Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors and the Christology of Luke’s Gospel

Abstract

Gregory R. Lanier is Assistant Professor of New Testament and Dean of Students at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL. A recent graduate of Cambridge University, this work is an adaption of Lanier’s dissertation under the guidance of Simon Gathercole. Lanier’s work falls within the cross-sections of early Christology, the use of Israel’s Scriptures in the NT, and contemporary metaphor theory (CMT). Specifically, Lanier focuses on the use of four metaphors drawn from the OT and Jewish tradition and their use in Christologically significant ways in Luke 1:68–69; 1:78–79; 13:34; 20:17–18. His thesis is as follows: “Luke re-maps these metaphors to conceptualize Jesus’ identity in terms that are reserved for deliverer-figures in some cases in OT/Jewish tradition, but uniquely for the God of Israel in others” (p. 2). It is important to note that, in Lanier’s analysis, he is focusing on Christological metaphors that have not been commented on ad nauseum and do not present themselves as obvious titles. Lanier is concerned to explain away the ambiguity of four central metaphors.To make his argument, Lanier divides the subject matter into six chapters. Chapter one defines the contours of his arguments. He begins with an overview of Luke’s Christology, which leads to how this NT subfield has been affected by paying attention to OT influences. The introduction concludes with an explanation of conceptual metaphor theory. It is important to note Lanier’s definition of metaphor and subsequent interpretation. He states, “A metaphor, then, is the cognitive ‘mapping’ or drawing of correspondences from the source domain to the target domain, such that interpreting a metaphor requires unpacking these mappings” (p. 21). Lanier analyzes the four Lukan passages and their respective metaphor/domains in an easy-to-use pattern throughout chs. 2–5. Each chapter begins with preliminary questions such as “What is Luke quoting?” and “How has the metaphor been interpreted?” and then follows with an examination of passage-specific problems. The second section of each chapter is devoted to establishing the conceptual metaphor. This section examines the source domain(s), source-target mappings, and conceptual metaphors. The third section of the chapter delves into the actual Lukan text. Here, Lanier works through the context of the respective metaphors. Chapter 2 examines Luke 1:68–69 and its horn metaphor, ch. 3 examines Luke 1:78–79 and the metaphor of dawn/divine visitation, ch. 4 examines Luke 13:34 and its mother bird metaphor, and ch. 5 examines Luke 20:17–18 and its metaphor of the stone. In ch. 6, Lanier closes his study with a summary of his findings and suggests that each metaphor evinces a “divine identity Christology.” By this, Lanier is arguing that these metaphors help to define Jesus’s divine identity and suggest a “higher” Christology than is normally assumed among Luke’s commentators.This volume is a helpful read for several reasons. First, Lanier speaks to a timely and ongoing conversation. The debates concerning the Christology of the respective authors of the Gospels are voluminous. Aspects of this debate have been underdeveloped, and Lanier’s analysis is a helpful contribution to an ignored angle of the debate. Second, Lanier focuses his study on a small sample set of passages that have not been met with any sort of interpretive consensus. He wrestles with the current literature and provides an up-to-date and thorough analysis. Third, Lanier is implementing exciting, new hermeneutical strategies (CMT) to familiar texts. One point of contention is the comparison of CMT and intertextuality. Lanier differentiates the two categories of interpretation but settles back into wording that is used by both sets of users. It is not clear at the practical level how the two methods are different. He also critiques the intertextual method for its lack of controls, but it does not seem self-evident how CMT uses controls to define the source domains or pick the primary evidence from the OT/Jewish Greek sources other than linguistic parallels. On the other hand, drawing a wider net for domains/sources makes the investigation of Luke’s sources more thorough and less likely to miss something. Although not necessary to make the point, Lanier includes graphics throughout the book depicting subjects such as the Akkadian king Naram-Sin with a horned crown and a wall mural of the Egyptian goddess Isis, ca. 1300 BC. These are especially helpful for those attempting to wrap their minds around the dense argument. The pictures also help to bring life and vividness to the metaphorical domains he is arguing.Overall, Gregory Lanier’s volume is an important resource for those in Synoptic scholarship. Proponents of a “high Christology” will find a helpful ally in Lanier. His proposals for understanding metaphors is advancing the conversation on understanding how authors use their materials. Specifically, Lanier brings new light and specificity to Luke’s metaphorical representation of Jesus. Students of CMT will also find a helpful model for how to implement this emerging methodology to the biblical text.