Prophetic Patterns in the Passion of Jesus

1

Introduction

The New Testament’s (NT) use of the Old Testament (OT) is a subject that has received much attention in recent years within NT scholarship . ¹ Amidst all the treatments in this subject area, a lack of clarity presently surrounds the particular discussion of the typological use of the OT in the NT. This lack of clarity stems in large part from a renewed interest in typology in recent years that has introduced newer varieties of typology, which differ from the traditional, prophetic understanding of the concept. ² Against these newer varieties of typology, however, the traditional, prophetic understanding of typology seems to be the hermeneutical axiom that explains best the use of various Psalms quotations in John and Acts.

Thesis

The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that the application of Psalms quotations to Jesus and his passion in select chapters in John (i.e., 13:18; 15:25; 19:24, 28) and in Acts (i.e., 1:20; 2:25–28, 34–35; 4:25–26) can be best explained in terms of traditional typology, which is the classical view that takes seriously the element of prophecy. ³ The Psalms references in each of these passages are psalms of David, which establish clear points of connection between David and Jesus and suggest a typological relationship between them. Furthermore, prophetic language appears with each of these Psalms references, thus, suggesting that these Psalms texts were understood to be the fulfillments of prophecies. When all evidence is considered, this work argues that Davidic typology in the traditional, prophetic sense accounts most precisely for Jesus’ (John 13:18; 15:25), John’s (John 19:24, 28), and Peter’s (Acts 1:20; 2:25–28, 34–35; 4:25–26) application of these Davidic psalms to the various events of Jesus’ passion in John and Acts.

This work understands traditional typology to represent best the appropriation technique ⁴ John and Luke employ in their use of the Psalms quotations in these focal passages. According to this typological hermeneutic, the Psalms quotations indicate that David and the experiences he describes bear theological significance in connection to Jesus, which justifies the application of Davidic psalms to Jesus. That is, David and Jesus share a typological relationship. Consequently, these event-based psalms show that David and his experiences prefigure in a predictive way the similar but climactic NT realities fulfilled in Jesus’ life.

Exegesis is limited to these focal passages in John and Acts for several reasons. First, they contain clear references to identifiable psalms in the OT. ⁵ Second, they possess prophetic language in their immediate contexts. The use of the verbs πληρόω (cf. John 13:18; 15:25; 19:24) and τελειόω (cf. John 19:28) appear to indicate clearly that John intends the Psalm references to be understood as prophetic fulfillments. ⁶ Luke, likewise, uses the Psalm quotations in conjunction with language suggesting these texts bear a prophetic force. ⁷ Based on the terminology, therefore, it seems that both John and Luke view these Psalm quotations as OT texts reaching prophetic fulfillments. Third, all of these quotations are referenced in connection to specific events of Jesus’ passion: his betrayal (John 13:18; Acts 1:20), the world’s hatred of him (John 15:25), his crucifixion and the division of his clothing (John 19:24), his thirst on the cross (John 19:28), his resurrection (Acts 2:25–28), his exaltation (Acts 2:34–35), and the conspiracy of the nations and their leaders against him (Acts 4:25–26).

Researching the thesis of this work stands to contribute to NT scholarship in several ways. First, this research offers a comparative study of John’s use of Psalms with Luke’s use of the book. ⁸ Such a comparative study by its very nature provides more evidence to support the legitimacy of prophetic Davidic typology as a key way the NT writers understand the psalms of David to apply to Jesus and the realities of his gospel. Second, a typological, prophetic understanding of Psalms in John and Acts is not without representation in contemporary NT scholarship. The recent treatment by Yuzuru Miura on the use of the Psalms in Acts and the treatment by Douglas Moo on the use of Psalms in the Gospels argue that a hermeneutic of prophetic Davidic typology stands behind the application of the Psalms quotations to Jesus. ⁹ Yet, their studies are marked by limitations, ¹⁰ which, therefore, present an opportunity to substantiate further their initial claims. So, examining more closely the psalms quoted in John and Acts will validate and also develop more clearly the prophetic Davidic typology that both Miura and Moo see present in John’s and Luke’s uses of Davidic psalms.

Third, establishing prophetic Davidic typology as the way in which John and Luke apply Davidic psalms to Jesus will, in turn, bring to light the weaknesses of alternative explanations (e.g., direct verbal prophecy, pure analogical typology, etc.). Fourth, Jesus taught the disciples that the Psalms predicted things about him that had to be fulfilled (cf. Luke 24:44–47). The study of quotations of Psalms in John and Acts, therefore, will help to clarify how the psalms exactly are prophetic of him (i.e., typologically). ¹¹ Fifth, several OT texts substantiate an expectation of a future David. ¹² If prophetic Davidic typology is the way John and Luke apply Davidic psalms to Jesus, the psalms of David, then, provide a Davidic portrait of Jesus. Thus, this research will show that in fulfilling Davidic psalms, John and Luke present Jesus as the promised New David of OT expectation. Finally, this research will demonstrate that the understanding of typology in these specific NT passages bears a prophetic force. Thus, it will provide evidence that typology and prophecy coalesce, which agrees with the traditional understanding of typology that defines it as a form of biblical prophecy.

Survey of Literature on the Psalms in the New Testament

A survey of the literature on the use of Psalms in John and Acts reveals the research gap that this work aims to fill. To establish the background for this work, I summarize a sample of literature on the use of the psalms as they appear in the focal passages of John 13; 15; 19 and Acts 1; 2; 4. First, this survey discusses those works that do not advocate for traditional, prophetic typology in John’s and Luke’s uses of Psalms. Then, I evaluate those works that do argue specifically for prophetic David typology but stand in need of further development.

Non-Typological Hermeneutical Conclusions

In 1932, Edgar McKown researched the use of Psalms in the NT to discern the extent of their influence in the NT and upon NT ideas. ¹³ McKown asserts that the hermeneutical method behind the appropriation of Psalms in the NT is multidimensional. ¹⁴ McKown explains the appeal to Psalms in John and Acts as proof from prophecy in their appropriation to the events of Jesus’ suffering and death. ¹⁵

Published in 1961, Barnabas Lindars’s New Testament Apologetic suggests several possibilities for the hermeneutic behind the psalms quoted in the NT. ¹⁶ The psalms found in the Acts 2 speech (i.e., Pss 16; 68; 110) concerning Jesus’ resurrection and those utilized elsewhere in the NT in connection with Jesus’ passion (i.e., Pss 22; 31; 34; 41; 69; 109) apply to him because of either a messianic prophecy, eschatological, or righteous sufferer understanding. ¹⁷ Lindars clearly rejects a Davidic typological understanding of Psalms 16 and 110 in the Acts 2 speech, claiming these are instead literal fulfillment and not true of David. ¹⁸ Typology is not considered in his discussion of the passion Psalms, nor is a Davidic connection mentioned with those Psalms.

In the updated publication of his doctoral thesis, Darrell Bock examines Luke’s use of the OT in both the Gospel of Luke and Acts in order to determine its overall implications for Luke’s Christology. ¹⁹ One specific question Bock seeks to answer in his examination of the OT in Luke-Acts centers on Luke’s hermeneutical method. ²⁰ Bock’s study of Luke leads him to suggest Luke’s use of the OT encompasses both a prophetic and typological-prophetic hermeneutic. He does not, however, conclude that a typological-prophetic hermeneutic describes the use of Psalms in Acts 2 and 4 (the Psalms quotations in Acts 1 are not included in the examination). ²¹ Bock maintains that Psalms 2, 16, and 110 are not typological fulfillments but direct prophecy fulfillments. Prophecy, as opposed to typology, better represents the hermeneutic behind the use of Psalms 16 and 110 primarily because David ultimately speaks as a prophet and speaks about Christ and not himself. ²²

Donald Juel provides a section in his book, Messianic Exegesis, which discusses the role of the Psalms in the passion tradition. In this section, Juel does not consider typology in the connection of the Psalms to Jesus and his passion. ²³ Juel argues that Messianic exegesis best explains the connection of Psalms to Jesus’ passion. Certain psalms could be appropriated to Jesus because from the outset the psalms were part of a tradition that narrated the death of the King of the Jews. The psalms were read as messianic—that is, as referring to the anointed King from the line of David expected at the end of the days. ²⁴

