The New Testament through Jewish Eyes

The prophets were not fortune tellers. Prophecy is too often misunderstood as predictions that came true, possibly years after they were spoken. It is wrongly assumed that the Old Testament scriptures are chock full of Messianic predictions that came true. Christians wonder why Jewish Scripture students do not see how Jesus fulfills these predictions.

I would say that there is little "predictive" prophecy in Scripture. Prophecy is inspired preaching and is not always predictive. When a prophet does make a prediction he typically refers to events that will take place within his own lifetime, not hundreds or thousands of years later. 

Yet there are many New Testament passages that relate back to Old Testament passages. But this rarely, if ever, refers simply to a prediction that came true. In the words of John Shelby Spong "Jews filtered every new experience through the corporate remembered history of their people, as that history had been recorded in the Hebrew scriptures of their past." 

Since the earliest Christians were Jews, they filtered their experience of the God presence they encountered in Jesus of Nazareth through the lens of their Jewish sacred texts. To the Jewish-Christian mind, the life of Israel and its salvation history are recapitulated in the life of Jesus. 

In Spong's book, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes, he insists that in order to understand the four Gospels (or, for that matter, any of the New Testament) we must learn to read the Gospels with Jewish eyes. Spong demonstrates how the Gospel authors employ Jewish Midrashic style in relating Jesus to their Hebrew Scriptures. Midrash is basically rabbinical commentary on the Hebrew texts in which "stories about heroes of the past are heightened and retold about later heroes."  I would add that stories about events of the past are also heightened and retold about later events 

I cannot overemphasize the importance of recognizing the Midrashic principle at work in the New Testament. It revolutionizes our understanding of how the New Testament uses the Old. In the near future I'll touch on some use of the Midrashic principle in the life of Jesus, showing how the Gospel narratives about him correspond to the Jewish corporate history. I'll also mention Spong's theory on the origin of the Gospels in addition to some of his conclusions which I do not believe are necessary. 

(photo courtesy Flickr).         

Comments

[Tim Archer]

Sounds like an interesting book. I'll add that to my "to read" list.

I think we run into many problems when we try to read the Bible as if it had been written in 1970 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Grace and peace,
Tim Archer

[Darren Beachy]

Wade,
I was in DC when Spong was at the Cathedral. Oh, how I wish I was able to hear him. He is challenging for sure.
I am interested in the future posts.
Thanks

[Frank]

Here's what I wonder about: if the earliest Christians saw in their (Jewish) Scriptures all sorts of references to Jesus and his kingdom, why should Christians be faulted today for doing much the same thing, only in different ways with different passages?

A common response among modern Christians, tutored in scientific interpretation, has been that if someone like Matthew does strange things with Scripture, citing it in ways that we would regard as bad exegesis, then he gets to do that because he was writing by inspiration. I think that's a cop out. Why do we take our lessons in interpretation from a bunch of Europeans born since 1700, rather than from Jesus himself? In our quest to "restore New Testament Christianity" why not begin with reading the Bible like the earliest Christians did? Christian faith preceded and produced the New Testament. So why can't we interpret the Bible based on a faith in Jesus and the teaching of the Apostles, who never believed in the exegetical controls that we think are so important to faithful preaching?

[Lisa]

Wade, when I read your first paragraph, I realized how true that was, but how misguided I have been about the prophecies! In fact, I just defined prophecies for my students last week in class as "predictions that came true." I can't wait to go back and tell them I have to correct my definition!

I look forward to reading more. (Soon? Or are you gonna make me wait. :o)

[Wade Tannehill]

Tim,

I apologize for waiting so long to respond. I laughed at your comment about reading the Bible as if it had been written in the 1970s in Grand Rapids. It's too often read as if it came down to us from heaven in completed form bound between two covers.

[Wade Tannehill]

Darren,

If Spong ever comes around here I will certainly be going. But according to his website he isn't scheduled for these parts in the foreseeable future. I don't agree with everything he says, but I think he has made profound contributions in the history of theology and how the New Testament uses the Old.

[Wade Tannehill]

Frank,

I've been chewing on your comment for a while now. Does this mean we might interpret Genesis 3:15 in reference to something other than the relationship between humans and snakes?

[Wade Tannehill]

Lisa,

Thanks for your comment. I was hoping someone besides just preachers and professors would read a post like this because I think it needs to be understood in the pews as well. I appreciate your telling me what you got out of it. I also appreciate your continuing to be a faithful reader in spite of my many long stretches of silence. But you know quite a bit about my situation and transitions over the last couple of years. I think I'm back on track now though. So I'll try not to make you wait too long. My goal is to post AT LEAST once a week and eventually maybe more.

[preacherman]

Wade,
Interesting post that challenged the way I see prophecy. I love this post and am interested in getting the book. I hope all is well and you have a fantastic week brother.

[Wade Tannehill]

Preacherman,

Thanks. And BTW, I do not endorse everything in the book, but as I continue to post about this, I will offer a review that is critical.

[Matt Dabbs]

Glad to have you back.

[Wade Tannehill]

Matt,

Thanks. Things are finally settling down for me--relatively speaking.