OT explanation of Jesus?

[cloudyday2]

There are a couple of stories in the NT where evidence from the OT is presented explaining and proving Jesus. According to the stories this evidence was very persuasive, but the evidence people present today seems unimpressive to me. This makes me wonder if some information from early Christianity was lost.

Just wondering if anybody has thoughts on this. I know Matthew has some evidence but they don't seem very impressive either.

The stories I'm thinking about are the road to Emmaus and Philip with the Ethiopian:

ROAD TO EMMAUS (Luke 24:19-27 NIV)

19 “What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”
25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Luke 24:19-27 NIV - “What things?” he asked. “About - Bible Gateway

PHILIP AND THE ETHIOPIAN (Acts 8:30-36 NIV)

30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”

34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”

Acts 8:30-36 NIV - Then Philip ran up to the chariot and - Bible Gateway

 

[ebia]

There are a couple of stories in the NT where evidence from the OT is presented explaining and proving Jesus. According to the stories this evidence was very persuasive, but the evidence people present today seems unimpressive to me. This makes me wonder if some information from early Christianity was lost.

Just wondering if anybody has thoughts on this. I know Matthew has some evidence but they don't seem very impressive either.

The stories I'm thinking about are the road to Emmaus and Philip with the Ethiopian:

ROAD TO EMMAUS (Luke 24:19-27 NIV)
Luke 24:19-27 NIV - âEURoeWhat things?âEUR he asked. âEURoeAbout - Bible Gateway

PHILIP AND THE ETHIOPIAN (Acts 8:30-36 NIV)
Acts 8:30-36 NIV - Then Philip ran up to the chariot and - Bible Gateway

I dont think those stories are about someone proving anything. They are about showing how Jesus is the climax of the Old Testament story.

 

[cloudyday2]

I dont think those stories are about someone proving anything. They are about showing how Jesus is the climax of the Old Testament story.

So is it fair to say you mean that they only provide some reassurance to Jews that had already made up their mind to follow Jesus but had concerns that He didn't match their preconceived ideas about the messiah?

 

[ebia]

So is it fair to say you mean that they only provide some reassurance to Jews that had already made up their mind to follow Jesus but had concerns that He didn't match their preconceived ideas about the messiah?

I wouldn't put it like that. They aren't trying to convince someone he is the messiah so much as explaining how this is what God was working towards all along.

 

[hedrick]

I agree with Ebia. The first passage is a bit hard to comment on because we aren't told exactly how Jesus used the OT. The second one, however, is clear enough. It cites Is 53. We know from the Gospels that Jesus used this to understand and explain his sacrificial role.

These aren't really "proofs" that he's the Messiah. Rather, it seems pretty clear that Jesus understood his role in OT terms, and expected his followers to as well. At the last supper, Jesus said he was dying to establish the new covenant of Jer 31:31. The overall context of Jesus' life is a people who felt that, with the Greeks and then the Romans controlling their homeland, they needed God to intervene to restore Israel, as was promised in the OT. Jesus' teachings were all about the kind of new Israel that God wanted. They also show him as bringing the Kingdom promised in the OT, starting with his followers, but their job was to bring it to the all of Israel and then the whole world. The term "kingdom of God", of course, means "rule of God", i.e. the situation that the Prophets promised when God would restore his people and be their king.

I don't think this suggests that anything about the OT was lost. It's all there.

 

[cloudyday2]

I agree with Ebia. The first passage is a bit hard to comment on because we aren't told exactly how Jesus used the OT. The second one, however, is clear enough. It cites Is 53. We know from the Gospels that Jesus used this to understand and explain his sacrificial role.

These aren't really "proofs" that he's the Messiah. Rather, it seems pretty clear that Jesus understood his role in OT terms, and expected his followers to as well. At the last supper, Jesus said he was dying to establish the new covenant of Jer 31:31. The overall context of Jesus' life is a people who felt that, with the Greeks and then the Romans controlling their homeland, they needed God to intervene to restore Israel, as was promised in the OT. Jesus' teachings were all about the kind of new Israel that God wanted. They also show him as bringing the Kingdom promised in the OT, starting with his followers, but their job was to bring it to the all of Israel and then the whole world. The term "kingdom of God", of course, means "rule of God", i.e. the situation that the Prophets promised when God would restore his people and be their king.

I don't think this suggests that anything about the OT was lost. It's all there.

I guess I have to think some more about it. I think it would help me to understand Jewish beliefs in the various phases the OT was written. Maybe some things in Christianity would make more sense to me.

I really don't understand why God would take such a long circuitous route to get to His goals. I suppose God is trying to involve humans in the process of building a perfect human society on Earth and humans keep going off course?

 

[hedrick]

I guess I have to think some more about it. I think it would help me to understand Jewish beliefs in the various phases the OT was written. Maybe some things in Christianity would make more sense to me.

I really don't understand why God would take such a long circuitous route to get to His goals. I suppose God is trying to involve humans in the process of building a perfect human society on Earth and humans keep going off course?

Are you willing to read something? N T Wright does a really good job of connecting Jesus to the Jewish background. However I doubt anyone will be able to tell you exactly why God works the way he does.

About all I can say is that any God that would use the cross to deal with evil is committed to a pretty indirect approach.

 

[cloudyday2]

Are you willing to read something? N T Wright does a really good job of connecting Jesus to the Jewish background. However I doubt anyone will be able to tell you exactly why God works the way he does.

About all I can say is that any God that would use the cross to deal with evil is committed to a pretty indirect approach.

I went to Amazon and N T Wright has written a lot of books. I'm an extremely slow reader. The book I saw that might be applicable is "Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology". Is that the one?

 

[ebia]

I went to Amazon and N T Wright has written a lot of books. I'm an extremely slow reader. The book I saw that might be applicable is "Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology". Is that the one?

I would have thought Jesus and the Victory of God was closer, but both it and Climax of the Covenent are weighty books (literally and metaphorically.

The Challenge of Jesus is available as an audio book.

Or alternatively you can get a taster by listening to his Big Read lectures on Luke - you should bd able to find them via www.ntwrightpage.com

 

[cloudyday2]

I would have thought Jesus and the Victory of God was closer, but both it and Climax of the Covenent are weighty books (literally and metaphorically.

The Challenge of Jesus is available as an audio book.

Or alternatively you can get a taster by listening to his Big Read lectures on Luke - you should bd able to find them via www.ntwrightpage.com

Thanks, I added that one also. I looked at the preview pages and they do look like they would require some effort to understand. I tried to read another books called "Being as Communion" by John Zizioulas and didn't get very far. Supposedly it is a very good book, but I've never taken classes in philosophy or theology so I found myself stopping every few words to pull out a dictionary. I hope NT Wright isn't like that.

 

[hedrick]

I went to Amazon and N T Wright has written a lot of books. I'm an extremely slow reader. The book I saw that might be applicable is "Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology". Is that the one?

Well, his whole research is in the area of Christianity against a Jewish background. But I'd get something about Jesus. "Simple Jesus" is possible, but I think "How God became King" is probably the most useful for these purposes.

Unfortunately Wright is the most verbose writer since Karl Barth, and at times I think he may even beat Barth. But I think reading something of his is important, and I think "How God became King" is going to be the most useful. While it certainly includes OT background, it's his explanation of what the Gospel really means in the context of his current work.

There's also an NT Wright web page. The problem is that it is mostly his scholarly work. It requires some theological background to understand, and tends to cover narrower topics. He's also got a series of books in which he works out his view of Jesus against the OT background. But if you're a slow reader it could take you decades to get through the series.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, his whole research is in the area of Christianity against a Jewish background. But I'd get something about Jesus. "Simple Jesus" is possible, but I think "How God became King" is probably the most useful for these purposes.

Unfortunately Wright is the most verbose writer since Karl Barth, and at times I think he may even beat Barth. But I think reading something of his is important, and I think "How God became King" is going to be the most useful. While it certainly includes OT background, it's his explanation of what the Gospel really means in the context of his current work.

There's also an NT Wright web page. The problem is that it is mostly his scholarly work. It requires some theological background to understand, and tends to cover narrower topics. He's also got a series of books in which he works out his view of Jesus against the OT background. But if you're a slow reader it could take you decades to get through the series.

Thanks, that "How God became King" looks much easier than "Climax of the Covenant". I'll start with that.