspects, i.e., the personal relationships and attitudes that characterize Middle Eastern society, had been either ignored or only been imprecisely understood. Dr. Bailey draws heavily upon Middle Eastern culture through which to interpret Christ's parables. Whether or not we accept all of Dr. Bailey's conclusions, he clearly supports the necessity of studying Jesus and the New Testament documents from within the culture in which they occurred.

An excellent work dealing precisely with this issue is the book Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, by Marvin Wilson in which he strongly supports the Jewish nature of the entire Christian system. Commenting on the necessity of reorienting ourselves in our approach to the Bible he says: "'Western eyes' must be replaced by 'Eastern eyes' if modern Christians intend to read the Bible the way it was written. The Bible can make sense only when it is viewed and studied in the light of its own distinctive Near Eastern setting and cultural context." He goes on to say: "Such a challenge to today's Church has been issued nowhere more emphatically than in the words of the late Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth: 'The Bible is a Jewish book. It cannot be read and understood and expounded unless we are prepared to become Jews with the Jews.'"

Joseph Shulam, since I have known him, has insisted that Western Gentile Christians simply cannot properly understand the Bible without first becoming students of that time, culture, and even the Hebrew language. His point is that the only proper way to interpret Jesus and the New Testament documents is not through Western Gentile eyes, but through the eyes of those who wrote them and received them: Middle Eastern Jewish eyes of the first century. Though Joseph's statement seems drastic and even brusque to some Western Christians, we need to strive to understand the basis of such a statement.

Jesus spoke to a people who already had firmly– established Messianic expectations that were based upon an hermeneutical approach to God's Word and long-recognized tradition passed down to them by their rabbis. The question that must be addressed is, "Did Jesus fit into their expectations, and did the writers of the New Testament present him as doing so?" The answer to the first part of this question is immediately— "no" and "yes". No, Jesus did not fit into everyone's expectations of Messiah. That is clear from the several arguments Jesus entered into with the religious leaders of his day because they were convinced, based upon their own Messianic expectations, that he lacked the necessary credentials. But, simultaneously, the answer has to be "yes" in that Jesus did fit into some people's Messianic expectations— or else none of them would have accepted him as Messiah. We see from the Book of Acts that literally thousands of Jews did accept him as their long-awaited Messiah. The different reactions to Jesus is largely based upon the kind of Messiah expected—Zealots' expectation would be different from the kind of Messiah expected by those of the Sanhedrin—one more political, the other more priestly. The Essenes were looking for two Messiahs. Just what kind of Messiah were the first century Jews looking for? What hermeneutic did they apply to their Sacred Writing to form their expectations? It is in this that we are precisely interested. If that hermeneutic can be discovered and if it can be shown that the New Testament writers used that established hermeneutic to present Jesus of Nazareth to the Jews as Messiah, then that particular approach has immediate bearing on our own understanding of the New Testament, and especially, for this study—the Gospel of John.

Chapter Two

Looking Through the Glass

FIRST CENTURY JEWISH HERMENEUTIC OF MESSIAH

Several excellent works suggest an hermeneutical approach to Messiah possibly different from that with which the West might be accustomed. It is not uncommon for Western Christians to hear taught that one of the proofs of Jesus' Messiahship is found in his fulfillment of the many specific Old Testament verbal predictions about the Messiah. Specific passages are quoted in the light of some particular event in Jesus' life. While the fact that Jesus fulfills the passages quoted is undeniable, just how Western Christians understand Jesus' fulfillment of these passages may be quite different from how a Jew of the first century understood Jesus' fulfillment of the same passages.

Alfred Edersheim says regarding Messianic expectation by the first century Jews:

“Perhaps the most valuable element in Rabbinic commentation on Messianic times is that in which, as so frequently, it is explained, that all the miracles and deliverance of Israel's past would be reenacted, only in a much wider manner, in the days of the Messiah. Thus the whole past was symbolic, and typical of the future—the Old Testament the glass, through which the universal blessings of the latter days were seen.”

Dr. Edersheim's comments would lead us to understand that the Jews of Jesus' day viewed all the Old Testament as typifying the Messiah and His age rather than containing only a few verbal predictions spoken directly about the future Messiah. He goes on to state that the great number of passages in the Old Testament that the ancient synagogue called Messianic were more than 558. Yet he says:

“But comparatively few of these are what would be termed verbal predictions. Rather would it seem as if every event were regarded as prophetic, and every prophecy, whether by fact, or by word (prediction), as a light to cast its sheen on the future, until the picture of the Messianic age in the far back-ground stood out in the hundredfold variegated brightness of prophetic events, and prophetic utterances.”

Could the Jews of the first century have understood correctly, and could it be true that every event and every prophecy was typifying the Messiah and His age? And could it be true, as stated in the previous quotation, that all the miracles and deliverance of Israel's past would be reenacted in the days of the Messiah? And even if it can be shown that the Jews of the first century did indeed view the entire Old Testament as typifying the Messiah and His age, did the New Testament writers incorporate this view in their presentation of the Messiah and His age?

That the Jews of the first century did look for such a fulfillment of the Old Testament events is confirmed by others. R. T. France makes reference to F. Foulkes and says that he proposes the following definition to Christian typological use of the Old Testament:

“We may say that a type is an event, a series of circumstances, or an aspect of the life of an individual or of the nation, which finds a parallel and a deeper realization in the incarnate life of our Lord, in His provision for the needs of men, or in His judgments and future reign. A type thus presents a pattern of the dealings of God with men that is followed in the antitype, when, in the coming of Jesus Christ and the setting up of His kingdom, those dealings of God are repeated, though with a fullness and finality that they did not exhibit before.”

France agrees with Foulkes' definition and goes on to say that this statement

“indicates the conviction which lies at the root of New Testament typology. It is that there is a consistency in God's dealings with men. Thus his acts in the Old Testament will present a pattern which can be seen to be repeated in the New Testament events; these may therefore be interpreted by reference to the pattern displayed in the Old Testament. The New Testament writers are aware not only of being involved in this continuous process, but also of being witnesses of the climax and culmination of it.”

We see a pattern of hermeneutic begin to emerge. That is, instead of looking only for a few specific verbal predictions to be fulfilled in the life and times of the Messiah, they were looking for a reenactment of the salvation history of Israel. The Jews of Jesus' day were looking for the events and miracles of their divine history to be repeated in the Messianic age. Edersheim goes as far as to say that they were expecting all miracles and deliverances of Israel's past to be reenacted. While we as Western Christians might be prone to look for the proof of Jesus' Messiahship through the fulfillment of a few specific verbal predictions (of which Edersheim says there are very few), the Jews of the first century were looking for the Messiah and his age to be the antitype of the type set forth in the Old Testament salvation history of Israel. The New Testament writers interpreted the events of Messiah by reference to the pattern displayed in the Old Testament.

France goes on to say:

“This same conviction is already apparent in the Old Testament. The prophets frequently looked forward to a 'repetition of the acts of God'. The Exodus especially provided a model for prophetic predictions both of acts of deliverance within the national history of Israel, and of the more glorious eschatological work of God. Following the lead of the prophets, Jesus and the New Testament writers saw in the coming of Jesus a parallel and yet greater redemption.”

France sets forth the proposition that not only were the Jews of Jesus' day expecting such a Messiah, but that Jesus and the New Testament writers had the same concept of Messiah.

France is not alone in this position. E. Earle Ellis puts forth the same position. He says in speaking of the central place the Exodus event played in ancient Jewish thought:

“The rabbis also drew a parallel between the 'first deliverer' (Moses) and the 'last deliverer' (the Messiah). The Messiah was, like Moses, to bring plagues upon the oppressors of Israel, bring forth water from the rock, and perform a miracle of manna. The final deliverance, like the deliverance from Egypt, would take place at the Passover.”

The NT writers set forth the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfillment of these expectations. The picture of Christ in Matthew is particularly suggesting the rabbinical parallels between Moses and Messiah: Like Moses he is saved from Herod's slaughter, comes forth out of Egypt, calls out the 'twelve sons of Israel', gives the law from the mount, performs ten miracles (like Moses, ten plagues), provides 'manna' from heaven.

When the writers referred to above examine the literature of the period under consideration, they come to the same conclusion —i.e., the Jews of Jesus' day were expecting the Messiah to reenact their divine salvation history. They were not so concerned with specific verbal predictions being fulfilled, as they were looking for patterns of events and persons set forth in the Old Testament to be fulfilled. They applied the whole Old Testament to Messiah and his age.

THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS' USE OF SCRIPTURE

What do we see when we examine the New Testament in light of this hermeneutical approach to the Old Testament? Did the New Testament writers meet the expectation of their contemporaries and use the Old Testament as a type through which to present Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah? Did they interpret the events of the life of Jesus by referring to the pattern displayed in the Old Testament as the rabbis had taught the Messiah would?

Just how the New Testament writers use the Old Testament is a very broad study with no simple explanations. The difficulties of such study is well expressed by Neale Pryor in his contribution to the book Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practice in which he comments on this in the chapter "The Use of the Old Testament in the New". He says:

“The relationship between the two testaments is not as simple as might seem at first, especially in the way New Testament writers make use of passages from the Old. The problems fall into two general categories. First, some Old Testament passages that are applied to the New Testament situations do not seem in their original context to refer to the events of the Christian era. Second, the New Testament sometimes does not seem to quote the Old's text faithfully, sometimes even changing the reading to fit the purpose of the writer.”

Is there evidence of dishonesty in the New Testament writers? Do they take

unallowable liberties with the text? How could the Jews be convinced that the Old

Testament predicted New Testament events by inaccurate quotes or strained

exegesis? Or, did the New Testament writers employ exegesis from the Old

Testament that was accepted in their day?

Really, the logical conclusion is that which is lastly suggested by Pryor: “Or, did the New Testament writers employ exegesis from the Old Testament that was accepted in their day?”. It would not make sense that they would attempt to prove Jesus to be Messiah by violating the hermeneutic of the people to whom they were writing.

It does appear that New Testament writers may have accommodated their usage of the Old Testament to that which was common in the first century A.D. as that which is found in the Midrashim, or that of the Qumran community called pesher. Examples of this usage of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers are abundant. One example can be found in Eph 4:8 in which the apostle Paul says: “Therefore it says, 'WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN.” The quote he provides is from Ps. 68:18 which says: “Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led captive Thy captives; Thou hast received gifts among men, Even among the rebellious also, that the LORD God may dwell there.” The M.T. and the LXX both agree in saying that He received gifts rather than give gifts as Paul quotes it. Paul takes the liberty to change the wording of the text. He does so to show how Jesus fits its fulfillment. This may seem to 20th Century Bible Scholars an abuse of Scripture. If you want to use a proof text, you don't begin by misquoting it. But this is a rather common usage of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers and reflects their notion that the whole Old Testament referred to their age, that they were living in the last days to which the Old Testament pointed. Changing the wording of the text to show exactly how it fit was fully acceptable.

Another example of how the Old Testament is variously used in the New Testament can be seen from Isaiah 6:9-10, because it is quoted so many times in the New Testament each with a different application. J. T. Willis comments about this saying:

“(1) It is quoted by Jesus when he explains that he teaches in parables so that the Jews would not understand his message (Matt. 13:10-17; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-10). (2) It is used by John to explain why the Jews would not understand Jesus' message in spite of his many signs (John 12:37-41). (3) It is quoted by Paul as a parting comment to the Jews in Rome who refused to believe the Gospel he preached (Acts 28:23-28). (4) It is cited by Paul to explain why most Jews were hardened against Christ (Rom. 11:7-8) It seems obvious that these four applications were not specifically in mind when the Lord commissioned Isaiah to preach to his fellow Judeans in 6:9-10.”

In the Matthew 13 passage, Jesus says that his speaking in parables was because “in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled….” In John's Gospel, John explains the reason the Jews rejected Jesus' signs was so that “…the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke…” (v. 38). In what way was Isaiah's prophecy being fulfilled in Messiah, when it is clear from Isa. 6 that it was fulfilled in the time of Isaiah? And how does Isaiah's prophecy fulfill both the instance in Matthew and in John since their situations are very different? Jesus and John both say that their differing situations were a fulfillment of the same prophecy.

These various approaches used by the New Testament writers can all be seen throughout their writings. And there is always debate on how to explain them. However, each method has a basic underlying principle that is often overlooked—that which Edersheim verbalizes: “all the miracles and deliverance of Israel's past would be reenacted, only in a much wider manner, in the days of the Messiah. Thus the whole past was symbolic, and typical of the future—the Old Testament the glass, through which the universal blessings of the latter days were seen.” No matter what usage Jesus, or New Testament writers, might be making in any particular place, it will have as its basis the idea that the whole Old Testament was a pattern for Messiah and his age. Thus any use of Old Testament found in the New Testament fits well into the hermeneutic of the first century A.D. Jews. It fulfilled the basic need of seeing Messiah through the lens of the Old Testament. As Ellis says: "Its not so much a system of interpretation as a spiritual perspective from which the early Christian community viewed itself." (0p.cit., Ellis, Prophecy.).

If Edersheim and the others quoted above are correct, then virtually any prophecy could correctly be used to refer to Messiah and his age. Even when a prophecy is clearly referring to the prophet's immediate situation and not the future, it could be used by New Testament writers as though it was fulfilled in Messiah since to them it was. This could also very well explain the places in which the New Testament writers use the Old Testament text to suit their own application to Messiah and his time, even to the extent that they seem to be taking unallowable liberties. Applying a particular prophecy to more than one situation (as with the Isa. 6 passage cited above) would not be a problem. In fact, it would be expected. If the whole Old Testament were a glass through which to see the New, then even making alterations in the wording of the text (as the example stated above in Eph. 4:8) to show how it looks when seen through that glass would be a perfectly legitimate approach. Applying this approach to the Old Testament was commonly practiced by the Jews in their own commentaries, the Midrashim of the Rabbis and the Pesharim of Qumran, and the New Testament writers are simply practicing what was common to their time.

LOOKING THROUGH THE GLASS

This understanding of how Jesus and the New Testament writers viewed the Old Testament would help alleviate difficulties created in trying to explain some of their Old Testament quotes. Bible teachers have always faced a problem when attempting to approach Old Testament quotes with a Western mind set—as direct verbal predictions applying only to Messiah, rather than as a pattern having application to both the time of the Old Testament situation and the future Messiah. One example would be Matthew's use of the Old Testament passage of Hosea 11:1 which says: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” From the context, the passage is clearly referring to the nation of Israel as God's son. It is not even a verbal prediction about the Messiah. Yet Matthew uses it as a proof text to show Jesus as Messiah. He says: “And he arose and took the Child and His mother by night, and departed for Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Out of Egypt did I call My son.” (Matt. 2:14-15).

If we take the approach that Old Testament quotes used in such a way by New Testament writers were verbal predictions referring only to the coming Messiah, we are hard pressed by the context from which the quote was taken. It is also clear from the text of Hosea that it is not a prediction at all making the idea of a double fulfillment of a prophecy impossible. If, on the other hand, we accept that the New Testament writers were simply agreeing with the then current Jewish expectation of Messiah, and thus presented Jesus as reenacting the divine history of Israel, this passage makes perfect sense as a proof text for Jesus' Messiahship. Israel was called forth out of Egypt as God's son (part of the salvation history of Israel), just as Jesus as God's Son was called forth out of Egypt (the salvation history of Israel in the later days but in a greater sense). As Ellis put it: “The prophets frequently looked forward to a 'repetition of the acts of God. The Exodus especially provided a model for prophetic predictions both of acts of deliverance within the national history of Israel, and of the more glorious eschatological work of God.”

The New Testament writers did indeed view the Old Testament, and especially the wilderness wanderings, as a type of the Christian age. One important passage that indicates this is 1 Corinthians 10:1-5:

“For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.”

Then according to verse 6 “Now these things happened as examples for us.” The text has the word examples for the Greek word tuvpoi from which our English word type is derived. It most commonly means a pattern. Elsewhere, it is made clear that the deliverance from Egypt corresponds to the salvation wrought by Christ; he is himself the Passover lamb, as in 1 Cor. 5:7f. and 1 Peter 1:18f. When on the Mount of Transfiguration reference is made to the departure he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem, the word used for departure is e;xodon - exodus (Luke 9:31). The Christian counterpart of the crossing of the Red Sea is the resurrection of Christ: Heb. 13:20 (reflecting Isa. 63:11).

Jesus and the New Testament writers saw the Old Testament events as a type of Messiah and his age. They did use the historical and prophetic events of the Old Testament, through which to define the life of Jesus. They did indeed present Jesus as the greater fulfillment of Israel's salvation— the central event of which was the wilderness experience. This could partly explain why the members of the Qumran sect went into the desert and settled by the wady Qumran. John the Baptist carries out his work in the desert. Josephus mentions first-century rebels who were connected with the wilderness. Theudas led his followers to the Jordan with a view to dividing the waters; and other unnamed leaders led the people into the desert.

The early church continued to recognize, even in later times, the pattern established by the Old Testament as their hermeneutic. In the Epistle of Barnabas, the writer speaking of the brazen serpent says: "Again Moses maketh a type of Jesus, how that He must suffer, and that He Himself whom they shall think to have destroyed shall make alive in an emblem when Israel was falling." Eusebius in his Demonstratio Evangelica draws out a dozen points of comparison between Moses and Christ. They include the following: both were legislators; Moses appointed 70 elders, and Jesus appointed 70 disciples; Moses fed the people in the wilderness, and Jesus fed the crowds in the wilderness; the shining of Moses' face is coupled with the Transfiguration; both fasted for 40 days. He goes on to say: "But why need I seek further for proof that Moses and Jesus our Lord and Saviour acted in closely similar ways, since it is possible for anyone who likes to gather instances at his leisure?" (III.2).

In the New Testament reference is made again and again to the wilderness wandering, especially as a type of the Christian age. As mentioned earlier, increasing attention has been paid to the importance (for understanding of the New Testament generally) of seeing the Messianic hope in terms of a new Exodus, and of recognizing the Messiah as a second Moses. In the following pages it will be seen that this approach, looking through the Old Testament glass, recognizing the Moses Connection, is key to understanding John's Gospel. John will use the established hermeneutic of his day. He will trace the footsteps of Jesus, revisiting the salvation history of Israel at every juncture.

It will be seen that John's approach was quite different from his fellow Gospel writers. Rather than simply quote Old Testament passages to show how Jesus fulfilled the salvation history of Israel, he used the living acts of Jesus to present to his readers in a way that needed little Old Testament quotation. The most obvious were those words and acts of Jesus that were done in the context of Israel's redemptive history—their feasts. The Feasts would have acted as strongly a proof as quoting Old Testament Scripture. They knew their history. They knew how their history had been interpreted Messianically by their rabbis. The feasts functioned as the setting for their salvation history—a stage ready set with scenery and props. All that was lacking were the actor and his lines. When Jesus stepped into their feasts and made the statements he made and did the acts he did, they could not miss the Moses Connection—he is Messiah.

WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING

JOSEPH SHULAM, director of Netivyah, Jerusalem, Israel: “The Jewish roots of the Gospel have been neglected by most Christians for a very long time. Mr. Bill Day, who has spent many years as an evangelist in Greece, has done a remarkable job researching the Jewish background on the gospel. The book that Mr. Day has written will open new venues of understanding that will take the New Testament back to it’s first century setting. The Moses Connection in John’s Gospel is a book starting a new spring that will enhance the restoration of New Testament understanding. I recommend all Christians to read this book. It is a book that will serve as a start of a new interest in the life of every reader.”

EDWARD P. MYERS, D. Min., Ph.D., Director, School of Biblical Studies, Harding University: “Every student of Scripture wrestles with how to understand the Bible. We all understand the importance of context. And yet, to be honest, it is challenging (if not perplexing) to think with our Western minds how the New Testament documents were read and understood by a generation far removed from our time and culture that had both similarities and differences from our culture today. Mr. Bill Day, in his writing of the Moses Connection, has done an admirable job in trying to place the gospel of John in its cultural setting. He asks us to read the book through the eyes of the first century Jew who both longed for and anticipated the coming of Messiah and His kingdom. You will delight in following his instruction to read John’s gospel (understanding the structure) not according to chapter and verse divisions, but rather with the specific feasts as they are recorded in the gospel of John, and see how they relate to the claims of Messiah and the deeds He performed to sustain these claims. I believe this work will both challenge and inspire you whether you agree with it’s conclusions or not. We simply must try to see the gospel in light of the first century. Mr. Day helps us try to do just that.”

RICHARD ROGERS, deceased, former professor at Sunset International Bible Institute (deceased): “Many times we approach the study of the Bible in general, and Christ in particular from our own natural and cultural background. We either miss it altogether or we are not able to apply it properly. Bill Day has not done that. He opens our eyes to the Jewish nature of the revelation about Christ. His well written book needs to receive a wide reading. You may not agree with all that he says, but you will have to reexamine many of your current views. READ THIS BOOK!”

____________________________________________________________________

You may request a book by e-mail at billrday@mac.com Just put “Moses Connection” in the subject line. The book is $10 plus shipping and handling.

You can find an eBook version at Amazon.com for Kindel, ipad, etc., $4.99