Jerry Eugene Shepherd argues for a Christo-canonical hermeneutic as the appropriate paradigm for understanding the relationship of the Psalms to Jesus in the NT. ²⁵ The implications a Christo-canonical hermeneutic has for Psalms, according to Shepherd, is that the Psalter should be seen as a messianic reservoir. ²⁶ Consequently, this means anything in the Psalter was ‘fair game’ to use in reference to the person of Christ by the NT authors. ²⁷ Typological exegesis may be relevant at times according to the Christo-canonical approach, but a canonical rather than a typological hermeneutic reflects the biblical paradigm for applying Psalms to Christ. ²⁸

In his dissertation, Mark Hoffman attempts to answer the question, How did the early Christians find Ps 22 to be meaningful in understanding the crucifixion of Jesus? ²⁹ In his review of modern scholarship, Hoffman makes clear that he rejects proposals for understanding the interpretation of Psalm 22 in the NT along the lines of messianic prophecy, typological fulfillment, or the Righteous Sufferer motif. ³⁰ Concerning typology specifically, Hoffman states, I, however, am not convinced that any typological interpretation is sufficient to account for the early Christian application of Ps 22 to Jesus. ³¹ Psalm 22, according to Hoffman, was most likely read as a Messianic Psalm and applied to Jesus on this basis. ³²

David in the Fourth Gospel provides one of the most detailed analyses on the use of Psalms in the Gospel of John. In this work, Margaret Daly-Denton concentrates specifically on the psalms quoted in John to show that there is a Davidic motif applied to Jesus in this Gospel. ³³ Daly-Denton concludes that the psalms of David in both citations and allusions along with other biblical material in John work together to present David functioning paradigmatically of Jesus. ³⁴ Daly-Denton classifies the psalms in John as either functioning prophetically of Jesus’ passion circumstances or in a revelatory way of His true identity. ³⁵ Typology and corresponding language do appear throughout the book at various points in her argument for specific David/Jesus connections. One of the glaring weaknesses of this project, however, centers on Daly-Denton’s failure to clarify what she understands typology really to be. In her conclusion, she states that David is an important paradigm for the Johannine portrayal of Jesus. ³⁶ She further concludes, The genre of the psalms formally cited as fulfilled in the events of ‘the hour,’ Pss [68]69, [40]41, 21[22] and [33]34 . . . allows the Evangelist to present passages from them as prophetic anticipations of what would actually happen to Jesus . . . ³⁷ Even though Daly-Denton uses the language of prophetic anticipations concerning the way David’s Psalms apply to Jesus’ passion events, this does not appear to equate to a traditional, prophetic view of typology. Daly-Denton appears to indicate that the use of the Psalms in John is mostly a literary device because John employs them in the re-working of Jesus, whereby the compilation produces a purely literary construct. ³⁸

The key to John’s use of Psalms, according to Steven Nash, rests upon the work of J. H. Eaton, who argues for a royal interpretation of Psalms. ³⁹ That is, the NT writers understood the Psalms to be royal (i.e., centrally concerned with Israel’s king), which allowed for an eventual messianic interpretation of the book in its application to Jesus. ⁴⁰ Nash concludes, therefore, that John follows this line of messianic interpretation, quoting and alluding to Psalms in order to show the sufferings of the Messiah to be in accordance with the OT Scriptures. ⁴¹

In sum, the above survey of literature yields a diverse group of hermeneutical conclusions on the use of Psalms in the passages relevant to this work. Notably, the possibility of a typological, prophetic hermeneutic is discussed minimally and does not factor into the hermeneutical conclusions in any determinative manner.

Typological Hermeneutical Conclusions

Douglas Moo gives significant consideration to the use of Psalms in the NT in his work, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. ⁴² He restricts his overall study to the four Gospels and is primarily concerned with answering the hermeneutical question behind OT texts that are connected to Jesus’ passion. ⁴³ His chapter on the lament psalms is approximately 76 pages in length, and the hermeneutical conclusion he reaches is beneficial for this work’s interest in the use of the quotations from Psalms in John. Specifically, Moo contends that Davidic typology, rather than messianic prophecy, is the most probable explanation of the relationship the Gospel writers made of the lament psalms to Jesus’ sufferings. ⁴⁴

He suggests that typological correspondence with David’s sufferings is what legitimizes the transfer of language from the psalms to Jesus. ⁴⁵ Most notably, Moo puts forth that this Davidic typology possesses some element of predictiveness. ⁴⁶ According to Moo, the references were in some way anticipatory of the sufferings of Christ, and in some of the texts David looks beyond his immediate circumstances to the promised Son. ⁴⁷ While Moo advocates an approach of prophetic David typology, his assertions are not without certain limitations in regards to this research project.

