Hermeneutics

Three Views on the NT Use of the OT: Walter Kaiser

/ davidsschrock

nt-ot

[In Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Peter Enns, Darrell Bock, and Walter Kaiser present three different approaches to biblical interpretation.  They address questions concerning sensius plenior, typology, Jewish methods of interpretation, matters of contextual interpretation, and whether or not we today can interpret the Bible like the New Testament authors.  Some of the discussion involves technical concepts and language, but anyone who reads the book will have a better understanding of matters to consider in reading the Bible in context.]

Walter Kaiser: Single Meaning, Unified Referrents

Kaiser, Old Testament scholar and former president of Gordon-Conwell, is a careful theologian and true biblical exegete.  Citing a host of OT-NT connections, Kaiser’s chapter simply unpacks Scripture to make his case.  The other scholars cite Scriptural examples, but appeal more often to hermeneutical philosophies (Bock) and second temple Judaism’s methods of interpretation (Enns).  In fact, both Bock and Enns chastise Kaiser for his simplistic reading of Scripture (92, 97). 

The great strength of Kaiser’s chapter is his demonstration of how to interpret the OT in its context and then to show that the NT authors read their OT correctly.  He argues for an antecedent theology that informs every OT passage.  As opposed to Enns, who must go to the NT to find ultimate, Christotelic meaning, Kaiser goes to Genesis 3:15ff to show the “Promise-Plan” of God provides ample Messianic witness in the OT itself.  This is a crucial distinction, and for me at least, a tremedously convincing argument for Kaiser and against Enns: the gospel is not just explained in the NT, it is to be found from the very beginning, pointing forward to the Promised Seed. 

To summarize, Kaiser argues for reading each passage in its historical context, he denies Sensius Plenior, he appeals to making analogy between OT and NT (in this way there is a sense of greater fulfillment, when NT patterns or echoes (R. Hays) are picked up), and he appeals to the unfolding plan of God within the OT to make sense of the OT context and that NT writers did that very thing.  The problems of reconciling OT with NT do not lie with the writers themselves; they lie in us and our inability to rightly divide the word, so that we can say that the OT writers did not write better then they knew (Sensius Plenior), rather they wrote better than we know.  As biblical interpreters, it is our prayerful responsibility to learn from them what they knew and what the Spirit was testifying to them and through them (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

May we, with Walter Kaiser, labor to understand the grammar and historical setting of the Bible, and may we go on to see how all Scripture is fulfilled in Christ (John 5:39).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Three Views on the NT Use of the OT: Peter Enns

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

nt-otIn Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Peter Enns, Darrell Bock, and Walter Kaiser present three different approaches to biblical interpretation.  They address questions concerning sensius plenior, typology, Jewish methods of interpretation, matters of contextual interpretation, and whether or not we today can interpret the Bible like the New Testament authors.  Some of the discussion involves technical concepts and language, but anyone who reads the book will have a better understanding of matters to consider in reading the Bible in context.

What follows is simply a synopsis of their arguments, plus a list of further reading.

Peter Enns: Fuller Meaning, Single Goal

Enns, former Old Testament professor at Westminster Seminary, before being let go because of his questionable methods of interpretation (cf. Inspiration and Incarnation), spends exorbitant detail on matters unhelpful for putting the OT and NT together–a 15 page discussion on Deuteronomy 33:2 and the problem of understanding the law, angels, and traditions in Judaism.  He emphasizes Second Temple Judaism as a pre-requisite for understanding the NT.  Understanding this historical period and its literature and worldview nearly trumps OT reading and understanding.  Shocking!  He writes:

Rather, from a hermeneutical point of view at least, it is better to think of the NT as part of a larger group of texts of Jewish provenance–all of which, despite their real and important differences, together make up a distinct but diverse collection of texts we call ‘Second Temple literature’ (178)

The problem with this is that Enns blurs the boundaries of canon.  He reformulates the NT documents into a portion of a larger and more important (?) body of literature.  He goes on: “The focus of this essay is more on similarities between the NT and other Second Temple texts” (178).  I thought that this book was about the Old Testament and the New?  Clearly, Enns is shaping his reading of the Bible along the lines of extra-biblical literature–this trend always leads to hermeneutical and doctrinal deviation.  This kind of deviation can be seen more evidently in his statement on the previous page (177) that again confuses inspired revelation and other Second Temple literature when he says that both are “God-given.”  Is this a 2 Timothy 3:16 kind of “God-given”?

