The Continuity of Theological Concepts: A New Covenant Reading of Old Covenant Texts
While studying and teaching Zechariah 9-14 near Beirut, Lebanon I was challenged to think about the meaning and relevance of those chapters to Lebanese believers who often suffer because of the animosity between Lebanon and the very nation and people who are mentioned in those chapters. Does an alleged promised restoration of Israel and Jerusalem bring comfort or chagrin to believers in Lebanon? After all, are not Arabic speaking believers and Jewish believers in the Middle East the true people of God? Are they not the ones who should expect to share in the triumph of God? Does present day Israel have a “favored nation” status that trumps the “holy nation” of the church (1 Pet 2:9-10)?
Furthermore, does not a similar conundrum exist for those of us who live in North America? Do these texts have anything relevant to say to a largely Gentile church? Do we simply rejoice because ethnic Israel is to be restored or do we rejoice because the triumph which the old covenant nation expected is the triumph that belongs to all of those who are children of God through faith in Jesus Christ? Admittedly, the question of relevancy should not be determinative in the understanding of biblical texts but it does raise questions that might not be raised otherwise.
Additionally, not only does the difficulty of finding relevance in Zechariah 9-14 to Lebanese and North American believers pose a challenge, but so does a careful reading of the New Testament. Reading the Old and New Testaments separately, one might conclude that two distinct and contrasting Bibles exist (Old Testament and New Testament) written to two distinct peoples (Jews and Christians) with only shared lessons of moral application or common interest in the promised Messiah. Otherwise, one might conclude that God has distinct purposes for Jews and Gentiles. While interpreting texts in isolation from the larger corpus of Scripture makes this conclusion textually possible, a canonical reading of the Bible questions whether it is theologically justifiable and whether it adequately represents the biblical-theological message of the Bible which centers in the restoration of God’s original purposes as presented in Genesis 1-2, distorted in Genesis 3-11, given new hope in Genesis 12, and consummated in the coming of the Messiah.
Admittedly, a “pre- New Testament” reading of Zechariah 9-14 and the Old Testament on its own may lead one to conclude that ethnic Israelites are the people of God, earthly Jerusalem is the city He has chosen, He is present in the Jewish temple, the enemies of Israel will be defeated and Gentiles will make their way to Jerusalem, the Messiah will come humbly on a donkey and in glory with a display of power, etc.
However, Christians cannot read the Old Testament on its own because it is not on its own. It is part of the Christian Bible which includes both Old and New Testament. The Old Testament is a book of introduction, preparation, and expectation; the New Testament is a book of conclusion, denouement, and fulfillment. The OT informs the NT by giving background, promises, and a developing story line. The NT finalizes the story line and sees promise come to fulfillment.
The OT helps us understand the NT by introducing theological concepts which are continued in the NT, such as God, creation, sin, redemption, kingdom, people of God, temple, holy city, enemies, exile and restoration, etc. The NT expands on these concepts often giving them new clarity in light of the full and final revelation that comes with the advent of Jesus Christ.
Though there is continuity of theological concepts, there is discontinuity in the contextualization of these concepts. I suggest that in both the Old and New Testaments God addresses His people in language and terms that they generally understood, yet retaining a bit of mystery, because the ultimate reality, which God brings in the triumph of the Messiah, defies the ability of human language to fully convey.
If in the future believing Jews of the old covenant see the New Jerusalem coming out of heaven and witness the triumph of God over all evil and enemies, would they say, “I’m disappointed that it did not turn out ‘literally’ as portrayed in the language of the OT.” No, they would likely say, “This fulfillment not only satisfies all which God promised but goes far beyond what could be expected. Thank you, Lord.”
As I read Zechariah 9-14 and similar texts in light of the New Testament I look for theological concepts that are continuous between the testaments and interpret them in light of the fuller and final revelation of the New Testament. For instance, the theological theme of “people of God” is represented primarily by Israel in the Old Testament. Yet, we understand in the New Testament that the true “seed” of Abraham were those who had the faith of Abraham, regardless of ethnicity (Rom 2; Gal 3; 1 Pet 2). The “holy city” of the Old Testament was physical, geographical Jerusalem; in the New Testament the holy city is the New Jerusalem (Heb 12:18-24, Rev 21, 22). Furthermore, the New Testament even suggests that Abraham knew that the physical reality of “land and city” anticipated something more than earthly geography (Heb 11:10, 16; Rom 4:13). The theme of “temple as the place of God’s presence” in the Old Testament was primarily confined to the tabernacle and temple of ancient Israel; in the New Testament, Jesus is ultimately the temple (John 2:19—destroy this temple), believers and the church are the temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19), and there is no need of a temple in the new order because God’s presence pervades everything (Rev 21:3, 22).
There are other shared themes such as the ultimate triumph of God, the defeat of enemies, the removal of sin, the transformation of nature, the restoration of the cosmos, the establishment of worship and holiness. In Zechariah 9-14 all of these concepts are portrayed in old covenant language at times exceeding the limits of that language, anticipating the inauguration of the greater realities of the New Covenant and ultimately the consummation.
Old Testament saints had a “two-age” view of history—the age in which they lived and the age to come. The age to come anticipated the advent of the Messiah and the Day of the Lord in which God’s people would be delivered and His enemies would be judged. The age to come was depicted in terms that related to the age in which they lived though the seed of old covenant concepts blossoms into the unforeseen beauty of new covenant realities.
The New Testament declares that “the age to come” was inaugurated at the first advent of Christ (Lk 1:67-80; Acts 2:29-36), that we live in the age that was anticipated (1 Cor 10:11—“on whom the end of the ages has come”), but, though the age has already come, it is not yet consummated, so we anticipate the consummation at His Second Advent (2 Thess 1:5-10).
Consequently, New Covenant believers live between two worlds: having entered the kingdom (Col 1:13) but waiting for the consummate kingdom (Rev 11:15); having become part of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17), yet waiting for the consummate new creation (Rev 21); being seated in the heavens with Christ (Eph 2:6), yet living as strangers on earth (1 Pet 2:11); having witnessed the triumph of Christ over sin, Satan, and death (Col 1:13-15), yet awaiting the consummate world of righteousness (2 Pet 3:13); having tasted in the Spirit the inheritance to come (Eph 1:13-14), yet awaiting consummate glory (1 Pet 5:1).
jpdsr51 Bio
Dr. John P. Davis is currently Lead Pastor of a church plant in Philadelphia, PA. Grace Church of Philly is a gospel-centered city church seeking to reach people of all nations. John received the BA in Bible (Greek minor) at Bob Jones University, MDiv from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, the ThM in OT from Westminster Theological Seminary, and the DMin from Biblical Theological Seminary. His ThM thesis was on A Critical Evaluation of the Use of the Abrahamic Covt. in Dispensationalism. His DMin project/dissertation was on Common Factors in the Practice of Ongoing Personal Evangelism. John has pastored two other churches in PA and two in NY. Three were church-plants.
James,
The Holy Spirit has already done that for us in Hebrews 8:7-13, where He tells us the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled in the NT Church. Whatever other details remain to be worked out, we must start with the inspired revelation that the new covenant made with “the House of Judah and the House of Israel” is the one Jesus Christ inaugurated with His blood and is the very covenant that assures every believer in Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, a home in Heaven.
Blessings,
Greg Barkman
The Holy Spirit has already done that for us in Hebrews 8:7-13, where He tells us the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled in the NT Church. Whatever other details remain to be worked out, we must start with the inspired revelation that the new covenant made with “the House of Judah and the House of Israel” is the one Jesus Christ inaugurated with His blood and is the very covenant that assures every believer in Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, a home in Heaven.
Blessings,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Greg, I notice you used the word: inaugurated. I agree with that. There is much still not fulfilled about the NC. Some of that is outlined in the Jeremiah 31 passage I pasted. None of the apostle’s cut off the rest of that passage. To say the NC has begun with the death of Christ is accurate. To say the NC will not include the rest of Jer 31 is to call God a liar.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] John and G.N., could either of you explain how the Galatians text does away with the promise that ethnic Jews will in fact live in the land repeatedly promised to them by God even in the explicit New Covenant OT passage? Here, let me quote it for you:According to the end of verse 40, the city anticipated cannot be an alleged millennial Jerusalem for only the final destination (New Heavens and Earth New Jersusalem, etc) for all true descendants of Abraham (believers - Gal 3) has an eternal quality (Rev 21:1).
Jeremiah 31:31-40
31 “Look, the days are coming”-[this is] the Lord’s declaration-“when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 [This one will] not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt-a covenant they broke even though I had married them”jj-the Lord’s declaration. 33 “Instead, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days”-the Lord’s declaration. “I will place My law within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people. 34 No longer will one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying: Know the Lord,ll for they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them”-the Lord’s declaration. “For I will forgive their wrongdoing and never again remember their sin.” 35 This is what the Lord says: The One who gives the sun for light by day, the fixed order of moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea and makes its waves roar- the Lord of Hosts is His name: 36 If this fixed order departs from My presence- [this is] *The bracketed text has been added for clarity. the Lord’s declaration- then also Israel’s descendants will cease to be a nation before Me forever. 37 This is what the Lord says: If the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below explored, I will reject all of Israel’s descendants because of all they have done- [this is] the Lord’s declaration.
38 “Look, the days are coming”-the Lord’s declaration-“when the city from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate will be rebuilt for the Lord. 39 A measuring line will once again stretch out straight to the hill of Gareb and then turn toward Goah. 40 The whole valley-the corpses, the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Kidron Valley to the corner of the Horse Gate to the east-will be holy to the Lord. It will never be uprooted or demolished again.”
That we all share in a heavenly birth, being born from above (John 3), does not change this promise. You mistakenly assume too much of this text and in turn, only bring confusion to God’s faithfulness to his unbreakable promises.
P.S. Can you save your preaching for Sunday mornings? Thanks.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[Ted Bigelow] Given the choice between a great cup of coffee with you in Philly, and enjoying Christ with you and Greg in heaven, I’ll take… hmmm, do they serve coffee in heaven? quote]
Actually you can have both now. You are welcome to Philly anytime for coffee with me and we are already seated together with Christ in the heavens. My desire, despite theological differences, is to enjoy now in gospel-centered fellowship the exisitng spiritual reality of our union with Christ and unity with each other.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
Here is a perfect example of a text that is completely turned on its head simply because you desire to squash the promises of God into your concept of the church.
This text explicitly says that in the NC several things will happen, including the land. You judge it unacceptable because of your assumptions.
This text explicitly says that in the NC several things will happen, including the land. You judge it unacceptable because of your assumptions.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] Here is a perfect example of a text that is completely turned on its head simply because you desire to squash the promises of God into your concept of the church.A diatribe is not an answer to what I wrote.
This text explicitly says that in the NC several things will happen, including the land. You judge it unacceptable because of your assumptions.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[James K] Here is a perfect example of a text that is completely turned on its head simply because you desire to squash the promises of God into your concept of the church.Actually James, the intent in understanding the relationship of the OT promises to NT fulfillment is not to rob believing Jews of God’s promises, but rather to see how those promises are expanded to give them more than what they expected and to include believers from all nations, which was always God’s intent. Believing Jews get more not less than was promised and we are included. I’m happy with that! It seems that you want to keep Jews in a land destined for destruction rather than have them enjoy the endless New Creation.
This text explicitly says that in the NC several things will happen, including the land. You judge it unacceptable because of your assumptions.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
John, according to Eph 2, we have been brought into the covenants of promise originally made with the Jews. My hermeneutic believes that in its entirety. Your hermeneutic rewrites the promises and claims they are actually better.
I would encourage you to do some research on the new creation model of eschatology. Russell Moore, Craig Blaising, Douglas Moo, and others are advocates. You would then understand what the New Creation actually is.
I have appreciated this discussion. Thanks.
I would encourage you to do some research on the new creation model of eschatology. Russell Moore, Craig Blaising, Douglas Moo, and others are advocates. You would then understand what the New Creation actually is.
I have appreciated this discussion. Thanks.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I keep saying though that a better focus (than the antiquity question) is on the texts involved and letting them speak.
There is indeed a similarity between the interpretative processes leading to pre-millennialism generally and dispensationalism specifically, but that is true only of contemporary pre-millennialism. The “chiliasm” that occurred in certain segments of the early church bears little resemblance to modern pre-mill in form or function. Modern pre-millennialists, of whatever variety, all embrace some idea that the Abrahamic covenant demands certain things to occur regarding Israel in the future. Or, they believe that a certain level of literalness in reading Revelation demands it. The early church chiliasts clearly and repeatedly insist that the Church is the true inheritor of the promises of Abraham, and none of them appeal to grammatical-historical hermeneutics to prove their position. Some of the chiliasts held to the 6-day/6000-year model of history, in which the world ends after 6000 years, issuing in the seventh “millennium.” I put “millennium” in quotation marks because several of the chiliasts seem to have regarded the seventh day of history as eternal, and most held to a single general resurrection at the return of Christ, with no future judgment at the end of the millennium (since they don’t mention the millennium ending). Here’s a decent blog post that makes most of these points, but you can find them fairly easily in the primary source writings: html
Charlie, I read “Puritan Lad’s” blog entry and find him unconvincing on this point. I would say that he misrepresents Ireneus in a sorry way, even saying he was postmillennialist. Many scholars have written on Ireneus (conservative and liberal, confessional and free church), and are rather unanimous on the view that he was premillennial. Puritan Lad seems to pick and choose for his conclusions. Ireneus was premillennial in both the ancient and modern sense. He stressed (can you believe it?) a literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. There are many examples in Ireneus. Here is one:
If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: “When the cities” of the Gentiles “shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate.”47654765 Isa. vi. 11. “For, behold,” says Isaiah, “the day of the Lord cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it.”47664766 Isa. xiii. 9. And again he says, “Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God.”47674767 Isa. xxvi. 10. And when these things are done, he says, “God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth.”47684768 Isa. vi. 12. “And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves.”47694769 Isa. lxv. 21. For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one… .
Now all these things being such as they are, cannot be understood in reference to super-celestial matters; “for God,” it is said, “will show to the whole earth that is under heaven thy glory.” But in the times of the kingdom, the earth has been called again by Christ [to its pristine condition] , and Jerusalem rebuilt after the pattern of the Jerusalem above … .
For as it is God truly who raises up man, so also does man truly rise from the dead, and not allegorically, as I have shown repeatedly. And as he rises actually, so also shall he be actually disciplined beforehand for incorruption, and shall go forwards and flourish in the times of the kingdom, in order that he may be capable of receiving the glory of the Father. Then, when all things are made new, he shall truly dwell in the city of God.
(Against Heresies 5.35.1-2)
Alas, even the Ante-Nicene Fathers were influenced by the Enlightenment ;)
Jeff Brown
It seems discussions like these always polarize us. But we need to admit that the issues at hand are complex and center in a difficult arena of theology. Can’t we join hands and have ‘smores with Joel around his campfire on this?
Questions of eschatology have long been points where believers agree to disagree. It certainly is not a central defining point of theology.
The recently delivered paper which Dr. Davis linked to above is worthy of reading. The author stresses that the big “rift” between CT and dispensationalism didn’t have to happen in the first place, and might still be closed with a mutual admission of how close in many respects the two sides are.
Here’s that link again:
http://ntresources.com/documents/DSG2010_Mangum_DispCovRift.pdf
Questions of eschatology have long been points where believers agree to disagree. It certainly is not a central defining point of theology.
The recently delivered paper which Dr. Davis linked to above is worthy of reading. The author stresses that the big “rift” between CT and dispensationalism didn’t have to happen in the first place, and might still be closed with a mutual admission of how close in many respects the two sides are.
Here’s that link again:
http://ntresources.com/documents/DSG2010_Mangum_DispCovRift.pdf
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[James K] John, according to Eph 2, we have been brought into the covenants of promise originally made with the Jews. My hermeneutic believes that in its entirety. Your hermeneutic rewrites the promises and claims they are actually better.I’ve read the above and appreciate the journey they are on in the right direction. And, yes i do believe that the fulfillment is better than anticipated - a better King, a better Kingdom, a better people, and a better land/inheritance. Thanks for the input.
I would encourage you to do some research on the new creation model of eschatology. Russell Moore, Craig Blaising, Douglas Moo, and others are advocates. You would then understand what the New Creation actually is.
I have appreciated this discussion. Thanks.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
John,
I asserted that the continuity you recommend is really a discontinuity. In reply you state:
I wrote, “Such a method continuously teeters on the brink of Eisegesis with its in-built temptation to conforming texts to ones theological predilections.”
You said,
Next you write:
John:
Next you ask,
I am trying to say as much as I can within the word limit. Some things must go unsaid, including my appreciations for your article and positions.
Your brother, Paul
I asserted that the continuity you recommend is really a discontinuity. In reply you state:
…there is continuity of the concepts (temple, land, people, etc) but discontinuity in the expression of those concepts.This is strange indeed. The concept is static but what we say about it isn’t? How is that possible? If I express a concept I use language to describe an idea (at the very least). This language is either accurate or not. The concept “temple” for instance is (in the OT) a description of a physical building for worship. If “temple” is used to describe something else, it surely describes another concept (e.g. a. Jesus’ physical body; b. the church - which are themselves different concepts). Hence the concepts are altered. All that remains the same are the labels, which are used equivocally.
I wrote, “Such a method continuously teeters on the brink of Eisegesis with its in-built temptation to conforming texts to ones theological predilections.”
You said,
I believe I have stated clearly my conscious theological presuppositions in regard to interpreting Scripture within the context of the whole story of the Bible. If you tried to understand the OT apart from the NT you would not know who created the world, that Abraham was looking for an eternal city which God built. that he inherited the cosmos, the coming(s) of the Messiah, the heavenly Jerusalem, in what way Messiah sits on the throne of David, etc.Of course, and if you tried to understand the NT without the OT you’d be in a pickle too! This is understood by all. One cannot know the context of Bible story without first knowing what the passages say. This is why the analogy of faith must check but not control exegesis. Exegesis supplies the Analogy of Faith.
Next you write:
It is because of the NT that we accept the OT as the Word of God…No. The OT would be the Word of God if we never had the NT. Furthermore, we would be under obligation to accept it as such.
…and it is because of the NT that the OT becomes clear…The OT is very clear in much of what it says. That, e.g. is why Christ could appeal to it to corroborate His claims. The NT does clarify many OT themes through progressive revelation. It does not do it by changing the plain sense of the OT text. That maneuver can only be made by the imposition of a certain interpretation of the NT to alter the meaning of much that is in the OT. Hence, the discontinuity.
So yes, there is a priority of the NT for without it we do not have the Redeemer King and would either be Gentiles who were excluded or proselytes who would be worshipping in a Jewish temple.The false priority I spoke of was interpretive in nature (as described above). The NT has priority over the Old in the sense of doctrinal completion and clarification, not as a revisionary tool of the interpreter. The NT nowhere changes the land into heaven or Israel into the church, or abrogates the clear oaths of God in His everlasting covenants. These mutations can only be performed by reading exegetically dubious inferences into the Scriptures. God cannot lie (Tit.1:2) and His unilateral covenants cannot be annulled (Jer. 33:14ff.; cf. Gal. 3:15) or transformed to mean something other than what their wording states. E.g., In Gen. 22 God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham took God literally because He took God’s covenant literally, even though that meant believing that God would raise the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). He did not reason “God couldn’t mean that. I must swap my hermeneutics.” Why? Because God means what He says. There is a direct continuity between what God says and what He does. If there was equivocation, that creates all kinds of issues theologically and philosophically.
John:
The integrity of the OT is undermined by reading it without the final and full revelation of the NT.Not having the NT does not affect the integrity of the NT, it just means we don’t have all God’s revelation (which is crucial). But I was in any case referring to the ability of OT readers to ascertain literal truth from it even when more information would often be needed from the NT.
Otherwise we read as those who searched the Scriptures without seeing Christ and are in need of Christ to open our eyes to understand the Scriptures.I am pretty sure Christ showed them what was actually in the text through G-H interpretation not through any redemptive hermeneutics. The information regarding Him was upon the surface of the text and did not require spiritualizing.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, every Christian to some degree reads the OT through Christian lenses. I am interested in what the human author intended in the OT texts but I am equally interested in what the Divine author intended and some of that I can’t know apart from the NT.You create a dichotomy between the human and Divine authors. Any difference between them is in the nature of qualitative/quantitative univocal understanding, not equivocation. The concepts remain unchanged. The progress of revelation adds information but the information itself does not undergo conceptual change. Perceptions of the literal may and do change, but not God’s meaning. The Bible is not a wax nose.
Galatians 3 makes it clear that Christ is the quintessential seed of Abraham, the only covenantally faithful Jew and therefore the inheritor of the promise to Abraham.You believe that the AC is not unconditional then? Could you show me a condition in Gen. 15? And if Jesus kept it for them surely Israel gets the land as per the covenant?
Next you ask,
[Paul Henebury] Likewise, the “New Covenant” in either Testament is the universal and unilateral means whereby the other Biblical Covenants are realized and fulfilled. It is not the same as the NT Canon. For example, Christ’s words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:20) would have been incomprehensible to the disciples if such were the case.
How do correlate the above statement with “The Old Covenant, that is, the MC, has been replaced with the New Covenant, but this does not affect the Abrahamic Covenant,” if the New Covenant. as you say, is the means by which the other covenants (I assume you include the Abrahamic) are realized and fulfilled? Does not Jesus establsih the NC with the apostles, the church (New Israel ??)? Or are you saying he means, “This is the new covenant in my blood, not all of the new covenant, only the soteriological portion of it.”I’m not sure what you are saying here, but as to the last sentence, I believe Christ made the NC with the Church and shall make the same NC with Israel. The NC is the way of entrance into the blessings of the AC for the church now and Israel later.
I am trying to say as much as I can within the word limit. Some things must go unsaid, including my appreciations for your article and positions.
Your brother, Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul responds: This is strange indeed. The concept is static but what we say about it isn’t? How is that possible? If I express a concept I use language to describe an idea (at the very least). This language is either accurate or not. The concept “temple” for instance is (in the OT) a description of a physical building for worship. If “temple” is used to describe something else, it surely describes another concept (e.g. a. Jesus’ physical body; b. the church - which are themselves different concepts). Hence the concepts are altered. All that remains the same are the labels, which are used equivocally.
John’s response: The essence/concept of ‘temple’ is not architectural structure but the ‘presence or dwelling place of God.’ NT writers use words intentionally not equivocally.
Paul responded: The OT would be the Word of God if we never had the NT. Furthermore, we would be under obligation to accept it as such.
John’s response: Essentially that is true, but practically apart from the full and final revelation which established the OT as authoritative for Christians, I, as anon-Jew, would have no reason to accept it as the Word of God.
Paul Responded: The OT is very clear in much of what it says. That, e.g. is why Christ could appeal to it to corroborate His claims. The NT does clarify many OT themes through progressive revelation. It does not do it by changing the plain sense of the OT text. That maneuver can only be made by the imposition of a certain interpretation of the NT to alter the meaning of much that is in the OT. Hence, the discontinuity.
John responds: Again we somewhat agree. I do not see the meaning as altered but expanded (sensus plenior) and informed by the greater context of the complete canon.
Paul responded: The false priority I spoke of was interpretive in nature (as described above). The NT has priority over the Old in the sense of doctrinal completion and clarification, not as a revisionary tool of the interpreter. The NT nowhere changes the land into heaven or Israel into the church, or abrogates the clear oaths of God in His everlasting covenants. These mutations can only be performed by reading exegetically dubious inferences into the Scriptures. God cannot lie (Tit.1:2) and His unilateral covenants cannot be annulled (Jer. 33:14ff.; cf. Gal. 3:15) or transformed to mean something other than what their wording states. E.g., In Gen. 22 God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham took God literally because He took God’s covenant literally, even though that meant believing that God would raise the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). He did not reason “God couldn’t mean that. I must swap my hermeneutics.” Why? Because God means what He says. There is a direct continuity between what God says and what He does. If there was equivocation, that creates all kinds of issues theologically and philosophically.
John’s response: Your response here (revisionary, mutations, swap hermeneutics, equivocation) is an unwarranted caricature (perhaps not intended by you) of those who hold an equally high view of Scripture and who are wrestling with the relationship of NT to OT, and what they believe are unsatisfactory answers to the challenge. I am glad you have it figured it but some of us still wrestle with Gal 3, I peter 2:9-10, how OT essence/concepts are concretized in the NT, the announcement and presence of the kingdom in the gospels, the union of Jew and Gentile in one body, etc).
Paul said: Not having the NT does not affect the integrity of the OT, it just means we don’t have all God’s revelation (which is crucial). But I was in any case referring to the ability of OT readers to ascertain literal truth from it even when more information would often be needed from the NT.
John’s response: Integrity is “an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality with nothing wanting.” Again, The integrity of the OT is undermined by reading it without the final and full revelation of the NT.
Paul said: I am pretty sure Christ showed them what was actually in the text through G-H interpretation not through any redemptive hermeneutics. The information regarding Him was upon the surface of the text and did not require spiritualizing.
John’s response: Ha!
Paul said: You create a dichotomy between the human and Divine authors. Any difference between them is in the nature of qualitative/quantitative univocal understanding, not equivocation. The concepts remain unchanged. The progress of revelation adds information but the information itself does not undergo conceptual change. Perceptions of the literal may and do change, but not God’s meaning. The Bible is not a wax nose.
John’s response: I don’t disagree with you here. There is no conceptual change. Yes, it is not a wax nose but revelation is a seed that blossoms over time as in from Gen 3:15 to Heb 2:910.
Paul said: You believe that the AC is not unconditional then? Could you show me a condition in Gen. 15? And if Jesus kept it for them surely Israel gets the land as per the covenant?
John’s response: That God would fulfill the Abrahamic pomise/covenant in Christ is unconditional. Participation in the covenant was based upon faith/faithfulness as the history of ancient Israel’s relationship to the land showed until Christ, the ever faithful One comes and in whom now are who believe inherit the promise in him. Believing Jews (and Gentiles) get more than the ancient land, they get the New Creation.
Paul, than you for your interaction with my article and helping me to clarify a few things. Blessings, JOHN
For anyone who would like to continue this discussion you can email me at [email protected]
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
The relationship of the church to the Abrahamic covenant to the New Covenant and the Church is handled clearly and well in Dwight Pentecost,s book “Things to Come” which came out in the 1960s. The following books are some among many that may be helpful if they have not been read.
“Continuity and Discontinuity,” Editor John S. Feinberg, Crossway Books, 1991 has some good discussions by scholars.
“A Case For Premillennialism, A New Consensus,” Donald K. Campbell & Jeffrey L. Townsend, Moody Press, 1992
“A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism,” Arnold D. Ehlert, Baker Book House, 1965.
“Israel and the Church, The Origin And Effects of Replacement Theology,” Ronald E. Diprose, Instituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, Italy, 2004.
I would merely make the following observations.
First, from the standpoint of Biblical theology, which views revelation within the time and historical context, the Hebrew Scriptures are indeed the Hebrew scriptures. They are by the Jews for the Jews. We must ask how they saw the the prophets when the Revelation was given them. What was the intent that God had in giving them that revelation at that time. We must seek to see the revelation through those Hebraic eyes. Then we can seek to see what the NT revelation adds to that understanding.
Second, All of the scriptures are given to us through the entrustment given to the Jews. Paul alludes to this trust given them at Romans 3:1-2. All of the “Messiah called Apostles” were Jewish. It required their authorship and/or approval for acceptance of the NT scriptures. The transition books of Luke and Acts were given through inspiration of a Gentile but accepted only because of the Apostolic relationship and approval. The NT is indeed Hebraic oracles given the assembly that was to be built by the Messiah. His selected Apostles were the foundation and the Messiah as the chief cornerstone. Donald Diprose observed; “It is the presupposition of the entire New Testament that Yeshua was the Messiah of Israel” (p.181).
Third, from a Christian historical standpoint, Donald Diprose makes a strong case for early Christian Premillennialism later replaced by integration and adaption of Hebraic ritual to the church. Prejudice against the Jews brought replacement theology which started to seriously distort Christian theology. Christian theology would be Japhetic instead of Semitic.
Fourth, from Augustine on we have the gradual acceptance of a Christian theology built upon heresy. Augustine, the alleged great church theologian, was wrong on just about everything. He was wrong on Justification, Baptism, Communion, means of Grace, and the hope of the church. His triumphalism of the church was the foundation for church involvement in government, using physical force for conversion, and all sorts of Ecclesiastical imperialism.
Fifth, Medieval theology was a convergence of Paganism and Christian thought. Neo Platonism and Aristotelian thought became an integrated foundation for Christian theology. Prejudice against the Jews brought persecutions to them. The church was God’s elect and Jews were God’s cast offs. European theology was pagan, wrong, and heretical.
Fifth, The Reformers of the magisterial reformation brought many back to Justification by faith alone and attempted to see the scriptures alone. However, they looked at scripture through the glasses of Medieval theology. They still revered Augustine. They still saw a gentile church which had little to do with rejected Judaism. They expressed strong prejudice against the jews and saw no literal kingdom in the Hebrew scriptures. Some of the Medieval Evangelical groups and later e “radical Reformists” (AnaBaptists) did see a literal kingdom. The AnaBaptist endeavors to go beyond the magisterial reformation were met with extreme persecution by the Catholic church and by the those called Reformers. The “magisterial Reformers” certainly did much good but fell far short of real a real Biblical theology. European Reformed theology changed quickly at Dort and morphed into even more convoluted thought in the progress of English Puritanism.
Sixth, the Christian theology of Europe was far from Biblical Hebraic foundations. It was also a theology of the elite clergy. Only the clergy had good access to the scriptures. There was no mass distribution of the scriptures. The invention of the movable type press in 1450 improved things but it would that a couple centuries before there would be an adequate access to the scriptures by many Christians.
Seventh, a new land, a new mobility, and a new access to the scriptures brought drastic changes in the seventeenth century. Spiritual Awakenings in England and America brought new converts, new churches and new insights into scripture. The European Calvinism was challenged by many who wanted a restoration that was based on the scriptures alone. There was also a Bible Onlyism theology that involved many of the non Clergy believers. The Plymouth Brethren arose in Ireland and new groups in america. Awakenings continued into the Eighteenth century.
Eighth, from the dissemination of the Bible and Spiritual awakenings there arose a new emphasis
on the normal face value interpretation of scripture. This brought about a more literal eschatology for the Christian churches. The Hebrew scriptures were taken less allegorical and more literally. The Kingdom was again seen as a Hebraic promise that must be taken seriously and was still a hope for Israel. This also resulted in attempting to see where the Christians fit into this. The Hebrew scriptures promised Israel a Kingdom but also tribulation. The portrayals of that tribulations were terrible and obviously have not taken place. Since such was confirmed by the Messiah to Israel in the Olivet discourse, where would the yet future (at that time) Christian church fit in? The answers were seen in the NT last revelation in the book of Revelation and also some other NT passages. The emerging result was a viewpoint that would be labelled as “Dispensationalism.” It respected the covenants of God seen in scripture, endeavored to consistently interpret the scriptures literally, acknowledged progressive revelation, and put together the puzzle of Christian hope anchored in Hebraic promises.
Ninth, while there was definite Premillennialism in the early church, and some definite fragments of later Dispensationalism, the theology of Dispensationalism as a constructed theology rightly emerged in the Nineteenth century. The problem is not such a late emergence, but the long centuries of paganism and prejudice that was called Christian theology in Europe. Such prejudices, and even persecutions, prevented a more objective and spiritual study of all the scriptures. The Clergy theology of Europe, and also the early colonies, had much that was good but prevented that which was better. A salvation reformation occurred in the sixteenth century. A fuller Biblical perspective reformation occurred in the Nineteenth century. The questions of the Jews, the church, the kingdom and the tribulation were being asked and the answers put together.
And the fullest revelation of all is my forty foot long Dispensational Chart. :bigsmile:
“Continuity and Discontinuity,” Editor John S. Feinberg, Crossway Books, 1991 has some good discussions by scholars.
“A Case For Premillennialism, A New Consensus,” Donald K. Campbell & Jeffrey L. Townsend, Moody Press, 1992
“A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism,” Arnold D. Ehlert, Baker Book House, 1965.
“Israel and the Church, The Origin And Effects of Replacement Theology,” Ronald E. Diprose, Instituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, Italy, 2004.
I would merely make the following observations.
First, from the standpoint of Biblical theology, which views revelation within the time and historical context, the Hebrew Scriptures are indeed the Hebrew scriptures. They are by the Jews for the Jews. We must ask how they saw the the prophets when the Revelation was given them. What was the intent that God had in giving them that revelation at that time. We must seek to see the revelation through those Hebraic eyes. Then we can seek to see what the NT revelation adds to that understanding.
Second, All of the scriptures are given to us through the entrustment given to the Jews. Paul alludes to this trust given them at Romans 3:1-2. All of the “Messiah called Apostles” were Jewish. It required their authorship and/or approval for acceptance of the NT scriptures. The transition books of Luke and Acts were given through inspiration of a Gentile but accepted only because of the Apostolic relationship and approval. The NT is indeed Hebraic oracles given the assembly that was to be built by the Messiah. His selected Apostles were the foundation and the Messiah as the chief cornerstone. Donald Diprose observed; “It is the presupposition of the entire New Testament that Yeshua was the Messiah of Israel” (p.181).
Third, from a Christian historical standpoint, Donald Diprose makes a strong case for early Christian Premillennialism later replaced by integration and adaption of Hebraic ritual to the church. Prejudice against the Jews brought replacement theology which started to seriously distort Christian theology. Christian theology would be Japhetic instead of Semitic.
Fourth, from Augustine on we have the gradual acceptance of a Christian theology built upon heresy. Augustine, the alleged great church theologian, was wrong on just about everything. He was wrong on Justification, Baptism, Communion, means of Grace, and the hope of the church. His triumphalism of the church was the foundation for church involvement in government, using physical force for conversion, and all sorts of Ecclesiastical imperialism.
Fifth, Medieval theology was a convergence of Paganism and Christian thought. Neo Platonism and Aristotelian thought became an integrated foundation for Christian theology. Prejudice against the Jews brought persecutions to them. The church was God’s elect and Jews were God’s cast offs. European theology was pagan, wrong, and heretical.
Fifth, The Reformers of the magisterial reformation brought many back to Justification by faith alone and attempted to see the scriptures alone. However, they looked at scripture through the glasses of Medieval theology. They still revered Augustine. They still saw a gentile church which had little to do with rejected Judaism. They expressed strong prejudice against the jews and saw no literal kingdom in the Hebrew scriptures. Some of the Medieval Evangelical groups and later e “radical Reformists” (AnaBaptists) did see a literal kingdom. The AnaBaptist endeavors to go beyond the magisterial reformation were met with extreme persecution by the Catholic church and by the those called Reformers. The “magisterial Reformers” certainly did much good but fell far short of real a real Biblical theology. European Reformed theology changed quickly at Dort and morphed into even more convoluted thought in the progress of English Puritanism.
Sixth, the Christian theology of Europe was far from Biblical Hebraic foundations. It was also a theology of the elite clergy. Only the clergy had good access to the scriptures. There was no mass distribution of the scriptures. The invention of the movable type press in 1450 improved things but it would that a couple centuries before there would be an adequate access to the scriptures by many Christians.
Seventh, a new land, a new mobility, and a new access to the scriptures brought drastic changes in the seventeenth century. Spiritual Awakenings in England and America brought new converts, new churches and new insights into scripture. The European Calvinism was challenged by many who wanted a restoration that was based on the scriptures alone. There was also a Bible Onlyism theology that involved many of the non Clergy believers. The Plymouth Brethren arose in Ireland and new groups in america. Awakenings continued into the Eighteenth century.
Eighth, from the dissemination of the Bible and Spiritual awakenings there arose a new emphasis
on the normal face value interpretation of scripture. This brought about a more literal eschatology for the Christian churches. The Hebrew scriptures were taken less allegorical and more literally. The Kingdom was again seen as a Hebraic promise that must be taken seriously and was still a hope for Israel. This also resulted in attempting to see where the Christians fit into this. The Hebrew scriptures promised Israel a Kingdom but also tribulation. The portrayals of that tribulations were terrible and obviously have not taken place. Since such was confirmed by the Messiah to Israel in the Olivet discourse, where would the yet future (at that time) Christian church fit in? The answers were seen in the NT last revelation in the book of Revelation and also some other NT passages. The emerging result was a viewpoint that would be labelled as “Dispensationalism.” It respected the covenants of God seen in scripture, endeavored to consistently interpret the scriptures literally, acknowledged progressive revelation, and put together the puzzle of Christian hope anchored in Hebraic promises.
Ninth, while there was definite Premillennialism in the early church, and some definite fragments of later Dispensationalism, the theology of Dispensationalism as a constructed theology rightly emerged in the Nineteenth century. The problem is not such a late emergence, but the long centuries of paganism and prejudice that was called Christian theology in Europe. Such prejudices, and even persecutions, prevented a more objective and spiritual study of all the scriptures. The Clergy theology of Europe, and also the early colonies, had much that was good but prevented that which was better. A salvation reformation occurred in the sixteenth century. A fuller Biblical perspective reformation occurred in the Nineteenth century. The questions of the Jews, the church, the kingdom and the tribulation were being asked and the answers put together.
And the fullest revelation of all is my forty foot long Dispensational Chart. :bigsmile:
Thanks for the promotional brochure on dispensationalism, but I’m still not buying. Though, I thank you for being honest in your concluding confessional statement in bold print :)
Blessings, JOHN
Blessings, JOHN
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
To trivialize Bob’s rather well argued response, whether one agrees with it or not, as a “promotional brochure on dispensationalism” is either the kind of condescension that admits you have no response hence you will mock it and your position of seriousness as a theologian has been deliberately abandoned for such a self-serving volley or it is the kind of arrogance that refuses to acknowledge the merit of others. On the other hand it may merely be a jest that we can take with the expectation that you will be following it up with a response in kind or at least with some degree of sober treatment of at least a few of the elements contained in his narrative rebuttal.
Of course thinking the best, only, of the Davis family, I look forward to your more full response and understand the tease toward Bob.
Of course thinking the best, only, of the Davis family, I look forward to your more full response and understand the tease toward Bob.
@Alex,
I also look forward to a “more full response” from John, because I have read been following the comments with a lot of interest. However, as an observer, I wouldn’t say that it was completely unfair or condescending of John to characterize Bob’s nine points as a promotional brochure on dispensationalism. I think it is quite fair. Brochures aren’t bad things, they are just a little impersonal and don’t always answer the questions being asked.
I think Bob’s nine points seem to be answering a question kind of like “Why I am a Dispensationalist and why you should be one, too.” These points didn’t particularly get into the nitty gritty of the passages that have been discussed, nor did they really advance the interaction — they kind of shore up some of the justifications already made; and yet you call for John to interact with them point by point more fully.
Secondly, I don’t think John trivialized Bob’s post any more than Bob already trivialized the whole of European Theology from day one to the present. What comes out in much of the discussions on these topics is the fact that there are nuances and subtleties that need to be dealt with in the whole history of this subject, as well as the hermeneutics used to examine it, whether they have Judaistic roots, European roots or American roots. Also, comments that constantly refer to covenant theology as “allegorizing” or “spiritualizing” have, in my opinion, a tendency to trivialize; but no-one’s complaining.
As John said in another post, there are some things to really grapple with. However, the “dispensationalist response” seems to have, more often than not, this tendency to dismiss or trivialize anything that has gone before — or that goes on any where else in the world. I do believe that America has been blessed; yet I am not sure I believe that nothing was clear or knowable until there was an American Theological Tradition to finally rediscover the plain truth of scripture that was in front of our noses all along (there may be a slight caricature in there). And if there is any condescension around to be found, I tend to see it more in the sentiments along the lines of “a plain, simple, honest reading, by good, plain, simple, honest, hardworking folks will inevitably lead one to Dispensationalism.” I personally find this whole kind of argument and presentation to be a little circular, and self-serving (and thus “brochure-like”); because this attitude seems to be what it takes to read the scriptures in the way that dispensationalists are determined to read them. If this is warranted from the whole of scripture, I am all for it. But like John, I don’t quite buy it.
I am really looking forward to more discussion on this, and lots more and full responses on both sides.
I also look forward to a “more full response” from John, because I have read been following the comments with a lot of interest. However, as an observer, I wouldn’t say that it was completely unfair or condescending of John to characterize Bob’s nine points as a promotional brochure on dispensationalism. I think it is quite fair. Brochures aren’t bad things, they are just a little impersonal and don’t always answer the questions being asked.
I think Bob’s nine points seem to be answering a question kind of like “Why I am a Dispensationalist and why you should be one, too.” These points didn’t particularly get into the nitty gritty of the passages that have been discussed, nor did they really advance the interaction — they kind of shore up some of the justifications already made; and yet you call for John to interact with them point by point more fully.
Secondly, I don’t think John trivialized Bob’s post any more than Bob already trivialized the whole of European Theology from day one to the present. What comes out in much of the discussions on these topics is the fact that there are nuances and subtleties that need to be dealt with in the whole history of this subject, as well as the hermeneutics used to examine it, whether they have Judaistic roots, European roots or American roots. Also, comments that constantly refer to covenant theology as “allegorizing” or “spiritualizing” have, in my opinion, a tendency to trivialize; but no-one’s complaining.
As John said in another post, there are some things to really grapple with. However, the “dispensationalist response” seems to have, more often than not, this tendency to dismiss or trivialize anything that has gone before — or that goes on any where else in the world. I do believe that America has been blessed; yet I am not sure I believe that nothing was clear or knowable until there was an American Theological Tradition to finally rediscover the plain truth of scripture that was in front of our noses all along (there may be a slight caricature in there). And if there is any condescension around to be found, I tend to see it more in the sentiments along the lines of “a plain, simple, honest reading, by good, plain, simple, honest, hardworking folks will inevitably lead one to Dispensationalism.” I personally find this whole kind of argument and presentation to be a little circular, and self-serving (and thus “brochure-like”); because this attitude seems to be what it takes to read the scriptures in the way that dispensationalists are determined to read them. If this is warranted from the whole of scripture, I am all for it. But like John, I don’t quite buy it.
I am really looking forward to more discussion on this, and lots more and full responses on both sides.
Corrections: Point seven of my prior post should read eighteenth and nineteenth centuries not seventeenth and eighteenth.
John, thank you for the suggestion about a brochure perhaps I will make a quick read brochure using this historical summary and then add the Biblical arguments in a summary fashion for Premillennialism and its logical Pre Tribulation rapture of the church. I would have them passed out at Westminster Seminary east and west.
My purpose in that post was not to make arguments for Dispensationalism. They should be made from the scriptures alone. My purpose was to assert the possible reasons why such a theological system as Dispensationalism was not formerly brought forth until the nineteenth century. The history of fragments alluding to principles later in the Dispensational system can be found scattered in the early church and later. Premillennialism is very substantially found in the churches and writers of the first three centuries. I give no references in my summary. I do give books that some reading here may wish to read if they have not already done so. There is a much larger availability of a Bibliography available for reference.
Donald Diprose book was his doctoral dissertation and is scholarly. His arguments and conclusions are well referenced historical facts and hard to refute. Arnold Ehlert’s book is small but concise and packed with Bibliographic references that allude to different evidences of early Dispensational principles among some writers. Ehlert had a TH.M from Dallas and a MSLS and PHD both from USC. He was librarian at Dallas, then at Fuller Seminary, and later at Biola- Talbot where he greatly enlarged the library. He was a Bibliophile of great reputation. I was acquainted with him as a student and later adjunct faculty at Biola where he was of great help a couple times.
My purpose in my post was merely to take the often used arguments for the recentness of Dispensationalism and a Premillennialism off the table. The best historical scholarship gives good evidence for prior early views and reasons for the late progress of systemized doctrine with regard to eschatology.
It is always wonderful to hear of missions work and compassion for other peoples. The Lebanese certainly have great hardship. They also have that which may give them antagonism toward Israel. The Jewish people have also had centuries of persecutions and hardship. We should pray that the Spirit of God will work among all middle eastern peoples and also the hardened hearts of the Jewish people. The Jews are in the land in unbelief. This may be a preparation for fulfilled prophecy but is not of itself fulfilled prophecy. God has promised to give them the land in belief when “every person will know Him” as stated at Jeremiah 31 and seen miraculously done in Zechariah. Christ is the only answer for all. Unfortunately the depravity of man is often manifested in the ways of false religion that involves the religiosity of a fabricated Christianity and practice that makes the Lord Jesus Christ himself unattractive.
My forty foot Dispensational chart comes with my presentation that includes fireworks and people snatched away by suspended wires. Great show. Popcorn is often sold. :bigsmile:
John, thank you for the suggestion about a brochure perhaps I will make a quick read brochure using this historical summary and then add the Biblical arguments in a summary fashion for Premillennialism and its logical Pre Tribulation rapture of the church. I would have them passed out at Westminster Seminary east and west.
My purpose in that post was not to make arguments for Dispensationalism. They should be made from the scriptures alone. My purpose was to assert the possible reasons why such a theological system as Dispensationalism was not formerly brought forth until the nineteenth century. The history of fragments alluding to principles later in the Dispensational system can be found scattered in the early church and later. Premillennialism is very substantially found in the churches and writers of the first three centuries. I give no references in my summary. I do give books that some reading here may wish to read if they have not already done so. There is a much larger availability of a Bibliography available for reference.
Donald Diprose book was his doctoral dissertation and is scholarly. His arguments and conclusions are well referenced historical facts and hard to refute. Arnold Ehlert’s book is small but concise and packed with Bibliographic references that allude to different evidences of early Dispensational principles among some writers. Ehlert had a TH.M from Dallas and a MSLS and PHD both from USC. He was librarian at Dallas, then at Fuller Seminary, and later at Biola- Talbot where he greatly enlarged the library. He was a Bibliophile of great reputation. I was acquainted with him as a student and later adjunct faculty at Biola where he was of great help a couple times.
My purpose in my post was merely to take the often used arguments for the recentness of Dispensationalism and a Premillennialism off the table. The best historical scholarship gives good evidence for prior early views and reasons for the late progress of systemized doctrine with regard to eschatology.
It is always wonderful to hear of missions work and compassion for other peoples. The Lebanese certainly have great hardship. They also have that which may give them antagonism toward Israel. The Jewish people have also had centuries of persecutions and hardship. We should pray that the Spirit of God will work among all middle eastern peoples and also the hardened hearts of the Jewish people. The Jews are in the land in unbelief. This may be a preparation for fulfilled prophecy but is not of itself fulfilled prophecy. God has promised to give them the land in belief when “every person will know Him” as stated at Jeremiah 31 and seen miraculously done in Zechariah. Christ is the only answer for all. Unfortunately the depravity of man is often manifested in the ways of false religion that involves the religiosity of a fabricated Christianity and practice that makes the Lord Jesus Christ himself unattractive.
My forty foot Dispensational chart comes with my presentation that includes fireworks and people snatched away by suspended wires. Great show. Popcorn is often sold. :bigsmile:
I am glad you have a sense of humor and are not thin skinned. Please share a bit of that humor with Alex. I meant no offence. I simply didn’t see where your response directly interacted with anything I wrote. Perhaps it would have fit better in response to my earlier artilcle (http://sharperiron.org/my-journey-out-of-dispensationalism). I am sure that we disagree on alot of these issues but I sense from your post that you share a common desire to see Jew and Gentile come to Christ. Let’s rejpice together in that Blessings, JOHN
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[rrobinson] @Alex,
I also look forward to a “more full response” from John, because I have read been following the comments with a lot of interest. However, as an observer, I wouldn’t say that it was completely unfair or condescending of John to characterize Bob’s nine points as a promotional brochure on dispensationalism. I think it is quite fair. Brochures aren’t bad things, they are just a little impersonal and don’t always answer the questions being asked.
I think Bob’s nine points seem to be answering a question kind of like “Why I am a Dispensationalist and why you should be one, too.” These points didn’t particularly get into the nitty gritty of the passages that have been discussed, nor did they really advance the interaction — they kind of shore up some of the justifications already made; and yet you call for John to interact with them point by point more fully.
Secondly, I don’t think John trivialized Bob’s post any more than Bob already trivialized the whole of European Theology from day one to the present. What comes out in much of the discussions on these topics is the fact that there are nuances and subtleties that need to be dealt with in the whole history of this subject, as well as the hermeneutics used to examine it, whether they have Judaistic roots, European roots or American roots. Also, comments that constantly refer to covenant theology as “allegorizing” or “spiritualizing” have, in my opinion, a tendency to trivialize; but no-one’s complaining.
[jpdsr51] I am glad you have a sense of humor and are not thin skinned. Please share a bit of that humor with Alex. I meant no offence. I simply didn’t see where your response directly interacted with anything I wrote. Perhaps it would have fit better in response to my earlier artilcle (http://sharperiron.org/my-journey-out-of-dispensationalism). I am sure that we disagree on alot of these issues but I sense from your post that you share a common desire to see Jew and Gentile come to Christ. Let’s rejpice together in that Blessings, JOHNI too look forward to more responses and I will happily admit that I don’t anticipate mounting superior responses or those worthy of accompanying Jeff Brown and others but I certainly am happy to recognize the value of all arguments. But if I believe I have a contribution, I will make it.
As to anyone with thin skin, well when one gives a person the benefit of the doubt and then called thin skin, it appears a handy mirror might solve such investigations. But let’s move on.
IMO Bob’s response addresses a more fundamental issue in the argument. Granted it is not a direct response to the premise(s) in the OP but to that upon which they are built. And as to the examination of European theology or any other historical category of theology, certainly were are obligated to fairly investigate its construct but it does not take away from the observation by Bob, rather that in making the observation we ought to pursue its clarity and he did not indicate there is not more to be said, rather that he was making a point that those of the New Covenant persuasion seem to dismiss or ignore certain aspects of the theology’s development that did impact its content.
And I understand why such an instinctive approach ensues when NC arguments are made and those rejecting it respond more broadly or fundamentally. It is because there is more than a textual argument contained in all textual assertions by NC believers and that substance is their theology’s historical development, a development they insist, often, qualifies them as superior to dispensationalism. Therefore, as Bob pointed out in another post he is addressing more basically…
used arguments for the recentness of Dispensationalism and a Premillennialism off the table…which are used by many to excuse themselves from its attendance.
Perhaps it is true that the fundamental response and not a direct response warrants another thread. I don’t believe so but I can see it being a disservice to the author’s intent of the OP if it trends too long in that direction.
As to dispensationalism having a tendency to “twist or trivialize” anything that has gone before, I cannot recall in all of my readings of vetted dispensational theologians any of them properly characterized by this as a major element. A few might be guilty of anecdotal comments as such but as not as rebuttals of substance.
And thus the debate goes on, and will, no doubt, without end. Some posts are thought-provoking. Some are puzzling. Nevertheless, I am thankful to see this discussion on SI. Thanks for posting John’s article, and thanks to all who have responded.
Blessings,
Greg Barkman
Blessings,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[Alex Guggenheim]Fair enough. I certainly wouldn’t want to generalize and tar all the responses with the same brush (which is why I threw in the caricature comment); it is just a feeling I have having read through a couple of years worth of related threads on this topic in a short space of time.
As to dispensationalism having a tendency to “twist or trivialize” anything that has gone before, I cannot recall in all of my readings of vetted dispensational theologians any of them properly characterized by this as a major element. A few might be guilty of anecdotal comments as such but as not as rebuttals of substance.
But while I am speaking about my feeling (and it is just that, my feeling), there are two sides to this particular argument (let’s call it the tenure and pedigree of the one theological approach vs. the tenure and pedigree of the other); and I am not sure that both can be treated equally as though there were some one to one correlation with some kind of points system. What I mean is, I don’t think both sides can proffer up how many theologians wrote how many books at what point in history and see who comes out ahead.
Of course, I don’t think anyone is actually doing that, at all. However, one gets (I get) the feeling sometimes, that on the Dispensational side of the debate, that if a few names and books and dates can be put up, well, that has answered it, then, hasn’t it? Case closed. Dispensationalism seems to feel a little defensive about their academic and historical position, so, whew, find a few pieces of data, and job done.
But, I don’t feel that the “other side” of this debate (whatever it’s being called, CT, or a flavor of CT or whatever), is relying on its precedent in quite the same way. I think it is more like they are:
a) saying, “looking at the whole of scripture together, these are the conclusions we come to, without shoe-horning them into a preconceived system”…. “AND to bear this out, it seems that many/most theologians throughout history (be they our kind of theologians or not) have followed this sort of approach and had similar conclusions.”
b) thinking there is a bit of a cautionary flag here: any pointing at the relative lack of tenure and pedigree of the Dispensational system, is not to say, “hey, name me some historical figures because I am unconvinced by the more contemporary ones.” It is rather saying something more to the effect: “what makes this system a relatively recent phenomenon, and why are more and more people in our circles questioning it?”
If this is the case, then no amount of names and dates and books are really going to be enough. Some deeper analysis and grappling with the issues raised are in order. Part of the problem of course, is that this call for deeper grappling in a way plays right into the hands of the Dispensationalist presuppositions (like, hey all you guys suddenly enamored of CT are falling away in the end times, listening to what you want to hear, and not standing firm with the faithful minority). But of course, it is precisely that kind of response marks an attitude/approach and is perhaps related to cultural bias that is at issue and that many have raised, and that is why maybe the debate seems to go round and round. It is a major thing that seems to be a blind spot of dispensationalists, and which they refuse to examine. This is just my feeling.
I’ve probably been too long out of the thread for this to fit in anywhere, but nonetheless.
A couple of observations on Charlie’s response to my last post (40 or so ago).
I think it’s safe to say that though the early church guys who were premil. had a different view of the Abrahamic Cov’t (which I grant mostly because I have no idea… but it sounds likely), they arrived at premil. belief by reading the Bible and interpreting key portions of it in a very similar way that modern premil’s do. That is, they took much of the same prophetic material mostly literally and, lining it all up, came to the conclusion that Christ returns before a millennial reign.
So, for now, I’m going to hang on to my belief that the dissimilarities between ancient premil’s and modern dispensational ones has been overstated pretty often in arguments against dispensationalism.
As for Abraham… I’m not sure that my own premillennialism rises and falls on my view of that covenant. Indeed, though dispies make much of the AC (rightly, in my view), I’m not sure how many of them would see it as the linchpin for arriving at premillennialism.
Theoretically, I could know nothing at all about the promises to Abraham but arrive at premil. convictions just by reading Revelation.
General observation about the thread: I much appreciate the amount of thought that has gone into many of the posts.
A couple of observations on Charlie’s response to my last post (40 or so ago).
I think it’s safe to say that though the early church guys who were premil. had a different view of the Abrahamic Cov’t (which I grant mostly because I have no idea… but it sounds likely), they arrived at premil. belief by reading the Bible and interpreting key portions of it in a very similar way that modern premil’s do. That is, they took much of the same prophetic material mostly literally and, lining it all up, came to the conclusion that Christ returns before a millennial reign.
So, for now, I’m going to hang on to my belief that the dissimilarities between ancient premil’s and modern dispensational ones has been overstated pretty often in arguments against dispensationalism.
As for Abraham… I’m not sure that my own premillennialism rises and falls on my view of that covenant. Indeed, though dispies make much of the AC (rightly, in my view), I’m not sure how many of them would see it as the linchpin for arriving at premillennialism.
Theoretically, I could know nothing at all about the promises to Abraham but arrive at premil. convictions just by reading Revelation.
General observation about the thread: I much appreciate the amount of thought that has gone into many of the posts.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Alex Guggenheim]BTW,
As to dispensationalism having a tendency to “twist or trivialize” anything that has gone before, I cannot recall in all of my readings of vetted dispensational theologians any of them properly characterized by this as a major element. A few might be guilty of anecdotal comments as such but as not as rebuttals of substance.
I said the “dispensationalist response”, not “dispensationalism”; and I thought the context was clearly this discussion and others like it, here on Sharper Iron; sorry if that wasn’t immediately clear.
Also, I said “dismiss or trivialize”, not “twist”. Makes a bit of a difference, I think (unless you are just exhibiting your sense of humor ;) ). Dismiss, as in “Christian Theology in Europe” from Augustine to the present, or many of the books and writers referenced by Charlie or Joseph, for example. …and it’s true that dismissing shouldn’t be considered a rebuttal of substance.
[rrobinson]Well if you want to keep it in the context of SI discussions then I probably cannot plead my case seeing all kinds of ideas get equal treatment here :). But thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding.[Alex Guggenheim]BTW,
As to dispensationalism having a tendency to “twist or trivialize” anything that has gone before, I cannot recall in all of my readings of vetted dispensational theologians any of them properly characterized by this as a major element. A few might be guilty of anecdotal comments as such but as not as rebuttals of substance.
I said the “dispensationalist response”, not “dispensationalism”; and I thought the context was clearly this discussion and others like it, here on Sharper Iron; sorry if that wasn’t immediately clear.
[rrobinson] Also, I said “dismiss or trivialize”, not “twist”. Makes a bit of a difference, I think (unless you are just exhibiting your sense of humor ;) ). Dismiss, as in “Christian Theology in Europe” from Augustine to the present, or many of the books and writers referenced by Charlie or Joseph, for example. …and it’s true that dismissing shouldn’t be considered a rebuttal of substance.You’re right, of course, you did not say “twist” and I am at fault here. And worse, I do not recall if I simply meant to quote both “twist or trivialize” with the belief I read it as such or if I sub-consciously read “dismiss” as “twist” and then simply used it as if you had said it, or if I meant to use the word myself without quotes and only attribute to you the use of “trivialize”. I misquoted you, my error, please pardon me thank you for you grace on the matter.
As to dismissing European theology here at SI, while I am sure there exist some who simply do this, I believe that those who take issue with much of its content are willing to argue, in detail, their case with respect to all points.
John’s response: The essence/concept of ‘temple’ is not architectural structure but the ‘presence or dwelling place of God.’ NT writers use words intentionally not equivocally. The essence of temple in the OT is most certainly an architectural structure, and God gave the architectural pattern! It was a meeting place; a tent and then a building which David collected materials for and Solomon built. It was still called a temple after God’s presence left it in Ezek.11 (e.g. in the Gospels). NT writers use the word “temple” for structures (Lk.2; 2 Thess.2; Rev.11) that people enter. It uses the same word for other things too as I had noted. These uses of the same word are equivocal, their intentionality notwithstanding. You dodged the issue brother.
Thanks again John. I too have learned from you. God bless you and your ministry!
Your brother,
Paul
Paul responded: The OT would be the Word of God if we never had the NT. Furthermore, we would be under obligation to accept it as such.Here you grant that the essence of the OT is the Word of God. It is the inspired Word Paul is writing about in 2 Tim. 3:16 of course. I don’t know why it wouldn’t also be “practically” as authoritative for Christians as the NT. I don’t think Jesus or Paul felt that way given their appeals to it even in practical matters (e.g. Eph. 6:1). If the OT was preached to you (say, the creation story, or the First; ; Commandment); whether you knew about the NT or not it would still come to you as the Word of God and you would have every reason as God’s creature to accept it as such. Only sin would stop you, not your ignorance of Scripture. If what you say is true then many first century Christians were wrong to accept the OT as God’s Word before they’d even seen a NT book, never mind a completed NT. It would also mean that the missionaries (like New Tribes Mission) who begin with Genesis, or Answers in Genesis, who urge the same thing, are wrong by your definition.
John’s response: Essentially that is true, but practically apart from the full and final revelation which established the OT as authoritative for Christians, I, as anon-Jew, would have no reason to accept it as the Word of God.
John responds: Again we somewhat agree. I do not see the meaning as altered but expanded (sensus plenior) and informed by the greater context of the complete canon.It is you who have spoken of “transformation,” “change” and so on. I even commended you for your frankness. You may not like the word altered but when you make the OT temple in Zech. 12 (or Ezekiel 40ff.) something other than a literal building because of the way you read the NT you have not just expanded a meaning you have altered it. The Temple in Zech. 12 is not a building any more.
John’s response: Your response here (revisionary, mutations, swap hermeneutics, equivocation) is an unwarranted caricature (perhaps not intended by you) of those who hold an equally high view of Scripture and who are wrestling with the relationship of NT to OT, and what they believe are unsatisfactory answers to the challenge. I am glad you have it figured it out…I did not mean to caricature and am persuaded that I did not commit one. I spent years under the type of interpretations you advocate, including attending a Reformed Seminary in London. I have also read very many books advocating this view. I respect your integrity as a good pastor and Bible teacher, but this discussion has nothing to do with your high view of Scripture (which I know is as high as mine), it has to do with your methodology. Have I “figured it out”? Certainly not. But I must be allowed to argue against your article and your presuppositions without having that thrown back at me. My approach is to take both Testaments in their plain sense with neither having authority to change or mutate concepts in one Testament through a theological hermeneutics imposed upon it by the interpreter. There will be questions unanswered. That is the nature of theology. But contriving answers by a rather subjective use of redemptive hermeneutics on those passages that we find theologically awkward is not, in my opinion, the way to go. I wish I could say more, but time and space and your kind indulgence make me curb my native verbosity.
Paul said: Not having the NT does not affect the integrity of the OT, it just means we don’t have all God’s revelation (which is crucial). But I was in any case referring to the ability of OT readers to ascertain literal truth from it even when more information would often be needed from the NT.You’ve committed another equivocation here by giving the secondary sense of the term not the sense I meant which (surely) had to do with its unimpaired perfect character.
John’s response: Integrity is “an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality with nothing wanting.” Again, The integrity of the OT is undermined by reading it without the final and full revelation of the NT.
Paul said: I am pretty sure Christ showed them what was actually in the text through G-H interpretation not through any redemptive hermeneutics. The information regarding Him was upon the surface of the text and did not require spiritualizing.How do you prove Christ is in the OT without literal G-H hermeneutics?
John’s response: Ha!
Paul said: You create a dichotomy between the human and Divine authors. Any difference between them is in the nature of qualitative/quantitative univocal understanding, not equivocation. The concepts remain unchanged. The progress of revelation adds information but the information itself does not undergo conceptual change. Perceptions of the literal may and do change, but not God’s meaning. The Bible is not a wax nose.You misunderstood my meaning here, which was that there cannot be the “expansions” of the sort you advocate. I have dealt with conceptual change above.
John’s response: I don’t disagree with you here. There is no conceptual change. Yes, it is not a wax nose but revelation is a seed that blossoms over time as in from Gen 3:15 to Heb 2:910.
Paul said: You believe that the AC is not unconditional then? Could you show me a condition in Gen. 15? And if Jesus kept it for them surely Israel gets the land as per the covenant?God promised Israel land in this creation too! Read Jer. 33:14-26 and tell me how God’s meaning here can be expanded. In Acts 1:3 the greatest Teacher in history taught the disciples about “things pertaining to the kingdom”. In verse 6 they asked about a physical kingdom and Jesus didn’t tell them they were wrong about anything but wanting to know the timing. I believe Jesus told them about the kingdom they asked about.
John’s response: That God would fulfill the Abrahamic pomise/covenant in Christ is unconditional. Participation in the covenant was based upon faith/faithfulness as the history of ancient Israel’s relationship to the land showed until Christ, the ever faithful One comes and in whom now are who believe inherit the promise in him. Believing Jews (and Gentiles) get more than the ancient land, they get the New Creation.
Thanks again John. I too have learned from you. God bless you and your ministry!
Your brother,
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Team Pyro posts a review of a new book in the NAC Studies in Bible and Theology series called The Messianic Hope by by Michael Rydelnic.
Team Pyro comes from the same hermeneutic place I do, as well as Paul, Aaron, Alex, myself, and some others in this thread.
As does this book. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
You should read the whole review, becasue it contains shocking material. Truly.
But here’s their quick take on the issue of this thread:
I hope you enjoy the review, and more, the book. Mine’s on order today.
Team Pyro comes from the same hermeneutic place I do, as well as Paul, Aaron, Alex, myself, and some others in this thread.
As does this book. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
You should read the whole review, becasue it contains shocking material. Truly.
But here’s their quick take on the issue of this thread:
[Pyro] Then in Chapters 6 and 7, Rydelnik turns to Jesus’ and the apostles’ handling of OT prophecy, and asks the question of what their interpretive approach is, and whether or not we can and should try to imitate it today. He argues convincingly that it is the dominical and apostolic position that the OT itself is Messianic; they are not reading Messianic meanings into the OT text — and we both can and should adopt their method of reading the Old Testament. Their approach is complex, but it is neither hopelessly tangled nor subjective nor mystical, and we should read the OT as they did.The author’s parents were both Orthodox Jews, and when his mother became a Christian, her husband divorced her. Rydelnik then studied the OT Scripture, and becasue it is the very word of God, was miraculously saved - it explicitly led him to place His faith in the Christ of Scripture.
I hope you enjoy the review, and more, the book. Mine’s on order today.
Ted,
Thanks for mentioning the Pyro post. I normally read Pyro every day, but your SI post caused me to read it more carefully today than I may have otherwise. Maybe I’m missing something, but I couldn’t find anything in Dan Phillips review of Rydelnik’s book with which I disagree. Of course, I haven’t read the book itself yet, and that could yield a different result.
However, I interpretated your post to indicate you find something in Phillips review that you believe contradicts what I, and several others who posted on this tread, believe. Indeed, it would seem to indicate a corrective to the original article by John. Somehow, I fail to see how Phillips review achieves that purpose. Maybe I just don’t get it. What am I missing?
Blessings,
Greg
Thanks for mentioning the Pyro post. I normally read Pyro every day, but your SI post caused me to read it more carefully today than I may have otherwise. Maybe I’m missing something, but I couldn’t find anything in Dan Phillips review of Rydelnik’s book with which I disagree. Of course, I haven’t read the book itself yet, and that could yield a different result.
However, I interpretated your post to indicate you find something in Phillips review that you believe contradicts what I, and several others who posted on this tread, believe. Indeed, it would seem to indicate a corrective to the original article by John. Somehow, I fail to see how Phillips review achieves that purpose. Maybe I just don’t get it. What am I missing?
Blessings,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
[Ted Bigelow] Team Pyro posts a review of a new book in the NAC Studies in Bible and Theology series called The Messianic Hope by by Michael Rydelnic. Team Pyro comes from the same hermeneutic place I do, as well as Paul, Aaron, Alex, myself, and some others in this thread. .Thanks for the book review link. I read it and it looks like a book worth reading especially since it agrees with your hermenutical stance :) I don’t think that the disagreements in this thread are on the Messianic nature of the OT. That’s precisely why we are interested in the OT because it anticipates and leads us to Christ, HIs victory, His people, His kingdom, His temple, His Land, etc. The manner in which is does that is what is discussed here. I will get the book and see what it adds to the discussion. Blessings, JOHN
P.S. Perhaps a good book to read alongside of that one is “Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles for Evangelical Biblical Interpretation”
by Graeme Goldsworthy. A good review is at http://tinyurl.com/2vpruxo. Here is a quote that relates to our thread:
“The hermeneutics of the doing of Christ the fulfiller demand that we read carefully the Old Testament as a testimony to what he achieves in his life, death, and resurrection. The gospel is so dependent on its Old Testament antecedents that we can easily overlook some of its dimensions and texture if we do not carefully examine what it is that he fulfills. The Old Testament perspective on eschatology, with all the rich variety of its expectations of restoration, finds its resolution in the work of Christ. This includes the promises concerning the people, the place of God’s kingdom, the temple, and redemption from sin. It also includes the promise of a new creation. Thus the hermeneutics of the cross of Christ must go beyond forgiveness of sin to the new creation. Jesus on the cross was putting the universe back together; he was restoring the true order of creation” (304).
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[Paul Henebury] The essence of temple in the OT is most certainly an architectural structure, and God gave the architectural pattern! It was a meeting place; a tent and then a building which David collected materials for and Solomon built. It was still called a temple after God’s presence left it in Ezek.11 (e.g. in the Gospels). NT writers use the word “temple” for structures (Lk.2; 2 Thess.2; Rev.11) that people enter.What was it Jesus meant in John 2:19? He tells us in John 2:20.
cf Matt26:61;27:40, Mark14:58;15:29
What did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 3:16-18 or 1 Cor 6:19?
Rev 21:22 - “And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.”
That is some kind of temple. The Earthly temple was only a pattern or shadow of the heavenly reality and in the new Earth, it comes down to dwell with men. This is what we long for, not animal sacrifices.
Regarding your argument that the fulfillment of prophecy must have been clearly understood by the Old Testament hearers without any further revelation shed on it, I offer the parables of Christ and Eph 3:2-11 as examples of the fact that many times clear prophecies of Scripture are not understood until God opens the eyes of the spirit to see and the ears of the spirit to hear.
[Paul Henebury] God promised Israel land…“For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.” (Gen 13:15)
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
- which is Christ.
[Paul Henebury] I believe Jesus told them about the kingdom they asked about.Yes. He taught them in Matthew 13 and Matthew 25 - the kingdom involves stewardship, sowing the gospel, etc.
And, before someone gets a chance to say it, yes, this is the same message Paul taught until his death (Acts 28:31).
[jpdsr51] Thanks for the book review link. I read it and it looks like a book worth reading especially since it agrees with your hermeneutical stance :)Smilin’ back at ya.
I don’t think that the disagreements in this thread are on the Messianic nature of the OT. That’s precisely why we are interested in the OT because it anticipates and leads us to Christ, HIs victory, His people, His kingdom, His temple, His Land, etc. The manner in which is does that is what is discussed here.Precisely
Perhaps a good book to read alongside of that one is “Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles for Evangelical Biblical Interpretation” by Graeme Goldsworthy. A good review is at http://tinyurl.com/2vpruxo. Here is a quote that relates to our thread:”The hermeneutics of the doing of Christ the fulfiller demand that we read carefully the Old Testament as a testimony to what he achieves in his life, death, and resurrection….I have not read Gospel-centered Hermeneutics. But fans of Goldsworthy will find his hermeneutic process equally described, albeit a bit less formally, in Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, (Eerdmanns, 2000).
Essentially, Goldsworthy starts with the premise that Luke 24:44 is the interpretive key of Scripture:
“These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”Goldsworthy believes this covers every verse in the OT, yes, every. Others will not presume Jesus was teaching that every passage is to be fitted into a “Christ-centered hermeneutic” based on that verse, but that the Lord was bespeaking instead that each of three divisions of the OT, (Law, Prophets, Psalms) testify to him. The latter views seems to be closer to the words of Jesus, no?
Further, Goldsworthy confuses interpretation with application; perhaps this problem is remedied in his 2006 work. But it is hard to imagine that it is so since his conclusions are unchanged. “The goal of interpretation, or hermeneutics, is nothing more or less that to uncover the links between the ancient text and the contemporary hearer…” (127). Sorry.
Goldsworthy has confused two separate items – interpretation depends upon hermeneutics. To include the contemporary reader in the hermeneutical process, indeed, worse yet, in the interpretive process, is to spiral oneself out of the Bible. He has confused important theological terms and misguides the reader to make an interpretation a hermeneutical center – the gospel (84). Sadly, for a book purporting to be biblical in its theological approach, his exegesis to support this claim is practically non-existent. As one would expect, Goldsworthy upbraids the Dispensationalism as
“flawed because it does not draw its interpretive presuppositions from the Bible. For example, it stresses that all prophecy is fulfilled in a literal sense. This is not according to the evidence of the New Testament, which interprets prophecy in the light of Christ” (75-6).Certainly the New Testament prophets are given great freedom in their range of interpretation, for they are prophets. However, it seems the greater part of humility to leave such a role to them and for we who live so many years later not to boast of a similar gift. Indeed, the prophecies of Christ’s first coming are quite literally fulfilled to the glory of God and the salvation of His people. Sadly this hermeneutical key to future prophecies is left unmentioned by the Goldsworthy.
Is this important to the Old Testament expositor? Yes.
Goldsworthy finds everything and anything is related to Christ. In the Psalms Jesus is the true listener and true preacher (43). Really? Who sez?
Here’s some examples:
To the thief on the cross — Jesus words of entering the kingdom are supposedly fulfilled that day (44). But not because the text says that (it doesn’t) but because it fits Goldworthy’s fulfillment motif.
For the author, “all prophecy is fulfilled in the resurrection and ascension” (56). With such a broad brush, why deal with OT details in a laborious exegetical process when dealing with prophetic passages? Preaching is the means to bring in the kingdom (postmillennial?) and this becomes the interpretation of Acts 1:8.
So where does one go when he disagrees with the author’s theology? The lack of exegetical work is critical to those who want to agree with the conclusions and who want to exalt Christ, but don’t want to abandon hermeneutics along the way.
For example, John 2:19-22 becomes the lens through which any OT passage dealing with the tabernacle/temple can be understood. But there are other evaluations of the Johannine passage that remove the “true temple” motif. Once one sets up the redemptive hermeneutic, 90% of the interpretive work is done. O.T details are irrelevant and unhelpful.
A more trustworthy (less Goldsworthy) interpretive process is one in which the original audience, rather than the modern audience, is part of the interpretive process. This places the work of Christ most often in application. Believers are edified, Christ is honored, and the Scriptures are left to maintain their original force without a straitjacket that sounds promising - even “fulfilled.” In reality, I fear his process is simply a limitation on the force of the OT text.
Thank you, Ted, for setting us straight on Goldsworthy :) but I am willing to wager that those who read him will refreshingly come to different conclusions.
Goldsworthy sums up the relationship of Jesus Christ to the OT:
The New Testament emphasizes the historic person of Christ and what he did for us, through faith, to become the friends of God. The emphasis is also on him as the one who sums up and brings to their fitting climax all the promises and expectations raised in the Old Testament. There is a priority of order here, which we must take into account if we are to understand the Bible correctly. It is the gospel event, as that which brings about faith in the people of God, that will motivate, direct, pattern, and empower the life of the Christian community. So we start from the gospel and move to an understanding of Christian living, and the final goal toward which we are moving.
Again we start from the gospel and move back into the Old Testament to see what lies behind the person and work of Christ. The Old Testament is not completely superceded by the gospel, for that would make it irrelevant to us. It helps us understand the gospel by showing us the origins and meanings of the various ideas and special words used to describe Christ and his works in the New Testament. Yet we must also recognize that Christ is God’s fullest and final Word to mankind. As such he reveals to us the final meaning of the Old Testament (According to Plan, pp. 106-107).
Goldsworthy sums up the relationship of Jesus Christ to the OT:
The New Testament emphasizes the historic person of Christ and what he did for us, through faith, to become the friends of God. The emphasis is also on him as the one who sums up and brings to their fitting climax all the promises and expectations raised in the Old Testament. There is a priority of order here, which we must take into account if we are to understand the Bible correctly. It is the gospel event, as that which brings about faith in the people of God, that will motivate, direct, pattern, and empower the life of the Christian community. So we start from the gospel and move to an understanding of Christian living, and the final goal toward which we are moving.
Again we start from the gospel and move back into the Old Testament to see what lies behind the person and work of Christ. The Old Testament is not completely superceded by the gospel, for that would make it irrelevant to us. It helps us understand the gospel by showing us the origins and meanings of the various ideas and special words used to describe Christ and his works in the New Testament. Yet we must also recognize that Christ is God’s fullest and final Word to mankind. As such he reveals to us the final meaning of the Old Testament (According to Plan, pp. 106-107).
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[Ted Bigelow]Are you saying the original hearers of the writings of the Old Testament prophets (yeah, even the prophets themselves) clearly understood the precise meanings of the things that the prophets spoke?
A more trustworthy (less Goldsworthy) interpretive process is one in which the original audience, rather than the modern audience, is part of the interpretive process. This places the work of Christ most often in application. Believers are edified, Christ is honored, and the Scriptures are left to maintain their original force without a straitjacket that sounds promising - even “fulfilled.” In reality, I fear his process is simply a limitation on the force of the OT text.
Isaiah 6:9-11
[AndrewSuttles] Are you saying the original hearers of the writings of the Old Testament prophets (yeah, even the prophets themselves) clearly understood the precise meanings of the things that the prophets spoke? Isaiah 6:9-11Not always.
But an interpretation worthy of your trust is one that studies to understand what the original audience was supposed to understand by what the prophet spoke and wrote to them. We are not a part of that interpretive process. We are to hear and obey appropriate application, which can only be made if:
a) we are left out of the interpretive process (contra Goldsworthy);
b) we actually understand the prophet’s words directed at a specific audience from a specific time, ambiguities included.
[jpdsr51] Thank you, Ted, for setting us straight on Goldsworthy :) but I am willing to wager that those who read him will refreshingly come to different conclusions.How much? A Philly cup o’ Joe? (With Greg?) If so, you’re on. I concede, and will gladly pay.
Bro,
Let me show you the danger….
Look at how Goldsworthy front loads things - taking from your quote here:
There is a priority of order here, which we must take into account if we are to understand the Bible correctly. It is the gospel event, as that which brings about faith in the people of God, that will motivate, direct, pattern, and empower the life of the Christian community.The gospel event is the priority, but not in hermeneutics. Why? Because you can’t understand the gospel event apart from hermeneutics. Godlsworthy wants to understand the gospel by one hermeneutic - which is a literal hermeneutic. “Hey, the Bible says Jesus died and rose again to atone for my sins! It teaches me the redemptive event by taking its words literally! Praise God”
Then he switches.
If you want to understand the gospel event in connection to the OT, you must change the hermeneutics by which you understood the gospel from the NT into a fulfillment hermeneutic that uses non-literal words, terms, and symbols.
All we dispensationalists ask of you guys is not to change boats once you get saved. Is that too much to ask…. Just kidding,
While the approach is more refreshing at first, it’s power to satisfy is limited becasue it short sheets the OT detail on our glorious Lord and Savior, mostly in His 2nd Coming.
I will argue that the focus on Christ attained by RH is askance and more in one’s imagination than from the pages of Scripture. I would argue you are settling for Mickey D’s and not Ruth Chris. The OT serves Christian steak, becasue what it teaches about Christ through a GH hermeneutic is mind-blowing. The intensity of flavor is so rich. Let’s turn to Daniel 7…. oh.. wait. I have to get back to work. Maybe another time.
I’m hungry.
If you like that book, you’ll love The Meaning of the Pentateuch by John Sailhamer. You got to order that one too, Ted. You can read my review of that http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2010/07/27/the-meaning-of-the-pent… here . It’s a lot longer and gets deep in places but it seems like in many respects Sailhamer’s work is behind the book you recommend.
Here’s my take on where these kind of books fit in with this Dispensational - CT debate we’re having. They take it to a whole different level, an exegetical approach to the OT which actually corroborates much of what CT proponents have been saying all along. I contend that the NT authors saw the OT Messianicly and as pointing to their day for ultimate fulfillment. Sailhamer brings that back a bit and shows how the OT itself exposits in ways very similar to Paul and other Christian apostles. He shows how a “biblical Jesus” is to be found in the way the canon is structured and how the Psalter is structured (with Psalm 2, 72 and 145 as the pivotal psalms).
The NT uses the OT very theologically, and some worry that we can’t follow them in their seemingly indiscriminate, off-the-cuff, out-of-nowhere connections they make. I see it as the NT revealing that we should make such connections because that is what the OT really pointed to. So Sailhamer and company show that this same theological use of earlier canonical books was already at play in the OT itself. OT prophets were using the Pentateuch and finding Pauline sentiments there, hundreds of years before Paul.
So ultimately I see the compositional approach as ratifying my approach, if it doesn’t also help fine tune and sharpen my understanding of how all the Bible fits together.
As an aside, the people who are most apt to preserve the OT from NT eisegetical readings or whatever they call it, seem also to be the ones who either simply moralize the OT or ignore it. The ones encouraging a whole-Bible approach to preaching and theology in a Christ-centered, Graemesworthy-ish sense, actually are preaching out of the OT regularly. I can think of a famous dispensational expositor who hasn’t published one single-book commentary on an OT book but has just about finished his NT commentary. So who is really valuing the OT?
As I said before though, this doesn’t have to be a fight. Almost all the differences come down to our view of prophecy. Both sides agree in a messianic thrust in the OT. Can’t we agree to lower the rhetoric a bit and see that other eschatological options are available from people who respect and care about Scripture?
Here’s my take on where these kind of books fit in with this Dispensational - CT debate we’re having. They take it to a whole different level, an exegetical approach to the OT which actually corroborates much of what CT proponents have been saying all along. I contend that the NT authors saw the OT Messianicly and as pointing to their day for ultimate fulfillment. Sailhamer brings that back a bit and shows how the OT itself exposits in ways very similar to Paul and other Christian apostles. He shows how a “biblical Jesus” is to be found in the way the canon is structured and how the Psalter is structured (with Psalm 2, 72 and 145 as the pivotal psalms).
The NT uses the OT very theologically, and some worry that we can’t follow them in their seemingly indiscriminate, off-the-cuff, out-of-nowhere connections they make. I see it as the NT revealing that we should make such connections because that is what the OT really pointed to. So Sailhamer and company show that this same theological use of earlier canonical books was already at play in the OT itself. OT prophets were using the Pentateuch and finding Pauline sentiments there, hundreds of years before Paul.
So ultimately I see the compositional approach as ratifying my approach, if it doesn’t also help fine tune and sharpen my understanding of how all the Bible fits together.
As an aside, the people who are most apt to preserve the OT from NT eisegetical readings or whatever they call it, seem also to be the ones who either simply moralize the OT or ignore it. The ones encouraging a whole-Bible approach to preaching and theology in a Christ-centered, Graemesworthy-ish sense, actually are preaching out of the OT regularly. I can think of a famous dispensational expositor who hasn’t published one single-book commentary on an OT book but has just about finished his NT commentary. So who is really valuing the OT?
As I said before though, this doesn’t have to be a fight. Almost all the differences come down to our view of prophecy. Both sides agree in a messianic thrust in the OT. Can’t we agree to lower the rhetoric a bit and see that other eschatological options are available from people who respect and care about Scripture?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Ted Bigelowa said: “we are left out of the interpretive process (contra Goldsworthy).”
Even in ‘trying to understand what the original audience understood’ you are part of the interpretive process. There is no way to divorce oneself from being in the interpretive process. We all come with our pre-understanding, our presuppositions, our systems (well formulated or not), views of how the OT is used in the NT; views on the roles of antecedent and future revelation in relation to a text, various understandings of genre, literal, sensus plenior, etc.
But I’m sure you know that so must have meant something other than the ‘literal’ meaning of your words :)
Even in ‘trying to understand what the original audience understood’ you are part of the interpretive process. There is no way to divorce oneself from being in the interpretive process. We all come with our pre-understanding, our presuppositions, our systems (well formulated or not), views of how the OT is used in the NT; views on the roles of antecedent and future revelation in relation to a text, various understandings of genre, literal, sensus plenior, etc.
But I’m sure you know that so must have meant something other than the ‘literal’ meaning of your words :)
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[Ted Bigelow] Let me show you the danger….Forgive me, Ted, but if there is danger in Goldsworthy, it is one that attracts me.
For me, the danger of Goldsworthy and other biblical theologians like him is that their emphasis on the big story of the Bible of what God accomplishes for sinners in Christ becomes the compelling story into which every other story of the Bible and human history must fit. The big story keeps me from having two stories of two peoples and two destinies but rather compels me to see how the little story of what God was doing in ancient Israel anticipated what he would do for Jew and Gentile in the big story of union with Christ. The big story keeps me from a ‘Veggie-tale’ approach to the OT which leaves me with character studies and moral examples and prophetic charts. The big story compels me to see that God’s purposes have always been focused toward a redeemed humanity and a restored cosmos. The big story draws me to Christ as the True Israel, the Seed of Abraham, the Second Adam, The Son of David, the temple where I meet and worship God, the land in which I find rest, the victor over Satan, the king whose kingdom never ends, the prophet, priest, and king.
Now perhaps you have this and more in dispensationalism. If your chosen approach to biblical interpreation draws you to the glory of Christ, then I am happy for you. It matters little which hermeneutical approach brings one to see the glory of Christ. But please, let’s not talk about the danger of Goldsworthy or Ryrie. We all seek the glory of the same Christ. I don’t know you, but do love you brother and look forward to the cup of coffee.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[jpdsr51] Ted Bigelowa said: “we are left out of the interpretive process (contra Goldsworthy).”….Still smiling.. phew, that’s good.
But I’m sure you know that so must have meant something other than the ‘literal’ meaning of your words :)
Check the context. My words may be literally taken. The context of mya words shows that I ama differentiating between factoring self into the interpretive process, vs. checking myselfa out of the interpretive process. The grammatical historical hermeneutic seeks to remove self out of the interpretive process.
[Ted Bigelow] Check the context. My words may be literally taken. The context of mya words shows that I ama differentiating between factoring self into the interpretive process, vs. checking myselfa out of the interpretive process. The grammatical historical hermeneutic seeks to remove self out of the interpretive process.I am still not sure what you mean but that may be due to the distortion of my hermeneutical lens :) All evangelicals attempt the impossible task of removing themselves from the interpretative task though I think I’d prefer to say, “to try to be self-aware of the baggage I bring to the text.”
So explain to me what you mean by ‘factoring or removing self out of the interpretive process.’ In my understanding, the authorial intent of the divine author goes beyond that of the human author. So even though a text is originally directed to say, Israel, the divine author intended it to be part of the church’s Bible and to address the church. Do you mean that neither I nor the church are in the divine author’s mind and intent in the giving of the OT text and that we should remove ourselves as not being addressed in the text? I think this is the heart of what this thread is about, i.e. in what manner does the OT speak to the church?
I’m trying to undestand what you are saying.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
John,
Thanks for the post, and this point in particular:
If I read you right, you want to spread the recipients of say, Isaiah, to Grace Church, Philadelphia. The reason for this is because Isaiah was written by God, and God knew we who live all these years later would read it.
Would you have one intended audience for the human author, and another for the divine? If so, doesn’t this lead to two interpretations for each passage - one human, and one divine?
Or, to make it more practical, is Grace Church Philly in Isa 53:3? Did Grace Church despise and forsake Christ? After all, “He was despised and forsaken of men.” Were some of those men in your church?
Or does Isaiah 53:3 only apply to the people living in Israel who rejected Christ as their Messiah? Or both Israel, and Grace Church? Both the unbelieving Jews, and the believing Christians?
Thanks for the post, and this point in particular:
[John] In my understanding, the authorial intent of the divine author goes beyond that of the human author. So even though a text is originally directed to say, Israel, the divine author intended it to be part of the church’s Bible and to address the church. Do you mean that neither I nor the church are in the divine author’s mind and intent in the giving of the OT text and that we should remove ourselves as not being addressed in the text? I think this is the heart of what this thread is about, i.e. in what manner does the OT speak to the church?I think you have isolated the issue, it is authorial intent. Intent gets to the heart of interpretation, and interpretation requires discerning who the language is spoken to.
If I read you right, you want to spread the recipients of say, Isaiah, to Grace Church, Philadelphia. The reason for this is because Isaiah was written by God, and God knew we who live all these years later would read it.
Would you have one intended audience for the human author, and another for the divine? If so, doesn’t this lead to two interpretations for each passage - one human, and one divine?
Or, to make it more practical, is Grace Church Philly in Isa 53:3? Did Grace Church despise and forsake Christ? After all, “He was despised and forsaken of men.” Were some of those men in your church?
Or does Isaiah 53:3 only apply to the people living in Israel who rejected Christ as their Messiah? Or both Israel, and Grace Church? Both the unbelieving Jews, and the believing Christians?
TED said:If I read you right, you want to spread the recipients of say, Isaiah, to Grace Church, Philadelphia. The reason for this is because Isaiah was written by God, and God knew we who live all these years later would read it.
Would you have one intended audience for the human author, and another for the divine? If so, doesn’t this lead to two interpretations for each passage - one human, and one divine?
Or, to make it more practical, is Grace Church Philly in Isa 53:3? Did Grace Church despise and forsake Christ? After all, “He was despised and forsaken of men.” Were some of those men in your church?
Or does Isaiah 53:3 only apply to the people living in Israel who rejected Christ as their Messiah? Or both Israel, and Grace Church? Both the unbelieving Jews, and the believing Christians? Do I then take you to mean that the OT Scriptures are not addressed to the church. I doubt think this is what you mean, but I still don’t understand in what way the Hebrew Scriptures are actually Christian Scriptures to you.
When the human author wrote the words of the original text, they did not know the nature of the church that would be reading the Hebrew Scriptures as Christian Scriptures, though in some sense they knew they were serving us in what they wrote (1 Peter 1:101-12). But I am sure that the divine author had both the original recipients and the ultimate recipients (the church) in mind (2 Tim 3:16, Rom 15:3-4). He also knew that the church would be reading the OT through the light of the full and final revelation in Jesus Christ (Luke 24). Do not the OT Scriptures provide doctrine, reproof, correction, training in righteousness; they are for our learning and hope; they speak of Christ to the church and for the church.
And yes, Isa 53 is God’s Word for the church in no less way than it was for the Ethiopian eunuch to whom Philip spoke or the numerous uses of it in the NT. Isa 53 is the confession of all believing Jews — and Gentiles.
Yes, the ultimate recipient whom the divine author had in mind is the church. In the full and final revelation that comes with Christ, we possess the fuller understanding of what the divine author intended through the human author’s words.
Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text” - not human and divine, as you say, but a divine message in seed form to the original recipients and a divine message in fuller blossom to the ultimate recipients?
Would you have one intended audience for the human author, and another for the divine? If so, doesn’t this lead to two interpretations for each passage - one human, and one divine?
Or, to make it more practical, is Grace Church Philly in Isa 53:3? Did Grace Church despise and forsake Christ? After all, “He was despised and forsaken of men.” Were some of those men in your church?
Or does Isaiah 53:3 only apply to the people living in Israel who rejected Christ as their Messiah? Or both Israel, and Grace Church? Both the unbelieving Jews, and the believing Christians? Do I then take you to mean that the OT Scriptures are not addressed to the church. I doubt think this is what you mean, but I still don’t understand in what way the Hebrew Scriptures are actually Christian Scriptures to you.
When the human author wrote the words of the original text, they did not know the nature of the church that would be reading the Hebrew Scriptures as Christian Scriptures, though in some sense they knew they were serving us in what they wrote (1 Peter 1:101-12). But I am sure that the divine author had both the original recipients and the ultimate recipients (the church) in mind (2 Tim 3:16, Rom 15:3-4). He also knew that the church would be reading the OT through the light of the full and final revelation in Jesus Christ (Luke 24). Do not the OT Scriptures provide doctrine, reproof, correction, training in righteousness; they are for our learning and hope; they speak of Christ to the church and for the church.
And yes, Isa 53 is God’s Word for the church in no less way than it was for the Ethiopian eunuch to whom Philip spoke or the numerous uses of it in the NT. Isa 53 is the confession of all believing Jews — and Gentiles.
Yes, the ultimate recipient whom the divine author had in mind is the church. In the full and final revelation that comes with Christ, we possess the fuller understanding of what the divine author intended through the human author’s words.
Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text” - not human and divine, as you say, but a divine message in seed form to the original recipients and a divine message in fuller blossom to the ultimate recipients?
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[jpdsr51]No way. One text, one meaning, but many applications.
Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text” - not human and divine, as you say, but a divine message in seed form to the original recipients and a divine message in fuller blossom to the ultimate recipients?
Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?
[Ted Bigelow]Here are a couple:[jpdsr51]No way. One text, one meaning, but many applications.
Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text” - not human and divine, as you say, but a divine message in seed form to the original recipients and a divine message in fuller blossom to the ultimate recipients?
Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?
Gen 22:18 > Galatians 3:16
Psalm 16:7-11 >Acts 2:25-31
So if I understand you correctly, David and Abraham understood exactly what the NT writers understood or would you say that the NT use of the OT text is simply an application.
It seems to me there is an OT seed which the original recipients grasped and a fuller blossom of understanding that the ultimate recipients, i.e. the church, understands.
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
Thanks to all who read and interacted with this article. Anyone who would like to continue interacting with me can do so at [email protected] or better yet, visit us or move to Philly and join in an exciting urban church plant. Blessings, JOHN
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
[jpdsr51]I think you misread what I asked:
Here are a couple:
Gen 22:18 > Galatians 3:16
Psalm 16:7-11 >Acts 2:25-31
[Ted Bigelow] Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?
[Ted Bigelow]SEED >>>>>>> BLOSSOM[jpdsr51]I think you misread what I asked:
Here are a couple:
Gen 22:18 > Galatians 3:16
Psalm 16:7-11 >Acts 2:25-31[Ted Bigelow] Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?
Gen 22:18 > Galatians 3:16
Psalm 16:7-11 >Acts 2:25-31
Same Text in OT and NT
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
Hi John,
That’s 4 texts. In post 92 you said:
All your examples are of multiple texts - Genesis, Galatians, Psalms, and Acts.
Shall we try it a 3rd time?
“Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?”
That’s 4 texts. In post 92 you said:
[John] Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text”To which I asked for an example of a single text that gives two interpretations.
All your examples are of multiple texts - Genesis, Galatians, Psalms, and Acts.
Shall we try it a 3rd time?
“Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?”
[Ted Bigelow] Hi John,Actually, there are two examples of single texts. Let’s try again.
That’s 4 texts. In post 92 you said:[John] Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text”To which I asked for an example of a single text that gives two interpretations.
All your examples are of multiple texts - Genesis, Galatians, Psalms, and Acts.
Shall we try it a 3rd time?
“Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?”
The single text of Gen 22:18 is also found in Galatians 3:16. It is the same ‘single’ text — the first mention of the ‘single’ text is seed the second mention of the ‘single’ text is blossom.
The same holds true of the ‘single’ text of Psalm 16:7-11 and Acts 2:25-31.
If this doesn’t answer your question, then we are talking about two different things and I’ll ask if you at least in these two instances of ‘single’ texts recognize a movement from seed to blossom and that the NT understanding of the ‘single’ text here exceeds that which was available to the OT audience.
Blessings, JOHN
church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis
A single text is a single text. Gen. 22:18 is a single text. Galatians 3:16 is a single text, that quotes Gen. 22:18, but in a context different than Genesis.
Each text requires its own exegesis based on all the factors evident within a GH hermeneutic.
So let’s have a single text with two meanings ;)
Each text requires its own exegesis based on all the factors evident within a GH hermeneutic.
So let’s have a single text with two meanings ;)
Discussion