First, the Psalms quotations in John are not given the adequate attention they deserve. Only about 13 total pages concentrate on the quotations in John 13, 15, and 19. ⁴⁸ So, before more definitive claims can be made about the use of these quotations in John, they need to be examined in more detail. Second, David typology receives minimal treatment within the overall chapter (about two pages at the most). The reader is left wondering what correlations are being made exactly in the typology between David and Jesus. These correlations can be presented more clearly to substantiate further the Davidic typology Moo sees present in these Johannine contexts. Finally, Moo does not emphasize adequately in his discussion of the texts the role πληρόω and τελειόω play in the introductory formulas to John’s psalm quotations. ⁴⁹ These terms are significant because they denote the idea of prophetic fulfillment for the Davidic psalms, which describe events in their original contexts. This fulfillment terminology, thus, identifies a prophetic force to the Davidic typology. Consequently, this prophetic fulfillment language needs to be considered more closely in the assessment of how the Psalms function in John to indicate a prophetic force to the Davidic typology.

Yuzuru Miura reaches a hermeneutical conclusion similar to that of Moo in the revised version of his doctoral thesis, David in Luke-Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism. Miura maintains that the Psalms quotations in Acts are best explained in terms of prophetic Davidic typology. His analysis of the quotations in Acts 1, 2, and 4 is of most relevance to this project.

Miura recognizes a shortfall in previous studies of David in the Lukan corpus. These previous studies have centered so much on the Davidic Messiah theme that the fuller portrayal of the David and Jesus relationship has been neglected in Luke’s writings. ⁵⁰ Miura argues, therefore, that the relationship between David and Jesus needs to be explored not only from the genealogical aspect (as in previous studies) but also from the possibility of the typological as well. His major research objective, then, is to examine all of Luke’s references to David in order to see if legitimate evidence establishes a David/Jesus typology in Luke-Acts. ⁵¹ This research effort requires two main divisions for Miura’s thesis. In the first division, he studies the portraits of David in the OT and early Judaism, trying to discover if there was a first century precedent for a Messianic-Davidic typology. ⁵² In the second division, Miura begins his NT study of David in Acts and then transitions to the Gospel of Luke. ⁵³ He primarily investigates the typological relationship between David and Jesus in Luke and Acts, but he also gives some attention to the genealogical relationship.

What is the fruit of Miura’s labor? First, Miura discovers that Davidic messianism is well attested in the Jewish writings in the first centuries BCE and CE. ⁵⁴ Second, Miura establishes not only a genealogical relationship but also a clear emphasis upon the typological relationship between David and Jesus in Luke-Acts. ⁵⁵ How Miura characterizes the function of the Psalms quotations in Acts 1, 2, and 4 supports the contention of this present thesis. Miura writes, "We insist that early Christian use of the psalms in Acts 1; 2; and 4 is consistently [emphasis original] typological-prophetic. ⁵⁶ Concerning what typological-prophetic means, Miura explains, The point is to recognize patterns in events between David and Jesus so that the former figure is prophetic of the latter in early Christian interpretation of the Psalms." ⁵⁷

If Miura has already made a case that the Psalms quotations in Acts 1, 2, and 4 function in terms of prophetic Davidic typology, why examine them again in this present work? Further examination is necessary because Miura’s research contains a few weaknesses. One weakness concerns his brief explanation of the typological-prophetic method of interpretation that is so central to his thesis. ⁵⁸ Such brevity leaves the reader unclear on the exact nature of prophetic typology and, thus, the significance of David and Jesus’ typological relationship. A second weakness is that Miura’s examination of the focal passages is too partial at points. That is, he does not give a detailed explanation on the typological parallels between David and Jesus nor does he highlight adequately all the textual evidence that supports a prophetic understanding of the David typology in each NT context. By addressing these foregoing weaknesses in Miura’s research, this work will clarify better the hermeneutic of prophetic David typology that stands behind Luke’s use of David’s psalms and, thus, strengthen Miura’s initial thesis.

In sum, the works by Moo and Miura lay an invaluable foundation for this research project. Specifically, they argue that David typology in a prophetic sense is the most probable way John (Moo) and Luke (Miura) apply Davidic psalms to Jesus in John and Acts, respectively. Since their works are marked by certain limitations, however, there is warrant to reexamine the use of the Psalms quotations in John 13, 15, and 19 and Acts 1, 2, and 4 in order to present a clearer and stronger case that prophetic Davidic typology best explains how these originally Davidic psalms can legitimately provide the biblical rationale for specific events in Jesus’ passion.

Methodology

The method of this work does not depend on the employment of a specific, critical method for the study of the NT. Rather, the method of this work basically involves several steps that will accomplish the goals for chapters 2–5. The collective aim of all the steps will be to show that traditional prophetic typology that is specifically Davidic in focus is the hermeneutic with the most explanatory power behind the use of the quotations from Psalms in John 13, 15, and 19 and Acts 1, 2, and 4.

Chapter two clarifies the understanding of the traditional view of typology by (1) defining, describing, and illustrating the concept in detail, (2) distinguishing it from the modern analogical view of typology, and (3) delineating common principles for its exegetical controls. ⁵⁹

Chapter three considers two categories of evidence to show why the traditional, prophetic view of typology seems to accord more faithfully with the biblical concept. The first kind of evidence is biblical in nature and includes (1) Jesus’ teachings and examples, (2) typology in the Epistle of Hebrews, (3) NT fulfillment language, (4) hermeneutical τύπος language, ⁶⁰ and (5) the OT basis of typology. The second kind of evidence is historical in nature. Here, the focus concerns the pre-critical understanding of typology espoused by several of the Church Fathers and by the Reformers, John Calvin and Martin Luther. Historical evidence from pre-critical times serves to demonstrate that typology was recognized in earlier eras as a form of prophecy.

Chapters four and five constitute the heart of this work, analyzing the quotations from Psalms in John and Acts, respectively. Both chapters follow a similar approach in the exegetical analysis of each psalms quotation. ⁶¹ First, a short discussion will be given to establish the proper OT reference for each psalm quotation. Second, the typological relationship each psalm quotation establishes between David and Jesus will be analyzed in detail. To analyze the David-Jesus typology, each quotation will first be examined to demonstrate that it is a Davidic, event-based psalm (i.e., a psalm of David which describes an event specific to him in its original context). ⁶² Then, the textual analysis will show how each psalm quotation in its NT context juxtaposes David and Jesus to highlight a typological relationship between them and their similar life events. Third, the textual evidence indicating a prophetic force to the David typology in each context will be examined. ⁶³

1 For example, see G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012); G. K. Beale, ed., The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994); G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007); Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, eds., Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Counterpoints Series, Bible & Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008); D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, eds., It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); James M. Efird, ed., The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (Durham: Duke University Press, 1972); E. Earle Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992); Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner, eds., The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, JSNTSup 104, SSEJC 3 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); Stanley E. Porter, ed., Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

2 G. P. Hugenberger, Introductory Notes on Typology, in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 331–333. For other works noting the differing kinds of typology, see also David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationships Between the Old & New Testaments, rev. ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 180–199; Paul M. Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 18–32.

3 Psalms references in the John passages include: (1) John 13:18/Ps 41:9, (2) John 15:25/Ps 69:4, (3) John 19:24/Ps 22:18, (4) John 19:28/Ps 69:21. Those in the Acts passages include: (1) Acts 1:20/Pss 69:25; 109:8, (2) Acts 2:25–28/Ps 16:8–11, (3) Acts 2:34–35/Ps 110:1, (4) Acts 4:25–26/Ps 2:1–2.

4 Douglas Moo designates typology as a direct appropriation technique common to Jewish hermeneutics. Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield, Eng.: The Almond Press, 1983), 30–34, 76–78. By appropriation technique, Moo means the exegesis and application of OT texts, which are governed by core presuppositions or hermeneutical axioms. Ibid., 8, 75–78. To be noted, Moo argues for typology as a basic appropriation technique in Jewish hermeneutics, and he contends that typology is the basic approach used in appropriating the lament psalms to Jesus in the Gospels. Ibid., 33, 298–300. D. A. Carson similarly states, When we ask more narrowly what kind of hermeneutical axioms and appropriation techniques . . . John adopts when he cites the OT, the answers prove complex and the literature on each quotation legion. At the risk of oversimplification, the dominant approach is that of various forms of typology . . . . The Davidic typology that surfaces repeatedly in the NT may well stand behind some of the Psalm quotations in the FG (2:17; 15:25; 19:24, 28). D. A. Carson, John and the Johannine Epistles, in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 249.

5 These Psalms references are obvious in these NT contexts because (1) they all appear with some kind of scripture introductory formula and (2) they all constitute OT quotations, with the exception of an allusion in John 19:28. Even in the case of John 19:28, however, the immediate context suggests an obvious allusion to Ps 69:21.

6 Both terms appear in BDAG with the possible meaning of fulfilling in the sense of divine prophecies and promises. BDAG, s.v. πληρόω and τελειόω. On πληρόω and τελειόω as likely synonyms in John, see Moo, The Old Testament, 383–387; C. F. D. Moule, Fulfillment-Words in the New Testament: Use and Abuse, NTS 14 (1967–68): 314–315, 318.

7 For example, Luke cites Psalms with the following prophetic language: (1) he combines πληρόω and προλέγω together in Acts 1:16, 20, (2) he speaks of τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ (the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God) in Acts 2:23 (cf. 4:28), (3) he designates David as a prophet, who foresaw (προοράω) in Acts 2:30–31, and (4) he stresses that David spoke the words of the Psalms by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:16; 4:25).

8 At least to this writer’s knowledge, no preexisting study compares John’s use with Luke’s use of Psalms in the focal passages being examined in this work.

9 Yuzuru Miura, David in Luke-Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism, WUNT 2, Reihe 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Moo, The Old Testament. A few commentaries understand Psalms in a typological, prophetic way. For the psalms in John, see e.g., D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 470–471, 527, 611–613, 618–620. For the psalms in Acts, see e.g., Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2007), 81–87, 123–138.

10 The study by Douglas J. Moo is too brief to be definitive, and the study by Yuzuru Miura provides only a partial examination of the relevant texts. Neither study, however, develops at length the Davidic typology in the focal passages in John and Acts.

11 In other words, this work will show that John and Luke understood the psalms in question to be typologically prophetic of Jesus and the events of his passion.

12 Cf. 2 Sam 7:12–16; Pss 89:3–4, 20–21, 29, 35–37; 132:11, 17; Isa 9:7; 55:3–4; Jer 23:5–6; 30:9; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Hos 3:4–5.

13 Edgar Monroe McKown, The Influence of the Psalms upon the Ideas of the New Testament (PhD diss., Boston University, 1932), 12.

14 McKown attributes the diversity of the NT writers’ hermeneutical uses of the Psalms to rabbinic exegetical practices, to the need to verify gospel events prophetically, and to Jesus’ unique use of Psalms. Ibid., 113–122, 263.

15 Ibid., 182–191, 264.

16 Lindars concludes that the psalms were used primarily for apologetic purposes, namely for scriptural argument and scriptural warrant for Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 33, 110.

17 Ibid., 32–59, 77, 88–110.

18 Ibid., 33; for comments on David, see 40–41, 45.

19 Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, JSNTSup 12 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 7, 11–12, 46–47.

20 Ibid., 46, 49–52.

21 Ibid., 149, 155. Darrell Bock prefers to describe Luke’s use of the OT as proclamation from prophecy and pattern, arguing the term pattern to be more clearly descriptive than typology, which can have various nuances which we wish to avoid. Ibid., 49–50, 149. Bock distinguishes between a typological-prophetic (i.e., pattern) usage and direct prophecy as follows: "This [typology/pattern] is a category of prophetic classification, along with direct prophecy . . . but is distinct from the latter in that the OT text does not look exclusively to a future event or