To be fair, Enns does make some positive contributions.  His emphasis on reading the Bible eschatologically and in light of the death and resurrection of Christ show how important the whole storyline of Scripture is to understanding individual passages and the Bible’s inter-textuality.  Still, Enns roots all his meaning in the NT, almost stripping the OT of any content or standing on its own.  I appreciate his Christotelic view, but he begins in the wrong place.  It would be better to begin in Genesis 1 and move forward finding God’s progressive revelation of the Promised Seed, the son of blessing, the prophet like Moses, the royal Davidite; instead he goes straight to the NT and returns to explain the OT.  To borrow a technological metaphor, he makes the programs of the OT absolutely dependent on the applications of the NT.

In sum, he supports typology and sensius plenior and he makes mention of them in passing, but the takeaway from his essay is the need to understand the NT in the light of Second Temple Judaism and to read the Scriptures knowing the rest of the story.  After reading his section, I was more convinced of Kaiser’s exegetically secure position, that may lack modern nuances in interpretive method, but that exalts in the sufficiency of the Scriptures.  Moreover, I was appreciative of Bock’s recognition of Second Temple Judaism, but also his ability to put on the brakes and not be completely swept away by extra-biblical informants.

Finally, I will say that I appreciate Enns ecclesial sensitivity and pastoral admonition to take more time in church to teach our people the whole counsel of Scripture (216).  This concluding word is a fitting way to end a chapter on how to read the OT and the NT.  Since our churches are filled with biblically illiterate people today, we who teach God’s Word must be willing to patiently and wisely instruct them with all 66 Christ-centered books of the canon.  This is not optional, but essential and part of the task of being a faithful expositor–to help church members read the Bible better.

More to come…

 Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Irenaeus’ Against Heresies: A Brief Overview [2]

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

Irenaeus2 In Against Heresies, Irenaeus spends the first two books understanding the Gnostics and refuting them at every turn.[1] His arguments are logical, but more importantly they are biblical. In contradistinction from Justin Martyr and Origen, who baptize philosophy with Christian truth and nomenclature, Irenaeus is a biblical apologist in the purest sense. The Gnostic Christians have misinterpreted the Bible, misconstrued the doctrines of the faith, and misled the Church by conjoining the pure Word of God with the perverted philosophies of Greek mythology. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus responds by highlighting the disparity between their false arguments and the plain reading of Scripture. He does this in three ways.

First, Irenaeus contends with the Gnostics because they derive their principles of doctrine from the irreligious philosophers of the day. Instead of appealing to the Bible they imitate Thales, Anaximander, Plato, and the Pythagoreans.[2] The only difference is the nomenclature. Irenaeus writes, “These men (the heretics), adopting this fable as their own, have ranged their opinions round it, and if by a sort of natural process, changing only the names of the things referred to, and setting forth the very same beginning of the generation of all things, and their production.”[3]

Second, Irenaeus lists numerous ways in which the Gnostics strain the gnat and swallow the camel. They import meaning into letters, syllables, and numbers,[4] while disregarding the composite testimony of the biblical writers. Likewise, they parse out meaning in parables that do not relate to the singular meaning of the Lord’s instruction.

Third, Irenaeus charges the Gnostics with an atomistic reading of Scripture that fails to recognize authorial intent, biblical context, or the unified formation of Scripture. In this, Irenaeus distinguishes the use of biblical language and biblical truth. Concerning this vain imitation, he says, “by these words [the Gnostics] entrap the more simple, and entice them, imitating our phraseology.”[5] The Gnostics deceitfully appropriate the former to deny the latter. He says,

They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavor to adapt with an air of prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support.[6]

Continuing his rejection of the Gnostic system of interpretation, Irenaeus says, “the method which these men employ to deceive themselves, while they abuse the Scriptures by endeavoring to support their own system out of it.”[7] Rather than reading the Bible in context and searching for an inductive meaning in the text, these false teachers were conscripting words, ideas, and atomistic elements of the text to support their preconceived systems of thought. Irenaeus continues, “collecting a set of expressions and names scattered here and there [in Scripture], they twist, them, as we have already said, from a natural to a non-natural sense.”[8]

The problem with this is that it superimposes on the Bible the ideas and theological constructs of the reader. The intention of the author and message of the Spirit is distorted and lost. Though centuries before postmodern, reader-oriented hermeneutics, this is essentially what Irenaeus is refuting. He is contending against any kind of allegory which says “this means that,” what you see in this passage actually means that person, that Aeon, that god, or that idea drawn from the system of the reader. Irenaeus’ conclusion articulates well how contextual readings undo this allegorical nonsense.

