The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (17 page)

¹⁶⁸
For a thorough treatment of the use of the OT in the NT, see Beale and Carson,
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
. See also D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson,
It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture
(Cambridge: University Press, 1988), which also includes discussions of the use of earlier OT references in later OT books and the helpful collection of essays in S. E. Porter, ed.,
Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

¹⁶⁹
See Gal 3:22; 4:22, 27, 30; Jas 2:8; 4:2; 1 Pet 1:16.

¹⁷⁰
See G. K. Beale, “The Purpose of Symbolism in the Book of Revelation,”
CTJ
41 (2006): 53–66.

¹⁷¹
Grudem, “Scripture's Self-Attestation,” 46.

¹⁷²
This is the central thesis argued by Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
.

¹⁷³
See Acts 4:31; 6:7; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5,7 , 46; 17:13; 18:11; 19:10; 1 Cor 14:37; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; Col 1:25; 1 Thess 1:8; 2 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 1:23.

¹⁷⁴
Kline,
Structure of Biblical Authority
, 27–38.

¹⁷⁵
Against D. Aune (
Revelation 17–22
, WBC 52C [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998], 1231), who contended that this neither constituted a “canonization formula” nor intended to place Revelation on a par with the OT. He did affirm, however, that “he regarded his book as the record of a divine revelation that was both complete (and so unalterable) and sacred.”

¹⁷⁶
G. R. Osborne,
Revelation
, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 794.

¹⁷⁷
See R. Thomas (“The Spiritual Gift of Prophecy in Rev 22:18,”
JETS
32 [1989]: 201–16), who claimed that this marks the official closing of the canon as well as the cessation of prophecy. Neither contention is explicitly affirmed in the text itself.

¹⁷⁸
Grudem, “Scripture's Self-Attestation,” 45.

¹⁷⁹
See especially the helpful treatment by W. D. Mounce,
The Pastoral Epistles
, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 565–70; cf. A. J. Köstenberger, “1–2 Timothy, Titus,” in
Expositor's Bible Commentary
, rev. ed., vol. 12,
Ephesians–Philemon
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 591.

¹⁸⁰
For further study see W. D. Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 565–70 (with further bibliographical references).

¹⁸¹
See the discussion in R. Bauckham,
Jude
,
2 Peter
, WBC (Waco: Word, 1983), 228–35.

¹⁸²
B. B. Warfield, “Revelation,” in
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
, gen. ed. J. Orr (Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1915), 4.2580a.

¹⁸³
Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in
Inerrancy
, 294 (emphasis added).

¹⁸⁴
See especially C. L. Blomberg, “The Legitimacy and Limits of Harmonization,” in
Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon
, ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 135–74. See also id.,
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
, 2d ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007); and id.,
The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001).

¹⁸⁵
This assumes, for the sake of argument, that such a procedure is indeed deductive. In fact, many would contend that their doctrine of an inerrant Scripture is the result of the sustained study of Scripture rather than a dogmatic presupposition brought to Scripture (though it may serve as a functional nonnegotiable for them). G. Osborne's concept of a “hermeneutical spiral” may be helpful here (
Hermeneutical Spiral
, passim). Indeed biblical interpretation requires humility and openness to the actual data on the part of the interpreter; a recognition that interpretation, as a human enterprise, of necessity deals with probability rather than absolute certainty; and a dialectical, transformative, and repeated process of applying oneself to the study of Scripture while being at the same time addressed and impacted by Scripture.

¹⁸⁶
For help in this area see G. L. Archer Jr.,
New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001); and W. C. Kaiser Jr., ed.,
Hard Sayings of the Bible
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996).

¹⁸⁷
In this day and age, interpreters have an unprecedented plethora of resources at their disposal, including a variety of reference tools such as Bible dictionaries, concordances, study Bibles, and scholarly commentaries and monographs. For recommended resources, see the appendix in A. J. Köstenberger and R. D. Patterson,
Invitation to Biblical Interpretation
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, forthcoming).

¹⁸⁸
See P. Stuhlmacher,
Vom Verstehen des Neuen Testaments: Eine Hermeneutik
, Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament 6, 2d ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), especially 222–24, who advocates a “hermeneutic of consent.” Such an approach stands in contrast to a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” frequently employed by feminists such as E. S. Fiorenza (
In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins
[New York: Crossroad, 1983]). N. T. Wright (
The New Testament and the People of God
, Christian Origins and the Question of God 1 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 64) went even farther by calling for a “hermeneutic of love” as part of a critical realism that deals intelligently, but sympathetically, and in faith rather than doubt, with difficult passages in Scripture, in recognition of the fact that the understanding of “spiritual things” requires “spiritual people” (1 Cor 2:13). The importance of faith in biblical interpretation is also underscored by G. Maier,
Biblical Hermeneutics
, trans. R. W. Yarbrough (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994; see chap. 14), who proposes the use of a “biblical-historical” in the place of a “historical-critical” method; and A. Schlatter, “Appendix D: Adolf Schlatter on Atheistic Methods in Theology,” in W. Neuer,
Adolf Schlatter: A Biography of Germany's Premier Biblical Theologian
, trans. R. W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 211–25.

¹⁸⁹
With regard to paraphrase in quotations, compare Matt 5:3 (“Blessed are the poor in spirit”) with Luke 6:20 (“Blessed are you who are poor”). With regard to round numbering, compare the reference to “70 persons” in Gen 46:27 with the mention of “75 people in all” in Acts 7:14. With regard to anthropomorphic language, see references to God “regretting,” “changing His mind,” or “relenting” (see Gen 6:6; Exod 32:14; Jonah 3:10). With regard to phenomenological language, see Matt 5:45 (“He causes His sun to rise”).

¹⁹⁰
See the discussion below.

¹⁹¹
For a helpful treatment see D. A. Carson, “The Role of Exegesis in Systematic Theology,” in
Doing Theology in Today's World: Essays in Honor of Kenneth S. Kantzer
, ed. J. D. Woodbridge and T. E. McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 39–76.

¹⁹²
See W. W. Gasque, “The Promise of Adolf Schlatter,”
Crux
15/2 (June 1979): 8 (an article reprinted in
Evangelical Theological Review
4 [1980]: 20–30).

CHAPTER 2

CORE KNOWLEDGE

Basic Knowledge:
Students should know the eight periods of control over Palestine in the Second Temple era. They should have a basic grasp of the major figures and rulers and be acquainted with other major features of this period, including key dates, names of important works, and major groups and institutions that trace their origin back to this period.

Intermediate Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above, students should have a more in-depth grasp of the dynamics operative in the transition from one empire to the other. They should also be able to discern and describe the major crises in Jewish history that confronted the nation.

Advanced Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above and beyond the Intermediate Knowledge noted above, students should have a thorough command of intertestamental history, including details with regard to major conflicts, specific dates, and names of rulers. They should be able to identify the various works commonly identified as Second Temple literature and be able to demonstrate
how the various features described in this chapter constitute an important background for the interpretation of the NT.

INTRODUCTION

W
HEN THE OT era ended, the Persian Empire was in control of Jerusalem and Judea. When the NT era began, Rome was in charge. To gain an understanding of the political and religious background of the NT, we must obtain at least a cursory grasp of the developments and events that led to the state of affairs that obtained in NT times.
¹
Since there was no prophetic voice in Israel between Malachi and the ministry of John the Baptist, the time span from approximately 400 BC to the Christian era has been called the “silent years.” This rightly underscores the absence of prophet-mediated divine revelation during this period, but the time was anything but quiet, as the remainder of this chapter demonstrates.

Table 2.1: From Babylon to Rome: The Second Temple Period

Formerly called the “intertestamental period,” most scholars now prefer the term “Second Temple period” for the time from the building of the Second temple in 515 BC by Zerubbabel until its destruction by the Romans in AD 70, including the time of Jesus and the early church. Thus scholars are recognizing both the considerable body of literature (larger than the Christian Bible) and its importance to the interpretation of the NT. The
following brief historical survey of this era and its literature and theology is intended to serve as a background for the study of Jesus and the Gospels and the other NT writings.
²

Simply put, from the vantage point of Israel and biblical history, the Second Temple period is comprised of five eras demarcated by a series of occupational forces of Palestine and punctuated by five great crises for the Jewish people.
³
For much of this time Judea was essentially a “temple state” under the immediate control of the high priests who were themselves under the authority of foreign governors or rulers.
⁴
The following survey of the Second Temple period begins with the
first great crisis
, the rule of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar and his
destruction of the temple built by Solomon
resulting in the Jews' loss of national sovereignty.

Table 2.2: The Second Temple Period: Important Events