Comments on The Messiah in the Old Testament –
Opening Remarks
In the 1720’s Anthony Collins
published two works in which he attempted to show that “the literal meaning of
certain messianic proof-texts from the OT could not support the messianic interpretation
placed on them by the NT. … The
so-called ‘complete’ or ‘spiritual’ fulfillment of these OT texts that many
were applying to Jesus, Collins concluded, could be no more than an
illustration” (Kaiser, p.14). The
eighteenth century scholar Collins felt that there was no proof that Jesus had
been anticipated as ‘messiah.’
Kaiser then lists 7 methods of
interpretation of prophecy used to overcome the challenge posed by
Collins.
1. Dual meaning.
There might be an original meaning of a text, say from Isaiah’s time,
and that meaning stood in Isaiah’s day.
This prophecy had a later, fuller meaning, to which messianic
interpretation and application could be attached. This method came from Thomas Sherlock in
1732. The problem with this is the loss of
predictive value. The prophecy said
something in Isaiah’s day, but they did not ‘predict’ something else, a future
‘anointed one’ of the Lord.
2. Single meaning. This
view from J.G. Herder and J.G. Eichhorn declared the only meaning of prophecy
to be its original meaning. There was no
secondary application. Eichhorn was
convinced that the last three decades of the 1700’s completely erased the idea
that the OT prophets predicted anything.
The Bible reader had to discern the individual prophet’s life in order
to glean hope for the future. I have to
say, I have real trouble understanding this method based on the brief
description. To me it seems like a
reiteration of Collins’ original thought.
3. New Testament meaning.
From 1828-1858, E.W. von Hengstenberg published and re-published a
3-volume work on prophecy. In it, he
gave final arbitration to New Testament authors. For him, they determined how to understand
the OT texts considered ‘messianic.’ His
critics said his reading was dogmatic and ignored the historical context of
Jeremiah or Hosea or whatever prophet was in question.
4. Developmental meaning.
Nineteenth century scholar Franz Delitzsch could see that there were
pericopes[i]
used to support the idea of messianic prediction, but these passage simply did
not provide that support. They clearly
contained different meaning (Kaiser does not provide an example on p.21
where this method is described). So, he
took a tact different than Hengstenberg.
Delitzsch saw the meaning of such passages developing. The prophecies did not contain an absolute
prediction but there was more to their meaning than the original OT
understanding yielded. The full
development of the meaning was seen in later doctrine and Christian
experience. As I write this, I am
conscious of the fact that I do not clearly see the distinction Kaiser is
drawing between Hengstenberg and Delitzsch.
5. Goal Meaning. A.F.
Kirkpatrick, in 1897, proposed that Jesus was the ethical and moral goal of
what the OT prophets had in mind. He did
not fulfill specific and detailed promises.
He united all the lines of prophecy by filling them with new
meaning. Of course this rendered each
individual pericope of Isaiah or Zechariah vague and void of specific
significance.
6. Relecture Meaning. This
is a process of reading old prophecies in a new way so that they have new
meaning (without removing their original meaning). This process appears encouraging (for
Christians who want Jesus to be the
fulfillment of the OT), but it is too subjective. It cannot be sustained and it cannot have any
sort of precision in identifying the history of a passage.
7. Theological Meaning.
Whether or not Jesus fulfilled the words of OT prophets historically,
theologically, what the prophets aimed for was the Messiah who was Jesus (even
if the prophets themselves were not fully away of this). H.G.A. Ewald said the history of Israel would
find consummation and its final stage of growth in the Christian church. I have talked to many Jews and read works by
many others; they would nearly all be thoroughly offended by Ewald’s
suggestion.
These seven meanings applied to prophecies
considered potentially messianic are not necessarily Kaiser’s thought. Rather, he summarized them on pages 19-22 in
order to trace the history of how readers have tried to tie the OT to the
NT. Where does he come down in this
conversation?
He thinks all seven procedures are
self-defeating (p. 27) essentially because they are not comprehensive
enough. Each approach zeroes in on
specific OT passages and in one way or another tries to draw a line to a NT idea. But Bible verses or even entire passages
cannot be ripped out of the Bible. They
must be read within the story. The story
shows that God has a single, unified plan.
Prophecies made within the course of the
story are based on a relationship with the God who makes the promise. Those prophecies, some of which might be
categorized as ‘messianic,’ are not predictions the way we understand the
notion of prediction.
It is not like saying “Detroit will beat
Green Bay 18-16.” Would that prediction
be right if Detroit beat Green Bay 21-7?
Or would it be right if Green Bay beat Detroit 18-16? This is not what is happening in the OT words
we have in the Bible in Amos and Joel and the Psalms and Ezekiel and the
rest. The words in the Bible come in the
flow of people who are in relationship with the God of promise. The prophetic words are seeds full of God’s
promise.
We only see the fullness of the potential of
the seed as it blooms. It is alive and
growing along the way. Isaiah’s words in
chapter 45-55 spoke to Israelites in exile in Babylon in the late 6th
century BC. But when that era passed,
Isaiah’s words did not stop speaking. Rather, his words that have become scripture
were infused with the wisdom and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As time went out, the message grew and “filled
out” as a flower does. The full bloom is
seen in Christ. He said as much (Matthew
5:17).
Here is what Kaiser has to say. “We conclude, therefore, that the messianic
doctrine is located in God’s single, unified plan, called in the NT his ‘promise,’
which is eternal in its fulfillment but climactic in its final accomplishments,
while being built up by historical fulfillments that are part and parcel of
that single ongoing plan as it moved toward its final plateau. Thus what began simply as a ‘word’ about who
God was and what he was going to do for a select group of people became a word
that was intended from the start to be cosmopolitan in its effects, for it
announced simultaneously who God was and what he was going to do for all the
other nations on earth through this one group” (p.31).
After this introduction, Kaiser goes to a
place that surprised me. The title of
chapter 2 is “The Messiah in the Pentateuch.”[ii] I did not expect to find words pointing to
Messiah in those first five books. I
think that is part of Kaiser’s point about the unity of the Biblical story. I should have expected to find the Messiah
there. In my next post, I’ll share how
Kaiser does that.
No comments:
Post a Comment