Let me know your thoughts on this video discussing Jesus’ use of Scripture featuring comments from Darrell Bock, Peter Williams, and Michael Licona. What does Jesus’ use of Scripture say about how Christians should read Scripture?
Bibliology, Christology, Scripture
the archives near Emmaus 
Reblogged this on Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God.
1. Jesus is the key to understanding the Scriptures.
2. We begin to see how far we are from Jesus when we see Him interpreting Scripture in some ways that would never occur to us.
3. We should expect to understand Scripture much better than we do as we draw closer to Jesus, love Him more, and become more like Him.
When Jesus quoted scripture, he did it as a Jew who by everything we know accepted the Jewish world view. Nobody who wrote the scriptures up to that point had any knowledge of Jesus in particular or of a generic savior dying for sins so individuals would be saved. None of those authors knew anything about a triune God, or of God’s plan to birth himself supernaturally.
The fact is that the scriptures had a view that was not only expounded by the authors, but widely accepted by every reader (within a framework of Jewish thought, obviously they disagreed about details).
There is no indication that Jesus had anything other than a Jewish worldview. God was one. Jews should worship God by living a holy life. God was going to reward his people for their good behaviour by setting up a new kingdom in which Israel would rule the world.
Then Paul comes along and says that, nope, the scriptures didn’t mean what everyone thought they meant. He bases this on visions he received from the heavenly Jesus, not from any conversation with the Jesus who walked the earth.
If the scriptures were all about Jesus, the people who wrote them and used them to define their lives for 1000 years or more had no idea. I find that a curious thing.
JJ Mac,
Jesus said, “Abraham saw My day and was glad” (John 8:56)
Jesus said, “Moses wrote of Me” (John 5:46)
John said, “Isaiah saw His glory and he spoke of Him” (John 12:41)
Peter said that when David wrote Ps 16, “he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ” (Acts 2:31)
More broadly, Peter says that the prophets knew that they spoke of a person and time beyond their own (1 Pet 1:10-12).
The New Testament makes clear that Jesus surprised practically everyone. Yet to suggest that He presented ideas beyond the conception of Israel’s prophets and foreign to the Hebrew worldview seems to be going a bit far.
JJ Mac
Paul was commissioned to preach Grace first then the Covenant while the Apostles were commissioned to preach a return to the Covenant to the lost sheep explaining to them the changes that came about when Yahshua fulfilled the law for righteousness by becoming the sacrifice and high priest. The only reason it seams that Paul preached a different gospel is because people can not separate the Covenant from Grace. Paul also continues what Yahshua began by showing the legalistic oral laws of the jews were not true Israelism but were just traditions added to the words of the Covenant.
I don’t understand how Bock stays a Dispensationalist in light of the fact the Jesus reinterpreted Scripture in light of himself; which Bock knows full well. The Dispensationalist interprets scripture progressively; so the OT is about the nation of Israel, primarily, and then the passages prophetically applied to Jesus are about Jesus. Again, I don’t understand how Bock maintains this kind of hermeneutic in light of what he even says here on the video.
JJ Mac; go read John or Matthew 11:26ff. Paul didn’t just come along, by the way; he was accepted by Jesus’ Apostle’s, and Peter himself says (cf. II Pet. 3:16 as I recall) that Paul’s writings are scripture.
JJ Mac said “If the scriptures were all about Jesus, the people who wrote them and used them to define their lives for 1000 years or more had no idea. I find that a curious thing.”
Not so curious. Try tracing the history of the Edomites before Christ. You’ll find they roughly disappeared when Judeans stopped being called Judeans and became known as Jews. If many ‘Jews’ never knew that ancient faith – it wouldn’t be so surprising.
Now with that said – ancient Judeans also had dead, blind faith (hence Babylon), but not all. Clearly some would have recognized Him had they lived in His time (I’m thinking of folks like Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel etc).
I think if you look closely enough those who write them, and used them had a very different faith than the stereotype you have in your head about the faith ….
JJ,
I think people in the BC in Jerusalem should have expected a self sacrificial Messiah/savior. There is ample textual evidence for it.
Beginning with the Abraham and Isaac story. Uniquely/miraculously born son, sacrificed by the father, only Yahweh doesn’t allow that one to go forward. We Christians see that as an OT antecedent for the birth and sacrifice of Jesus by His Father.
All the Levitical sacrifices were supposed to be teaching aids. Innocent shedding blood /sacrificed for the guilty. They killed them dead.
How about the one where the sinner places one hand on the neck of the innocent heifer, then cuts the throat? Looks like a teaching aid for transferring guilt to me.
Other texts are supportive and lots of Isaiah and Psalms are explicit about a unique self sacrificial servant of God’s who is executed unjustly.
ANE Jews were aware that the shema “God is One” was not what modern Judaism or Islam sees because there are obvious&numerous binitarian passages in the Torah ( http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/materials.html) and the book (2 Powers in Heaven by a late Jewish author and into Judaism) demonstrates ancient Judaism was struggling with that idea until the 2cd century AD when it became a heresy.
Patrick, interesting link! Thanks..
Andrew,
Dr Heiser seems to major on theology depicting a binitarian Yahweh in the OT. Check out the bibliography there, lots of excellent documentation about a binitarian Yahweh of the OT text.
Dr Heiser only shows that YHWH can be given or can be used by any representative of the Elyon.It certainly doesn’t mean that there is 2 Elyons. It also doesn’t prove the deity of Yahshua because he was only a human representatives of the Father. I have really appreciated all the research of Dr Heiser but his theologies I find forced.
Patrick, he seems to suggest the Trinity near the 50 minute mark, but remarks it is less obvious, and only shows 2 examples. His binitarian view though, Yahweh invisible, and Yahweh visible, once he explains it seems really obvious and explains nicely what others see as theophanies ([Gen 19:24] and [Amos 4:11]).
Robert, I took the opposite from it. Dr. Heiser seems to down play the idea that Elohim is necessarily special as YHWH is; the idea is that YHWH though Elohim, is the Chief Elohim, whereas all other Elohim are simply heavenly beings (or council as per Ps 82). His basis for this is [Psalm 82] and [Psalm 89].
With respect to deity of Yahshua, Heiser claims correctly (I think) that [Jud 6:21-23] treats the angel of the LORD (visible YHWH) and YHWH as one and the same though in this context they are distinct (the angel vanishes in vs 21 while the LORD doesn’t vs 23). If Yahshua is the Angel of the LORD, than it would make him divine.
He provides other evidence the Angel of YHWH is divine.
Andrew
I agree that YHWH is more special than Elohim which is given more freely in the OT .But equating the messenger with the name or authority they were given by saying there are 2 would confuse the meaning of agency .While we are to accept the message as it was given by the one that sent it by accepting the messenger as the one that sent the message.This doesn’t make 2 .
Yahshua was not an angel but served the office of messenger pre-resurrection.by which he could have been called YHWH but chose a lessor title as other human messengers did before him and completely gives all credit to a higher authority .
As far as his post resurrection state I believe a real case for deity could be made but still a lessor than the Elyon.
I do not see binitarianism anywhere in judaism but do see henotheism throughout the OT and rabbinical writings but see strict unitarianism with only one Most High El
Robert, thanks for you perspective.
I hadn’t heard any of this until the link was posted in this thread, though confess glimmers of thoughts along these lines (I thought frequently about the appeance of Yahshua in the old covenant, and theophanies).
I also hadn’t heard of Dr. Heiser or his work. By all appearances he is building off ideas posed first by Alan Segal (developed further by Daniel Boyarin). Regardless, for me the test is biblical. Dr. Heifer presents a couple of compelling biblial examples and expands some of claims in other videos (here http://www.gracebellingham.org resources)
After showing divine plurality did not didn’t Shema (monotheism) Although YHWH was Elohim and unlike any other, he points out that another Elohim was also YHWH. Starting with [John 1:18] he shows Johns view of God with God an extant Hebrew idea (saying John got the idea from somewhere). I personally find his examples (especially [Gen 19:24] and [Amos. 4:11]) convincing, and it certainly suggests Christian trinitarianism.
See also [Gen 22:11-22] 1st person and 3rd person interchanged. He makes the case this second Elohim, also identified as YHWH, is clearly YHWH. [Exodus 3:1-4] The angel of The Lord and Lord are YHWH. [Exodus 23:20-22] is more clear in saying my name is in Him, meaning my essence is in Him.
From your comments, it seems you are sceptical, but what makes you see the second Elohim (represented also as YHWH) in either ([Gen 19:24] with YHWH as executor and then YHWH as source, 1st and 3rd person, and again 1st and 3rd person again in [Amos. 4:11]) as mere messenger?
Andrew
First thing is the name YHWH was not even known by Abraham , Isaac and Jacob but was first known by Moses so the use of it started with Moses who wrote the account of Genesis . I believe the title YHWH has more to do with the El or Elohim of Israel as their Deity personally. Even though YHWH was the Elyon of all the Elohim He gave the other Elohim the authority to rule over the nations they were assigned but setup guide lines to how they were to rule by which we know from Psalm 82 some failed and were judged and sentenced. For me to the belief that there can be 2 Elyons there must be a verse which states that and the use of 2 different YHWHs doesnt prove anything but the messenger is sent in the name of YHWH which is common in OT and NT. We must be careful not to confuse the one that sent the message with the one that was sent in the name to deliver the message .