Notes: Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament
What Matthew is saying to us by beginning in this way is that we will only understand Jesus properly if we see him in the light of this story, which he completes and brings to its climax
They were all, from a Jewish point of view, foreigners. Tamar and Rahab were Canaanites (Gen 38; Josh 2); Ruth was a Moabitess (Ruth 1); Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah, a Hittite, so probably a Hittite herself (2 Sam 1). The implication of Jesus being the heir of Abraham and his universal promise is underlined: Jesus the Jew, and the Jewish Messiah, had Gentile blood!
Genesis 1–11 poses the question to which the rest of the Bible, from Genesis 12 to Revelation 22, is the answer.
-effects reaching from personal (Cain/Abel), to society (the flood), to global (tower of Babel)
He is known, and indeed chooses to be known, as “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” That description means he is the God of promise and fulfillment, and the God whose purpose ultimately embraced all nations.
-the problem
-the election
-the redemption
-the covenant
-the inheritance
It is important to see that this covenant was based on what God had already done for them (as they had just recently seen, Ex 19:4-6). God’s grace and redemptive action came first. Their obedience to the law and covenant was to be a grateful response, and in order to enable them to be what God wanted them to be as his people in the midst of the nations.
Possibly the most important achievement of David was that he at last gave to Israel complete and unified control over the whole of the land that had been promised to Abraham. Up to then it had been fragmentarily occupied by loosely federated tribes, under constant attack and invasion from their enemies.
Samuel had warned the Israelites when they asked for a king that having a king would eventually mean forced labor, taxation, conscription and confiscation (1 Sam 8:10-18). Solomon’s later reign proved all these things painfully true.
One affirmation was that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was in sovereign control of world history—not merely the affairs of Israel. The prophets had asserted this with incredible boldness.
The exile lasted fifty years (that is, from 587 B.C. to the first return of some Jews to Jerusalem in 538 B.C.). The period from the destruction of the temple to the completion of its rebuilding was approximately seventy years.
The clouds the people so much dread—the sudden rise of Cyrus, ruler of the new, expanding Persian Empire—would burst in blessings on their head. Babylon would be destroyed and they would be released, free to return to Jerusalem, which, sings the prophet, was already exulting in joy at the sight of God leading his captives home.
-the exile
-the restoration
-the intertestamental period
As the officially appointed Persian governor, Nehemiah was able to give the needed political patronage and authority to the reforms of Ezra, as well as engaging in some social and economic reforms of his own.
Twice during the early fifth century Persia tried, and failed, to conquer the Greek mainland and spread its power to Europe. It was heroically beaten back by the Spartans and Athenians—who then fell to fighting with each other. Not until the mid-fourth century were the Greek states forced into unity by the power of Macedon, which then turned its attention east to the wealth of the Persian Empire just across the Aegean Sea. Under Alexander the Great, Greek armies sliced through the Persian Empire like a knife through butter, with amazing speed. The whole vast area once ruled by Persia, including Judah, then came under Greek rule. This was the beginning of the “Hellenistic” (Greek) era, when the Greek language and culture spread throughout the whole Near East and Middle Eastern world.
From about 200 B.C. onward, however, control of Palestine passed into the hands of the Seleucid kings of Syria, who ruled from Antioch over the northern part of the old Alexandrian empire. Their rule was much more aggressively Greek, and Jews faced increasing pressure to conform religiously and culturally to Hellenism. Those who refused faced persecution.
The supreme insult was when Antiochus Epiphanes IV in 167 B.C. set up a statue of Zeus, the supreme god of Greek mythology, in the temple itself. This sacrilege sparked off a major revolt when Jews under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus took up arms. It ended with a successful struggle for independence, climaxing in the cleansing of the temple in 164 B.C. For the next century, the Jews more or less governed themselves under the leadership of the Hasmonean priestly dynasty. This lasted until the power of Greece was replaced by that of Rome.
Two features of this intertestamental period are worth noting in view of their influence on the world into which Jesus arrived. The first was an increasing devotion to the law, the Torah. This became the supreme mark of faithful Jews. … The second feature was the upsurge of apocalyptic, messianic hope. As persecution continued and as the nation experienced martyrdoms and great suffering, it began to hope for a final, climactic intervention by God himself, as the prophets had foretold. God would establish his kingdom forever by destroying his (and Israel’s) enemies.
So just imagine the stirring of hearts and quickening of pulses in Jewish homes and communities when, into this mixture of aspirations and hopes, dropped the message of John the Baptist, and then of Jesus himself: “The time is fulfilled! [what you have been waiting for as something future is now here and present]; the kingdom of God is at hand!
It is the same God. The God who in these last days has spoken to us by his Son (as the author of Hebrews puts it, Heb 1:2), also and truly spoke through the prophets. And those prophets were rooted in the earthy specifics of their own historical contexts. They spoke into history, and their words come to us out of that history. We cannot, must not, simply throw that history away, like a discarded ticket when you reach your destination at the end of a journey.
Taken together, both Testaments record the history of God’s saving work for humanity. Salvation history is a term that has been used by many scholars to refer to this, and some would regard it as the primary point of continuity or relationship between the two testaments of the Christian Bible.
At Mount Sinai, for example, at the very point where God is impressing on Israel their unique identity and role in the midst of the nations, he leaves no doubt that he is far from being a minor local deity or even your average national god. The scope of his concern and his sovereignty is universal: “the whole earth is mine” (Ex 19:5).
The rest of the world was not absent from the mind and purpose of God in all his dealings with Old Testament Israel. Indeed, to borrow a not unfamiliar phrase from John’s Gospel: God so loved the world that he chose Israel.
So Israel’s unique historical experience was not a ticket to a cozy state of privileged favoritism. Rather it laid upon the people a missionary task and a moral responsibility. If they failed in these, then in a sense they fell back to the level of any other nation. They stood, like all nations and all humanity, before the bar of God’s judgment, and their history by itself gave them no guaranteed protection.
Now when we consider Jesus in the light of this, the vitally important fact is that the New Testament presents him to us as the Messiah, Jesus the Christ. And the Messiah “was” Israel. That is, the Messiah was Israel representatively and personified. The Messiah was the completion of all that Israel had been put in the world for (i.e., God’s self-revelation and his work of human redemption). For this reason, Jesus shares in the uniqueness of Israel. What God had been doing through no other nation he now completed through no other person than the Messiah Jesus.
The saving acts of God within or on behalf of Israel, then, most certainly did not take place in sterile, vacuum-sealed isolation, but within the turbulent crosscurrents of international politics and the historical rise and fall of empires whose destinies Yahweh himself controlled.
Not only does the Old Testament tell the story that Jesus completes, it also declares the promise that Jesus fulfills.
By the end of the Old Testament, we are left expecting God to do again what he has done so often before.
The whole Bible bears witness to the mission of God to the fallen, suffering, sinful human race, and indeed ultimately to his whole creation as well. That is why God called Abraham, sent Jesus and commissioned his apostles. For there is one servant people, one Servant King and one servant mission.
The church was not a new Gentile phenomenon, even if it looked like that as its membership became increasingly Gentile. The community of Jesus followers was a new humanity, composed of both believing Jews and Gentiles. But it was also organically and spiritually continuous with the original people of God, as Paul’s olive tree picture in Romans 11 shows. Israel had been redefined and extended, but the Jewish roots and trunk were not replaced or uprooted just because unbelieving branches had been lopped off.
We have imagined that the best way to save the world is to rule the world, with the tragically ironic result that Christian mission in the name of the Servant has been indelibly associated in the minds of many with power—military, cultural, economic and political. It is an image that is hard to live down. But the historical abuse of mission is no reason to abandon it altogether. For the mandate of the Servant King still stands.
And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?” (Deut 10:12-13).
He had not sent Moses with the Ten Commandments under his cloak to tell Israel that if it would keep the law, God would save it. Precisely the other way around. He saved it and then asked it to keep his law in response.
Obedience flows from grace; it does not buy it. Obedience is the fruit and proof and sustenance of a relationship with the God you already know.
It is a feature of the Torah that love is commanded. In other words, while it certainly has an emotional dimension, love is not merely an emotion. Love is an act of the will, which is demonstrated in obeying God’s commands. The same is true with gratitude. Of course it has an emotional dimension—the book of Psalms overflows with the emotion of thanksgiving. But the behavior that gratitude motivates is commanded. It is not just an optional preference for the more sensitive souls.
being holy did not mean what we might call being extra-specially religious. In fact only very few of the laws in the chapter are about religious rituals. Rather, it shows that the kind of holiness God has in mind, the kind that reflects God’s own holiness, is thoroughly practical and down to earth. Look at the details of Leviticus 19. Holiness means: generosity to the poor when you get returns on your agricultural investments (Lev 19:9-10; cf. Deut 24:19); fair treatment and payment of employees (Lev 19:13; cf. Deut 24:14); practical compassion for the disabled and respect for the elderly (Lev 19:14, 32; cf. Deut 27:18); the integrity of the judicial process (Lev 19:15; cf. Deut 16:18-20); safety precautions to prevent endangering life (Lev 19:16; cf. Deut 22:8); ecological sensitivity (Lev 19:23-25; cf. Deut 20:19-20); equality before the law for ethnic minorities (Lev 19:33-34; cf. Deut 24:17); and honesty in trade and business (Lev 19:35-36; cf. Deut 25:13-16). We call such matters “social ethics” or “human rights” and think we are very modern and civilized for doing so.
It was not so much wealth in and of itself that Jesus condemned but rather its tendency to produce an attitude of complacent self-sufficiency (Lk 12:15-21). Self-sufficiency is the diametric opposite of the prime quality needed for entrance to the kingdom of God—humble dependence on God in faith (Mt 6:19-34).
The relationship between the Old Testament and Jesus is historical, because the story of God with his people links them together with Christ as the climax. The relationship between the Old Testament and Jesus is covenantal, because the promise of God in the Old is fulfilled through Christ in the New. The relationship between the Old Testament and Jesus is representational, because the identity of Israel is embodied in Jesus as its Messiah King. The relationship between the Old Testament and Jesus is missional, because Jesus accomplished the great purpose of God for all nations and all creation that the Old Testament declared. The relationship between the Old Testament and Jesus is ethical, because the way of justice and compassion that the Old Testament holds up as pleasing to God is endorsed and amplified by Jesus in the New. And above all, the relationship between the Old Testament and Jesus is incarnational, because in Jesus of Nazareth, the LORD God, the Holy One of Israel, has walked among us. As we love, worship and obey him as our Savior and Lord, may we love, honor, read and understand the Scriptures that were so precious and formative in his heart and mind.