Deciphering Covenant Theology (Part 1)
Image
This series is bound to annoy covenant theologians who stop by to read it. To them I want to say that my purpose here is certainly not to irritate anyone. If a CT has any problem with what is asserted in these posts he is very welcome to challenge it (giving proof where necessary).
For those readers who want a quick historical intro to CT perhaps my “A Very Brief History of Covenant Theology” will help.
First Things First
I have been reading covenant theology (CT) for many years; close to thirty. In that time, I have read numerous Systematic Theologies by covenant theologians, including Hodge, Dabney, Bavinck, Frame, Horton, Reymond, as well as expositions of CT by the likes of Warfield, Packer, Horton, Vos, Witsius, Owen, Turretin, and Robertson. I attended a staunchly Reformed CT seminary in England. I went to several churches where CT was preached for extensive periods. By far the majority of books I have read in the last thirty years have been written by covenant theologians. I know covenant theology.
But even though I am well acquainted with CT, I do not agree with it. I have been sympathetic for a long time to Dispensationalism (DT), and from there to construct Biblical Covenantalism. But Biblical Covenantalism could not have come into existence without CT and its emphasis upon teleology or purpose. I do respect CT and admire many of its adherents. At the real risk of losing many dispensational readers, I think CT is superior to DT is several respects: it is more Christological, more teleological, more cohesive, and more prescriptive. Because of all these things CT is theologically richer and deeper than DT.
I shall have more to say about that controversial statement further on. However, I want to go on record to say that if it had not been for the teleological (i.e., purpose-focused) genius of Covenant Theology I would never have come up with Biblical Covenantalism, for I would not have the perspective I needed to see things the way I needed to see them, nor know the question that needed asking.
This series will attempt to introduce Covenant Theology to the outsiders and uninitiated. I have found that among dispensationalists there is as much ignorance and misunderstanding of CT as there is vice versa. I have thought long and hard about the best way to present this study and the right sources to use. As far as presentation is concerned, I shall describe aspects of CT via quotations and summaries, which I shall then go on to critique. As far as the choice of authorities to employ, I think too many would muddy the waters, and too many quotes from the 16th and 17th centuries would lose half my readers. I have therefore decided to interact with five sources while adding material from elsewhere wherever necessary. My main sources are these:
- O. Palmer Robertson – The Christ of the Covenants
- Richard P. Belcher, Jr. – The Fulfillment of the Promise of God: An Explanation of Covenant Theology
- Guy P. Waters, J. Nicholas Reid & John H. Muether, eds., Covenant Theology: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives.
- Michael Brown & Zach Keele – Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored
- Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man.
All these are relatively recent yet authoritative texts on CT. Of course, in the case of Baptist CT these books will have to be supplemented. For that purpose, I will repair to the excellent work of Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, and also to Greg Nichols’ Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants.
My procedure will be to provide an accurate statement of the aspect under discussion (e.g., covenant of redemption, covenant of grace, infant baptism, federalism, Israel and the Church) before giving a more in-depth description supplemented with quotations.
CT is usually tied to Calvinist Reformed Theology (indeed, R.C. Sproul said that Covenant Theology is Reformed theology1), but that is not quite true. Jacob Arminius was a covenant theologian as anyone familiar with his works is aware. But in the main Sproul’s conviction is correct.
In the First Place – Watch for Deductions!
Before moving into the first descriptive part of this study, I feel the need to make something clear. A person will not understand CT unless they grasp two basic things. Firstly, CT reads the OT through the lens of the NT. Actually, that is not quite right. I should say that CT reads the OT through its own understanding of the NT. Which brings me to the second matter. To understand CT, one must comprehend the reasoning. CT is heavily deductive in its approach to Scripture and Theology. Let me explain what I mean.
Covenant theologians tell “stories.” The stories are persuasive because they are God-centered, Christological, NT oriented, and coherent (at least apparently). But they are stories, nonetheless. Often bits of the story get interpolated into the exegesis and explanations, so that at one moment you are reading something from Genesis, and the next a theology of Calvary via Paul is freighted in. It is difficult to many to see but there is a theological agenda always running in the background. Occasionally the veil slips a little and the background assumption can be seen. When this happens, one must pay special attention. Certain things are being taken for granted. One of the best places to see this is when CT’s are dealing with the actual covenants of God mentioned in the Bible; the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New particularly. Covenant theologians major on “theological interpretation.” For example, in reference to Genesis 3:15 Brown & Keele say,
[God] promises to form a community of people for himself whom he will set apart from the offspring of the devil and one day rescue from the latter’s fierce hostility…This community can be traced throughout redemptive history…not by bloodline, but by those who believe in God’s promise. As Paul says to Gentile Christians in Galatians 3:29: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” Thus, Genesis 3:15 reveals God’s first formation of his church.2
There are all kinds of assumptions inserted into this story. There is the assumption (based upon debatable exegesis) that the so-called “godly line” (which they will identify with the line of Seth), is set apart for God. There is the assumption that this “community of people,” though clearly a bloodline in Genesis, will become a community not based upon bloodlines, but is the same community, nonetheless. Then there is the drafting into the picture Paul’s words addressed to the churches of Galatia. Finally, there is the assumption that the church can, and indeed must exist prior to the resurrection of Jesus.
But let us remind ourselves of Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.
I realize that this “proto-evangelium” is supposed to promise a Savior, but does it? The remarks are addressed to the serpent and imply his doom. There is nary a word about redemption from sin. Satan’s conqueror will not be unscathed, but Satan will be destroyed. In the quotation from Brown & Keele above what is being woven into the fabric of Genesis 3:15 from the outside? Well, as a matter of fact, everything! There is not one assertion in the above quote which matches what is being stated in Genesis 3:15. The statement is setting you up for the story. Two groups are being set forth, a godly line and an ungodly line, the plan of “redemptive history” which the story will rely on is mentioned. Then the apostle Paul’s reference to Abraham in Galatians 3:29 is introduced and voila! the church is equated with the godly line of Genesis 3:15 and therefore “Genesis 3:15 reveals God’s first formation of his church.”
I have not begun to describe what Covenant Theology is, but I believe it necessary to put this “warning” before the reader’s eyes before doing even that. You will not be able to comprehend CT if you fail to grasp the deductive nature of its pronouncements.
One more thing: a look through systematic theologies by CT’s will reveal how important their theological covenants are to that discipline as well as biblical theology. he same cannot be said of the role of dispensations to Dispensational systematics! Think about that a while.
Photo by Mick Haupt on Unsplash.
Notes
1 R. C. Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics, 117f.,
2 Michael Brown & Zach Keele – Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored, 62.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (later Journal of Dispensational Theology). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
Looking forward to this one Paul. I also read your “Very Brief History…” and enjoyed it.
While I agree with you about the isogesis in Gen. 3:15, a principle of hermeneutics that we both share is “how would the original audience have understood it?”. It seems that Satan would at least understand that the Seed of the woman would defeat him completely (head crushing is pretty permanent). It’s also seems that he would understand the continuance of sin throughout the race. Maybe not all the way to a Savior exactly but he had to have known that his defeat would spell a defeat of the curse right?
I agree, with the exception of the fact that I personally would not describe it as a prot-evangelium, even though it is hinted at.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I’ve been mulling that statement for quite a while. I’ve come to the conclusion that it is impossible to tell. We can’t talk to anyone to ask them, and it’s unlikely that everyone in the “original audience” would understand it the same way. What this boils down to is more akin to “what do I understand this to mean.” We assume that the original audience would have understood it the same way, but there is no way to know that. I’m afraid it’s closer to WWJD (what would Jesus do) than we care to acknowledge. (I’m ducking now.)
G. N. Barkman
Greg, I respectfully disagree. We can consider things like the original hearer’s prior understanding, and culture to get a pretty decent understanding of what they believed. Especially in those instances where they say what they believe.
How do we know the original hearer’s prior understanding? We can learn about his culture, but even then, can only speculate as to how that culture shapes his understanding. It looks to me like 90% guessing with, perhaps, 10% accuracy. I agree that we can know in those instances where someone tells us what they believe. That’s accurate and helpful. Everything else is pretty much speculation.
G. N. Barkman
The real issue is, what did the author intend?
JSB
Exactly. That’s what we want to know. If our interpretation is accurate, it will correspond to what the author intended. But experience tells us that our interpretations are not always accurate because we see too many examples of capable and thoroughly orthodox scholars who reach differing conclusions about the meaning of a passage. They both believe they understand what the author intended, but it is impossible that both are correct.
We compound the possible error when we also assume that our interpretation is what the original audience understood. Even if our interpretation is correct, we have no way of knowing if the original audience understood it the same way. Unless they tell us, we are merely speculating. They may have misunderstood it, but we understand it correctly. Or they may have understood it correctly, but we misunderstand it. But again, how do we know what they understood unless they tell us? It appears to me that this is a fool’s errand.
G. N. Barkman
By the way, the original audience of Genesis 3:15 was the Children of Israel under Moses.
JSB
[G. N. Barkman]Exactly. That’s what we want to know. If our interpretation is accurate, it will correspond to what the author intended. But experience tells us that our interpretations are not always accurate because we see too many examples of capable and thoroughly orthodox scholars who reach differing conclusions about the meaning of a passage. They both believe they understand what the author intended, but it is impossible that both are correct.
We compound the possible error when we also assume that our interpretation is what the original audience understood. Even if our interpretation is correct, we have no way of knowing if the original audience understood it the same way. Unless they tell us, we are merely speculating. They may have misunderstood it, but we understand it correctly. Or they may have understood it correctly, but we misunderstand it. But again, how do we know what they understood unless they tell us? It appears to me that this is a fool’s errand.
I don’t have time to respond in detail tonight but allow me a short response. The grammatical-historical method of interpretation calls for us to consider the original meaning (yes we are trying to discover what God intended) given the language used and how that would be understood at that time. What is a threshing floor? Would an inner-city teen understand that term without doing a historical study? How about wheat and chaff? The “horns of their altars”(Jer. 17)? Should we just say “I wonder if the people of that day could have understood? Oh well, no way to know.” I don’t see how we could ever really understand anything with that hermeneutic. It seems a pretty straightforward corollary of perspicuity that God communicated His word to people in a way that was understandable in their time/place.
CTs are quick to point to “apocalyptic genre“ ‘in interpreting Revelation. They do this because they claim that the Revelation reflects contemporary literature. They base a highly metaphorical interpretation on supposed affinities with literature of that genre at that time. How can they know how apocalyptic literature would be understood?
[J. Baillet]By the way, the original audience of Genesis 3:15 was the Children of Israel under Moses.
Is it a historically accurate rendering of what God said to Satan though? If so, Satan was the first to hear those words.
“What did the author intend?” and “What did the original readers understand” should be the same thing. We should assume the author wrote with the intention that his readers understood what he was trying to say. So there is no dichotomy, or at least significant dichotomy, between these two.
Can we know this? Of course we can with a large degree of clarity. Perfectly? Perhaps not. But it is not so cloudy as some would have us believe. I think often the idea that “We can’t really know” is code for “I don’t believe what it seems clearly to say so it must say something else.”
At the end of the day, if we can’t understand the author’s intention, what can we possibly do with the text? We are now in the position of reader authority where the text means whatever I think it does, and if you think it means something different, it is all good because there is no mediator to determine the meaning.
And if we can’t understand the author’s intention, at what point did that start? The first reader? the second generation? the third? It seems to me that even by the time of Jesus (1500 years later), Jesus expected his contemporaries to understand what Moses intended them. And he held them responsible for it.
So did the clarity of the author’s intention end with the crucifixion? Or the resurrection? Where did it end? Or does it still continue?
The bottom line is that God held his people responsible for the meaning of the text. “I didn’t understand it” was not an excuse for disobedience. “My neighbor thought it meant something different” was not an excuse for disregarding it. So if you think authorial intention and original hearers are not authoritative, then when did that stop?
I think one of the great downfalls of Covenant Theology is related to this question. The first Christians, the Jews, would not have seen Covenant Theology in the text (for obvious reasons). Kaiser puts it this way:
The first New Testament believers tested what they had heard from Jesus and his disciples against what was written in the Old Testament. They had no other canon or source of help. How, then, were they able to get it right?
Thus, from a methodological point of view, reading the Bible backward is incorrect historically as well as procedurally. … [The early Christians] could not have tested what was established (and true) for them (possessing only the Old Testament) by what was being received as new (the New Testament). (Kaiser 2003, 26)
If the apostles were going to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah of the OT, they were going to have to use the OT in a way that made sense to Jews. You actually had the use the OT. The idea that we interpret the OT in light of the NT is a modern phenomenon. The apostles didn’t do that because they couldn’t. Jesus didn’dt do that. Neither appealed to some special hermeneutic or later revelation. Both said, “You should believe because you can see it there.” And we should follow in their footsteps.
When someone appeals to later revelation, they are doing something that Jesus and the apostles did not do. The later revelation most simply put, was, “See what was already said.”
…in light of what has now come to pass. Much OT prophecy was Not understood by the Jews until it was fulfilled. The use of the OT scriptures to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah was linked to NT fulfillment of OT prophecy. There are so many examples of this in the NT that I find it surprising to have to argue this point. One example: Christ’s apostles seeming inability to accept His pending death and resurrection. The NT says that it was only after the resurrection of Christ that they “remembered” the prophecies regarding this. It took the NT fulfillment to clarify the OT statements. Yes, we should and must read the OT in light of the New. Any other approach is to ignore divinely given explanation of the Old.
G. N. Barkman
Larry is correct that what the author intended and what the original readers understood should be the same thing. But that’s not what we observe. Sometimes, even the human authors failed to clearly understand what they wrote. (What the ultimate author, God intended. see I Peter 1:10,11) The scriptures are replete with examples of people who failed to understand what was written. Very few Jews understood that the promised messiah would be a suffering messiah, a major reason for the rejection of Jesus. Did the OT fail to reveal this truth? No. It was plainly declared, but seldom understood. How do we know it was not understood? Because so many first century readers of the OT, both believers as well as unbelievers, failed to understand it. We know what they understood (or failed to understand) because NT authors told us. Otherwise, we can only speculate as to what they understood.
Our supposed ability to know what the original readers understood is an illusion. We don’t know except when the Bible tell us. To imagine that our understanding of an OT text is what the original readers understood is to nurture a false confidence in our ability to interpret scripture correctly.
G. N. Barkman
Brother Barkman, With due respect, I think you have to believe that given your theological precommitments. But remember the NT itself.
Jesus said, “These testify about me.” In other words, it’s already there and you should see it.
Or when he rebukes the two men on the road to Emmaus. He does not tell them it’s unfortunate they didn’t have the NT fulfillment. He condemns them for being slow and foolish not to believe all that the prophets had written. In other words, the problem wasn’t lack of clarity. It was lack of belief.
Even your reference to the disciples remembering was specifically connected to his temple comment (something not found in the OT), and when Jesus rose from the dead, “Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.” In other words, it was already there to be believed. The problem wasn’t in some lack of clarity but in a lack of belief.
You cite 1 Peter 1:10-11 as evidence of a lack of knowledge, but did you read the passage? (I speak as a fool. Of course you did. But let’s read it again.) What they did not understand was the person or time. In other words, they didn’t which baby was the fulfillment or the particular time of that baby’s birth. It wasn’t that they didn’t understand what they were writing. They understood exactly that they were predicting the coming of Christ, the sufferings of Christ, and his glory to follow. Again, there was no confusion as to what they were talking about. The “careful searches and inquiries” were simply about the person and timing.
So I think you strike out on all these accounts.
But let’s press in just another second here. You say,
Our supposed ability to know what the original readers understood is an illusion. We don’t know except when the Bible tell us. To imagine that our understanding of an OT text is what the original readers understood is to nurture a false confidence in our ability to interpret scripture correctly.
If this is true, how do we know we understand the NT correctly? After all if the OT is not clear without the NT, what do we need to make the NT clear? Or is the NT sufficient on its own to be understood? And if it is, why isn’t the OT?
Furthermore, if this is true how can we understand the vast majority of the OT for which there is no NT guidance? Let’s face it, very little of the OT is cited in the NT. Some 600 times I believe EJ Young said. We might perhaps double or triple that in the interest of being generous. But that would be very generous because the NT is about 1/4 the length of the OT and contains much original material. Which means that there isn’t much room for a lot of the OT. So how can we possibly know what that part of the OT means if we can’t trust the words? And if we can trust the words for that part of it, why can we not trust the words for the other part of it?
If the OT is so confusing to people, then why does God condemn them for failing to believe something that they couldn’t understand to start with? And why do Jesus and the apostles consistently point back to “what was written” or “what has been written” if it was unintelligible to begin with?
In sum, once you remove meaning from the words and put them in some later interpretation of the words, you have opened up a can of worms that will make communication impossible. You can’t even really know what I am saying, or what you are saying.
I have heard at least three different reasons for why Jesus wept.
- He was sad because Lazarus was dead
- He was sad because of the unbelief of the others
- He was empathatic - he was “weeping with those who were weeping.”
There are probably others.
Which is the correct one?
Does it matter?
If so, why?
Just a simple example of the reality that we imperfect humans will never know the exact, proper interpretation/application of large quantities of the Bible.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]I have heard at least three different reasons for why Jesus wept.
- He was sad because Lazarus was dead
- He was sad because of the unbelief of the others
- He was empathatic - he was “weeping with those who were weeping.”
There are probably others.
Which is the correct one?
Does it matter?
If so, why?
Just a simple example of the reality that we imperfect humans will never know the exact, proper interpretation/application of large quantities of the Bible.
In this example, the Scripture isn’t clear as to why he wept (although I believe John gives us some context clues). It is clear that he wept. The argument being made above transferred to this example would be to question whether we could know for certain that Jesus actually wept.
On JNoel’s point above I would reply that a passage may yield several possible interpretations (as your example shows), but all of them will be readily traced back to the text in context. What is inadmissible in my opinion is to claim that the words of the text mean something utterly different than what the words together can logically yield.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Did the OT scholars of Christ’s day expect the promised messiah to be a suffering messiah? Did the apostles of Christ expect Jesus (whom they believed to be the messiah) to be a suffering messiah? Quoting Christ chiding them for what they should have understood fails to address the reality of what they did understand. Clearly the author’s intent, and the readers understanding were poles apart. That’s reality. We’re not dealing with what should be. We’re dealing with was. The OT was not clear to very many, if any original readers. Certainly not first century readers.
Actually, we all import NT knowledge into our interpretation of the OT. To interpret the OT without NT knowledge would require no prior exposure to the NT. I doubt that there is a Christian anywhere for whom this would apply. The closest we can get is to see how an orthodox Jew who avoids exposure to the NT understands the OT. By my observation, not very accurately. We need NT understanding to help us understand the OT, and visa versa.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Actually, we all import NT knowledge into our interpretation of the OT. To interpret the OT without NT knowledge would require no prior exposure to the NT. I doubt that there is a Christian anywhere for whom this would apply. The closest we can get is to see how an orthodox Jew who avoids exposure to the NT understands the OT. By my observation, not very accurately. We need NT understanding to help us understand the OT, and visa versa.
My understanding is that Orthodox Jews avoid reading Isaiah 53. A Christian Jewish friend once told the story of reading Isa 53 to some Jews and asking them who it was talking about. They correctly identified it with Jesus. Then he asked them who wrote it. They thought it was from somewhere in the New Testament.
So I don’t know if the OT is all that hard to understand apart from the NT. No doubt there are nuances of prophetic fulfillment that become much more vivid and clear once you know the NT, but overall, I don’t think the Jewish reader would be unable to confirm apostolic preaching with the OT Scriptures. The Bereans did just that.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
… were originally said by God as least in the presence of Adam and Eve as well as Satan.
JSB
[josh p]Is it a historically accurate rendering of what God said to Satan though? If so, Satan was the first to hear those words.
Certainly Genesis 3:15 is an accurate rendering written by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of what God said to Satan in the presence of Adam and Eve. They were the original hearers of these words as well. However, there is no indication that it is an exhaustive account. Moses was not a witness to this encounter in the Garden of Eden. The only witness who has recorded the event is God. Subsequent revelation by God can shed light on what happened and the significance of what happened. For example, you recognize that it was Satan in the Garden to whom God was speaking. Yet, Satan is never mentioned in this account. Only “the serpent.” You only know it was Satan because of subsequent revelation. Revelation 12:9, in fact. Therefore, all of Scripture is of use in interpreting Genesis 3:15.
JSB
It really doesn’t matter how exhaustive or inexhaustive the dialogue in Genesis 3 is. what matters is that it is the Word of God to us. J. Baillet is correct to say that Rev. 12 helps us identify Satan in Gen. 3, but the whole of Scripture does not do what Rev. 12 can do in this case, it is not true to say all Scripture helps us interpret Genesis 3 (I think I know what he means but I thought it right to qualify it).
In this back and forth about original intent we must be careful to parse the text we have been given with the events themselves. There can be a difference, as John Sailhamer always pointed out in his books. Again, there may be several possible interpretations of authorial intent (“possible” here meaning “in semantic relation to the words employed”), but interpreting the text in context must be the rule of thumb.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Dr. Henebury’s qualification is well taken. All of Scripture does not directly help us interpret Genesis 3. There are passages such Revelation 12, Romans 5, and I Timothy 2:13-15 which are helpful. “Jesus wept,” not so much.
JSB
Did the OT scholars of Christ’s day expect the promised messiah to be a suffering messiah? Did the apostles of Christ expect Jesus (whom they believed to be the messiah) to be a suffering messiah?
In both cases, they should have. And Jesus points that out.
With your emphasis on the NT, why aren’t the words of Jesus about what they should have seen in the text not sufficient for you. If there was any doubt about it, I would think that would settle it. That is not intended to be smart aleck at all. I just don’t understand. Jesus condemns but you are willing to give them a pass. Why?
Again, remember Jesus rebuke of them was based on a failure to believe what was written. In other words it was there and it was there clearly enough to warrant belief and to be judged for the lack of belief.
