One may easily have the impression that the promise of “everlasting covenant” with Phinehas has been reached under the Sinai covenant. On closer examination of the question, however, general agreement in fact counts for little. Rather, most of the questions on this point appear to be still open. The purpose of this thesis is to re-examine the efficacy of the Phinehasian covenant in light of the Davidic covenant and through some related ancient literature readings. The continuity and significance of the Phinehasian covenant is further discussion in the context of the Gospels and Hebrews as to elucidate the mystery of the Messiah’s priestly identity. In applying all these data, this thesis reveals that Christ Jesus is viewed as the ultimate fulfillment of the Phinehasian covenant.

New Testament / M. Th. (New Testament)

New Testament / M. Th. (New Testament)

What is the correct way to interpret the relationship between the message of Jesus and the kerygma, a hermeneutic of discontinuity and evolution or a hermeneutic of continuity and development? The Eschatological Jesus will argue for continuity and development. In their portraits of a non-eschatological and non-messianic Jesus J.D. Crossan and Marcus Borg raise questions about the relationship between Jesus and the kerygma but do not answer them. Reginald H. Fuller and Martin Hengel demonstrate that high Christology can be traced directly to the eschatological ministry of Jesus, especially his authority. Fuller describes Jesus' authority in terms of an inaugurated eschatology and a distinctive sonship which he extends to others. Martin Hengel describes Jesus' eschatological authority as one who acted in God's place when he called his disciples the way God called his prophets and imposed on them a divine discipline and in Lk. 13:34 which has parallels in Sir. 1:15 and Deut. 32:11. This is a messianic authority since it was the Messiah who stood in God's place at the end of time. This Jesus who is in control of the end gave rise to a belief in his pre-existence and the claims of the Fourth Gospel. P.M. Casey, on the other hand, rejects such authority as being apparent in Jesus' ministry. Unlike Fuller and Hengel who see the Fourth Gospel as the logical outgrowth of Jesus' use of 'Abbā, Casey sees the Fourth Gospel as a betrayal of Jesus and the synoptic tradition. However, Casey overlooks the synoptic gospels' portrait of Jesus' acting in God's place and Matthew's use of προσκγνεῖν and προσέρχεσθαι. The Eschatological Jesus concludes with the belief that Jesus' ministry was messianic and eschatological and that the authority he exhibits provides the basis for not only his being Christ, but divine Lord and Son of God.

This dissertation examines the Christological witness function of the Old Testament characters in the Gospel of John. Chapter 1 discusses the problem concomitant to the bi-partite nature of the Christian Bible and the scholarly solutions suggested to remedy this issue. The importance of Christology for John and the Gospel's indebtedness to the Jewish heritage is also noted. Combining these two aspects, some scholarly attempts to account for Johannine Christology in terms of Jewish hero redivivus theories are reviewed. An important consensus has emerged from German scholarship that sees the role of the Old Testament as Christological witness. This perspective gave impetus to the present research concerning the same witness function of the Old Testament characters. The rest of chapter 1 discusses the preliminary questions, such as, the justification, contributions, methodology, terms, and limits of the present study. Chapter 2 investigates the contribution of Jacob and Abraham to Johannine Christological understanding in view of relevant intertestamental Jewish literature. In contrast to some scholarly arguments, the main function of these patriarchs is to undergird the messianic identity of Jesus. Chapter 3 concerns Elijah in early Judaism and John. The eschatological expectation of Elijah in the former period is marked by his militant subjugation of the gentiles along with the reconciliation ministry. The contextual reading of the passages related to Elijah in John reveals that he is a type of John the Baptist rather than Jesus. Chapter 4 examines David, probably the most influential messianic prefiguration of the intertestamental period. He is characterized by his competence as a ruler, his loyalty to Judaism, and his status as an eschatological figure. While the first half of John's Gospel does not portray Jesus as a Davidic figure, the latter half is replete with the references to the Davidic trials. Although one can argue for a correspondence between David and Jesus in the Johannine passion accounts, the analogy is more evident between Yahweh and Jesus, let alone the suffering aspect of David, which did not constitute the messianic expectations of early Judaism. Chapter 5 engages in a study of Moses as depicted in early Judaism and John. In contrast to the perspectives of the Hebrew scriptural traditions, in which Moses is understood as the prophet par excellence, the fourth evangelist presents him merely as a Christological witness, not as a messianic prefiguration. Chapter 6 summarizes the foregoing observations and offers hermeneutical implications for the study of the Gospel of John, especially with reference to the redactional capability of the fourth evangelist and the value of the intertestamental Jewish literature. / This item is only available to students and faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. If you are not associated with SBTS, this dissertation may be purchased from <a href="http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb">http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb</a> or downloaded through ProQuest's Dissertation and Theses database if your institution subscribes to that service.