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.
- 81 views
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Featured Resource
Discussion