Two Testaments, One Bible : The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments [3 ed.] 9780830884230, 9780830814213

Citation preview

David L. Baker

Two Testaments, One Bible

The theological relationship between the Old and New Testaments Third Edition

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 2

22/12/09 12:35:14

InterVarsity Press, USA P.O. Box 1400 Downers Grove, IL 60515-1426, USA World Wide Web: www.ivpress.com Email: [email protected] ©David L. Baker 1976, 1991, 2010 David L. Baker has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of InterVarsity Press. InterVarsity Press®, USA, is the book-publishing division of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA® and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. Unless otherwise stated, quotations from the Bible are from the New Revised Standard Version, Anglicized edition, copyright © 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved. First edition 1976 Second edition (revised and updated) 1991 Third edition (revised and updated) 2010 ISBN 978-0-8308-8423-0 (digital) ISBN 978-1-8308-1421-3 (print)

To my mother and in memory of my father

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 5

22/12/09 12:35:15

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 6

22/12/09 12:35:15

CON TENT S

Preface Abbreviations

13 15

PART 1: THE PROBLEM

21

1.

Biblical foundations 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Old Testament view a. Development of future expectation b. Prophetic eschatology c. Apocalyptic eschatology d. Expectations and tensions 1.3 New Testament view a. Jesus and the Old Testament b. The substructure of Christian theology c. New Testament interpretation of the Old d. Fulfilment and resolution

23 23 25 26 27 29 29 30 31 31 32 33

2.

History of biblical interpretation 2.1 Early church a. Apostolic Fathers b. Marcion

35 35 36 36

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 7

22/12/09 12:35:15

8

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

c. Reactions to Marcion d. Theodore and Augustine 2.2 Middle Ages 2.3 Reformation a. Martin Luther b. John Calvin c. The Anabaptists d. Council of Trent 2.4 Seventeenth to nineteenth centuries a. Orthodoxy b. Reaction to orthodoxy c. Friedrich Schleiermacher d. Historical criticism e. Conservative reaction 2.5 Developmental approach a. A. F. Kirkpatrick b. R. L. Ottley c. Analysis d. Conservatism 2.6 Neo-Marcionism a. The Nazi Bible b. Defence of the Old Testament c. Implicit Marcionism 2.7 Four key decades a. 1930s b. 1950s c. 1970s d. 1990s

36 37 38 39 39 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 44 45 46 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 53 54 57

PART 2: FOUR MODERN SOLUTIONS

61

3.

The New Testament as the essential Bible 3.1 Rudolph Bultmann a. The Old Testament and the Christian faith b. Prophecy and fulfilment 3.2 Critique a. Existence b. History c. Law and gospel d. Miscarriage and promise

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 8

63 63 64 68 71 72 73 73 75

22/12/09 12:35:15

contents

e. People of God f. A relationship of contrast 3.3 Comparison a. Emanuel Hirsch b. Friedrich Baumgärtel c. Franz Hesse d. Antonius Gunneweg

9

76 78 78 79 79 83 84

4.

The two Testaments as equally Christian Scripture 4.1 Wilhelm Vischer a. The witness of the Old Testament to Christ b. Old Testament interpretation c. Everywhere the Scripture is about Christ alone 4.2 Critique a. