"…I would argue that the Old Testament functions within Christian scripture as a witness to Jesus Christ precisely in its pre-Christian form. The task of Old Testament theology is, therefore, not to Christianize the Old Testament by identifying it with the New Testament witness, but to hear its own theological testimony to the God of Israel whom the church confesses also to worship. Although Christians confess that God who revealed himself to Israel is the God and Father of Jesus Christ, it is still necessary to hear Israel’s witness in order to understand who the Father of Jesus Christ is. The coming of Jesus does not remove the function of the divine disclosure in the old covenant" (Brevard Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, p. 9).
The Old Testament is exactly that, an Older Testament. God really did reveal himself to Israel (Heb. 1:1), and as Christians we should seek to understand that witness, for it too glorifies Christ, the Messiah (Acts 18:28).
In the past (in history), the Lord spoke through the prophets, he really did, and we should endeavor to understand the testimony of the prophets. And now the Lord speaks through Jesus Christ, he really does, and we should endeavor to understand the testimony of Jesus Christ. However, to affirm that Christ is the heart of the Scriptures does not mean that we should collapse the witness of prophets into the witness of Christ the Prophet. As Childs states, Jesus did not remove the function of the divine disclosure of the OT.
In the NT, Christ tells us that he fulfils the witness of the prophets. To fulfil does not mean to obliterate (Mat 5:17). And here is the rub: If you separate the OT from the NT or collapse the OT into the NT, then you are not taking the historical fact that God spoke to the prophets seriously, and when you do this you are attacking their witness. And since that very witness corresponds by figure to Heavenly events (Heb 8:5), in reality what you are doing is attacking Jesus Christ. (Leithart makes this very point: Knowledge of the Scriptures equips us to live in the world as it truly is, and I would go on to clarify that this knowledge includes knowledge of the Older Testament. So, knowledge of the Scriptures is knowledge of Christ; and that knowledge, which is grace from God, allows us to live in the world as it truly is. Christ truly is King, and when we do not attack him, that is, when we submit to him and bow our knees to him, then we are actually living in the world as it truly is. And not only living, but through prayer, the sacraments, worship, etc., we are also meaningfully participating in the world as it truly is.)
It is Easter. Please, do not be like the pagans and the hypocrites; please do not attack Christ. If you separate the OT and NT, then you are attacking Christ. If you collapse the OT into the NT, you are attacking Christ. You are not, however, attacking Christ if you hold the OT and NT in union, for their unity is in Christ.
Good post Curt. This is the necessary push-back to what I was thinking and feeling about the Old Testament class. I was uncomfortable with the drive to completely separate the two testaments, but what you have written is also true.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question, which is slightly tangential. What do we do with typological readings of the Old Testament, such as found in Origen, etc? How much of this sort of interpretation can or should we do today? What are the criteria for determining legitimate interpretations of this sort?
Thanks for the reply and good questions. I will address Origen after a short moment, but as far as interpretation of types goes, Milton Terry has some very good suggestions. He provides three criteria: First, there must be a notable resemblance between the type and the thing typified; second, it should be evident that the type was designed by God to represent the thing typified; and third, the type actually prefigures something in the future.
ReplyDeleteSo, for example, the rock which Moses struck and from which all of Israel drank (Exodus 17:6) is a type, and Paul tells us that “the Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). First, the resemblance between the rock and Christ is obvious—all of Israel drank the spiritual drink that flowed from the rock/all of the New Israel drinks/will drink the spiritual drink that flows from the rock/Christ (John 4:10; 19:34). Second, was the rock that was struck designed by God to represent Christ (the thing typified)? Yes, of course. God instructed Moses to strike the rock in accordance with his own design, in order to teach Israel that they were entirely dependent on God’s provision. Likewise, later on he would demonstrate according to his design that the Church is entirely dependent upon God, but this time our dependence is met by the living water flowing from Christ, the struck rock, in whom we were chosen before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). And third, the rock (type) prefigured someone in the future—Jesus Christ.
And regarding Origen, to the best of my knowledge he generally appeals to Allegorization, not strictly Typology. His method of interpretation is usually lumped into the “Alexandrian” school, which had its own spiritualization and Allegorization twist (Assuming I have read my history books correctly, since, to date, I haven’t read mounds of Origen). Also, within early Christian thought there seem to have been two interpretive tendencies—one which spiritualized and utilized Allegorization (probably due to association with Platonism…and Judaism?), and the other which was more practical/sober-minded…which in my opinion is more similar to the manner by which Christ and the Apostles handled the OT in the NT (I’ll be honest…Christ and the Apostles have what appear at first to be their own fanciful interpretations, but, comparatively, Origen is plain and simple doing things a tad bit differently. With allegory you really do begin to lose sense of the historical/reality/concreteness of the things you are discussing—and when that is occurring it might be a good idea to say, “Easy, Trigger”).
I think that is what I believe—but nothing in stone yet—still chewing through it all.
I'd also throw in some echoes of the Church in your rock example (Peter as the rock and foundation of the Church, The Church as the Body of Christ, etc.). I like it. Origen definitely does allegory, you're right, I'm sorry. He has three levels of interpretation which correspond to the body, the soul, and the spirit. He calls it the literal or plain sense, the moral sense, and the spiritual sense. This is all from "First Principles". The allegorization is what gets kind of wild, in the same line of tradition as Philo and the way he allegorized the Hebrew Scriptures. My guess is that a similar set of criteria could be developed for allegory as for typology.
ReplyDelete