If he takes [the verses lifted out of context] and restores each of them to its proper position, he at once destroys the narrative in question. In like manner he also who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognize the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king. But when he has restored every one of the expressions quoted to its proper position, and has fitted it to the body of the truth, he will lay bare, and prove to be without any foundation, the figment of these heretics.[9]

[1] Cleveland Coxe summarizes these books, “The first of these contains a minute description of the tenets of the various heretical sects, with occasional brief remarks in illustration of their absurdity, and in confirmation of the truth to which they were opposed. In his second book, Irenaeus proceeds to a more complete demolition of those heresies which he has already explained, and argues at great length against them, on grounds principally of reason” in The Anti-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 311. Irenaeus employs logic, but his polemics are biblically-informed and rich with illustrations and explanations from the Bible.

[2] Irenaeus Adversus haereses 2.16.1-6.

[3] Ibid., 2.16.1. In this statement, Irenaeus is referring to the account of an unrecongnized “cosmic poet” by the name of Antiphanes, whose cosmogony started with Night and Silence which begot Chaos, then Love from Chaos and Night, and then finally Light.

[4] Ibid., 1.14.1-6; 2.24.1-6.

[5] Ibid., 3.15.1. He reiterates this point, “Such men are to outward appearance sheep; for they appear to be like us, by what they say in public, repeating the same words as we do; but inwardly they are wolves” (Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.16.8).

[6] Ibid., 1.8.1.

[7] Ibid., 2.9.1.

[8] Ibid., 2.9.4.

[9] Ibid., 2.9.4.

Colossians 1:24: Suffering for the Sake of the Body (pt. 1)

/ davidsschrock / 6 Comments

lion“In my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions
for the sake of his body, that is, the church”?
— Colossians 1:24 —

What does Colossians 1:24 mean? Initially, it sounds like he is diminishing the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. But is he? Surely not!?!

Stripped from its context, Paul’s words make Christ’s atonement sound incomplete and deficient. Or at least they give credence to some brand of works-based theology that finds merit in the works of the saints. But I would contend that such an interpretation is too hasty, and not at all what Paul is intending.

This past weekend, I had the privilege and the challenge of preaching Colossians 1:24 at Kenwood Baptist Church, where I labored to explain what Paul meant that in his flesh he, and by extension we, must fill up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.  Below are some of my observations and interpretations that helped me understand this “hard text.”  Tomorrow, I will provide my final answer.

(From the beginning, I gladly admit that I found much interpretive assistance from the commentaries of Peter O’Brien and Douglas Moo, but most of all I was helped by John Piper’s chapter on “Suffering” in Desiring God).

Four Preliminary Observations

1. Paul’s suffered because of God’s mercy.

In fact, his suffering flows out of the mercy and grace of God spoken of in the previous verses. Verses 21–23 highlight the mercy of God in reconciling sinners through the death of Jesus Christ. At the end of verse 23, Paul says that he has become a minister of this gospel hope. Then in verse 24, he launches off into speaking about his ministry and its suffering. So it seems that Paul is impassioned by the mercy of God to suffer for Christ and for his church.  This same kind of logic is found in Romans 9:1-6, where after declaring for eight chapters the mercies of God, he passionately suggests forfeiture of his own salvation if only he could bring salvation to his brethren.  Suffering is not and cannot be disconnected from mercy. Without mercy, suffering has no power.  In the daily mercies and comfort of God, saints find renewed endurance and reasons for suffering well.

2. Paul’s suffered with Christ.

Verse 24 says that Paul is filling up “Christ’s afflictions.” Some translators and commentators, have tried to escape the problem of this verse by saying that the afflictions are Paul’s, not Christ’s. This would mean that Paul is suffering and he is doing so for Christ, but that in no way is Paul’s suffering effecting concerning Christ’s work. But the grammar does not allow for that interpretation.

So Paul’s sufferings are coterminous with Christ’s, that is they extend to the same boundary as Jesus’ afflictions. This makes sense, in that when Paul was himself was persecuting the church, Jesus confronted him and asked, “Why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:6). Jesus Christ, raised from the dead is unified with his church, and resultantly, when the church suffers, Christ suffers. So Paul is saying that he suffers with Christ. This idea is made explicit in Philippians 3:10, when he says, “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.” There is a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ. So when Paul suffers in the flesh, Christ suffers, and thus the apostle suffers with Christ.

3. Paul suffered for/on behalf of the church.

His sufferings are not self-absorbed or introspective. He sees them as being done for those who he loves, the bride of Christ. In this way, he sees his sufferings as a benefit to the church, in Colossae and everywhere else. This idea is seen here and again in Colossians 1:29–2:1 (cf. 2 Tim. 1:8ff). This leads to a fourth observation.

4. Paul’s suffered for the expansion of the gospel.

This whole section is filled with language that depicts the gospel of Christ going forward. And Paul rejoices in his sufferings because he sees the gospel going out.  Letting Scripture illuminate Scripture, Paul’s self-effacing, gospel-promoting attitude can be seen also in the letter to the Philippians when he speaks of the brothers who are proclaiming the gospel looking to do him harm (cf. Phil. 1:15–18).  Apparently, while in prison, there are some gospel evangelists who see their proclamation as doing injury to Paul and they are glad.  Paul’s response is simply amazing as he is rejoices that the name of Jesus is going further and further–at personal expense to his name and ministry.

Putting this all together we see the context of Paul’s suffering in the light of ministry and not mediation; with Christ and not for Christ; and for the sake of gospel proclamation, not for any kind of further merit or propitious enhancement. In other words, before getting to the text, the context tells us that’s Paul’s suffering is not securing salvation, it is proclaiming the sure salvation that has already been accomplished.

Two Interpretive Boundaries

When we compare this passage to others in Colossians and throughout the NT, we see there are a few other interpretive boundaries that guard us from making theological error.

1. Paul’s theology disallows a diminished atonement.

Paul is not saying that Jesus work on the cross is deficient. On the contrary, his doctrine of salvation is consistent, and it always elevates the singular nature of Christ’s atoning death (see his arguments in Romans 5, 8; Galatians 3–4).  In Colossians, Paul makes it plain that the work of Christ is absolutely sufficient (and necessary) for salvation (cf. Colossians 1:12-14. 1:15–20. 2:13–15).  Summarizing his points, when Christ died on the cross, it was finished, full atonement had been made. This is Paul’s message of the cross and the plenary message of the New Testament (cf. John 19:30; Hebrews 9–10).

2. Paul’s language presents an interpretive boundary.

The term “afflictions” used by Paul in verse 24 is nowhere used of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Jesus is accursed on the cross, sheds his blood, is crucified, and is put to death, but he is not “afflicted” on the cross. It is rather the kind of language that the community that follows Jesus should regularly anticipate. Tribulations, trials, hardships, and sufferings are the lot of the Messianic community. In keeping with the eschatological nature of church, the “Messianic woes” have been passed the followers of Jesus, and they should expect to be afflicted on behalf of the one they follow. This is why Jesus said that all who follow him must pick up the cross daily. The call to follow Christ is a call to die (Deitrich Bonhoeffer in The Cost of Discipleship). The kind of affliction that Paul is referencing here is more fully developed in 2 Corinthians 1:3–8, which speak of the afflictions of ministry and gospel service.

For more reflections on this passage, see Part 2 of this post.

Sola Deo Gloria, ds

Christ-centered, Old Testament Resources

/ davidsschrock

This week Drs. Duane Garrett, Peter Gentry, and James Hamilton discussed the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament and the interpretation of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament.  The lively conversation was well-attended on the campus of Southern Seminary and the discussion raised a number of nuanced issues concerning sensius plenior, typology, allegory, interpretive methods, the duplication of apostolic hermeneutics, and the extent to which the Old Testament author’s knew they were writing of Jesus Christ.  In short, they covered a range of key interpretives features of biblical theology.  You can listen to the whole discussion here, while Jim Hamilton makes some follow up comments with pertinent link in his post: How much Christ in the Old Testament. 

Here are some other resources that may prove helpful in reading the Bible and seeing Christ and the gospel in the Old Testament.

First, James Grant highlights two helpful resources on the the Old Testament concerning its canonicity and its Narrative Structure.  You can find both of these on his blog, In Light of the Gospel: The first reference is to Richard Gaffins’ “Reading the Bible as Canon”.  The other is a link is John Woodhouse on the OT Narrative.

Second, a newer series of books offers to help biblical theologians and pastors see the gospel in the OT.  The Gospel According to the Old Testament Series looks like an incredible series of reflections that highlights, as the title says, the gospel in the Old Testament.  These books are not commentaries, though.  Instead, it seems that they take aim at OT characters.  Some of the books in the series focus on David, Ruth, Elijah & Elisha, Jonah, and others.  Some of the authors are Biblical Theology heavy hitters: Tremper Longman, Iain Duguid, Raymond Dillard, and David Jackson, to name a few. (HT: Chad Knudson)

Hope you find these prophetable!

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Zondervan Quiz, Three Views Book, and Other Resources on OT/NT Hermeneutics

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

This Fall Zondervan is set to publish another book in its Counterpoints series.  The book, Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, is a survey of differing ways evangelical Christians read the Scriptures.  Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary, Peter Enns formerly of Westminster Seminary, and Walter Kaiser formerly of TEDS and Gordon-Conwell are its three contributors. 

In preparation for this release, Zondervan’s Koinonia blog has set up a seven question quiz that can help you determine what position best describes your biblical-theological hermeneutic.  It will peg you as either a Fuller Meaning, Single Goal View (Enns), Single Meaning, Unified Referents View (Kaiser), or a Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents View (Bock).  According to my responses, I am the last–which means, that in reading the OT/NT, I consider the authorial intent of the Old Testament writers to have historical and literary significance for them and their audience in their varied Ancient Near Eastern settings.  At the same time, inspired by the Spirit, I believe that they were aware that what they wrote was eschatologically pointing forward to Jesus Christ.  In other words, they wrote better than they knew.  Peter says as much in 1 Peter 1:10-12 when he writes, “Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.”   Likewise, this seems to be the way that Jesus reads the OT, identifying himself by means of these OT writers who pointed forward to him (cf. John 5:39; Luke 24:27, 44).  Moreover, Paul and Jude employ this same hermeneutic when they read Christ into the OT (respectively, 1 Cor. 10:4; Jude 6).

All that to say, if these things interest you as they do me, and they should–putting the Bible together OT and NT is one of the most vital ways we can understand the God who has revealed himself and offered us salvation in his Son–then be sure to check out this multi-sided book.  In the meantime, you can also take the quiz here.

Other helpful resources on the subject include: G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson’s Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament; G.K. Beale’s The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text? ; Graeme Goldsworthy’s Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics.

I look forward to reading the arguments in the upcoming Zondervan book, but i am still more excited to simply read my Bible and see Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. 

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Hermeneutics: How should 21st Century Christians Read the Old Testament?

/ davidsschrock

So here’s the question, posed by Josh Philpot: Should 21st century Christians reinterpret the OT in light of the NT the way the apostle’s did (in preaching and teaching)? Or, was there a specific hermeneutic used by the apostles (through divine revelation, of course) as the church began? Or, should we maintain the original intent of the OT author in the same way that we do for NT authors? Would this deemphasize the Messiah in the OT?

So much has been written on this subject lately.  These mere responses are just scratching the surface on a subject that has much history and much need for further exegetical examination.

My first thought is, Why would anyone want to intrepret the Scriptures, the OT in particular, in manner other than the apostles? Dividing the OT from the witness of the NT seems inherently Marcion, except with a priority given to the OT. With so many hazardous methods of correlation espoused throughout church history, the way that the apostles read the Scripture, as inspired readers and writers, seems best. Evaluating and judiciously employing their mode of interpretation seems to be the most biblically consistent way of reading the book that had a single Divine author.

I don’t think that the apostles ripped Scripture out of context, as some assert. Instead, being steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, discipled by Jesus himself, and uniquely led by the Holy Spirit, I give them pride of place in being able to interpret the OT. We know Jesus saw himself in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, and it only makes sense that those who walked with him after the Resurrection had their eyes and minds opened to see (Luke 24:31, 45) and understand how all the OT pointed to Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 10:6; 2 Cor. 1:20; 2 Pet. 1:19-21). While we twenty-first centuries may have difficulty putting the testaments together, so did the apostles–until Jesus Christ explained the Scriptures to them (cf. Luke 24).  At which point, it appears that the apostles with the finality of the resurrection, couple with the instruction of the Christ, and the leading of the Spirit saw the light.   So, I gladly sit at their feet.

Personally, my method of interpretation has been influenced by Richard Lints three-fold approach found in his book, The Fabric of Theology, introduced by Steve Wellum, where we must read the text in its literary context–exegetically, epochally, and canonically.  As Daniel Block, a strong proponent of authorial intent, once said, “We must put ourselves in the shoes of the author to discern his original intent.” I agree, however, we cannot stop there and draw mere moral principles. We must move to the second horizon, the epochal context. Like Walter Kaiser, we must read the text in light of its antecedent theology and see how the text fits into its immediate historical and cultural context and its place in the storyline of Scripture. Finally, though, we must see the text in light of the entire canon of Scripture. We cannot think that God is making up the story as he goes. Jesus completing fulfills the OT Law, because when Moses was receiving the Decalogue, God was making preparations for Jesus to come and as the telos of the law (Matt. 5:17-18; Rom. 10:4). Only when we read the Bible in light of all three contexts or horizons can we properly discern the authorial intent and the intention of the Author and Perfecter, Himself (cf. Heb. 12:2).  For instance, only in light of the coming of Jesus Christ does the annihilation Israel’s make sense. Without the “Big Picture” and the light of the NT, these ostensible commands for genocide do not have a context.

While I concede that the apostles, being inspired by the Spirit, had a measure of authoritative interpretation and inscripturation that we do not, I think that should encourage twenty-first century Christians to look to their interpretative model all the more, not discourage exegetes from looking at their model. Would it be better to look to the allegorical method of Alexandria? Or the demythologization of Bultmann? Or the trajectory hermeneutic of William Webb? Or even the historical-literary model of Robert Stein?  No, it seems much better to give attention to Peter, Paul, and John. Those who deny NT light to illuminate OT Scripture minimize the unity of the Bible, disregard Jesus’ statement that all Scripture points to him (Luke 24:26-27, 44-46; John 5:39), and neglect an interpretative method that maintains full biblical authority, encourages a forward-looking, hope-giving biblical eschatology, and esteems Jesus Christ.

All that to say, in reading the OT like the apostles (or at least attempting to), Jesus Christ is most highly exalted and most closely rooted in the biblical contours of the canon. So I affirm the apostolic reading of the Scripture, and humbling attempt to see how the OT and NT fit together, unified in Christ (Eph. 1:10).

I know I haven’t figured it all out.  I haven’t come close.  But as I read the Scriptures, the gospel of Jesus Christ comes alive as I see the shadows of Christ in the Old Testament and His substance in the New Testament.  To that end, I will keep reading the whole counsel of Scripture, looking for Jesus.  What about you?

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

J.G. McConville on How the OT Relates to the NT

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

Reading this morning a chapter in The Messiah in the Old and New Testament edited by Stanley Porter, Tremper Longman quotes  J.G. McConville on how the Old Testament relates to the New.  His two-way approach is akin to Christopher J. H. Wright’s hermeneutic laid out in his popular book Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament.  Consider McConville’s assertion as you read your Bible today and think about how God’s antecedent revelation shaped  the NT apostles (cf. Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6) and how the OT prophets were looking forward to a coming Messiah, often writing “better then they knew” (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12). 

The interpretation of the Old Testament is not a one-way, but a two-way flow, in which contemporary situations were compared with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures were then brought to bear, sometimes in (to us) unexpected ways, on the situations.  The Old Testament, indeed, underwent a good deal of reinterpretation even as hopes of deliverance were being worked out (J. G. McConville, “Messianic Interpretation of the OT in Modern Context,” in Satterthwaite et al., eds., The Lord’s Anointed [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995], 13).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss