Quotations
VIEW:26 DATA:01-04-2020
QUOTATIONS (IN NT).The NT writings contain quotations from four sources: (1) the OT; (2) non-canonical Jewish writings; (3) non-Jewish sources; (4) letters to which the author of a letter is replying, or other private sources. It is significant of the relation of the NT writings to the OT Scriptures and of the attitude of the NT writers to these Scriptures, that the quotations of the first class far outnumber all those of the other three classes. Swete counts 160 passages directly quoted from the OT by writers of the NT, including those which are cited with an introductory formula, and those which, by their length or accuracy of quotation, are clearly shown to be intended as quotations. Westcott and Hort reckon the total number of NT quotations from the OT at 1279, including both passages formerly cited and those in which an influence of the OT upon the NT passage is otherwise shown. Even this list is perhaps not absolutely complete. Thus, while WH [Note: H Westcott and Horts text.] enumerate 61 passages from Is 139, H. Osgood, in his essay Quotations from the OT in the NT, finds exactly twice as many122. Against this large number of quotations from the OT there can be cited at the utmost only some 24 quotations by NT writers from non-canonical Jewish sources (see Ryle, art. Apocrypha in Smiths DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] 2; Zahn, Com. on Gal_3:10; Gal_5:3; Gal_6:15; Woods, art. Quotations in Hastings DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ). Of quotations from non-Jewish sources the following are the only probable instances: Tit_1:12, Act_17:28, 1Co_12:12-27; 1Co_15:33. To this short list it should be added that Lukes preface (Luk_1:1-4) is perhaps constructed on classical models (cf. Farrar, Life and Work of Paul, Excursus 3; Zahn, Eînl.2 i. p. 51). Of quotations from private sources there are several unquestionable examples in the Pauline letters; 1Co_7:1; 1Co_8:1; 1Co_11:2; 1Co_11:17 f., 1Co_12:1, Php_1:3; Php_2:25 f., Php_4:14-18; cf. also Phm_1:5-7.
Of the numerous quotations from the OT by far the largest number are derived directly from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , even the freedom of quotation, which the NT writers in common with others of their time permitted themselves, in no way obscuring their direct dependence upon the Greek version. Among the NT books the Epistle to the Hebrews shows the strongest and most constant influence of the LXX. [Note: Septuagint.] According to Westcott (Com. p. 479), 15 quotations agree with the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Hebrew, 8 with the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] where it differs from the Hebrew, 3 differ from LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Hebrew, 3 are free renderings. Westcott adds that the writer regarded the Greek version as authoritative, and nowhere shows any immediate knowledge of the Hebrew text.
The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, exhibits the largest influence of the Hebrew. In the quotations from the OT which are common to the Synoptic Gospels (occurring chiefly in the sayings of Jesus) the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] clearly exerts the dominant influence. But in those passages which are peculiar to this Gospelbeing Introduced by the writer by way of comment on eventsthough the writer is not unacquainted with or uninfluenced by the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , the Hebrew is the dominant influence; Mat_1:23; Mat_2:15; Mat_2:18; Mat_2:23; Mat_4:15 f., Mat_8:17; Mat_12:18 ff., Mat_13:35; Mat_21:5; Mat_27:9 f.; cf. also Mat_2:6. This difference in the two groups of quotations tends to show that while the common source of the Synoptic Gospels was, in the form in which it was used by the Evangelists, in Greek, and shaped under Hellenistic influence, the author of the First Gospel was a Christian Jew who still read his Bible in Hebrew, or drew his series of prophetic comment-quotations from a special source compiled by a Jew of this kind. The quotations in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul, while derived mainly from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , show also an acquaintance of their authors with the original Hebrew. (On the singular fact that the NT quotations from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] show a special similarity to the type of LXX [Note: Septuagint.] text found in Cod. A, cf. Staerh, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. Nos. XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVIII, XL; and Swete, Introd. to OT in Greek, p. 395.)
As regards the nature and extent of the Influence exerted by the OT in passages which may be called quotations in the broad sense indicated above, there are several distinguishable classes, though it is sometimes difficult to draw the line sharply. We may recognize: (1) Argumentative quotations. The OT passage is quoted, with recognition of its source, and with intention to employ the fact or teaching or prophecy for an argumentative purpose. Passages so quoted may be: (a) historical statements which are supposed to contain in themselves an enunciation of a principle or precept, or to involve a prediction, or to tend to prove a general rule of some kind; cf. Mar_2:25 f., Mat_2:18, Joh_19:24, Mat_15:7-9, Heb_7:1-10; (b) predictions; cf. e.g. Act_2:17 ff.; (c) imperative precepts, quoted to enforce a teaching; Mar_12:29 ff., 1Co_9:9; or (d) affirmations interpreted as involving a general principle of Divine action or a general characteristic of human nature; Mar_12:26, Mat_9:13, Luk_4:11, Act_7:48 f., Rom_3:4; Rom_3:10-18, Jam_1:10 f., 1Pe_1:24 f., (2) Quotations made the basis of comment. In this case the language of the OT is not cited as supporting the statement of the speaker or writer, but is itself made the basis of exposition or comment, sometimes with disapproval of its teaching or of the teaching commonly based on It; Mat_5:21; Mat_5:27; Mat_5:31, etc., Rom_4:9 f., Act_8:32, (3) Quotations of comparison or of transferred application. The OT language is employed, with recognition of it as coming from the OT and with the intention of connecting the OT event or teaching with the NT matter, but for purposes of comparison rather than argument. The language itself may refer directly and solely to the OT event, being introduced for the sake of comparing with this event some NT fact (simile); or the OT language may be applied directly to a NT fact, yet so as to imply comparison or likeness of the two events (metaphor); Mat_12:40-41, Luk_11:29 f., Act_28:26 f., Mat_21:42 f., 1Co_10:7 f., Closely allied to these, yet perhaps properly belonging to the class of argumentative quotations, are cases of quotation accompanied by allegorical interpretation; cf. e.g. Gal_4:21-31. (4) Literary influence. In the cases which fall under this head the language is employed because of its familiarity, and applicability to the matter in band, but without intention of affirming any other connexion than this between the OT thought and the NT fact or teaching. The writer may be conscious of this influence of the OT language or not, and the interpreter often cannot determine with certainty which is the case; Mat_5:5; Mat_10:35, Gal_6:16, Eph_1:20, Rev_5:1; Rev_7:1; Rev_9:14; Rev_14:8; Rev_21:11.
As concerns the method of interpretation and the attitude towards the OT thus disclosed, there is a wide difference among the speakers and writers of the NT. It is an indirect but valuable testimony to the historical accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels that they almost uniformly ascribe to Jesus a method of interpretation quite different from that which they themselves employ. Jesus quotes the OT almost exclusively for its moral and religious teaching, rather than for any predicative element in it, and interprets alike with insight and with sobriety the passages which He quotes. The author of the First Gospel, on the other hand, quotes the OT mainly for specific predictions which he conceives it to contain, and controls his interpretation of the passages quoted rather by the proposition which he wishes to sustain, than by the actual sense of the original. The one quotation which is common to the first three Gospels, and not included in the teaching of Jesus, has the same general character (Mar_1:3 and parallels). In general it may be said of the other NT writers that they stand in this respect between Jesus and Matthew, less uniformly sober and discerning in their interpretation of the OT than Jesus, yet in many instances approaching much nearer to His method than Matthew commonly does. The Apocalypse, while constantly showing the literary influence of the OT, contains no explicit or argumentative quotation from it.
Ernest D. Burton.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament, and in doing so show their acceptance of the Old Testament as Gods authoritative Word (see INSPIRATION). But in some cases the New Testament quotations differ from the Old Testament originals. In others the meanings given to the quotations in the New Testament differ from those of the Old Testament originals.
Different wording in Old and New Testaments
Since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, any quotation of the Old Testament in the New requires translation. This naturally brings a change in wording. Sometimes the New Testament writers made their own translations. Usually, however, they used the existing translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), which Jewish scholars had made in the third and second centuries of the era before Christ (see SEPTUAGINT).
Just as a preacher today may use an alternative translation to give the desired emphasis, so did the New Testament writers. They used the translation that suited their purposes (cf. Isa_28:16 with Rom_10:11).
In many cases, again like preachers today, the New Testament writers made their quotations from memory. As a result their quotations do not follow the Old Testament originals word for word. They were concerned with the meaning rather than the wording of the passages they quoted (cf. Rom_11:8 with Deu_29:4; Isa_29:10). In other cases, however, they were concerned with the wording rather than the meaning. They may even have based a teaching on the meaning of a particular word (cf. Gal_3:16 with Gen_12:7).
Writers and preachers, ancient and modern, often quote passages from well known writings merely to give liveliness or colour to their writings. The New Testament writers at times did likewise. They were so familiar with the Old Testament that they quoted its words naturally. They may not have intended any connection between the Old and New Testament contexts (cf. 2Co_6:16-17 with Exo_29:45; Isa_52:11; 2Sa_7:14).
The nature of fulfilment
Certain passages of the Old Testament are quoted repeatedly in the New Testament. This suggests that there was in New Testament times a collection, either oral or written, of selected Old Testament passages in common use among the churches. For example, Psa_118:22-23, Isa_8:14 and Isa_28:16 are used in such passages as Mat_21:42, Act_4:10-12, 1Pe_2:1-10, Rom_9:33 and Rom_10:11. Similarly Zec_12:10-14 is found in Mat_24:30, Joh_19:37 and Rev_1:7. Psalms 69 is quoted in Mat_27:34, Joh_2:17, Joh_15:25, Act_1:20, Rom_11:9-10 and Rom_15:3.
These selections of Scripture are all used in relation to Jesus Christ, for the New Testament writers understood them as having their fulfilment in him. The primary meaning of that fulfilment was not just that Old Testament predictions had now come true, but that the Old Testament work had now been completed. The Old Testament was written not merely to predict New Testament events, but to record what God was doing in working out his purposes. The New Testament writers saw that in Christ God had brought that work to completion, to fulfilment, to finality.
God was the controller of history. His repetitive activity in judgment and salvation, bondage and deliverance, reached its climax in one great act of judgment and salvation at Golgotha. There God gave absolute deliverance to those who were in hopeless bondage. He completed the pattern that he had been working out for all people through the history of Israel. In Christ he brought his plans to fulfilment (Exo_6:6-8; Isa_11:15-16; Hos_2:14-15; 1Co_5:7; 1Co_10:1-13; Rev_5:9; Rev_15:3).
Israels Old Testament history was the record of the ongoing revelation of God. It was not just a record of events, but a record of what God was doing. What the Old Testament writers saw, though having meaning in its own day, developed greater significance through the New Testament events. Christians now saw Jesus as the goal towards which all Gods Old Testament activity had been moving. They saw Jesus as the centre of all history. The old era prepared the way for him; the new results from him.
Jesus and the Old Testament
Now that Gods purposes had been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the New Testament writers discovered in the Old Testament writings greater truths than the original writers were aware of (1Pe_1:10-12). While accepting the original meaning of the writings, the New Testament writers expanded that meaning because of the fuller revelation that had come through Jesus Christ.
Promises may have already been fulfilled in the Old Testament, but now they had a greater fulfilment in the New (Deu_12:9; Deu_25:19; Jos_21:45; Heb_4:1-10). Psalms, prophecies and songs may have been written at first concerning some Old Testament person or event, but now they had new meaning because people saw them as foreshadowings of Christ (cf. quotations from Psalms 2 in Act_4:25-26; Act_13:33; cf. quotations from Psalms 45 in Heb_1:8-9; cf. quotations from Psalms 69 in Joh_2:17; Joh_15:25; Joh_19:28-30; Act_1:20; cf. quotation of Isa_7:14 in Mat_1:23).
The New Testament writers saw Jesus the Messiah as the fulfilment of all Gods purposes for Israel. He was the great descendant of Abraham through whom Israel received its supreme glory and through whom people of all nations are blessed (Gen_12:1-3; Gal_3:16).
Since Jesus was the one to whom the entire Old Testament pointed, he fulfilled the Old Testament (Mat_4:14-16; Mat_8:17; Mat_12:17-21). The New Testament writers were so convinced of this that they spoke of a fulfilment even when they saw only a striking similarity between Old and New Testament events. For example, as Israel came out of Egypt, so did Jesus (Hos_11:1; Mat_2:15). As there was loud weeping when the Babylonians took the Israelites captive, so was there when Herod slaughtered the Jewish babies (Jer_31:15; Mat_2:17-18).
Although Israel repeatedly failed and suffered Gods punishment, the people still hoped for a glorious future. Jesus Christ, the true fulfilment of Israel, not only suffered for his peoples sins, but he completed perfectly what Israel had failed to do (cf. Isa_53:4 with Mat_8:17; cf. Isa_42:1-4 with Mat_12:18-21). The New Testament fulfils the Old in that Jesus Christ became all that Israel should have been but never was (cf. Isa_53:5-6 with 1Pe_2:24-25; cf. Zec_9:9-11 with Mat_21:5; Mat_26:28-29; see SERVANT OF THE LORD).
Like Israel in general, Davids kingdom in particular failed to fulfil Gods purposes. Davids psalms reflect both his sorrow over Israels failures and his expectation of better things to come. He looked for the day when Gods people would enjoy his blessings in a kingdom of righteousness. The ideals that David longed for found their fulfilment in Davids great descendant, Jesus the Messiah (cf. Psa_40:6-8 with Heb_10:5-9; cf. Psa_110:1 with Mat_22:44). (For discussion on the use of Davids psalms in the New Testament see PSALMS, BOOK OF, sub-heading Interpreting the Psalms.)
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
Of the numerous quotations from the OT by far the largest number are derived directly from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , even the freedom of quotation, which the NT writers in common with others of their time permitted themselves, in no way obscuring their direct dependence upon the Greek version. Among the NT books the Epistle to the Hebrews shows the strongest and most constant influence of the LXX. [Note: Septuagint.] According to Westcott (Com. p. 479), 15 quotations agree with the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Hebrew, 8 with the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] where it differs from the Hebrew, 3 differ from LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Hebrew, 3 are free renderings. Westcott adds that the writer regarded the Greek version as authoritative, and nowhere shows any immediate knowledge of the Hebrew text.
The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, exhibits the largest influence of the Hebrew. In the quotations from the OT which are common to the Synoptic Gospels (occurring chiefly in the sayings of Jesus) the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] clearly exerts the dominant influence. But in those passages which are peculiar to this Gospelbeing Introduced by the writer by way of comment on eventsthough the writer is not unacquainted with or uninfluenced by the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , the Hebrew is the dominant influence; Mat_1:23; Mat_2:15; Mat_2:18; Mat_2:23; Mat_4:15 f., Mat_8:17; Mat_12:18 ff., Mat_13:35; Mat_21:5; Mat_27:9 f.; cf. also Mat_2:6. This difference in the two groups of quotations tends to show that while the common source of the Synoptic Gospels was, in the form in which it was used by the Evangelists, in Greek, and shaped under Hellenistic influence, the author of the First Gospel was a Christian Jew who still read his Bible in Hebrew, or drew his series of prophetic comment-quotations from a special source compiled by a Jew of this kind. The quotations in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul, while derived mainly from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , show also an acquaintance of their authors with the original Hebrew. (On the singular fact that the NT quotations from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] show a special similarity to the type of LXX [Note: Septuagint.] text found in Cod. A, cf. Staerh, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. Nos. XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVIII, XL; and Swete, Introd. to OT in Greek, p. 395.)
As regards the nature and extent of the Influence exerted by the OT in passages which may be called quotations in the broad sense indicated above, there are several distinguishable classes, though it is sometimes difficult to draw the line sharply. We may recognize: (1) Argumentative quotations. The OT passage is quoted, with recognition of its source, and with intention to employ the fact or teaching or prophecy for an argumentative purpose. Passages so quoted may be: (a) historical statements which are supposed to contain in themselves an enunciation of a principle or precept, or to involve a prediction, or to tend to prove a general rule of some kind; cf. Mar_2:25 f., Mat_2:18, Joh_19:24, Mat_15:7-9, Heb_7:1-10; (b) predictions; cf. e.g. Act_2:17 ff.; (c) imperative precepts, quoted to enforce a teaching; Mar_12:29 ff., 1Co_9:9; or (d) affirmations interpreted as involving a general principle of Divine action or a general characteristic of human nature; Mar_12:26, Mat_9:13, Luk_4:11, Act_7:48 f., Rom_3:4; Rom_3:10-18, Jam_1:10 f., 1Pe_1:24 f., (2) Quotations made the basis of comment. In this case the language of the OT is not cited as supporting the statement of the speaker or writer, but is itself made the basis of exposition or comment, sometimes with disapproval of its teaching or of the teaching commonly based on It; Mat_5:21; Mat_5:27; Mat_5:31, etc., Rom_4:9 f., Act_8:32, (3) Quotations of comparison or of transferred application. The OT language is employed, with recognition of it as coming from the OT and with the intention of connecting the OT event or teaching with the NT matter, but for purposes of comparison rather than argument. The language itself may refer directly and solely to the OT event, being introduced for the sake of comparing with this event some NT fact (simile); or the OT language may be applied directly to a NT fact, yet so as to imply comparison or likeness of the two events (metaphor); Mat_12:40-41, Luk_11:29 f., Act_28:26 f., Mat_21:42 f., 1Co_10:7 f., Closely allied to these, yet perhaps properly belonging to the class of argumentative quotations, are cases of quotation accompanied by allegorical interpretation; cf. e.g. Gal_4:21-31. (4) Literary influence. In the cases which fall under this head the language is employed because of its familiarity, and applicability to the matter in band, but without intention of affirming any other connexion than this between the OT thought and the NT fact or teaching. The writer may be conscious of this influence of the OT language or not, and the interpreter often cannot determine with certainty which is the case; Mat_5:5; Mat_10:35, Gal_6:16, Eph_1:20, Rev_5:1; Rev_7:1; Rev_9:14; Rev_14:8; Rev_21:11.
As concerns the method of interpretation and the attitude towards the OT thus disclosed, there is a wide difference among the speakers and writers of the NT. It is an indirect but valuable testimony to the historical accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels that they almost uniformly ascribe to Jesus a method of interpretation quite different from that which they themselves employ. Jesus quotes the OT almost exclusively for its moral and religious teaching, rather than for any predicative element in it, and interprets alike with insight and with sobriety the passages which He quotes. The author of the First Gospel, on the other hand, quotes the OT mainly for specific predictions which he conceives it to contain, and controls his interpretation of the passages quoted rather by the proposition which he wishes to sustain, than by the actual sense of the original. The one quotation which is common to the first three Gospels, and not included in the teaching of Jesus, has the same general character (Mar_1:3 and parallels). In general it may be said of the other NT writers that they stand in this respect between Jesus and Matthew, less uniformly sober and discerning in their interpretation of the OT than Jesus, yet in many instances approaching much nearer to His method than Matthew commonly does. The Apocalypse, while constantly showing the literary influence of the OT, contains no explicit or argumentative quotation from it.
Ernest D. Burton.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament, and in doing so show their acceptance of the Old Testament as Gods authoritative Word (see INSPIRATION). But in some cases the New Testament quotations differ from the Old Testament originals. In others the meanings given to the quotations in the New Testament differ from those of the Old Testament originals.
Different wording in Old and New Testaments
Since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, any quotation of the Old Testament in the New requires translation. This naturally brings a change in wording. Sometimes the New Testament writers made their own translations. Usually, however, they used the existing translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), which Jewish scholars had made in the third and second centuries of the era before Christ (see SEPTUAGINT).
Just as a preacher today may use an alternative translation to give the desired emphasis, so did the New Testament writers. They used the translation that suited their purposes (cf. Isa_28:16 with Rom_10:11).
In many cases, again like preachers today, the New Testament writers made their quotations from memory. As a result their quotations do not follow the Old Testament originals word for word. They were concerned with the meaning rather than the wording of the passages they quoted (cf. Rom_11:8 with Deu_29:4; Isa_29:10). In other cases, however, they were concerned with the wording rather than the meaning. They may even have based a teaching on the meaning of a particular word (cf. Gal_3:16 with Gen_12:7).
Writers and preachers, ancient and modern, often quote passages from well known writings merely to give liveliness or colour to their writings. The New Testament writers at times did likewise. They were so familiar with the Old Testament that they quoted its words naturally. They may not have intended any connection between the Old and New Testament contexts (cf. 2Co_6:16-17 with Exo_29:45; Isa_52:11; 2Sa_7:14).
The nature of fulfilment
Certain passages of the Old Testament are quoted repeatedly in the New Testament. This suggests that there was in New Testament times a collection, either oral or written, of selected Old Testament passages in common use among the churches. For example, Psa_118:22-23, Isa_8:14 and Isa_28:16 are used in such passages as Mat_21:42, Act_4:10-12, 1Pe_2:1-10, Rom_9:33 and Rom_10:11. Similarly Zec_12:10-14 is found in Mat_24:30, Joh_19:37 and Rev_1:7. Psalms 69 is quoted in Mat_27:34, Joh_2:17, Joh_15:25, Act_1:20, Rom_11:9-10 and Rom_15:3.
These selections of Scripture are all used in relation to Jesus Christ, for the New Testament writers understood them as having their fulfilment in him. The primary meaning of that fulfilment was not just that Old Testament predictions had now come true, but that the Old Testament work had now been completed. The Old Testament was written not merely to predict New Testament events, but to record what God was doing in working out his purposes. The New Testament writers saw that in Christ God had brought that work to completion, to fulfilment, to finality.
God was the controller of history. His repetitive activity in judgment and salvation, bondage and deliverance, reached its climax in one great act of judgment and salvation at Golgotha. There God gave absolute deliverance to those who were in hopeless bondage. He completed the pattern that he had been working out for all people through the history of Israel. In Christ he brought his plans to fulfilment (Exo_6:6-8; Isa_11:15-16; Hos_2:14-15; 1Co_5:7; 1Co_10:1-13; Rev_5:9; Rev_15:3).
Israels Old Testament history was the record of the ongoing revelation of God. It was not just a record of events, but a record of what God was doing. What the Old Testament writers saw, though having meaning in its own day, developed greater significance through the New Testament events. Christians now saw Jesus as the goal towards which all Gods Old Testament activity had been moving. They saw Jesus as the centre of all history. The old era prepared the way for him; the new results from him.
Jesus and the Old Testament
Now that Gods purposes had been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the New Testament writers discovered in the Old Testament writings greater truths than the original writers were aware of (1Pe_1:10-12). While accepting the original meaning of the writings, the New Testament writers expanded that meaning because of the fuller revelation that had come through Jesus Christ.
Promises may have already been fulfilled in the Old Testament, but now they had a greater fulfilment in the New (Deu_12:9; Deu_25:19; Jos_21:45; Heb_4:1-10). Psalms, prophecies and songs may have been written at first concerning some Old Testament person or event, but now they had new meaning because people saw them as foreshadowings of Christ (cf. quotations from Psalms 2 in Act_4:25-26; Act_13:33; cf. quotations from Psalms 45 in Heb_1:8-9; cf. quotations from Psalms 69 in Joh_2:17; Joh_15:25; Joh_19:28-30; Act_1:20; cf. quotation of Isa_7:14 in Mat_1:23).
The New Testament writers saw Jesus the Messiah as the fulfilment of all Gods purposes for Israel. He was the great descendant of Abraham through whom Israel received its supreme glory and through whom people of all nations are blessed (Gen_12:1-3; Gal_3:16).
Since Jesus was the one to whom the entire Old Testament pointed, he fulfilled the Old Testament (Mat_4:14-16; Mat_8:17; Mat_12:17-21). The New Testament writers were so convinced of this that they spoke of a fulfilment even when they saw only a striking similarity between Old and New Testament events. For example, as Israel came out of Egypt, so did Jesus (Hos_11:1; Mat_2:15). As there was loud weeping when the Babylonians took the Israelites captive, so was there when Herod slaughtered the Jewish babies (Jer_31:15; Mat_2:17-18).
Although Israel repeatedly failed and suffered Gods punishment, the people still hoped for a glorious future. Jesus Christ, the true fulfilment of Israel, not only suffered for his peoples sins, but he completed perfectly what Israel had failed to do (cf. Isa_53:4 with Mat_8:17; cf. Isa_42:1-4 with Mat_12:18-21). The New Testament fulfils the Old in that Jesus Christ became all that Israel should have been but never was (cf. Isa_53:5-6 with 1Pe_2:24-25; cf. Zec_9:9-11 with Mat_21:5; Mat_26:28-29; see SERVANT OF THE LORD).
Like Israel in general, Davids kingdom in particular failed to fulfil Gods purposes. Davids psalms reflect both his sorrow over Israels failures and his expectation of better things to come. He looked for the day when Gods people would enjoy his blessings in a kingdom of righteousness. The ideals that David longed for found their fulfilment in Davids great descendant, Jesus the Messiah (cf. Psa_40:6-8 with Heb_10:5-9; cf. Psa_110:1 with Mat_22:44). (For discussion on the use of Davids psalms in the New Testament see PSALMS, BOOK OF, sub-heading Interpreting the Psalms.)
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags