Irenaeus: Against Heresies

Irenaeus1 [For the next week, I am going to post a series on Irenaeus’ and his view of Scripture, his use of biblical theology, and his employment of typology in his polemic work: Against Heresies.  The content is not ground-breaking, but a simple attempt to understand how this Apostolic Father read Scripture and put the two testaments together.  Hopefully, it will help us better appreciate the shoulders that we stand on and how we might better interpret the Scriptures.]

[The bulk of these posts are from a paper I wrote earlier this semester on the subject.  Reading Against Heresies proved to be very enriching, and I hope that if you follow the analysis presented here over the next few days as it relates to Biblical Theology and biblical interpretation that you would be spurred on to read his book, Against Heresies.  The first two books are very hard to read as they deal with the intricacies of Gnosticism; the final three books are incredibly insightful and full of biblical exposition.  I highly recommend them.]

In Against Heresies,[1] Irenaeus of Lyons presents a biblically rigorous defense of historic Christianity in the face of second-century Gnosticism. Over the course of this week we will examine Irenaeus’ interpretive method in Against Heresies, and assert that contemporary Bible scholars, theologians, and pastors would do well to consider Irenaeus’ theological hermeneutics and to imitate those interpretive methods that prove faithful to Scripture (cf. Heb. 13:7). Of his interpretive methods, three deserve unreserved affirmation: 1) against Gnosticism, Irenaeus rejects theological accommodation that superimposes philosophical systems onto the biblical text; 2) against Valentinus, the Bishop of Lyons affirms Sola Scriptura with its doctrinal entailments—inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority; and 3) against Marcion, Irenaeus defends the Bible’s unity by proposing a robust biblical theology. Expanding this last point, we will analyze Irenaeus’ typology asserting that his typological method should be adopted with some significant modifications and caveats.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss


[1] Irenaeus Adversus haereses, trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson under the title Irenaus Against Heresies, in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], American ed., vol. 1 (United States: Christian Literature, 1885; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 309-567.

2 Corinthians 5:11-21: The Overriding Priority of Being Christ’s Ambassador

This is a Guest Post from Garrett Wishall, a good friend, a fellow student at SBTS, and the managing editor for Southern’s Towers Magazine.

Life is full of choices. Should I hit the snooze or get up? Will I go with hazelnut, mocha or Jamaican bean coffee this morning? Do I watch football or have a conversation with my wife? Do I have “the talk” with my son today or do I put it off? When I see my neighbor do I ask him about the yelling I heard from his house last night or do I avert my eyes and comment about the weather?

Our priorities shape how we make such choices. What is truly important to us comes through in what we do and don’t do what we say and don’t say. And it is motivations and heart desires that drive and define our priorities and, in turn, our decision-making.

In 2 Corinthians 5:11-21, Paul discusses a fundamental, overriding priority for every Christian: being an ambassador for Christ. An ambassador is one who represents another, one who acts as an emissary. For example, when President-elect Barack Obama settles into office, he will begin sending ambassadors to foreign nations. Those men and women will go with his commission: they will speak in his place and represent his beliefs. What they say will come with his stamp of approval.

Every believer in Christ serves as an ambassador for Christ, for good or for ill. 2 Corinthians 5:20 says that God makes His appeal through us, through believers. Thus, what we say should align with what Christ would say. What we do should align with what He would do.

In this passage, Paul provides three motivations that shape his prioritization of the role of being an ambassador for Christ.

First, Paul says that he knows the fear of the Lord (2 Cor 5:11). Paul is aware that he once walked in darkness, before the God who called light into existence shined the light of the knowledge of the glory of Christ into his heart. Paul says that He thus proclaims Christ as Lord, and himself as a servant for Christ’s sake (2 Cor 4:5-6). Paul knows fearing the Lord centers on submission to Christ and he persuades others to do just that.

Second, Paul says the love of Christ controlled him (ESV) or compelled him (NIV). Paul notes that since one man, Christ, died for all men, all men have thus died. Christ died for all that those who live might then live for Him and not for themselves (2 Cor. 5:14-15). The logic is simple: one righteous man dies for men dead in sin. All who respond to this news with repentance of sin and belief in this one man receive their lives back. How could we not then live for Christ’s sake and not our own?

This touches on the area of Christian freedom. Paul is saying that Christian freedom rightly employed prioritizes the glory of God and exaltation of Christ, not selfish gain. Too often Christian freedom is equated with being able to watch certain movies and drink certain beverages. The central purpose of Christ setting people free is that they might enter His kingdom, be conformed to His image and glorify God. In shorthand: He died that we die to sin and live for God (Rom 6:10-11).

This reality did not simply make logical sense to Paul: it moved him. In 2 Corinthians 6, Paul recounts the ways the love of Christ, being an ambassador of Christ, shaped his actions toward the church at Corinth. Through imprisonments, beatings and other afflictions, Paul was insistent in faithfully representing Christ. Paul concludes that the Corinthians believers are not restricted by him, but in their own affections.

The church at Corinth thus knew about the sacrifice of Christ, but it did not shape their lives. They were aware of His death on their behalf, but were not rightly moved to live on His behalf. We, God’s people, today are prone to respond to Christ’s sacrifice more like the Corinthians than like Paul. May we rend our hearts and ask the Lord to do a work in us. May we meditate upon the riches of Christ and may our lives then explode with gratitude and devoted service.

Finally, Paul was motivated to be a faithful ambassador for Christ because this ministry came from God (2 Cor 5:18). The message that every believer is Christ’s ambassador did not originate with your college mentor. It did not originate with John Piper or Mark Dever or whoever your favorite Bible teacher is.  The role of ambassador for Christ originates with the same God who spoke the world into existence and sustains it by the power of His Word. There is no authority that can override this Authority.

The fear of the Lord, the love of Christ and the authority of God thus drove Paul to prioritize his role as an ambassador of Christ. Such a prioritization should characterize the life of every believer, for we are all ambassadors of Christ.

Life is full of choices. But God does not leave us without direction for such choices. Instead, He gives us priorities that make the way clear. Every believer is Christ’s ambassador. Thus, everything we do and say reflects positively or negatively on Him.

In 2 Corinthians 5:11-21, Paul shows how the fear of the Lord, the love of Christ and the authority of God compel him to prioritize his role as Christ’s ambassador. Let us pray that the Lord will give us the grace to respond in a like manner. Then perhaps we can faithfully represent Christ in the words we say, the things we do and the choices we make each day.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

N.T. Wright: The New Testament and the People of God

new-testament-and-the-people

N.T. Wright.  The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God.  Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992.

In N.T. Wright’s first book in a series of three (with two more projected), the British New Testament scholar gives a full-orbed presentation (535 pp.) on the history, culture, and worldview of the land and the people into which Jesus was born and from which Christianity arose.

Part I introduces the book and the extended project.  He attempts to show that premodern, modern, and postmodern attempts at interpreting Scripture are all deficient, and that a synthesis of premodern’s authority, modernity’s critical eye, and postmodernity’s subjective impulse are needed to rightly understand the Bible.  He procedes to layout a three-fold method for considering the NT–examining its history, literature, and theology, which he unites with studies about Jesus, the gospels, and Paul, respectively. 

Part II picks up these three evaluative lens.  After dealing with issues of epistemology in chapter 2, Wright develops his understandings of history (3), literature (4), and theology and authority (5).  His interpretive grid is that of a “critical realist” (44-46) and he argues that we should understand the Bible according to its meta- and micro- narratives (this is developed further in chapters 13-14: “The Stories in Christianity”).   In his chapter on “Literature, Story, and Worldview,” Wright addresses the problems of hermeneutics, language, and reading.  He suggests a hermeneutic of love and goes on to propose a worldview-informing narrative hermeneutic.  Reading the Bible as an interactive story upholds the immutable Bible and the interpretive challenges of an everchanging world–in this Wright seems to fuse modern and postmodern tendencies.  Chapters 4 develops the view that history is never objective and that intrinsically it should be seen as historiography, history delivered with specific authorial intent to shape the account through selectivity, sequencing, and shaping.  Chapter 5 finishes his introductory section by considering the worldview-shaping effects of narrative theology.

Part III is comprised of five chapters that recreate the world of second temple Judaism (fourth century BC – first century AD).  In Chapter 6, Wright gives an historical account of the Greco-Roman world that dominates the landscape for the Jewish people.  Chapter 7 subdivides the Jewish thoughtlife, societal structures, and political machinations to show the diversity of second-temple Judaism.  While chapters 8-10, unfold the Jewish heritage, highlighting the stories, symbols, and praxis that shape their day-to-day life (8), tracing the storyline that informs contemporary beliefs (9), and referencing the apocalyptic hope that the Jew’s maintained in the face of enemy oppression (10).  

Wright bases much of his findings on the works of Josephus and much intertestamental Jewish writings.  His analyses contravene many historical positions on the 1st Century Judaism, while helpfully demonstrating the variations of Jewish belief at the time of Jesus’ birth.  Nevertheless, it is evident that he is clearing the way for New Perspective teachings on Paul (aka E.P. Sanders and James Dunn), which deny any kind of works-based righteousness–which will redefine justification by faith alone– and promotes a responsive covenantal nominianism (law-keeping)–that advocates a kind of “gracious” law-keeping.  (For a response to this see: John Piper’s The Future of Justification).

Wright juxtaposes the Jews with the oppression of the Roman empire and shows why covenantal markers are so important to the Jewish people.  He articulates that since the zenith of the covenant is dwelling in God’s presence (i.e. in the land and within the Temple), and that when this function is disable or at least inhibited by sin that leads to exile that leads to indwelling opposition in the land, that the Jews recast dwelling with God with covenantal markers (i.e. circumcision, Sabbath, ritualistic days, etc).  The difference between OT and NT is not type and fulfillment, but spacio-temporal, obeying the Torah becomes preeminent to keep covenant.  Entering the covenant is assumed by birthright.   Wright’s emphasis is clearly more corporate, to the detrimental exclusion individuals and their need to be reconciled to God.  While emphasizing the covenantal and corporate elements of salvation (of which he speaks in exodus language, restoration from exile), he minimizes the doctrine of personal salvation.  Moreover, nowhere in his lengthy discussion does he include matters of personal guilt, individual transgression, or need for atonement (cf. Ezek. 18; Leviticus 1-6, 16), leaving essential matters of redemption out of his discussion.   Consequently, he seems to be working with a semi-Pelagian understanding (anachronistically applied to second-temple Judaism, I understand) of the Jewish nations ability to keep covenant.

The value of Part III is its illuminating descriptions of second temple Judaism; the criticisms are clearly the New Perspective emphases which undermine the Reformation doctrines of salvation.

Part IV is the most helpful section in the book.  Chapter 12 begins with a discussion of praxis, symbols, and worldview that informed second-temple Judaism, but more pertinently shaped the first-century Christian community.  Looking particularly at the significance of the Land, the Temple, and the Torah, Wright asserts that all were updated in Christ, so that in the NT they take on metaphorical realities.  His approach in this chapter is overtly cultural-historical-sociological, not biblical-theological.  (This is a trait that runs throughout the book.  Wright devotes most of his energy retelling the story of the people from a sociological angle, not an exegetical outworking of the Biblical canon).  Nonetheless, his typological applicatons to Christ do stress the OT shape of the NT.

Chapters 13 and 14 unfold the message(s) of the biblical authors.  Chapter 13 examines the form and function of the synoptic gospels, the Pauline letters, Hebrews, and the Johannine corpus.  This chapter masterfully displays the wisdom and the logic of the NT writers, who retell the story of Israel in the person and work of Jesus Christ.  For instance, Wright compares Luke’s gospel to the work of Josephus–both of whom are making an apology to the Roman empire–and he goes on to show how the doctor recaptures the Samuel narratives to provide the outline of his Davidic biography.  Moreover, Matthew seems to employ Deuteronomy to construct his gospel, and Mark utilized Daniel as an apocalyptic narrative.  These intracanonical connections demonstrate the NT use and dependence on the OT.  In so doing, Wright argues that this more that simple typology.  It is rather a kind of mindset that sees the history of Israel being recapitulated (my word, not his) in the life of Jesus and the church.  Paul further does this in inviting Gentiles into the story of Jesus, the Israel of God.

Chapter 14 moves from the larger units (NT books) to the contents of those books–Jesus teaching, miracle stories, parables, etc.  He argues that these did not develop over time, but from the beginning they were well-formed.  He explains why this is so, using simply analogous logic, appealing to the ways stories are told and retold.

Finally, Wright concludes with an overarching description of first-century Christianity in “The Early Christians: A Preliminary Sketch” (15).  The take away point is that Christianity’s identity is fully Jewish.  The earliest church was shaped not by the historical events of Jesus life only.  Rather Jesus life and the birth of the church were understood, defined, and developed according to the well established patterns and promises of the OT, so that the life, death, and resurrection–an old testament pattern of exodus–was “according to the Scriptures.”  Without hesitation, this is the most helpful aspect of the book.  It makes the reader more aware of the intracanonical connections by way of appeal to historical-cultural-sociological expectations of the Jews.

The book is long and filled with abberrant teaching about the doctrines of justification and sin, but its Jewish reading of the Scriptures is very helpful and worth perusing.  I look forward to reading, with cautious selectivity, the other books in this series.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Christianity goes back…back…back…back

bockIn a pluralistic world and in a divided Christian church, how do you know that Christianity that is considered historic and called “orthodox” is indeed true?  It is because Darrell Bock answers, quoting the great theologian Chris Berman, “it goes back…back…back…back…”

This week, Dr. Darrell Bock, DTS Professor and author of Breaking the DaVinci Code, commentaries on Luke, and Jesus According to Scripture, has delivered a series of Gheens lectures as Southern Seminary.  In this lectures, Dr. Bock has argued for the authenticity of orthodox Christianity, over against alternative Christianity’s seen on the History Channel, in Barnes & Noble, and found in university settings.  Today, in his most stimulating lecture, Bock drew on the the historicity of 1st century Christianity and argued that “orthodoxy in an oral culture without a sacred and written text” is indeed possible, and after looking at the evidence is in fact warranted.  In short, he is arguing that even before a recognized canon, the message of Christianity was certain and singular.

To aid in his efforts, Bock adduced five alliterated ways in which the early church would taught a singular and unified doctrine.  These five ways contend against the notion, espoused by secular media and academia, that the earliest Christianity was pluriform.  These historically certifiable means of instruction serve to evidence that the message of the Bible was original to the earliest converts and not created after the fact–as has been maintained lately in books like The DaVinci Code

Here are five ways for early church instruction:

  1. Scriptures:  In the Hebrew Bible, God has revealed himself to the people of Israel and given promises and prefigurations that found telic fulfillment in Jesus Christ.  THe earliest Christian community read these regularly in corporate settings and would have depended heavily on them to understand Jesus the Messiah of Israel (see Matthew 1-2 for ways in which Jesus “fulfilled” OT Scripture; cf. 2 Cor. 1:20; John 5:39)
  2. Schooling:  In the early church, short, theologically-informing confessions and creeds helped retain, defend, and the instruct the church of God.  Written for the purpose of educating converts, these terse statements can be found today in the NT. Examples of these are in 1 Corinthians 15:1ff; 8:4-6; 1 Timothy 3:16.
  3. Singing:  Through hymns the church learned core doctrine and worshiped the triune God.  Two examples can be found in Philippians 2:5-11 and Colossians 1:15-20.  These ancient hymns, predate Paul’s letters and take us back to the first decade after Pentecost.
  4. Sacraments: Jesus left his church with two gospel-revealing ordinances–baptism and the Lord’s supper.  Both of these are to be regular parts of worship.  The first being recapitulated as often as a new convert professes faith; the latter being done on regular basis within the life of the church.  In the NT, these ‘sacraments,’ occur in places like Luke 22; 1 Corinthians 11 (Lord’s supper); and Romans 6; Colossians 2; and 1 Peter 3 (Baptism).  Every time these reenactments commenced they retold the story of a believer’s union with Christ–his death and resurrection and the hope of eternal life with Christ.
  5. Supervisors:  Finally, God gave apostles to the church to supervise the doctrine and the teaching (cf. Eph. 2:20-21; 4:11ff).  This is why the requirement in Acts 1 was that the 12th apostle replacing Judas be one who was a witness of Jesus’ life from the beginning.  They had to be eye witnesses of all Jesus did and taught to ground the earliest church in the truth of Christianity.

Listening to Dr. Bock’s lectures this week was not only informative, but entertaining.  Bock is a gifted speaker, and today’s lecture was superb.  It not only informed the mind, but warmed the affections for the glory and greatness of the resurrected Christ.  All of them are worth listening to, but today’s especially.  You can listen to them here.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Bible Arc dot com, a Review and Infomercial

image 

It was a life-changing revelation to me when I discovered that Paul, for example, did not merely make a collection of divine pronouncements, but that he argued. This meant, for me, a whole new approach to Bible reading. No longer did I just read or memorize verses. I sought also to understand and memorize arguments. This involved finding the main point of each literary unit and then seeing how each proposition fit together to unfold and support the main point. (”Biblical Exegesis: Discovering the Meaning of Scriptural Texts,” pg. 18)

If you are familiar with John Piper’s preaching and method of exegesis, than you are probably familiar with his use of “arcing.”  Piper’s statement above reflects the way he reads the NT epistles, and the benefits of systematically interrogating the argument in each NT letter.  To that end, Pastor Piper has commended Daniel Fuller’s method of Biblical Arcing.  In short, it is an excellent means by which students of the Bible can hone in on the author’s intent.  I bring attention to this exegetical device, because recently, an online web site has been developed for the sole purpose of “arcing” New Testament passages.

Biblearc.com has many strengths.  For starters, it furnishes all the tools necessary to complete the arcing process.  It provides helpful sidebars with navigable widgets and buttons that provide great opportunity to use the arcing nomenclature — which is a little foreign for beginners.  It provides Greek, ESV, NASB, KJV translations, as well as the possibility of providing your own translation.  Moreover, it provides more than 2 hours worth of introduction and training.

Another interesting feature that is forthcoming will be the sharing feature, where completed “Arcs” will be posted, and discussion about their accuracy will be moderated on the website.  This could certainly provide some rich exegetical conversations.

While this method of Bible study is excellent in the dense theological material of Paul’s letters or other New Testament Epistles, it is probably less fruitful for NT narrative passages, or Old Testament literature.  In fact, currently this only works with the New Testament.  Though, even in gospel writing, a device like this still helps us microwave Christians to slow down and let the passage simmer in our minds.  Finally, the point-and-click arcing is more cumbersome than what you would do with paper and ink, but with all the tools in front of you, and with help just a few clicks away, this program looks to be very helpful for the novice “Arcer” (like me), not Archer (like Nimrod). 

In sum, the online capabilities of Bible Arc dot com are really quite impressive.  And for only ten dollars you can setup a yearly account that will save your work and come back to it at a later date.  Additionally, you can print your documents to a PDF file for your own record keeping, and with its note-taking possibilities, Bible Arc dot com provides a great platform for personal Bible study or sermon preparation.

Hats off to all those who created this web gem.  If you are serious about Bible studies, I encourage you to drop the ten bucks and avail yourself of this helpful resource.

(HT: Johnathon Bowers

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

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

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?

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

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 TestamentConsider 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