When Jesus addressed the reality of what they did believe, he addressed in terms of foolishness, slowness, hardness of heart, etc., not lack of clarity. He did not allow them to say, “You know, it really isn’t clear.” In fact, in Luke 24, with the ability to point to his hands and feet and to reveal himself to them clearly and immediately, he instead takes them back to Scripture and what they should have believed first. He only revealed himself at the very end.
Again, why do we think the OT is unclear? Jesus used it and condemned people for not seeing him in it.
Clearly the author’s intent, and the readers understanding were poles apart.
First, I don’t think that is true. Second, you left out a word … “Original readers” or “original hearers.” But even at that, the condemnation seems clear enough to rule this rationalization as out of bounds. And there were plenty who did see it, such as Anna, Simeon, John the Baptist, the prophets of old, etc.
We’re not dealing with what should be.
But Christ is dealing with what should be. So why aren’t we?
The OT was not clear to very many, if any original readers.
I have no idea how you can make this statement. How could you testify to this? Go back to Luke 24 again. Those two men understood quite a bit and understood it correctly. The condemnation is for failure to believe “all” that the prophets had spoken. They believed part of it. Their problem was not that they believed too much but that they believed too little. They got a lot right. They just didn’t go all the way with it. I presume Jesus used the words of the OT to show what they failed to believe.
Actually, we all import NT knowledge into our interpretation of the OT. To interpret the OT without NT knowledge would require no prior exposure to the NT.
Of course, but that is to miss the point of the discussion.
Brother Barkman,
I would love to hear you respond to the questions i posed above and am repeating here. How would you answer this:
How do we know we understand the NT correctly? After all if the OT is not clear without the NT, what do we need to make the NT clear? Or is the NT sufficient on its own to be understood? And if it is, why isn’t the OT?
How can we understand the vast majority of the OT for which there is no NT guidance? Let’s face it, very little of the OT is cited in the NT. Some 600 times I believe EJ Young said. We might perhaps double or triple that in the interest of being generous. But that would be very generous because the NT is about 1/4 the length of the OT and contains much original material. Which means that there isn’t much room for a lot of the OT. So how can we possibly know what that part of the OT means if we can’t trust the words? And if we can trust the words for that part of it, why can we not trust the words for the other part of it?
Should readers of the OT understand the meaning? Yes. Did they? Clearly, for the most part, No. At least where we have a record of their understanding. You interpret Jesus rebuke as saying they would have understood if they had paid more attention and taken the words at face value. (As literal as possible.) That’s an assumption on your part. You don’t really know what Jesus meant about principles of interpretation. He may have been saying something like, “If you had been more alert, you would have been able to understand the types and symbols better. Your commitment to exact literalism had led you astray.” I know that sounds implausible to adherents of DT, but I think the evidence points in that direction.
Have you noticed how many times NT hearers misunderstood the meaning of Jesus words because they assumed a literal meaning, when Christ intended a symbolic one? “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again.” Or, “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees,” which they interpreted as their failure to bring bread. I don’t have time to compile a list, but as I read the NT, I find a lot of them. More often than not, the failure to understand is a failure to recognize a symbolic meaning. (John the Baptist is Elijah, for another example. I could list many more.) When Jesus chided the disciple for failing to understand, He did not explain exactly why and how they failed to understand. You assume it was a failure to take things in an exact literal manner. There was a time I would have assumed the same. My NT reading over the years has shown me another explanation which corresponds to the way so many NT authors interpret OT Scriptures. Bingo. I think the NT is showing us something important about the OT if we are willing to accept it. IOW, you need to consider that it is DT which is ignoring Christ’s rebuke by failing to learn from NT examples.
G. N. Barkman
With no sarcasm intended, I am not sure the average, original audience for the Torah would have drawn Paul’s application from these two Genesis quotations:
Galatians 3:6–9: Understand that in the same way that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, those who believe are the children of Abraham. But when it saw ahead of time that God would make the Gentiles righteous on the basis of faith, scripture preached the gospel in advance to Abraham: All the Gentiles will be blessed in you. Therefore, those who believe are blessed together with Abraham who believed.
Was there a meaningfully strong interpretive tradition that understood Gen 12:3, 15:6 to imply that Gentiles had an equal and honored place in Abraham’s family?
Paul says the promise (which I presume to be Gal 3:8, cf. Gen 12:3) was made to Abraham and his descendant Jesus (Gal 3:15-16). So, everyone who belongs to Christ is a child of Abraham. Ethnic, socio-economic, and gender barriers to this community are vaporized. If you belong to Christ, you’re an heir according to the promise (Gal 3:8).
There are hints of this inclusion in the Exodus (12:38), Rahab, Ruth, Moses’ black Cushite wife (Num 12:1), God’s assurances to foreign converts and eunuchs, and His care for women in the law.
But, could one get the full sense of Paul’s meaning simply from the Old Covenant text? I’m not sure. I think a very perceptive reader could get on the road TOWARDS that understanding, but I’m not sure you could have had a proto-Paul in Joshua’s day.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]But, could one get the full sense of Paul’s meaning simply from the Old Covenant text? I’m not sure. I think a very perceptive reader could get on the road TOWARDS that understanding, but I’m not sure you could have had a proto-Paul in Joshua’s day.
That’s really not the point, though. Paul is making a theological point that validates his point, based on the literal meaning of the text. The word “seed” in the OT is used collectively and with reference to an individual. See Gen 4.25 for an example. Michael Vlach, drawing from C. John Collins, points out that “seed” in Gen 22.18 is a dative sperma in the LXX, allowing particularly for a singular understanding. Psalm 72.17 appears to allude to this passage and says, “And let men bless themselves by him.” (bold added). (See Vlach, The Old in the New, pp. 231-234)
Consequently, we don’t have to accuse Paul of using the OT in a way that original readers could not understand. Ps 72.17 seems to demonstrate that someone, at least, did understand.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
When it comes to the question of how the OT Jews interpreted the OT, e are not so in the dark about this as some would have us believe. We have the writings of the OT authors themselves which include many examples of Biblical exegesis. Abner Chou demonstrates quite effectively in The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers that they practiced normal, grammatical-historical interpretation when they read earlier Scriptures.
I do not share your assessment of Chou’s book, and thought it was a great disappointment [EDITED].
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
There are hardcore dispensationalist and hardcore CT adherents, but there is a huge number of people a bit in the middle. They see benefits from both and weaknesses from both. Both, I feel glosses over their weaknesses to focus on their strengths and the weaknesses of the competing theological framework. I am in a camp that is in the middle. There are many things I like about both frameworks, but I have challenges with both as well. Thus I will say that the evangelical community will never be fully aligned, and my salvation is not dependent on fully understanding and coming to an agreement on these, this side of eternity. It should not be surprising that man struggles in developing a framework around something he has little understanding about. Something truly known only by God and that He has only partially revealed in the smallest senses to man. But I do look forward to these articles.
Larry, we don’t need the NT to explain every statement of the OT. If it did, it would have to be longer than the OT. But we can observe the numerous examples in which NT authors interpreted the OT to suggest a pattern for interpreting the rest. I would think that fifteen or twenty examples should be sufficient to cause a re-thinking of DT. What I find ironic is the way in which DT often explains away these examples. They usually deny that they really mean what they seem to mean, because if the obvious meaning is the correct meaning, DT is called into question. In other words, OT wording must be taken at face value, as literally as possible, but NT statements which seem to contradict DT must not be taken at face value. So “literal whenever possible” applies to the OT, but not to the NT. Hmmm.
If one has to give way, it seems to me that the OT must give way to the NT. We don’t have divinely inspired commentary on the NT, since the canon was closed with the book of Revelation. But we have divinely inspired commentary on the OT in the NT. That forces us to endeavor to align our interpretation of the OT with NT inspired interpretation.
G. N. Barkman
Greg,
I know we’ve been over this ground before, but I do not believe the NT reinterprets the OT. What it does is offer occasional challenges to plain-sense interpretation, yet never in a way that is unfathomable. But I want to make a couple of observations: First, when we say the NT interprets the OT what we are actually saying is that our own interpretation of the NT is being used to interpret the OT. But how can we know that our interpretation is in the ballpark and not out-of-bounds (sorry for the awful metaphor)? One way is the Rules of Affinity I devised for myself a few years back where the “distance” between what a text’s words SAY and what they are claimed to mean is measured.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there may be several “plain-sense” interpretations put forward to weigh. But non-literal interpretations must take a back seat until these have been tried and found wanting (which for me means that they are always kept in the back seat). I am not of course speaking about figures of speech. Plain-sense takes those into consideration.
Lastly, you say “But we have divinely inspired commentary on the OT in the NT.” But is that really true? I think that the amount of OT textual interpretation in the NT is pretty slight. What there is can usually be readily linked to the OT in a straightforward way, with a fairly small amount of “problem passages” to grapple with.
Anyway, this subject is not right now the subject of the post, but it will feature further on.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I’m probably speaking out of turn, but I years ago, I learned 3 simple questions to aid in interpretation that if faithfully applied would aid the reader to a solid understanding of the majority of Biblical passages.
- Who said it?
- To whom was it said?
- What were the circumstances?
Paul, I don’t think I said the NT “reinterprets” the OT. That is your wording and seems to assume that however one interprets the OT without reference to the NT must be considered its (valid) interpretation. I believe I said the NT “interprets” the OT. That wording allows our first impression of an OT passage to be reshaped in light of NT references. How could it be otherwise? I guess that’s what you call “reinterpretation.” I prefer to think of it as holding my first impression lightly until I can consider additional evidence. I am reluctant to claim any interpretation until I have examined relevant NT references, if any.
In addition, you question my statement that we have NT interpretation of the OT. You assert that there really aren’t that many instances. But I did not claim that the NT provides an exhaustive interpretation of the OT. That was the main point of my post. We don’t need many occurrences. Larry argued similarly when he said that there are only 600 OT references in the NT. That sounds like a lot to me, but if we have only a dozen, that may well be enough to guide us in our understanding of the OT. If, for example, the NT tells us that John the Baptist was Elijah, that causes us to realize that Malachi’s prophecy about the coming of Elijah should not be understood in the most literal sense. John the Baptist was clearly not the reincarnation of Elijah the Tishbite, as we might anticipate if we had only Malachi 4:5,6. It turns out that John was an Elijah like prophet who came in the same spirit as Elijah, and as such, fulfilled Malachi’s prophecy. That enables us to consider other OT statements in a similar manner.
I’m sorry if we have covered this material in the past, but Larry asked questions that required an explanation of how I interpret the OT. This explains how I grapple with NT authors who handle OT passages in a manner that does not fit into a DT mode of interpretation.
G. N. Barkman
But we can observe the numerous examples in which NT authors interpreted the OT to suggest a pattern for interpreting the rest.
It seems to me that the variation in which NT authors use the OT indicates that there is no pattern. There aren’t that many uses (the 600 is generous from EJ Young I believe but I can’t remember and that includes possible allusions which are pretty slippery), and they are tremendously varied.
There are perhaps a dozen or more different types of OT usage in the NT, everything from direct fulfillment to occasional typology to allusions to merely borrowing words without intending to say anything about the original context, plus more. So what is the pattern? There is no pattern. There are collections of usages, and even those groupings differ depending on who makes the list. Who is to determine what is the borrowing of words or the direct fulfillment? Or an analogy? And which pattern should we follow?
I could write much on this and I have but two points stand particularly poignant IMO, and drawn from Dennis Johnson and Walton (who disagree).
Johnson says that since we are limited “in contrast to the revelatory insight of the apostles” we should follow their example in interpreting texts that the NT does not invoke (Him We Proclaim, 2007). It does not seem to register that if the NT apostles are using revelation, we cannot follow their example.
Walton, in TMSJ (2002). talks about having either revelation or exegesis. If you have revelation (as the apostles did), you don’t need exegesis. If you don’t have revelation, then the only claim for authority is exegesis. Longenecker (1970) says something similar: “Apart from a revelatory stance on our part, I suggest that we cannot reproduce their pesher exegesis.” He says that NT authors are likely unaware of “varieties of exegetical genre or of following particular modes of interpretation.”
Here is a longer citation of Walton:
The NT authors never claim to have engaged in a hermeneutical process, nor do they claim that they can support their findings from the text; instead, they claim inspiration … For the NT authors, the response to the question “Why should I believe that” is that they got the information for their interpretation from God … If you have inspiration, you do not need historical-grammatical hermeneutics. If you do not have inspiration, you must proceed by the acknowledged guidelines of hermeneutics. (Walton 2002, 70)
Walton concludes by saying,
There may be value in types, symbols, role models, and fulfillments, but, being subjective methods, they do not carry the authority of God’s Word unless they become incorporated in the inspired message of the biblical author. When the authority of an author comes by means of inspiration, he does not need to validate his statements by appealing to hermeneutical principles. We do not wish to reproduce the hermeneutics of NT authors because they, by virtue of inspiration, accrued authority to themselves by means unavailable to us. We seek only to proclaim what the text, in its authority, has already revealed. (Walton 2002, 75‑76)
The point of this primarily is to discuss authority. By what authority do we say something from the text? The answer is revelation (as the apostles) or exegesis of the words. As Chapell says, ““A minister’s imagination is a poor place to discern what a biblical text means.” Why should anyone believe what a preacher says? The answer must be, “Because they can show it to me in the text.”
I would think that fifteen or twenty examples should be sufficient to cause a re-thinking of DT.
I would be interested in what these fifteen or twenty might be and I wonder how you would respond to the many dispensational scholars who no doubt know of these passages and have not thought it necessary to “re-think” DT. These things are not new. It’s not as if they haven’t been thought about.
In other words, OT wording must be taken at face value, as literally as possible, but NT statements which seem to contradict DT must not be taken at face value. So “literal whenever possible” applies to the OT, but not to the NT. Hmmm.
Again, I think you are committing a fundamental error. Almost no dispensationalist thinks the OT must be taken at “face value” all the time. All of them that I am aware of believes that you interpret it normally. And they believe the same thing about the NT. Contrary to your claim, they don’t interpret the testaments differently.
I think we perhaps miss the distinction between interpretation and application or implication. And what many claim as an “interpretation” is actually an application of a text.
If one has to give way, it seems to me that the OT must give way to the NT.
This, to me, is the heart of the trouble because it seems to lead to the position that the OT is untrustworthy in and of itself. You can’t really trust its words until you get the “divinely inspired” interpretation in the NT. I just don’t see any evidence from Jesus or the apostles that they shared your view. I think they consistently appeal to what was written as it was written, not to some special hermeneutic or interpretation. It was as if they thought they meaning could be determined from the words, from “what has been written.”
That forces us to endeavor to align our interpretation of the OT with NT inspired interpretation.
This I would not quibble with at all. The point of Jesus and the apostles is that they are aligned. I think the difficulty is that you see things in the NT that I would say aren’t there and that leads you to see things in the OT that I would say aren’t there.
I doubt there is much ground to be gained with each other here, but it is to me at least an interesting consideration and conversation that is far too easily dismissed IMO. I will close by saying that if we used your hermeneutic, you and I could barely have a conversation.
Now we’re finally getting to the crux of the matter - what is the correct way to approach the Bible?
I am amazed that Christianity has existed for about two-thousand years and Spirit-filled Christians still cannot agree on the correct way to read, understand, interpret, and apply scripture. Could it be that God intends it to be that way? Could it be that God intends some Christians to interpret the OT and NT from “in light of” and others to “give way to?” I am truly mystified by this.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Larry, you asked how I can be certain of the interpretation of the NT, if I believe the OT needs the NT for correct interpretation. I do not claim that my interpretation of the NT is always correct. My goal is to understand it as correctly as possible with my present level of knowledge and the aid of God’s Spirit.
However, we know the OT needs the NT because Scripture was incomplete without the addition of the NT. God gave the NT, with it’s many references to the OT to aid us in our understanding of the OT. We are foolish if we disregard this divinely inspired aid. However, God did not give us additional Scripture to help us understand the NT. There is no third testament. This indicates that the OT needs the NT for helpful elucidation, but the NT can be understood without additional inspired writings.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]There is no third testament. This indicates that the OT needs the NT for helpful elucidation, but the NT can be understood without additional inspired writings.
How do you know there won’t be? That would sure put a pretty snag in your view, wouldn’t it?
And one would have expected Jews from about 400BC to the 1st century to say exactly the same thing about the OT.
I’m sorry, but if DT must resort to raising the possibility of another inspired testament in the future to challenge my arguments, it must not have a very solid footing.
G. N. Barkman
I’m sorry, but if DT must resort to raising the possibility of another inspired testament in the future to challenge my arguments, it must not have a very solid footing.
Isn’t it the opposite, that you are the one who should be admitting the possibility given your view of the OT?
This indicates that the OT needs the NT for helpful elucidation, but the NT can be understood without additional inspired writings.
Not to belabor the point but, well, to belabor the point, this is not what the NT says. Jesus and the apostles say they should have believed what was already written. They did not need to wait for later revelation about what they should have really believed. The meaning of the words in the OT were sufficient to bring right belief.
Larry, no, I am not the one, and why would you even suggest that? You miss my point entirely. If God had closed Scripture with the OT, we would be forced to rely upon it alone because He gave us no more. The fact that He did give us more, much more, indicates that He intends for us to include NT revelation in our evaluation of OT scripture. But the fact that He gave nothing beyond the NT indicates that the 66 books of the Biblical canon is sufficient to understand everything God intends for us to have. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you will have to take it up with Him.
G. N. Barkman
Larry, you agree that inspired NT authors produced interpretations of the OT that differ from DT. You defend this by saying that since they are inspired, and we are not, it is acceptable for them, but not for us. That explanation doesn’t make sense to me.
Consider the prophecy in Malachi 4:5,6, about the coming of Elijah before the Day of the Lord. Interpretive principles of DT give us a literal return of Elijah the Tishbite to earth. But NT authors, including Jesus, state that John the Baptist is the Elijah who fulfills Malachi’s prophecy. (Luke 1:16,17; Matthew 17:10-13, etc.) That points to a symbolic interpretation of Malachi 4:5,6. This interpretation does not follow DT hermeneutics. Saying that NT authors could do this, but we cannot, is a dodge. If the hermeneutical principles of DT produce an interpretation different than the one produced by inspired NT authors, the interpretive principles of DT are called into question. Your response is that we must nevertheless continue interpreting all other OT passages using the same principles which produced a wrong interpretation of Malachi? We are not allowed to adjust our interpretation to reflect what NT authors have shown us?
We don’t need the NT to interpret the entire OT to learn from inspired NT authors who produced interpretations at variance with DT. A handful of examples are sufficient to indicate a weakness with the DT hermeneutic, We should adjust our rules of interpretation to include the evidence given us in the NT. We must not elevate our rules of interpretation, which are logically conceived, above Scripture itself. If Scripture shows us a flaw in our hermeneutic, we should humbly accept the NT correction and improve our exegesis accordingly.
G. N. Barkman
Daniel 12: 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished. 8 I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, “O my lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?” 9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand. 11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days. 13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”
[Larry]I’m sorry, but if DT must resort to raising the possibility of another inspired testament in the future to challenge my arguments, it must not have a very solid footing.
Isn’t it the opposite, that you are the one who should be admitting the possibility given your view of the OT?
I’m ok with it, especially if we include that post-glorification we will hear and understand clearly from God Himself.
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
Larry, you agree that inspired NT authors produced interpretations of the OT that differ from DT.
None that I am aware of.
Saying that NT authors could do this, but we cannot, is a dodge.
Not at all. It is the foundation of the Christian faith. God spoke and revealed things that cannot be otherwise known.
We must not elevate our rules of interpretation, which are logically conceived, above Scripture itself.
I agree (thought I am not sure that rules of interpretation are logically conceived per se).
If Scripture shows us a flaw in our hermeneutic, we should humbly accept the NT correction and improve our exegesis accordingly.
I agree.
But several points:
First, how do you know what the NT authors mean unless you use the DT hermeneutic? That was part of my point above. We can’t even have this conversation without a DT hermeneutic. To me, it seems like you are inconsistent in that.
Second, I think you are conflating revelation with interpretation and along with that shoving everything NT authors do with the OT into “interpretation.” I tend to think very little of the NT use of the OT is actual interpretation. Again, there are various catalogs of uses and most of them are not interpretation, per se.
Third, have you read and interacted with the two article above (Longenecker and Walton)? What is your response? What is the locus of authority for a preacher? As I read your position, I don’t see how you can claim it is the text. So what is it?
Let’s use your example of Malachi and Elijah. You say that “interpretive principles of DT give us a literal return of Elijah the Tishbite to earth.” I don’t think so at all. DT has no problem with symbolism. The literal interpretation of a symbol is the symbol. DT also fully admits that we might not fully understand the implications of a text or even the full meaning of it. There are things that are hard to understand.
You cite Luke 1:16, 17 as evidence that JB is Elijah. Yet that verse speaks of one who comes in “the spirit and power of Elijah,” in other words, an Elijah-like figure, not necessarily Elijah himself. Why did you leave that out? Luke does not say that JB was Elijah but was in the spirit and power of Elijah. DT certainly has room for an Elijah-like figure as the meaning of Malachi.
You cite Matt 17:10-13. Jesus says, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things.” Yet JB did not restore all things and Jesus says Elijah is still coming.
You left out Matt 11:14 which says that JB is Elijah “If you are willing to accept it.” But they didn’t accept it. Therefore, JB was not Elijah.
The point is that JB did not do what Malachi said Elijah would do which is to bring revival that would turn away God’s judgment. What if that is still to happen so that Malachi actually is correct and this Elijah (whoever he is) turns the heart of fathers and children and ends the judgment of God? If we read the prophets and Revelation, we have good reason to expect that.
Your response is that we must nevertheless continue interpreting all other OT passages using the same principles which produced a wrong interpretation of Malachi? We are not allowed to adjust our interpretation to reflect what NT authors have shown us?
That’s not my response at all.
If Scripture shows us a flaw in our hermeneutic, we should humbly accept the NT correction and improve our exegesis accordingly.
On this we can fully agree.
Discussion