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.

Discussion

[G. N. Barkman] Ted,

I should probably stay out of this, as John is doing such an excellent job, far better than I could do. But what I understand you to be saying is that NT inspired writers cannot be used to inform us regarding the meaning and use of OT Scripture. Am I understanding you correctly?

Warm regards,

Greg
Not at all. What I am saying is that the apostle’s didn’t give you a lexicon that guides you in the interpretation about other OT texts, such as Zech. 12:10 - see post 4 and post 16. I am also saying that the apostles used the OT in many places in the NT in a way that is invalid for you, John, or myself, or any non-inspired person.

Ted,

Then why did the NT writers bother to quote OT texts? Why didn’t they just state the newly revealed truth as a completely different New Covenant revelation?

I struggle to believe that NT inspired writers quote OT texts, and in doing so, reveal a different understanding of that OT text than I might have, using the GH method without benefit of the NT, and yet that in no way shapes my reading of the OT. To me, that seem like forcing my hermeutic upon Scripture, rather than letting Scripture shape my hermeutic. If the NT cannot be allowed to inform my understanding of the OT, then progressive revelation must be wrong, and there must be total discontinuity between the two testaments.

The GH hermeutic is fine, but isn’t it it a humanly defined rule? Shouldn’t this man made rule be refined and improved by inspired Scripture?

Warm regards,

Greg

G. N. Barkman

[Ted Bigelow] Been a bit frustrating here, bro. I’ve been making the same point over and over, but you RH guys don’t respond to it.

To claim that you can use the OT the same way an inspired writer of NT Scripture does is an unwarranted leap of assumption.

IOW, my major point isn’t the invalidity of the RH to arrive at a certain and single meaning of a single text, but the presupposition behind it.
And here I thought I was the one making that point that wasn’t being responded to.

About the ‘claim’ you mention, I don’t know who made it. My interest is in how the NT does use the OT.

I understand the frustration that comes from trying to explain GH. It is a necessary starting point but not fully adequate. Blessings, JOHN

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

[G. N. Barkman]

Then why did the NT writers bother to quote OT texts? Why didn’t they just state the newly revealed truth as a completely different New Covenant revelation?
Some NT quotes of the NT reflect pure GH hermeneutics (Isa. 7:14 in Mat. 1:23). Others do not, as noted above. Therefore, the inconsistency shows us that the apostles and NT prophets are not laying down a hermeneutic principle, but rather making other connections given them by the Holy spirit for his reasons. Yes, Jesus is the ultimate Israelite (Mat. 2:15) - of course he is - how could he not be? But that doesn’t a hermeneutic principle make.
I struggle to believe that NT inspired writers quote OT texts, and in doing so, reveal a different understanding of that OT text than I might have, using the GH method without benefit of the NT, and yet that in no way shapes my reading of the OT.
Try reading Hosea 11:1 as the original recipients did (i.e., without regard for Mat. 2:15). What do you see?


To me, that seem like forcing my hermeutic upon Scripture, rather than letting Scripture shape my hermeutic. If the NT cannot be allowed to inform my understanding of the OT, then progressive revelation must be wrong, and there must be total discontinuity between the two testaments.
I think you assume that all NT quotes of OT passages reveal a RH hermeneutic. They do not, unless you want to make the RH hermeneutic so flexible it really means nothing at all. See Chirichigno’s fine work on OT quotes in the NT for the massive listing and broad ways the apostles and NT prophets used the OT (bibliographic entry at bottom). At the end of the day, there is no way to fit all the massive number of quotes and allusions of the OT in the NT into any system.

The RH method is not the result of doing the exegetical spadework on all OT quotes in the NT - far from it - but the handmaiden of a theological system - covenantalism.
The GH hermeutic is fine, but isn’t it it a humanly defined rule? Shouldn’t this man made rule be refined and improved by inspired Scripture?
I don’t believe so. Believers are born by the agency of the word (1 Peter 1:23ff). This requires the ability to read and understand the words as it stands written (gegraptai), not by a spiritualizing process.

God accommodates His revelation in human terms, in words that are to be read and understood according to what they say. Words like Jerusalem mean Jerusalem. Its the literal place Jesus was crucified.

As I posted above, when someone becomes a believer, they do it becasue they believe God’s words about Christ and their sin, literally. They don’t adopt a RH hermeneutic, but rather believe that he literally died an atoning death (not to be spiritualized) and rose from the dead (not to be spiritualized). RH teaches people to shift out of this faith system into a realm of subjectivity and spiritual interpretation.

Thanks Greg - blessings!

Archer, Gleason L., and Chirichigno, G. C. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey. Chicago: Moody, 1983.

[G. N. Barkman] Ted,

Then why did the NT writers bother to quote OT texts? Why didn’t they just state the newly revealed truth as a completely different New Covenant revelation?

I struggle to believe that NT inspired writers quote OT texts, and in doing so, reveal a different understanding of that OT text than I might have, using the GH method without benefit of the NT, and yet that in no way shapes my reading of the OT. To me, that seem like forcing my hermeutic upon Scripture, rather than letting Scripture shape my hermeutic. If the NT cannot be allowed to inform my understanding of the OT, then progressive revelation must be wrong, and there must be total discontinuity between the two testaments.

The GH hermeutic is fine, but isn’t it it a humanly defined rule? Shouldn’t this man made rule be refined and improved by inspired Scripture?

Warm regards,

Greg
Excellent point, Greg. That’s mine as well. Since we have NT commentary on OT texts, we have something more than just new revelation. We have a Scriptural illustration of how the OT text was intended to be read (in that point at the very least). Now when we can survey how the NT authors used the OT text, how they understood it, in multiple different places and among multiple different NT authors, we come closer to seeing how God purposed a good number of OT text to be read. Given this reality, it seems that this should educate us on many points about the OT. In fact, in Hebrews 9:5 the inspired author makes the following statement: “Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. (ESV)” The KJV renders the phrase “of which we cannot now speak particularly”. As the author of Hebrews is speaking about the tabernacle furniture and other ceremonial things, this statement speaks volumes. He says there are things to be said about that, but he doesn’t have time in his sermon to do that now. (Hebrews is very much a long exhortation similar to a sermon, as many commentators have seen.) No other NT author goes on to speak of those things in detail, but the detail is valid and could have been spoken of!

I’m indebted on this point to my friend Nathan Pitchford, whom I will quote on this point:
[Nathan Pitchford] The New Testament does interpret specific Old testament verses. But it also does more than that. Hebrews 9:2-5 tells us, “For the first tabernacle was prepared, in which was both the lampstand, and the table, and the setting out of the loaves, which is called Holies. And after the second veil was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid all around with gold, in which was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. And over it were the cherubs of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat (about which we cannot now speak piece by piece).” The author of Hebrews has just been giving detailed interpretations of how Old Testament realities pointed to Christ. Now, he says, in effect, “I could give you more of these specific interpretations. But now is not the time. All of those truths are there, waiting for you to discover them. And you are able to do this if you understand the central truth that I have been laboring to emphasize. Namely, that Christ is the central truth of all the Old Testament.” Behind all of the specific truths about Christ that the New Testament authors taught us is the foundational truth that the bible, from beginning to end, is about Jesus. And once we grasp that basic truth, we can study all of scriptures “with an unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18). The veil that blinds the natural man’s understanding when he reads the bible is done away in Christ. This is the work of the Spirit.

Quote from this online article.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Ted,

I somewhat sympathize with your frustrations. I’m sure John thinks he has addressed your issues (and those I raised earlier), when neither of us are satisfied that our point has really been engaged. I do not fault John for this. His starting point is not ours.

For me at any rate, the main issue is this: Does God mean what He says where and when He says it? If there are places in the prophetic Scriptures where His words point to one thing (e.g. a literal temple complex in Ezek. 40ff. or future restoration of Israel in the strict terms of Jer. 33:14-26, etc., etc.), but take on a different meaning at “fulfillment” then God was equivocating when He spoke the original words. If so, then this affects the doctrine of God itself. If it is in God’s nature to equivocate the question comes up, “How can God be trusted when He promises to save those who trust in His Son?”

Perhaps John or those agreeing with him can answer that question. And please don’t tell me “God means what He says.”

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

[Ted Bigelow] Try reading Hosea 11:1 as the original recipients did (i.e., without regard for Mat. 2:15). What do you see?
Did you forget about John Sailhamer’s contention that Hosea was seeing a Christological emphasis in earlier Scripture: Numb. 24:8-9 (cf. Gen. 49:9, Ex. 4:22)?
[Ted Bigelow] The RH method is not the result of doing the exegetical spadework on all OT quotes in the NT - far from it - but the handmaiden of a theological system - covenantalism.
Hardly! Scholars of many persuasions who don’t speak from a firmly federal covenant theological perspective unite on this point, Ted. Progressive Dispensationalists even unite with us. The true story is that a theological system - dispensationalism, is the tail that wags the dog for a consistent GH method that isolates the OT texts from the NT in such a consistent way. And for all that, the system barely preaches from the OT at all, unless it is moralizing without reference to Christ. Rather, the RH guys with other systems of thought, use the OT and are recovering its use for the church today.

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.

[Bob Hayton]

Did you forget about John Sailhamer’s contention that Hosea was seeing a Christological emphasis in earlier Scripture: Numb. 24:8-9 (cf. Gen. 49:9, Ex. 4:22)?
No, its a connection I tried to make in the past, based on several words in the texts. I no longer do.
Scholars of many persuasions who don’t speak from a firmly federal covenant theological perspective unite on this point, Ted. Progressive Dispensationalists even unite with us. The true story is that a theological system - dispensationalism, is the tail that wags the dog for a consistent GH method that isolates the OT texts from the NT in such a consistent way. And for all that, the system barely preaches from the OT at all, unless it is moralizing without reference to Christ.
Whoa. Down boy. Woof.
Rather, the RH guys with other systems of thought, use the OT and are recovering its use for the church today.
The RH has been used for centuries, Bob. Its not being recovered. It being resuscitated. Go back and do the research, bro. The RH has been in use for since the fathers. Why do you thnk supercessionism has been the defacto theology of the church lo these many years?

[Paul Henebury] Ted,

I somewhat sympathize with your frustrations. I’m sure John thinks he has addressed your issues (and those I raised earlier), when neither of us are satisfied that our point has really been engaged. I do not fault John for this. His starting point is not ours.

For me at any rate, the main issue is this: Does God mean what He says where and when He says it? If there are places in the prophetic Scriptures where His words point to one thing (e.g. a literal temple complex in Ezek. 40ff. or future restoration of Israel in the strict terms of Jer. 33:14-26, etc., etc.), but take on a different meaning at “fulfillment” then God was equivocating when He spoke the original words. If so, then this affects the doctrine of God itself. If it is in God’s nature to equivocate the question comes up, “How can God be trusted when He promises to save those who trust in His Son?”

Perhaps John or those agreeing with him can answer that question. And please don’t tell me “God means what He says.”
I will let the Apostle Paul answer that question. He is better suited to do so as a Jew who knew the promises of God and who believed that in Christ he had all that God had promised.

Romans 11:1-6 Paul’s experience of salvation in Christ is evidence to him that God has not failed in his promise to Israelites.

2 Cor 1:18-22 Paul is confident that all of God’s promises are “yes’ in Jesus Christ and he is experiencing them through the gift of the Spirit and incorporaiton into the body of Christ.

Eph 2:18-22 Paul has a temple through union with Christ that brings about what ancient Judaism failed to do - union of Jews and the nations.

Eph 1:11-14 Though he never speaks of restoration to the land, he rejoices in the inheritance he has in Christ.

Rom 4:13-17 Paul rejoices that through faith he and all believers are heirs of the cosmos that Abraham was promised.

Gal 4:21-31 Paul rejects the present earthly Jerusalem and rejoices in the Jerusalem above and recognizes all believers as children of promise, like Isaac.

And on, and on, and on.

Paul, as a Jew, does not get less than what is promised he gets more. Christ is more - the rest he brings is greater than the rest of any land; the presence of God he brings is more than any earthly temple could offer; etc.

I can’t imagine Paul sitting in heaven waiting for the resurrection and languishing for the millenium to get the stuff that really matters, when he already has what the OT anticipated — Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

God didn’t equivocate - He went beyond what was expected and blessed us, Jew and Gentile, in Christ with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places.

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

I can’t imagine Paul sitting in heaven waiting for the resurrection and languishing for the millenium
What is so funny about this is that Rev 5:10 says exactly that, “You made them a kingdomm and priests to our God,n and they will reign on the earth.” The saints in heaven are looking forward to reigning upon the earth.

John, Christ isn’t more of anything. Christ was the promise. The original promise. All benefits would be realized through Christ. The Jews knew this. Paul, postconversion, knew this. The attempts to minimalize the OT promises simply because they don’t fit your system just doesn’t work. You are forcefeeding NT assumptions down the throat of explicit OT texts and choking them.

I will ask again and hope for a specific answer:

The major NC promise in the OT is found in Jer 31. I have already pasted it and we all have Bibles. At the end of the passage, v38-40, God laid out explicit geographical points that were tied to the fulfillment of the NC. If these promises are not fulfilled, then God failed. Since the institution of the NC at the cross, Israel has not possessed the land. Either that aspect is still future or God lied. To argue that the specific geographical points were code for heaven or some other thought because that is what the Jews would understand is just foolishness. The OT already promised that the righteous would inherit the whole earth.

Now, to come along and say they have bigger and better promises is an assumption you make because of the difficulty in dealing with the contradictions in your own hermeneutic. This is exactly what Origen and the rest of the early supersessionists did. They couldn’t square OT texts so they stripped them down. The TSA guards think Origen over did it. When Hebrews speaks of a better covenant with better promises, the better promises are the promises tied to the NC. The NC promises to Israel, which include the land, are better than what Israel had previously possessed.

So again, here is the question:

Will God keep his promises to Israel regarding the specific geographical locations he promised in the major NC passage of Jer 31?

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

[Paul Henebury] If so, then this affects the doctrine of God itself.quote]

Yes, it does affect the doctrine of God. He is either one who may be contained in a tight literalistic GH understanding of His promises, or one whose majesty is so wonderful, goodness is so great, promise is so unfathomable that it retains a measure of mystery and brings about both our awe and bewilderment. Either He may be a God of whom we must be suspicious unless He proves his trustworthiness by giving us exactly what a tight literalistic GH hermenuetic demands or One who satisfies us beyond our expectations in the person and work of Christ.

If things do work out the way a tight literalistic GH hermenuetic projects, it would add nothing to my view of God nor would it add one bit to what I have in Christ. Please don’t insult those who do not hold to GH as if they are in some danger of giving in to some lesser view of God.

Blessings, JOHN

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

[James K] [Will God keep his promises to Israel regarding the specific geographical locations he promised in the major NC passage of Jer 31?
First of all, the seven geogrpahical markers are not that specific. Some of them are unknown. This city of Jerusalem will not “be uprooted or overthrown anymore forever.” If this is a millennial city then I assume you are saying that it will survive the purging of the heavens and earth and still exist on the New Earth. Perhaps it will be a twin city, (the ugly twin) of the New Jerusalem.

Yes, I do believe that Jew and Gentile receive the inheritance of the New Heaven and Earth which will incorporate and go beyond any ancient boundaries.

And, in reference to your quotation of Rev 5, I do believe that saints will reign on the New Earth and Heaenens. The cosmos is theirs. I don’t think Paul is languishing for a temporal millennial kingdom and a temple and sacrfices. Blessings, JOHN

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

Whoever said anything about the Millennium being temporal? The duration given is the time of Satan’s imprisonment, not the length of Christ’s reign. The first 1000 years are only the beginning.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

John, be so good as to define and give an example of an equivocation for me.

Your brother,

Paul

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

[Paul Henebury] If so, then this affects the doctrine of God itself.quote]

Yes, it does affect the doctrine of God. He is either one who may be contained in a tight literalistic GH understanding of His promises, or one whose majesty is so wonderful, goodness is so great, promise is so unfathomable that it retains a measure of mystery and brings about both our awe and bewilderment. Either He may be a God of whom we must be suspicious unless He proves his trustworthiness by giving us exactly what a tight literalistic GH hermenuetic demands or One who satisfies us beyond our expectations in the person and work of Christ.
Please don’t insult those who do not hold to GH as if they are in some danger of giving in to some lesser view of God.
Isn’t that what you just did from the RH perspective? ;) That dispies put God in a box of suspicion unless he meets their expectations? That’s called idolatry, my friend, and of course, I won’t wear those robes. Neither will Paul.

I am indebted to RH men all over the place, and in part, becasue of their hermeneutic. And i imagine Paul (Henebury) would say the same. I don’t mean as a whipping post for my hermeneutics, but for my theology, and my passion for Christ.

If I may speak to Paul’s defense for a minute (and Paul doesn’t need me one whit), He isn’t saying you believe God equivocates, but that as he examines your theological position, he believes this is a weakness of it.