You are not logged in.
If someone wants to call NCT a nasty name he will typically crinkle his nose and
say, “you believe in replacement theology.” By this comment he is referring to the belief
that the church, made up of Jews and Gentiles, “replaces” Israel as God’s chosen people.
I do not like the term “replacement” because of the way it is used and because of certain
misunderstandings that can result from the term. Instead I would rather use the term
“fulfillment theology.” Israel was simply a picture of the true people of God, which the
church fulfills. An analogy that illustrates the relationship between the Israelites and the
church that I have found helpful is of frozen dinners. When I go to the store to buy a
frozen dinner, I look at the picture on the box and it tells me what is inside. Often, just
by looking at the picture on the box, my mouth will begin to water. But when I bring it
home, if I were to take the box and sink my fork and knife into the picture of the food and
begin to eat, I would choke on the first bite! The picture was only meant to point me
toward the real meal and was never meant to be the meal itself. The food inside does not
replace the picture but rather is the reality to which the picture is supposed to lead me. In
the same way, Israel was called God’s chosen and redeemed people, but they were not
chosen for spiritual salvation or redemption from God’s wrath. They were always an
unbelieving people as a whole6 (with a tiny remnant of believers always present). So in
one sense there never was a true people of God to “replace,” there was rather an
expectation of a true people of God that builds to a crescendo throughout the Old
Testament and is finally satisfied in the New Testament. This true people of God actually
love Him and are made up of Jews and Gentiles.In Ephesians 2:11-22 Paul calls this group of people “one new man”:
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and
called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision”
(that done in the body by the hands of men)— remember that at that time
you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and
foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God
in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have
been brought near through the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:11-13).At this point in the passage it might seem that with the coming of Christ, the Gentiles are
brought into the fold and added to Israel. But we will find out as we read on in this
passage that this is not the case. The Israelites had an advantage in that they had the
Scriptures, which contained the promise of a Messiah (Romans 3:1,2). Unless a Gentile
somehow bumped up against Israel, he had no chance of hearing about the one true God
and the way of salvation. But although the Israelites had an amazing advantage, they
were still under God’s wrath. They were no more God’s true people than were the
Gentiles. This is clearly spelled out for us in the verses that follow:For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed
the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the
law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create
in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this
one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which
he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who
were far away and peace to those who were near (Ephesians 2:14-17).Notice that it is the work of Christ that makes “one new man out of the two.” Both Jews
and Gentiles are brought together into one people of God. Also, notice that the Jews
needed to be reconciled to God just like the Gentiles! Verse 16a shows that Jews and
Gentiles were both in an identical relationship to God, which is under His wrath: “and in
this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross.” So if you have a
theology that says that Israel was the true people of God and the Gentiles were simply
added, you must grapple with this verse and the following verse: “He came and preached
peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.” This verse tells us
that Paul is not thinking that Israel was the people of God in the sense that they were
reconciled to God and that the work of Christ simply brought the Gentiles onto equal
footing. The reconciliation of both Jews and Gentiles to God is contemporaneous!
Christ came and gave the opportunity to be reconciled to God (preached peace) to
Gentiles (you who were far away) and to Jews (those who were near).Finally, notice that this passage teaches that God’s people, His household, is built
on the foundation of the apostles and NT prophets7 with Christ serving as the cornerstone:For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens
with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the
chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to
become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built
together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit (Ephesians
2:18-22).This does not say that Gentiles were later invited to be a part of the house that was built
upon the foundation of Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament! It is not as if the
Gentiles are made a people of God alongside the Jewish people of God as classical
dispensationalism espouses. Nor is it that the Gentiles are now added to the true people
of God as covenant theology espouses. Instead, through the cross Jesus Christ has
reconciled both (elect) Jews and Gentiles to Himself and to one another to make “one
new man,” which is the believing people of God, the church.In summary, NCT is not replacement theology believing that God has replaced
the first true people of God with people of God number two. But NCT is replacement
theology in the sense that the focus of God’s attention is no longer on a particular nation
(Israel), but rather God’s preoccupation with the nation has been “replaced” by His
saving love being showered on the true people of God, which is made up of Jews and
Gentiles.
Offline
The Theology of Fulfillment
By Fred G. Zaspel-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Preface
This helpful study...clarifies in simple, straightforward terms issues that often trip up even the most skilled interpreters of Scripture. It will give you a new appreciation for the centrality of Christ in the Scripture.
-John MacArthurIn this fine biblical study, Fred Zaspel's gifts as a scholar-pastor are evident in the patient but enthusuastic way he explores the fulfillment of God's purposes in Christ. Read with an open Bible and a ready heart, these pages will convey both the wisdom and the wonder of God's plan and the thrill of discovering again the glory of Jesus Christ.
-Sinclair Ferguson-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Lecture #1
The Relation of the Old & New Testaments
Introduction
A. Area of Study
I have been asked to examine "The Theology of Fulfillment" with special attention given to the relation of the Old and the New Testaments. Like so many of the broader themes of Scripture this subject is both simple and complex, and while it has been discussed over and again for so many centuries it is still fresh and invigorating to every believer. This subject is precisely the subject which John the Baptist preached as he announced the arrival of Jesus. It is the subject which our Lord Himself preached. And it is the theme of the apostles. In fact, as we shall see, this message of fulfillment reaches to the very heart of the gospel itself.
B. Biblical Characterizations
The apostle Paul declared that Jesus' arrived "when the fullness of the times came" (Gal. 4:4). At the very least this implies a previous period of preparation—and so there was. The Mosaic era, Paul points out in this context, was an era which not only anticipated the coming of Christ but, by its law emphasis, led to it and demonstrated the great need for it. The sending of God's Son, then, was the culmination of time: up to this point, history had been running toward this very goal. "For all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him Amen" (2 Co. 1:20). But we're jumping ahead of ourselves. We want to show precisely how this is so.
It is Augustine who coined the well-known saying, "The Old is in the New revealed; the New is in the Old concealed." That is to say, what is read explicitly in the NT is seen only implicitly in the OT. The two testaments proclaim the same message only from differing standpoints: one points forward in anticipation, and the other declares a completion, an accomplishment.
But it is not Augustine that teaches us this after all. We have it on the authority of our Lord Himself.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Mat. 5:17).
"Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them" (Luke 10:23-24).
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:27).
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24:44).
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39).
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me." (John 5:46).
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56).
"In the volume of the book it is written of me" (Heb. 10:7).
Some OT scholars have argued that we should read and study the OT on its own terms. That is, we should seek to understand it by itself without "reading back" into it from the NT. There is a sense, of course, where that is right. But what Jesus seems to be emphasizing in these passages is that we in this age should be able to read the OT better than that. There is the matter of "historical-grammatical" interpretation, to be sure. But if "historical-grammatical" leaves out the Christological focus, it is deficient. In fact, Jesus seems to be implying that this is how the OT could always have been read! "Moses wrote of me . . . Abraham saw my day" seem to insist that the NT "revelation" is precisely the message of the OT.
C. Approach
It is not surprising, then, to observe the NT writers interpreting the OT in just this way. And it is highly instructive to see just how the inspired writers from both sides of the cross treat the relevant data. Those of the Old order consistently point forward in expectation and anticipation of a great age to come, and their NT counterparts just as consistently point to Jesus with a glance backward to their forefathers. To put it another way, Jesus is regularly presented in the NT against the backdrop of the OT hope and shown to be its fulfillment. It is obviously impossible to trace this out in detail, but I want to highlight a few of the hopeful expressions of the OT writers and then see how these are understood in the NT.
Genesis 3:15
Let's begin at the beginning—Genesis 3:15. The promise is of a coming deliverer of the woman's seed who at some cost to Himself ("bruised heal") will bring defeat to Satan ("bruise his head"). Not a lot of information is given here, but it is enough to establish a strong sense of anticipation. The deliverer will be one of humanity (the woman's seed), specifically a male descendent ("he"). The exact nature of the tempter's defeat is not specified, but it will evidently be total ("head"). And it is clear enough that the thrust of the promise is that Satan will be defeated in such a way that he will never cause this kind of trouble again.
Some have argued that Eve expected this deliverance to come via her firstborn—Cain, and point out that the Hebrew of Gen.4:1 could indicate, "I have gotten a man, even the Lord." The translation is possible, but it would be surprising if she knew this much Christian theology at this point. And even if she did expect the fulfillment of the promise to come via Cain, she was wrong.
Interestingly, it is Christ Himself who makes use of this prophecy. "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out" (John 12:31). As we will see, our Lord often presents Himself as the fulfiller of the OT promises, and here He does just that. Yet what is significant is the manner in which He will bring this about. The next verse continues, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." It was by Jesus' crucifixion that Satan's defeat would come. Somehow, the deliverer will defeat the tempter by dying—and that at the tempter's hands!
But when the Apostle Paul refers to this promise it is with a different slant. "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly" (Rom. 16:20). What is significant here is that Paul's hope is yet a future one; he is looking forward to a time when Satan will be finally put down. It seems to me that this fits well with what John portrays in Rev. 20.
Of course, we are not willing to attribute error to either our Lord or his apostles, and so we are left to think that Satan's defeat was accomplished at the cross and will be brought to fruition at the second coming of Christ.
From all this it is not difficult to see that the prophecy does not point forward to a single act, but to a person who will bring it about in a succession of acts. We will return to this in the next lecture, but it is worth noticing here that here we have the answer to the OT's—to history's—first promise, and it focuses squarely on the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The promise has a Christological focus and a redemptive purpose.
This pattern (the Christological focus and redemptive purpose of the promises) holds true throughout.
Genesis 9:26-27
Following an extended period of human spiritual declension and judgment (Gen. 4-9), God reaffirms His promise (Gen. 9:26-27). For the first time in history God is said to be "the God of" an individual—Shem. But the blessing goes further—He will "dwell in the tents of Shem." In other words, God is pledging a special relationship with Shem's descendants. And so it turned out. The family of Shem via Abraham enjoyed God's special care. To them belonged the tabernacle and "the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises" (Rom. 9:4). They were the particular objects of His favor and the objects of His revelatory activity. It is as a Shemite that Jesus came, and the gospel went to them "first." And so again, the prophecy maintains a Christological focus and a redemptive purpose.
Genesis 12:1-3
Following another extended period of spiritual digression (Gen. 10-11), God again reaffirms his promise. In Gen. 12:1-3 (cf. 13:14-16; 15; 17) He promises to Abraham (of the family of Shem) an heir ("seed"), an inheritance ("land"), and a heritage ("blessing to the world").1 Like Eve, Abraham is looking ahead to a later descendant, and every son born to him and to Isaac and to Jacob pointed forward to the Heir par excellence who would bring blessing to the world. In the promise of a land lay an expectation that God would not only act to redeem men's souls, but that He would accomplish redemption on earth itself. This, together with, "I will bless thee . . . and thou shalt be a blessing . . . and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" and "I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee" (17:6), leave the hope for a dynastic kingdom and a people who belong to God.
This promise is referred to in some way throughout the OT, but it is in Paul that we find its significance made plain. The "blessing" is righteousness which Christ accomplishes for others, and the "seed" is Christ also—and, by extension, those who belong to Him (Gal. 3). And in Rev. 7 John shows us a picture of the end, in which the redeemed appear as "a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues" (v.9). The Abrahamic promise will be accomplished in all its details.
And the promise again manifests a Christological focus and a redemptive purpose. Christ is the "fulfiller" of the hope: He "fills it full."
Deuteronomy 18:15-19
This brings us to the promise of Deut. 18:15-19—the prophet like Moses. In context, this is a warning to Israel not to resort to the fanciful practices of divination of the nations around them. It is not only wrong—it is unnecessary, for God will raise up a prophet like unto Moses who, like Moses, will speak for God to them. Him they must hear, for how they hear Him will be the point at issue in their judgment. And so begins the institution of prophetism in Israel.
But the singular is noteworthy—prophet. Who is this prophet? Precisely none of the OT prophets stood as high as Moses! No one was the mediator Moses was, yet this is what the text demands—a prophet like unto Moses.
Again the NT answers, and it presents Jesus not only as a prophet "mighty in deed and in word" (Luke 24:19) and without guile (1 Pe. 2:22), but as "the prophet who is coming into the world" (John 6:14; cf. 4:25; 7:40). "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him" (Mat. 17:5). And Jesus' "But I say unto you" (Mat. 5:22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 38, 44) appears to be his own claim to be that prophet. He spoke of His mission in terms of bringing a message from the Father (John 17:6, 8, 14). Accordingly, Hebrews presents Jesus as the culmination of God's revelatory activity (1:1-2). God spoke to Israel throughout her history, many times and in many ways, but the revelation of God through his Son is the climax of it all. Jesus emphasized that the word He brought would be delivered to us at the hands of His apostles (John 16:12-13; 17:6, 8, 14, 18, 20), and this revelation of Christ via His apostles is complete ("all things," John 16:13) and final ("once for all," Jude 3).
And what is the message this Prophet brings? It is the gospel of grace, the good tidings of salvation (Luke 4:16-21; cf. Isa. 61:1-2; Mat. 11:2-5; cf. Isa. 35:4ff). He came to announce the year of Jubilee in which men's indebtedness to God may be canceled. And so again, there is a Christological focus and a redemptive purpose in the prophecy. The promise of a prophet like unto Moses is preliminarily realized in a succession of prophets in Israel, but it is in Jesus Christ that it reaches its goal.
2 Samuel 7 et al
The promise is reiterated again in the monarchical period with a specific emphasis on a king and a kingdom. Growing out of 2 Sa. 7 many of the Psalms also anticipate the coming of the Davidic King to rule over Israel. In the Prophets especially this hope is seen in its cosmic dimensions—God's King coming to bring judgment and righteousness and peace to the whole world. Moreover, the peace and righteousness established in that future day will be secured by a New Covenant which promises that God will be with his people in a special sense, that He will be their God and they will be his people, and the knowledge of God will be universal. As you know, again the NT writers—with Jesus Himself—treat all these many streams of prophetic statements in direct relation to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. To be redundant—there is a Christological focus and a redemptive purpose.
Matthew
You'll have to forgive this brief injustice to the OT witness, because we must move along to the NT. Turning there we find the same pattern continued, only here the promise is not as "coming" but as "present and coming." And again there are so many places to turn it is difficult to know where to begin.
Matthew heads the list: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (1:1). From here follows a long family tree (1:1-17), something which seems boring and unimportant to so many. But in this case it is exciting and extremely important, for Matthew is demonstrating that in Jesus the tree of David, now cut down to a mere stump, is sprouting a new branch (Isa. 11:1). He is "the Son of David" par excellence.
He is also "the Son of Abraham." Now obviously, as a son of David Jesus is also a son of Abraham, but the statement is no redundancy. It is Matthew's declaration that what Jesus brings to Israel in fulfillment of the Davidic promise He also brings to the nations in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. This is illustrated in chapter 2 in the visit of the Magi from afar, but also here in the family tree where there are listed four women (besides Mary). The ancient Jews had not caught up to modern feminism, and women were not generally mentioned in family trees. Mary we expect. But why the mention of the likes of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba? For one, all were Gentiles, except Bathsheba who was married to a Hittite. And all were associated with sexual sin, except Ruth who was a Moabitess—and the Moabites themselves were the result of sexual sin (cf. Gen. 19). Alluding as he just has to the Abrahamic promise—which is both universal in scope and gracious in nature (as we have just seen)—it seems that Matthew is directing our attention backward to see these as illustrations of the work which Jesus has come to do.
In short, Matthew is emphasizing that the birth of Jesus marks the beginning of a new epoch in salvation history—the King has come, and He is Jesus, and He has come to save.
The theme expands in the following paragraph (1:18-25) where Matthew is concerned to show how Jesus was brought into Joseph's family and to emphasize in several ways the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin. Why? To show again Jesus' qualifications as Israel's Davidic king! Perhaps it is more accurate to say that his purpose is to show that Jesus is not disqualified from being king: the curse on Jeconiah (1:11; cf. Jer. 22:24, 28; 37:1) disallowing any of his physical descendants from the Davidic throne does not affect Jesus!
Matthew continues to emphasize the same in verses 20-21 where even in Jesus' name we see Him as the fulfiller of Israel's hopes. He is "Joshua," "God saves," "God to the rescue," if you like. Like the former Joshua He will lead his people into rest. And this too is cast against the OT hope, this time as it is expressed in Psa. 130:8—"And He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save his people from their sins."
In fact, Jesus is immanu el—God with us (v.23; cf. Isa. 7:14)! In Jesus—and in answer to a long history of promises—God Himself has come to us for our salvation, and in His presence we are safe.
But Matthew does not let up. In chapter 2 he emphasizes that Jesus is "born in Bethlehem," the significance of which is noted in vv.4-6 (cf. Mic. 5:2). But there is still more. In v.2 Jesus is designated, "King of the Jews." The mention of "his star" is reminiscent of Balaam's prophecy of Numbers 24:17, long recognized as Messianic. The visit of the Magi bears striking resemblance to the visit of the Queen of Sheba to David's son Solomon. Their presenta-tion of gifts seems reflective of Isa. 60:6 and possibly Psa. 72:10-11. And with all this symbolism it can become difficult to argue against the ancient tradition that there is symbolic value in the gifts themselves!
Then there is His exodus from Egypt "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, `Out of Egypt have I called my son'" (v.15). It is difficult here to see the connection. In what way does this "fulfill" Hosea's statement? In context, Hosea's prophecy (11:1) is not at all predictive. It is a simple statement concerning Israel's history. But for Matthew, Jesus is the true,2 and so he very easily makes the connection.
The noted details of Jesus' ascent from Egypt along with King Herod's fear and the slaughter of the children are significant. Later in Matthew's Gospel he is careful to present Jesus as the New—and greater—Moses (cf. giving the law from a mountain, ten miracles, giving bread in a desert place, etc.), and it seems this is one subtle introduction to the theme. In fact, the wording of 2:20 ("for they are dead which sought the young child's life") is strikingly reminiscent of Exo. 4:19. This is the one "like Moses" whom Moses said would come.
In vv.16-18 the slaughter of the innocents "fulfills" another historical statement, this time by Jeremiah: "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." The reference is to Jer. 31:15 and the lament of Rachel. Rachel (regarded as the mother of the nation and buried just outside of Bethlehem) there is portrayed as weeping for the children of Israel who "are no more"—their king is dethroned, and they are being carried off into exile (586 B.C.). These tears are "fulfilled" here in that they are brought to a climax and an end—they find their answer in the birth of Jesus, the true heir of David's throne. In other words, Matthew is emphasizing that the exile is over, the true Son has arrived, and He will bring in blessings to Israel.3
Significant also is the fact that the Jeremiah passage which Matthew cites ends with words of comfort. God will establish a "New Covenant" which will assure the greatest blessings to Israel—God will be theirs in the most intimate ways. They will enjoy the "knowledge" of Him in forgiveness and blessing. Significant also is the fact that Jeremiah speaks of Israel there as "God's dear son." But here the whole scene reaches its culmination. The exile is over, the true son has come to inaugurate the New Covenant (cf. Mat. 26:28) with all its attending blessings. Truly, Rachel's weeping is over.
Finally, in 2:23 another prophecy is "fulfilled"—"He shall be called a Nazarene." The difficulty here is that this prophecy is nowhere to be found in all of the OT. It seems that there is a play on words here. Isaiah's "branch"—netzer—would rise from humble obscurity. This "Nazarene"/netzer connection may provide a point of reference. Add to this the fact that the term "Nazarene" is a term of contempt (cf. John 1:46; Acts 24:5) and that the prophets made it plain that the Servant would be "despised and rejected of men," and it seems also that this statement ("He shall be called a Nazarene") is a fulfillment of the substance of what the prophets had said. Jesus was not "the Bethlehemite"—a designation full Davidic implications. He was "a Nazarene." The king, yes, but one who came not with outward show and pomp but with obscure and humble beginnings and with derision.
Five times here Matthew specifies that Jesus "fulfills" some OT prophecy (1:22-23; 2:5-6, 15, 17-18, 23), but even without the use of the terminology He is repeatedly presented as the realization of the long hopes of Israel.
Clearly, this is much more than an "infancy narrative." It is Matthew's introduction of the great King. It is his "prologue," re-emphasized and expanded throughout his entire book.
In chapters 5-7 Jesus is the new law-giver. He claims to "fulfill" the law and the prophets (5:17), and from what follows it is clear that He means to imply more than that He has merely discharged all of His Mosaic obligations. Neither does he mean that He is simply a "fulfillment of prophecy." Nor is He affirming the continuing validity of Moses' law. The thought goes deeper. Moses' law will stand until it is entirely "fulfilled" (v.18), but in Him it reaches its fulfillment! He has brought "to its final conclusion all that the Law stood for."4 More, "these sayings of mine" (7:24, 26) constitute the New Law which Jesus brought about. "Lawlessness" (anomia, 7:23) is defined as disobedience to His words. He is "the prophet" who must be heard—("But I say unto you..."). To fail to hear His word aright results in a storm of judgment which will destroy the disobedient like floods over a house built on sand (vv.24-27). Still more, He is the King issuing the charter of His kingdom (5:3; 6:33, etc.). These are the King's demands which must be accepted by all who would be part of God's kingdom.
In His transfiguration (17:1-9) He is again—among other things—the new Moses. We can see at once, in the Father's affirmation of His Son in the presence of Moses and Elijah, Jesus' primacy over both—the law and the prophets. But the similarities to Moses on Mt. Sinai are striking—the mountain, the cloud (symbolic of the Divine presence), the voice of God, the commands (10 commandments and "hear Him!"), the shining face, etc. With all these "coincidences" it quickly becomes obvious that Matthew is telling us something; namely, that the arrival of Jesus marks a great transition—a fulfillment, if you will—a fulfillment from the Old to the New, from the partial to the complete, from the law of Moses to the law of Christ. In short, Jesus marks the shift from promise to fulfillment. He is the new and greater Moses.
But He is more than that. In chapter 12 the incident of Jesus' disciples plucking grain on the sabbath turns into a Christological manifesto. Jesus is greater than the sabbath—indeed, greater than the temple! And He is greater than David—and Jonah, and Solomon (12:1-8, 41, 42). But He is not only greater—He is what they anticipated. He is their "fulfillment."
And the theme of Jesus' kingship is carried through to his death (cf. ch.27—the conversation with Pilate, the details of the purple robe, reed in His hand, the mocking cry "Hail, King of the Jews," the charge against Him above His head, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews," etc.). But it does not stop there—His Kingship is declared by His resurrection and in His missionary manifesto to the disciples ("all authority is given me in heaven and in earth"). Jesus is here, and He is King, and while His kingship may be of an unexpected kind, He is nonetheless the fulfiller of Israel's hope.
It is entirely arguable that Matthew's whole theological motivation in writing his Gospel may be summed up in this one word—fulfilled (plero, 33 times in Matthew; tele, 3 times). This is his trademark- -his primary thrust emphasized over and again even without the use of the term. For Matthew, Jesus is the fulfillment of all the expectations regarding David's and Abraham's Son, and He is the one who "fills full" all the promises made throughout Israel's history. Speak of Bethlehem, Galilee, the Messiah, the King of Israel/the Jews, the suffering Servant of Jehovah, the Son of Man, or any of a host of other terms pregnant with expectation, and Jesus is the Fulfiller, the answer and goal of them all.
Mark & Luke
The fulfillment emphasis in Mark and Luke is similar to that of Matthew, although perhaps to a lesser degree, so we need not spend much time here before we move along. Both Mark and Luke (along with Matthew and John) point out Jesus' forerunner, John the Baptist. Mark gives us John's pregnant expression, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (1:15)—which is to say, simply, that the time of waiting is now over, and what is hoped for is now a reality. The significance of John, for them, is clearly Messianic. There is also Elizabeth's joyful response to Mary: "Blessed is she that believed, for there shall be a performance (tele_) of those things which were told her from the Lord" (Luke 1:45). One particularly interesting observation concerns Luke's account of Jesus' birth. There we are reminded of "Bethlehem the city of David," and there we are told of Simeon's glad praise to God as he takes the infant Jesus into his arms and says, "Mine eyes have seen thy salvation . . . a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel" (2:30, 32)! More subtly but no less interesting, however, is Luke's narrative of Jesus' birth and the events preceding it (chs.1-2). With the angelic announcement and even the terminology employed ("thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bear a son...and He shall...") it is apparent that Luke is carefully drawing attention to the account of the birth of Samson (Jdg. 13:3ff). And so there is again the note of Israel's deliverance. Again, there is much more, but we must press on.
John
In John's Gospel the emphasis is even more pronounced. He tells us himself that his very purpose in writing is to show us that "Jesus is the Christ" (20:31)—and looking back through the book, it is clear that he accomplishes his purpose very well. Think of the titles given to Jesus in John's Gospel: He is the Christ (Messiah), the king of Israel, the Son of Man, the light of men, the true light, the one greater than John the Baptist, greater than Moses, the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit (who can anoint but one who is The Anointed?), the one of whom Moses wrote, the Holy One of God, the one who comes in the name of the Lord riding on an •••, etc. All of these are rich with Messianic implications.
The narrative of 1:19-34 is filled with "hints" of Jesus' Messiahship, such as the question to John the Baptist whether he is the Christ and his subsequent denial, his announcement of the arrival of the Christ, his identifying of Jesus as "the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," and the expectation that He will baptize with the Holy Spirit. But all this seems intended to lead up to the climax of v.34—"And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." The same is true of the following paragraph (vv.35-51) which ends with Jesus' declaration that He is the mediator between heaven and earth. "We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write!" (1:45) is the whole emphasis.
Chapter 2 carries on the same—Jesus is the answer and goal of what the Jewish water pots symbolized (vv.1-11). And reading 2:12ff from the standpoint of one who knows the outcome, we understand that the "sign" of His Messiahship which He offered to those who requested it did in fact occur—His temple (body) was raised up in three days!
The account of the woman at the well in Samaria (4:1-42) likewise reaches its climax with the men of Samaria saying, "Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." The entire discourse concerning the bread from heaven leads to the same conclusion—"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the holy one of God." The same is emphasized throughout the interrogation of the healed blind man (ch.9). The "I AM" sayings are full of Messianic significance—the bread from heaven, the light of the world, the good shepherd, the true vine, etc. And on through the book it goes. It just doesn't end. Like Matthew, John had learned—somehow—to see in the OT an unfolding Christological focus and a redemptive purpose.
Of particular interest to me is John the Baptist's announcement, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" (1:29). Judging from the Baptist's later confusion about Jesus (Mat. 11:2ff, where he sends messengers from his prison to ask Jesus if He really is the expected one) and the strong emphasis on judgment in his announcements recorded in the synoptics (e.g., Mat. 3:7-11), many have understood this statement as an announcement of judgment as well.5 Evidence cited in support of this comes from the Jewish apocalyptic writings, well known in that day, where the Messiah is presented as a lamb coming in triumph to clean up and remove sin. The picture is of a lamb being attacked by wild beasts but overcoming them in the fight and so establishing the Kingdom. "Taking away sin," in this case, refers to judgment and destruction of sinners, God's enemies. This fits well with the note of judgment which the Baptist sounds in the synoptics. This is precisely the picture in Rev.5 where the lion of Judah who has earned the right to open the book suddenly appears as a lamb who stands, takes the book, and receives praise for redeeming all of humanity by his blood. The conquering lion, then, is the slaughtered ram. And the conquering lamb who triumphs over sin is the sacrificial lamb who removes sin. This judgment imagery may well be involved in John 1:29 also. But then John the Baptist was an inspired prophet of the tradition of Israel, and judging from what transpires later his announcement seems to imply much more. John the apostle interprets Jesus' death in reference to the passover lamb (19:14, 35-37). The lamb who "takes away the sin of the world" is a powerful, conquering ram who triumphs over sin by his own sacrifice. He is the paschal lamb. But if He is that lamb, then could he be the lambs of the daily sacrifice? Or the scapegoat of Lev. 16? Or the substitute lamb offered instead of Isaac (Gen. 22)? Or of the guilt offering of Lev. 14? Or of the lamb led to the slaughter of Isa. 53? This verse (John 1:29) has been notorious for its difficulty in allowing a precise point of reference, but perhaps this is precisely what the apostle John intended. Perhaps he did not intend to restrict the figure but rather to leave it open to a wide range of OT anticipations!
Paul
In the Pauline corpus Jesus is presented to a primarily Gentile audience, and so "Christ" has become more a name than a title. Even still, Jesus is presented as the last Adam (Rom.5:12ff), Isaac's ram (Rom.8:32), the Passover (1 Co.5:7), the seed of Abraham (Gal.3), the one who redeems us from the curse of the law (Gal.3:13), and the greater than Moses (2 Co.3). And in the book of Acts we see that Paul's practice in the synagogues was the same wherever he went—there was only and always a presentation of Jesus as "the Christ" and as the fulfiller of the OT scriptures (Acts 17:2-3).
Hebrews
As if this weren't enough, the evidence from Hebrews is staggering. Over and over again Christ is presented as the fulfillment of what was anticipated in the old economy. He is superior to all the OT prophets (1:1-4)—even Moses (3:1-6). He is superior to the angels—who played such a vital role in the giving of the law (ch.1-2). He has brought in a new law which replaces the old (7:12). When the author speaks of our "entering into rest" (4:1-10) we immediately understand him to mean that the promise of rest (in the OT and by Jesus, cf. Mat. 11:28ff) is fully realized in our enjoyment of Christ—now and forever. He is priest of a higher order than that of Aaron (ch.7). He is the realization of all that was prefigured in the old order of Moses. And again, this NT writer has learned to look back to the OT and see all the promises—and institutions—as pointing forward to the Lord Jesus Christ who "fills them all full."
Conclusion
So much for the data. Let's try to draw some observations from all this.
1) The Old is indeed "filled full" in the New. What was before a hope is everywhere in the NT declared to be a hope whose time has come. If anything is clear from the NT writers it is this epochal truth: "the time is fulfilled."
2) The New is indeed in the Old, but its "concealment" there is not a very secret one! He is there—everywhere. We learn just as easily from the NT writers that we simply cannot read the OT without seeing Jesus.
3) The focal point of both is the same; i.e., the person and work of Christ. The whole of Scripture is seen to have—may I say it again—a Christological focus and a redemptive purpose.
4) The nature of the OT's anticipation varies—spoken prophecy, symbol, illustration. In fact, the NT writers seem to look back at the whole of (previous) history as one long, extended object lesson portraying some aspect of Christ's person and work.
From this I think we can learn something of the nature of a "type." Some have taught that types are only those OT symbols/illustrations which find specific mention as such in the NT. That hermeneutic is safe enough—it avoids altogether the many over-active imaginations which we all have seen! But while it is safe, it may not quite fit all the data. The author of Hebrews specifically states that there is more to what he is setting forth than he has time to discuss: "And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly" (9:5). Just what the author would have written about the symbolic significance of the cherubim we would love to know! The method employed by the NT writers seems rather casual and almost completely unguarded. They so easily look anywhere in the OT, it seems, and they see Jesus! It's easy for us to see Him in Isaiah 53, but Hosea 11:1? "Type" seems to me to be a rather loose term; it can refer to any kind of real correspondence between Biblical events, persons, or institutions.
5) Accordingly, the nature of the NT realization varies. Sometimes there is a "one-to-one" fulfillment. This is seen in things such as Micah's prophecy of Bethlehem (5:2); I am not aware of any further significance of this prophecy than that this is where Jesus was born. But it is not always quite so simple. We saw that the "serpent" curse in Gen. 3:15 was—and will be—fulfilled. The same is true of other promises—which we will see in the next lecture. Then there is this matter of sensus plenior which is so often discussed in contemporary theology. Do the NT writers look back to the OT and see in it a "fuller sense" than was originally intended by the original authors? I don't see any way to deny it (e.g., Mat. 2:15 & Hos. 11:1), and if we understand that God is the unifying Author behind all the human authors I don't think this presents any real problem. We should make mention also of the NT use of plero ("fulfill"); it seems to indicate merely that this age witnesses the realization of every-thing in the OT which in any way pointed forward to it—whether by specific prediction, symbol, or whatever. The same is true for tele, which it seems is a synonymous term.
6) The question that arises here is, how do we apply what we learn from the NT writers' use of the OT. May or ought we to look back and see Christ as quickly as they did? What about in places which seem to us to "preview" Christ but the NT writers never really say so? Is it still legitimate? In short, I think yes, but I also think we should always look for some textual indicators. And I would expect that most of the time, at least, there will be other portions of Scripture which will serve to "fill in" the picture. For example, Hosea 11:1 does mention "my son," and while that isn't much to go on we do know from fuller revelation how this may well become a reference to Christ. A similar treatment is given to Caiaphas' prophecy in John 11:49-52. We don't have the advantage of inspiration or even of having listened to Jesus teach personally, and so I think it is clearly necessary for us to be very careful about seeing too much in all the minute details of the OT. When in Solomon's Song he likens his wife's navel to a goblet full of wine and her belly to a heap of wheat (7:2), I am not prepared to see a reference to the Lord's supper—as some have. But we do learn from the NT writers that if we are to read the OT aright we must read it while wearing our NT glasses! When we read that the first man placed on earth was given dominion over it and failed, we should without hesitation remember that we have read the last chapter, too, and that it tells us there that "Jesus won it back!" When we read of a promised deliverer who will destroy the tempter we should immediately think in terms of the victory achieved by Christ on the cross which will be brought to final consummation at his return. The same is true when we read of the various rituals of the Mosaic law. When we read of the law entering and see its ability to point out sin, our minds should race quickly to Him who is "the end of the law for righteousness to him that believes." When we read of Israel entering into her rest, we should happily think of our rest in Christ which we enjoy now and will enjoy forever. In short, we must read the OT Christologically.
Spurgeon stated the issue with characteristic eloquence.
Take away Christ for a moment, and look into the pages of your OT. Then try to construct in your imagination an ideal character who shall exactly fit all that is therein foreshadowed. Remember, He must be a prophet like unto Moses, and yet a champion like Joshua. He must be an Aaron and a Melchizedek. He must be both David and Solomon, Noah and Jonah, Judah and Joseph, the Isaac who was offered by the father and the ram which died in his stead. Yea, He must not only be the lamb that was slain but the scapegoat which was not slain, the turtledove that was dipped in blood and the priest who slew the bird; but He must be the altar, the tabernacle, the mercy seat, and the shewbread....
His point is well made: just try to make sense of the OT without Christ! Without Him it is an empty book! But with Him, a mountain of details beautifully converge. Or, in the words of Augustine,
"Read the prophetic books without reference to Christ—what couldst thou find more tasteless and insipid? Find therein Christ, and what thou readest will not only prove agreeable, but will intoxicate thee."
7) So the relation of the OT to the NT is not bad/good, but good/better. The OT believers had their way to God, their priesthood and many glad provisions along with it. And all that was a very gracious gift from God. The Old covenant, to use Paul's word, was "glorious" (2 Co. 3:10-11). But the glory of this New covenant far surpasses it, for we enjoy the "body" of which the former was but a "shadow" (Col. 2:17). Or in the language of the writer of Hebrews, this "new and living way" is much "better," and we rejoice to be a part of it.
8) One more thing. I said that we learn from the NT writers how to read the OT—i.e., from the viewpoint of "the end." But where did they get it? There is only one answer, and they tell us the answer themselves. "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:37). It is on Christ's own authority that we read the OT looking for Him. To read the OT in this way is to follow the lead of our Lord Himself, the one concerning whom the book was written and Who, in turn, fills it full.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Offline