Skip to main content

Christian Preaching of the Old Testament #5


[This is the fifth in a serialisation and slight revision of an old essay of mine, in the hope of getting some interaction from others and also making it more accessible. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3,Part 4)]

Relating the Testaments

Kaiser is emphatic that ‘The Old Testament can stand on its own,’[1] and Mathewson, as we have seen, does not see the need to necessarily influence his OT interpretation with the NT.  I would argue that their approach to the OT stems form a prior commitment to the Bridge Paradigm.  Put another way, Christians do not need a special hermeneutic to preach on the OT because the principles within the OT are the same whether you are a Christian or not.  Goldsworthy’s understanding of revelation as progressive provides a different perspective, ‘not all texts stand in the same relationship to the contemporary believer as others.’ And, ‘in the process of progressive revelation Abraham knew more than Noah, Moses knew more than Abraham, David knew more than Moses, Ezekiel knew more than David, and Paul knew more than all of them.’[2]  While Kaiser argues that OT authors knew everything about the messiah except the date of his appearing.[3]  Greidanus writes, ‘the Old Testament by itself is like an incomplete painting.  The revelation in and of Christ in the New Testament completes this painting, and we must now see every part of the Old Testament in the light of the whole painting.’[4] 

To critically judge between the two positions I would argue that Kaiser and Mathewson overestimate the perspicuity of the OT in regards to Jesus Christ.  Scholarship has shown both that it is a considerable interpretive leap from the OT texts to 1st Century messianic Judaism,[5] and a further leap from that messianic hope to who the Christ is revealed to be in Jesus.[6]  Progressive revelation provides us with a model that can account for those leaps but progressive revelation also means that if we believe the NT is true we cannot get a true interpretation (i.e. "what it means" rather than "what it meant") of the OT without reference to the NT.  On the other hand, Kaiser's use of the Genesis 12:1-3 promise-plan as the interpretive key[7] results in a flat revelation incapable of accounting for the interpretive leaps that historical Christianity found necessary to make in comprehending that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ.[8]

Kaiser is right to say that ‘It is reductionistic to level out the Bible to say only what the New Testament has said!’[9]  Indeed if all the OT exists for is background to the NT we could probably dispense with it in our preaching.  However, neither Goldsworthy nor Greidanus are answerable to this charge.  They are both concerned that the revelation of the OT is essential to a full understanding of Christian truth.[10]  The crux of this debate is the respective authors’ understanding of the NT authors’ use of the OT.  As evangelicals they rightly desire to follow Jesus’ and the Apostles' example.  However, this in turn relies on their exegesis of the NT texts.  So the question of exegesis becomes vital not only for an objective reading of the OT but also for a correct Christian understanding of how Christians should interpret that meaning for their own situation.


[1] Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament,  27
[2] Goldsworthy, Preaching The Whole Bible as Christian Scripture,   73-4
[3] Kaiser, Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament,  41
[4] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament 52
[5] see Joachim Becker, Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980)
[6] See Fitzmyer, The One Who is to Come, and Juel, Messianic Exegesis
[7] Kaiser, Preaching and teaching from the Old Testament,  30-34
[8] See N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 40-43
[9] Kaiser, Preaching and teaching from the Old Testament,  2
[10] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 25; Goldsworthy, Preaching The Whole Bible as Christian Scripture,  34

Comments

  1. "And, ‘in the process of progressive revelation Abraham knew more than Noah, Moses knew more than Abraham, David knew more than Moses, Ezekiel knew more than David, and Paul knew more than all of them.’"

    And presumably by a process of inexhorable logic Deutero-Paul (if mythical beasts are allowed to exist in this Humpty Dumpty world of inevitable progress) knew more than Paul!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .