Thirdly (see the first and second points), this interpretation of eschatology is (again) not out of line with Scripture. The believing community are in continuity with and are part of the one Israel. Reminders of Israel’s past (e.g. Acts 7:5, 40), warnings (e.g. 1 Cor 10, although not dealt with here), and exhortations (e.g. 1 Cor 5:13) all imply positive correspondence rather than antithesis between Israel and the church.^[1] The past experience and present reality are co-ordinated in the writings of the New Testament.

Interestingly, this correspondence does not necessarily imply that the source text was concerned with the referent of the target text. The exegetical tradition of employing texts to refer to whole passages and themes was a common part of Jesus’ teaching, and was carried on by his disciples.^[2] The circumstances of Judas’ death for example, related in Acts 1:20, are not taken to be the subject matter of the Psalm itself. Peter’s application of the Psalm to him is, however, in continuity with the original context, as Judas was the one who betrayed the eschatological Son of David and received a form of divine retribution. Such careful reading of OT texts in their original contexts before attempting a Christian application can, says Peterson, be a valid form of biblical reading today.^[3] The example of the inspired preachers and authors of the NT show us that the church stands in the history of God’s faithful dealings with his people.

[1] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 417; Hays, Echoes, 96–97.↩

[2] David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary Series; Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), 125. ↩

[3] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 125–26 ↩

What follows here are some examples that deal with the presence or proximity of the kingdom of God.

Matthew 13:14 || Mark 4:12 || Luke 8:10 || Acts 28:26

Πορεύθητι καὶ εἰπὸν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ Ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε·

Go! Say to these people: Keep listening, but do not understand; keep looking, but do not perceive.

Isaiah 6:9

ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε, καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε.

You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive.

Matthew 13:14

ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ μὴ ἴδωσιν, καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ μὴ συνιῶσιν,

they may look and look, yet not perceive; they may listen and listen, yet not understand;

Mark 4:12

βλέποντες μὴ βλέπωσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες μὴ συνιῶσιν.

Looking they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.

Luke 8:10

πορεύθητι πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον καὶ εἰπόν· ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε·

You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive.

Acts 28:26

Isaiah’s cleansing experience in chapter 6 contains 2 singular imperatives (passive πορεύθητι, active εἰπὸν), which are repeated verbatim in Acts 28:26 but omitted in the three gospel accounts. The content of the message Isaiah is to relay to the people, however, is present in all four NT instances, although altered in a number of ways.

Mark moves both the future indicatives (ἀκούσετε, βλέψετε) and aorist subjunctives (συνῆτε, ἴδητε) to present subjunctive forms. In fact, Mark’s version is constituted entirely of present forms, both participial and finite, and is thus a marked change from the perfective aspect of Isaiah’ original. Luke 8:10 contains the most terse re-working of the original, retaining the participle βλέποντες and substituting a parallel present participle ἀκούοντες for ἀκοῇ. The aorist active subjunctive συνῆτε has been altered to a present active subjunctive συνιῶσιν, with a parallel present form of βλεπω replacing the ἴδητε of Isaiah 6:9.

Mark and Luke are therefore characterised by their use of imperfective aspect. Jesus’ use of this quotation assists in discerning why this is the case. His explanation of the response of the crowds is privately to the disciples. Their dullness is not remote to them: the blindness and deafness of those who hear the parables is something that is present before their eyes. They are witnesses to that process. For Isaiah the Israelites were a rebellious people (as a whole), and the message he was to bring them was something that he was warned they would reject. In this original instance, the perfective aspect views this rejection in its entirety. The contrast in Mark and Luke, however, is that there are two separate responses to the one speaking God’s words. The crowds are deaf and blind, as were the people in Isaiah’s day, but those to whom the secrets of the kingdom of heaven are given can hear and see.^[1] The rebellious nature of the people in Jesus’ day is not total, for there are some who hear and understand, and this is visibly unfolding before the disciple’s eyes. The use of the imperfective aspect thus mirrors the content of Jesus’ explanation.

Why then do Matthew and Acts retain the original perfective verb forms? In Matthew the citation is clearly introduced as such (καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ἡ λέγουσα, Matt 13:14). The same contrast outlined above, however, is drawn in the explanation that follows, where similar present forms identify the disciples as those who hear and see and are blessed (Matt 13:16).^[2] The situation of Isaiah is also drawn on explicitly in Acts, where Paul draws a direct parallel between the Jews who do not listen to the gospel he proclaims and stubborn Israel.

Romans 9:33/10:11

καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ.

the one who believes on Him will not be put to shame.

Isaiah 28:16

καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.

the one who believes on Him will not be put to shame.

Romans 9:33

πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.

No one who believes on Him will be put to shame.

Romans 10:11

The aspect/mood alteration (aorist subjunctive to future indicative) does not involve a significant change in sense, rather it’s just an alternative means of expression. Perfective aspect is retained, and future temporal reference is made explicit. This explicit tense is important for Romans 9 as Paul considers the history of Israel in light of the present salvation of Gentiles. Romans 10:11 is similar, albeit from the other side of the question, and cites 9:33 identically.

The Israelites pursued righteousness as if it could be attained by works, but in so doing stumbled over the stone laid before them (Rom 9:31). For this reason Paul quotes Isaiah with a future tense form, presenting his prophecy as explicitly pointing forward to the situation of Paul’s day. Israel’s failure to attain to the righteousness by faith the Gentiles have is therefore, according to Paul, a fulfilment of prophecy.^[3] Their exclusion from God’s people as a result of the gospel is not a departure from the OT.^[4]

[1] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 727–29. ↩

[2] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 343; cf also. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 729. ↩

[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 541. ↩

[4] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 630. ↩

Verbal changes are also used to mark the presence or the proximity of the kingdom of God. This eschatological age is marked both by temporal reference and by spatial reference, lending urgency and a progressive nature to understanding the present time. Again, this is part of the interpretation of the NT that Jesus, as the high-point of salvation-history, is the one who brings about the new age. The prophetic passages concerning the Day of the Lord, for example, are reconfigured to refer to the future in Christ, which is evident before the eyes of those at the time.

More to say tomorrow with some detailed examples.

Here are a couple of more in-depth discussions of how Jesus is shown as the righteous sufferer par excellence, the anti-type of David.

Luke 23:46

εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου·

Into Your hand I entrust my spirit;

Psalm 31:5 (LXX 30:6)

πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου.

Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.

Luke 23:46

Psalm 31 represents an ongoing trust in God’s faithfulness. A combination of future and stative verbal concepts are combined: He will be set free from the trap set from him; the Lord is (stative aorist) his refuge (31:4). This statement of entrusting his spirit to the Lord in coming times of trial is for the psalmist a perfective view on God’s relationship to him.

Luke’s version of Psalm 31:5 is a clear move from perfective to imperfective aspect (i.e. an ‘external’ to an ‘internal’ viewpoint). The context makes this decision clear: Jesus is thoroughly ‘in the moment’. He does not view the situation from afar, but is entirely part of the unfolding action at the cross. This is the point at which he utters this expression of righteous faith. Throughout the gospels Jesus is not distant from suffering or the depths of human experience. Even with his divine knowledge of his ultimate resurrection and vindication, he is seen here to be truly human.

Just as he was moved by Lazarus’ death (John 11:33, 38), as he suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt 26:36—39; Mark 14:32—36), as his life was characterised by cries of sorrow (Heb 5:7), on the cross Jesus is seen as the paradigmatic human. At this stage of Luke’s Gospel his remarks are typico-prophetic, not only calling to mind David’s trust in the Yahweh’s faithfulness through suffering, but bringing that to a point in his obedience on the cross as the righteous suffer par excellence.^[1]

John 2:17

ὅτι ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγέν με,

because zeal for Your house has consumed me

Psalm 69:9 (LXX 68:10)

ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου καταφάγεταί με.

Zeal for Your house will consume Me

John 2:17

Jesus’ dismay to find the temple a place of commerce rather than worship leads to his clearing of the temple courts, events which call to mind in the disciples the Davidic Psalm of the righteous sufferer. John’s text introduces the quotation as an explicit scriptural reference (John 2:17a), yet alters the verb from an aorist to a future indicative.

Under Con Campbell’s aspect system both aorist and future forms are perfective in aspect—they view the action as a whole—but the future is marked by having actual future tense. The effect is therefore that John casts Psalm 69 as a forward-looking statement. The Psalm is thus seen not only as a statement of David but as prophecy finding its fulfilment in Jesus. In John’s account, clearly, the function of this verse is to characterise Jesus’ actions in scriptural terms by linking him with the righteous sufferer.^[2] This is part of a pattern throughout the fourth gospel of typology, aligning Jesus’ ministry with the experience of a zealous king and/or prophet who then suffers humiliation by his own people.^[3]

[1] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 1862. ↩

[2] Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 107; Andreas J. Köstenberger, ‘John’ in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 433.↩

[3] Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 528; Köstenberger, ‘John’, 434. ↩

Moving to what can be said of Jesus’ and the NT writers’ approach to Scripture, it seems they felt free to use it poetically, typologically, and prophetically. The OT is not the complete revelation of God, for he has now spoken to us by the Son (cf. Heb 1:1—4). Those who cite the Old Testament in the New therefore read Scripture as ‘richly allusive in character, hinting the kerygma, prefiguring it metaphorically’.^[1] Throughout the NT the gospel is shown to be the fulfilment of God’s plans and purposes throughout history. Reflecting the surrounding content, changes in verb forms are creative reinterpretations of OT texts in light of this theological history.

A whole host of OT material is taken in NT contexts to be fulfilled to Jesus, particularly the Psalms of David. Jesus is shown as the righteous sufferer par excellence, the anti-type of David. By portraying this material about the Messiah as prophetic, with reference beyond its time but now come to completion in Jesus Christ, the NT writers display a wide view of God’s plans that centre on the gospel.

This reinterpretation is by no means out of line with the original content or context. The typology of David for Jesus’ Messianic status, for example, assumes this broader context of God’s people suffering at the hands of their enemies. This assumed fuller understanding is then applied to the words and events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. The biblical metaphors are broader and richer than just the explicit points of connection, and thus announce Jesus confidently as ‘both Lord and Christ’.

Particular examples of what I’m saying here to follow tomorrow.

[1] Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination, 155 ↩

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and modern English versions have this Greek text as the basis for their translation. The Old Testament, however, is a bit more complex. Originally it was written in Hebrew (and Aramaic for some small sections). Some time later a translation was made into Greek (the Septuagint) for the benefit of those for whom Greek was their mother tongue.

So originally, the Septuagint was a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic Vorlage, but at some point in time it shed its subservient connection with its source to stand independently as Scripture in its own right. In modern research on the nature of the Septuagint as a translation, however, there is discussion about the intent of the translators: were they consciously producing liturgical documents that could stand apart from the source material, or were they producing something closer to an educational document, serving ‘as a semantic bridge, bringing the reader to the real object of study’?^[1] The latter, school-setting inception history is likely, evident from the textual-linguistic make-up of the LXX, however this should not be confused with its reception history.^[2]

A shift in status of the Septuagint over time is clear. This is shown by the defence of the Greek Pentateuch against those who would ‘correct’ it given in the letter of Aristeas,^[3] and its status as Christian Scripture in the early church.^[4] It moved from a position of dependence on the Semitic source texts to ‘an independent, free-standing replacement of this Semitic parent text “without experiencing any modification of its textual-linguistic make-up”’.^[5] Throughout the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic Period, and certainly by the time of the writing of the New Testament, the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures was the commonly-used version of the Jewish Scriptures.^[6]

When New Testament authors quote or allude to Old Testament texts, they often have a preference for using the LXX text over the Hebrew. The Septuagint, therefore, is an important source for understanding the theology of the New Testament writers, and, relevant to what we’re doing here, their hermeneutical approach to the Old Testament as the words of Scripture.

[1] Cameron Boyd-Taylor, ‘In a Mirror, Dimly—Reading the Septuagint as a Document of Its Times’ in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 22. ↩

[2] Johann Cook, ‘Translating the Septuagint: Some Methodological Considerations’ in Translating a Translation: The LXX and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (ed. Hans Ausloos et al.; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2008), 21. ↩

[3] Sebastian Brock, ‘To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation’ in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 308. ↩

[4] Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (trans. Mark E. Biddle; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004), 44. ↩

[5] Cook, ‘Translating the Septuagint’, 21. ↩

[6] Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 20. ↩