Our modern-day law used in the Western Hemisphere is still largely based on Roman law. Naturally enough, Western theologians have tended to conceive of Christian truths in terms of legal theories. Augustine's theology of salvation and Anselm's theology of the Atonement are prime examples of Western theology that reduces God's arrangements to legal principles. But if we are to accurately understand the Scriptures, we must learn to think as Easterners, and that's not easy for us to do.
It is the Eastern thinking of the early Christians that so often repulses the uninitiated Western reader. He finds himself muttering, "These people don't think like I do. Their logic doesn't make any sense to me." So he quickly dismisses both them and their writings as strange. However, the New Testament writers followed the same peculiar logic as did the 2nd-century Christians. If we hadn't already Westernized and sanitized the New Testament, we would be able to see that.
But as it is, our eyes are safely closed to the Eastern way of thinking that is woven all throughout the pages of the New Testament. But since the early Christian writers have not been Westernized and sanitized, we immediately notice their Eastern thought process when we read their work. Next subheading: Eastern thinking in the New Testament. Eastern thinking in the New Testament? Where? You might be saying. Well, a person doesn't have to go very far into the New Testament before he is already waist-deep in it.
For example, after describing how Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt, Matthew wrote, "He was there until the death of Herod, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Out of Egypt did I call my son.'" Matthew 2:15. What's so logical about that? You might be thinking. Let's turn to the passage that Matthew quoted from the Old Testament, and you will see.
His quotation is from the 11th chapter of Hosea, which says, "When Israel was a youth, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." The more they called them, the more they went from them. They kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols. Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk; I took them in my arms. But they did not know that I healed them; I led them with the cords of a man, with bonds of love. And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws, and I bent down and fed them.
They will not return to the land of Egypt, but Assyria; he will be their king, because they refuse to return to me." Hosea 11:1-5. That's a prophecy about Jesus? It would seem to any of us that the passage from Hosea is clearly talking about the nation of Israel, not about the Messiah. Yet I believe that Matthew did not misapply the Scripture. His reasoning is simply different from ours. And that's no isolated example.
Just a few verses down, Matthew describes the slaughter of the male infants in Bethlehem, and then said, "Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, 'A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning; Rachel weeping for her children, and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more.'" Matthew 15:18. Again, let's look at what Jeremiah wrote.
Quote, "A voice is heard in Ramah: lamentation and bitter weeping; Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more. Thus says the Lord, Restrain your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears. For your work shall be rewarded, declares the Lord; and they shall return from the land of the enemy, and there is hope for your future, declares the Lord, and your children shall return to their own territory." Jeremiah 31:15-17.
That's talking about the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus? The whole context of that prophecy seems to clearly be speaking of Israel's captivity and return to their land. Yet again, I believe that Matthew was not misapplying this prophecy. Or how about Matthew 2:22-23?
"And being warned by God in a dream, he departed for the regions of Galilee, and came and resided in the city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled: 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" Spoken by the prophets? Where? I've heard at least three different explanations of what Matthew might have been referring to. The truth is, we simply don't know. The point is that Matthew doesn't reason the same way we 20th-century and 21st-century Westerners do.
But Matthew was inspired, you might say, so it is okay for him to use the Old Testament this way. In other words, let's just sanitize the New Testament and simply attribute all instances of Eastern Hellenistic thinking to inspiration. Yet we're only deceiving ourselves when we do that. Matthew's arguments were logical to his 1st-century readers. In fact, the purpose of his writing was to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.
He had to use arguments that would be convincing to unbelievers, people who didn't accept his writings as inspired. Another example of Eastern thinking in the New Testament is Paul's allegorical discussion of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:21-31. Or Paul's quotation to the Corinthians from Isaiah 28:11, which he applied to speaking in tongues.
Quote, "In the law it is written, 'By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people; and even so they will not listen to me.'" 1 Corinthians 14:21. To Western minds, the context of Isaiah 28:11 would hardly seem to be referring to speaking in tongues. Rather, it seems to be prophesying that Ephraim would be taken captive by the Assyrians. Finally, the entire book of Hebrews, with its discussion of prophetic types and figures, is a classic example of Eastern thinking.
The plain truth of the matter is that Matthew, Paul, and the other New Testament writers did not always think the way that we do. Nor did the Christians of the 1st and 2nd centuries. The Eastern Hellenistic reasoning of the early Christian writers seems strange and foreign to us only because we have been reading the Scriptures through sanitized glasses. And remember, it's a two-way street. If we find the reasoning of the early Christians strange, they would have found our reasoning strange as well.
Unfortunately, the New Testament writings were addressed to them, not us. They don't have to get into our 21st-century Western mindset. We must get into their mindset.