The Recapitulation Of Israel

Revised version of the author's thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Aberdeen, 2008.

Why does Matthew append 'and his brothers' to Judah and Jechoniah (1:2, 11)? Secondly, why does Matthew include the following four annotations: 'and Zerah by Tamar', 'by Rahab', 'by Ruth', and 'by the [wife] of Uriah' (1:3-6)? Jason B. Hood uses a composition critical approach in which he examines biblical genealogies and 'summaries of Israel's story' in order to shed light on these features of Matthew's gospel. Hood asserts that he addition of 'and his brothers' recalls Jesus' royal role. Judah and Jechoniah in Second Temple literature are both understood to have reversed their wickedness and earned royal status by self-sacrifice, perhaps pointing to the self-sacrifice of Jesus for his brothers before his full enthronement. A review of scholarly explanations of the significance of the 'four (five) women' in the genealogy, unearths an overlooked interpretation - Matthew does not name four women in 1:3-6 but four Gentiles (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Uriah) traditionally celebrated as righteous.

Jehoiachin reigned a mere three months before Nebuchadnezzar took him into exile. He was one more Judean king who did evil in the eyes of Yahweh, and his one recorded action as king was to surrender to the Babylonians. How significant can a king be whose reign ended when it had scarcely begun? Remarkably, unlike his uncles, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, Jehoiachin did not disappear after his removal. Instead, he became the focus of ongoing prophetic discussion about the monarchy, his rehabilitation by Evil-Merodach was a turning point in the exile, and his offspring was eventually identified as the future of David’s line. The attention paid to Jehoiachin in the canon is the seed of Patton’s study. Why is there such interest in a king who was so insignificant politically and who—literarily speaking—is a rather flat character? What significance do particular biblical books attribute to him, and why? If we expand our purview to the Bible as a whole, another reason for investigating Jehoiachin emerges. The exile was one of the most significant events in the history of Israel. In its midst, Jehoiachin occupies an important position as both one of the last kings of Judah and one of the first exiles. Are there ways in which biblical writers capitalize on Jehoiachin’s unique position for their broader theological purposes? Going one step further, in Hope for a Tender Sprig, Patton pursues not only the diversity of the Bible but also its unity, suggesting that “salvation history” is useful for conceiving the unity of the Bible, especially when we are concerned with a historical figure such as Jehoiachin. If the various books of the Bible bear witness to one grand storyline, what is the significance of Jehoiachin within that story? In the light of the canon as a whole, can we synthesize the various perspectives on Jehoiachin and articulate his distinctive role in this grand narrative? These questions beg many others. What do we mean by “canon”? What grounds do we have for considering the canon as a unity, and why should we consider “salvation history” a valid paradigm for understanding it as a whole? What is the relationship of salvation history to “real” history, and is this even a valid question? What role will extrabiblical evidence (some of which concerns Jehoiachin directly) play in our investigation? Patton addresses these issues and arrives at a comprehensive biblical-theological reflection on Jehoiachin’s significance.

J. Kameron Carter argues that black theology's intellectual impoverishment in the Church and the academy is the result of its theologically shaky presuppositions, which are based largely on liberal Protestant convictions, and he critiques the work of such noted scholars as Albert Raboteau, Charles Long and James Cone.

What is the relationship between the nation of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the church? Pastors and theologians come to significantly different conclusions. The reigning systems of evangelical theology, covenant theology, and dispensationalism answer this question by stressing the continuity of the Israel-church relationship (covenant theology) or emphasizing discontinuity (dispensationalism). In more recent times, progressive covenantalism has emerged as a via media between these two theological approaches by providing a different proposal for unpacking the biblical covenants, and by highlighting that to rightly understand the people of God in biblical theology, the person of Jesus Christ must be the focal point. In Christ Jesus, the True Israel, Brent E. Parker presents the case for the importance of typology in this debate, arguing that national Israel is a type, not unlike other Old Testament types (e.g., the sacrificial system, the temple, etc.), that reaches its antitypical fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Moreover, the Israel-church relationship is also typological, but only through Christ. Parker demonstrates that the progressive covenantal approach is a viable system of theology that seeks to preserve what the whole Bible says regarding the people of God, from Israel to Christ and from Christ to the church.

Obedience from First to Last explores the theological significance of the obedience of Jesus Christ in Karl Barth’s theology. It does this via a threefold consideration of, first, the nature of Jesus’ incarnate obedience; second, the relation of that obedience to the obedience of the second triune person of the eternal Son; and third, the effects Jesus’ obedience has on our own obedience. Barth not only affirms the pivotal role Jesus’ obedience has within the economy of salvation, but by equating that obedience with that of the eternal Son’s, Barth gives Jesus’ obedience a pre-eminent place within the immanent being of Godself. The obedience of Jesus Christ is seen to have a co-participatory role in God’s determination of his own divine being that arises from the primordial act of divine election. This notion bears on our understanding of freedom and obedience: as divine freedom is expressed in divine obedience, so it is with human freedom and human obedience.

How did New Testament authors use Israel’s Scriptures? Use, misuse, appropriation, citation, allusion, inspiration—how do we characterize the manifold images, paraphrases, and quotations of the Jewish Scriptures that pervade the New Testament? Over the past few decades, scholars have tackled the question with a variety of methodologies. New Testament authors were part of a broader landscape of Jewish readers interpreting Scripture. Recent studies have sought to understand the various compositional techniques of the early Christians who composed the New Testament in this context and on the authors’ own terms. In this landmark collection of essays, Matthias Henze and David Lincicum marshal an international group of renowned scholars to analyze the New Testament, text-by-text, aiming to better understand what roles Israel’s Scriptures play therein. In addition to explicating each book, the essayists also cut across texts to chart the most important central concepts, such as the messiah, covenants, and the end times. Carefully constructed reception history of both testaments rounds out the volume. Comprehensive and foundational, Israel’s Scriptures in Early Christian Writings will serve as an essential resource for biblical scholars for years to come. Contributors: Garrick V. Allen, Michael Avioz, Martin Bauspiess, Richard J. Bautch, Ian K. Boxall, Marc Zvi Brettler, Jaime Clark-Soles, Michael B. Cover, A. Andrew Das, Susan Docherty, Paul Foster, Jörg Frey, Alexandria Frisch, Edmon L. Gallagher, Gabriella Gelardini, Jennie Grillo, Gerd Häfner, Matthias Henze, J. Thomas Hewitt, Robin M. Jensen, Martin Karrer, Matthias Konradt, Katja Kujanpää, John R. Levison, David Lincicum, Grant Macaskill, Tobias Nicklas, Valérie Nicolet, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, George Parsenios, Benjamin E. Reynolds, Dieter T. Roth, Dietrich Rusam, Jens Schröter, Claudia Setzer, Elizabeth Evans Shively, Michael Karl-Heinz Sommer, Angela Standhartinger, Gert J. Steyn, Todd D. Still, Rodney A. Werline, Benjamin Wold, Archie T. Wright