Fascinating debate recently about how to read the OT. The first two statements below are from Professor Mark Snoeberger of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.
But since I’ve spent almost all my study time in the OT during the last two months, it’s almost as though I’ve left the Gospel Carnival behind. Kind of like going for a drive in the country, but better. It’s been very refreshing, but the funny thing is that, despite the fact that I have been spending considerably more time than normal in my Bible for the past two months, I’ve read virtually nothing about Christ, the Cross, or the Gospel.
Now some of you are probably shaking your heads right now and saying, “This guy doesn’t know how to read his Bible–it’s ALL about Christ if you know how to successfully navigate between the lines!” And I’m not blind to the redemptive thread that winds through the Bible. But the thing is, when I stop reading between the lines and just start reading the lines, Christ and the Gospel do not emerge as major OT themes. In fact, they’re not themes at all.
and then in the first comment under this post:
Revelation concerning the common or civic sphere, on the other hand, begins with the dominion mandate, takes peculiar shape with the Noahic Covenant and the second table of the Law, and dominates the theocratic period.
Dispensationalism, I think, can be demonstrated to be a variation of this latter model (some would say a perversion) that offers multiple adminstrations–not just two. The various purposes of God are inter-connected, but what is key is that they are not limited to redemptive concerns. What binds them together is not so much the Gospel as it is the manifold glory of God. It’s BIGGER than the Gospel.
Let’s take one example: the OT sacrificial system. There are diverse understandings within dispensationalism on the OT sacrifices, but one that I have felt comfortable embracing is John Whitcomb’s theocratic understanding of the sacrifices, viz., that the sacrifices were only incidentally connected with being redemptively right with God; instead they were concerned with being theocratically right with the (K)ing and with the covenant community. That these sacrifices became a pattern for the redemptive arrangement in the death of Christ is not accidental, of course. And God certainly arranged history so that there is a continuity of form. However, it seems to me that rather than seeing the OT sacrifices as anticipating Christ, it is better to say that God modeled Christ’s sacrifice retrospectively after the theocratic system.
If this is the case, then the the Mosaic system has its own meaning, known plainly by the OT saint, without reference to Christ. It was not intrinsically anticipatory.
Over and against this, Brian McCrorie in the comments here shared my basic view on this matter:
Ben I don’t think I fundamentally disagree with you. However, I would only add that we should not only interpret the OT on it’s own terms, but also interpret it canonically (ie, the Bible as one book)
If we simply isolate the OT from the NT, and interpret it “on it’s own terms”, and not canonically, would we ever come to the conclusion that Jonah could be a picture of Christ? Furthermore, I don’t need an OT text to explicitly tell me the rock in the wilderness was Christ when Paul tells me as much in 1 Cor.
If we isolate the testaments we may not even (like some comments above) see how Adam prefigured Christ. But it blows my mind that someone who has the NT would even question the correlation of the first Adam to the second, or King David to his greater Son whom he calls “Lord”.
The bigger question in all of this I think is how or if we can do what the NT writers do. For instance, we don’t have explicitly or implicity (that I know of)in the NT that Joseph was a type of Christ. But the correlations are almost as clear as day. I agree with James that Keller’s references to Esther and others are much more of a stretch. However, that doesn’t make his hermeneutic “special”, he’s just trying to follow the pattern of intertextual canonical interpretation. How confidently we do that today without divine inspiration is the sticking point (at least for me).
Lastly, I wanted to comment on something Keith said:
“How could God, ‘retrospectively’ do anything when he decreed it all outside of time?”Marriage from the perspective of Eph 5 is a perfect example of this. We know now, this side of the cross and through later revelation, that marriage was instituted to be a picture of Christ and the church. In other words, the cross and the church preexisted (in the purpose of God, not strictly in time) the marriage of man and woman. Why then would we be surprised to find the events and words of the OT orchestrated and inspired to point to Christ? We’re not necessarilty reading Christ and the NT back into the OT. It’s almost as if we’re going back before the OT, now with the knowledge of God’s ultimate plan climaxing in Christ. We have now what angels and prophets once only dreamed of seeing. Please don’t make me go back to that day.
and then:
Here [is an] illustration supporting canonical reading (or reading the NT back into the OT):
Black box: Imagine a FAA flight inspection team reviewing data and clues from the site of a plane crash. All their information is leading them down a path of understanding the cause of the crash. But when they find the black box they have the pilot’s definitive word on how and why the plane went down. Wouldn’t they then go back and look at all the collected data and see how all along it pointed to that particular failure. But without the black box it wasn’t clear. The recording didn’t change the data (NT revelation doesn’t alter the OT), but shed new light on its proper and full interpretation. Furthermore, without the box, the collected data could never have been fully understood. Why would any inspector then go back and disregard the recording, or separate it from the data, and try to interpret the two separately? Instead, he would interpret the (less clear) clues with the definitive recording….
By isolating the OT and having a hermeneutic based on original authorial intent instead of a wider canonical interpretation based on divine Authorial intent, we are severely limiting our understanding of the text. We can better locate, appreciate, and interpret the signs and symbols pointing to Christ in the OT only as we see them through the lens of the NT. Lastly, we must be very careful to isolate the OT from the NT because, in my opinion, the function of OT revelation (as well as parables, for example) is not simply to reveal, but also to conceal. We weren’t meant to get all the information on God’s redemptive plan from the OT. Throughout the OT God gives us clues which only later can be identified for what they were. My guess is that originally God intentionally concealed the whole story (like any good writer) from all people, but particularly from rulers and authorities, and ultimately Satan himself. How else can we explain Satan killing the King of the Jews only to realize the salvation of the world and his own defeat?
I encourage you to read the comments where Brian made these statements above. There is an in-depth discussion of this question and all participants are quite irenic and charitable. Makes for great reading. The comments at Snoeberger’s blog will just puzzle you more than anything. If that is the result of dispensationalist thinking, I say beware.
Makes me excited that I’ll be going to the Gospel Coalition Conference this year where the theme is preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Maybe that’s why the Conservative Evangelicals have such an appeal to young fundamentalists, they get what the message of the Bible is all about.
I’m teaching through the Exile portions of the Hebrew Scriptures during tessarakoste (aka Lent for all your Anglo-Saxons out there), and it is fascinating to see how they developed the concept of the Messiah and the Resurrection from the Scriptures that came before.
I think the stark contrast of Exile was what allowed them to see their need for a Messiah to free them, to revive them. Then of course, Jesus took this and amplified it even further.
So, in a sense, Christians can’t read the Hebrew Scriptures in a vacuum, and shouldn’t. The Scriptures provide the container which Jesus’ grace fills.
But in another sense, we have to be aware that when originally written, they were not read with a Christocentric view. It is only as revelation was opened and they could look back that the faithful could see the hints of eternity and magnify them for the following generations.
Agreed, Erik. Sailhamer shows that and I’m seeing it from others. The Jews themselves saw previous OT scripture Messianically. And ultimately Christ adds even more meaning to that. We can’t read the OT now, in the age we’re in, and not see echoes and foreshadowings of Christ everywhere. It’s like the black box illustration.
Sounds like a great series of texts to preach on. I just read a great book by Arie Leder on Waiting for the Land, it deals with the pentateuch and how it was intentionally crafted to end prior to reaching the land. Fascinating concept I’m going to be reviewing it soon.
The Old Testament is so life-giving to me the more I study it.
I find it ironic the typical Dispenationalist claims we should not follow the NT Authors hermeneutic precisely because they are inspired.
Which is more important: being Literal (per Dispy definition) or Faithful to Scripture?
My rule of thumb is to follow the hermeneutic of the NT Authors – in so far as, if an Author addresses an OT passage, then we need to make that connection. But I don’t see specific warrant to make connections when an NT Author does not make a connection.
Only make a connection when the NT Author makes one. What is the problem with this precedent?
Yes, we should see things in the OT as Israel-centric because, well, those promises were made to Israel. However, and I believe Matthew makes this plain in his Gospel, Jesus fulfills the promises and covenants made to Israel (He is the True Israel) because the ethnic group would not / could not fulfill their end of the covenants.
Then all (both ethnic Israel and Gentile like) who believe in Jesus are recipients of the blessings of the promises / covenants made to Israel – since Jesus fulfilled everything required of Israel.
Ultimately, the view switches from Israel-centric to Christo-centric. This is what the NT Authors seem to do. I will follow the NT Authors (for the very reason Dispy’s tell me not to follow them) BECAUSE they are inspired and the Dispy view is not.
After all, the NT Authors do the VERY THING Dispy’s claim we shouldn’t do. See Romans 3:4.
Well said, Dave.
I don’t think all dispensationalists treat the OT this way, but it seems to lean that direction, in my view. I don’t want to act as if how the NT and OT relate isn’t still a debatable topic with difficult cases. It is. But generally I think the NT exemplifies and patterns how we are to view the OT. We are to think a certain way about it now that Christ has been revealed in all His glory.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I’ve looked over a bit more of what Snoeberger had to say, and it’s frankly quite shocking. In my opinion, anyone who would be so brazen as to say in the same breath, “Frankly speaking, the Old Testament is not about Christ. It is about God’s people being rightly related to their holy God†– deserves the label of false teacher. The Old Testament is indeed about Christ; and it is utter shameless folly to say that, while excluding Christ from the picture, the Old Testament is still all about how God’s people can be rightly related to him. There is no other way to be rightly related to God than by Christ, there never has been, and there never will be.
I’ve posted about this on my own site:
http://psalm45publications.com/articles/christ-and-the-gospel-not-old-testament-themes-at-all-a-hyper-troubling-conclusion-of-a-hyper-dispensationalist/
Thanks again,
Nathan
Thanks for sharing. This was some good reading!
I liked this comment.
“As thankful as I am for the renewed emphasis on the gospel, I have noticed that some “gospel-centered” preachers get a little sloppy in how they talk about the OT. It’s easy to refer to OT characters as Christians, going to Church (the temple), etc. I heartily affirm the unity of Scripture, but I still feel like it’s a bit inaccurate or anachronistic to import some of this NT terminology into OT preaching.”
To add, it still perks my attention when people start talking about tithe – How it’s law and that all Christians must do it.
While I believe that the Bible should be read as a canon, we should be careful not to take certain scripture outside of its original context.
Interesting, CF. The tithing element is defended by many dispensationalists I know. Not sure historically how that fits in here if it was promoted by those who emphasize the unity of Scripture more and a Christological use of the OT, or if it was by those who are less that way.
I’m not sure that I would even hold to a mitte of the Old Testament at this point. The Old Testament is about Christ (Dispensationalist speaking here), but it is more than that. It is also about a people who were made into a kingdom, a kingdom which went into abeyance, which is promised again.
It is also about how man relates to the rule of God – after the fall, we learn that man wouldn’t be ruled by his internal conscience. After the flood, we learn that man wouldn’t be ruled by human government – a corrupt system which itself opposed God. At Sinai, we learn that man would not be ruled by an external legal system. In the New Testament, within the church, man will not be ruled by the community of believers. In the Millennium, man will not even be ruled by Christ himself. The solution within every period of time (read: dispensation) – an inward, redemptive change that occurs by faith in the revelation that is available at that time.
A major question between Dispensationalism and CT (not to mention the question of testamental relation) is Ryrie’s doxological vs. soteriological view of history. I would argue that this is unfair use of terms. Perhaps we would do better to label it (I get this from Chris Barney)
single-track doxological (CT)
multi-track doxological (DT)
Not following your first line here Chris. I think when you think of Creation as being a missionary action on the part of God, and when you realize that all of creation awaits the redemption of God’s people (Rom. 8), that you begin to see the fact that the single-track doxology (CT) isn’t exclusionary at all. Rather statements like this come to mind:
Eph. 3:9-11 “And to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
It is “the eternal purpose”. The church displays the manifold wisdom of God to the angels. Furthermore the chapter ends with “To him [that is, God] be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” Eternal glory comes to God through Christ and through the church. It sounds so climactic that all the other purposes and promises of God are wrapped up in this. We even see that in 2 Cor. 1:20a “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him.”
This side of the cross, with the black box unpacked and its information on display, we cannot but look at the other side through the lens of the risen Savior. That should alter how we approach it, in my view.
I’ll go one beyond the ‘single-track’ view and say this.
Christ did not come to create a new Kingdom but to restore the existing one. Creation is His Kingdom – at least that’s the way the Apostle Paul seems to have viewed it – so salvation is not so much about what we sinful men are doing but what Christ is doing. In that sense, we can look and see Christ in the Old Testament.
By the same token, although they did not call him “Jesus”, the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures recognized that the restoration of the Kingdom was at the core of their existence. That’s why Genesis 1-3 is in the book after all. It is the foundation upon which everything was built.
Well said, Pastor Eric.
Agreed, Eric.
Rather reckless statement by Snoeberger. It may be symptomatic of his rationalism. Possibly a trip to a fine country church where the poor Minister is too stupid to understand such wisdom and can reveal Christ all throughout the OT for Mark.
As a person trained in a dispensational baptist context, I would like to suggest that this Snoeberger fellow is expressing a sense of relief at being mentally freed from a constricting hermeneutic. He states his freedom in the form of a categorical imperative, which is an exagerration, and causes alarm if taken literaly (heh). I could very well be mistaken, but I think he’s feeling what I first experienced at one time — that the Old Testament touches on a lot of subjects, and though all its dots, once connected, do connect you to Jesus Christ, but not in the naive devotional way many of us were taught. E.g., the book of Ruth shows us the line of Messiah, but it’s mainly about God’s grace and faithfulness to a Gentile. You could never be saved by the content of the book of Proverbs, if Proverbs was the only book of the Bible. Nor the book of Ecclesiastes. All the pieces do fit into a much bigger Messianic puzzle, but the connections to Messiah are often subtle rather than explicit, and each piece does have its own stand-alone value as well.
When Snoeberger said,
“It’s been very refreshing, but the funny thing is that, despite the fact that I have been spending considerably more time than normal in my Bible for the past two months, I’ve read virtually nothing about Christ, the Cross, or the Gospel.”
I felt a scary feeling come over me.
“refreshing” = “virtually nothing about Christ, the Cross or the Gospel.”
scary.
If I were a doctor asked to diagnose ailing Fundamentalism in certain quarters I would say: “the root of the problem is that their understanding of the Gospel is too small.”
Indeed, Mark. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Bob,
Thanks for the encouragement! However, I can’t take credit for your quotes in this blog article as I didn’t write them! There must be another “Brian” out there. I did enjoy reading “my” excerpts though–great discussion!
Brian McCrorie
Funny, Brian. I thought I read you on this controversy somewhere, maybe another blog. I guess I wrote this post too late at night to think straight.
I’ll edit the main post.
Too funny….
Bob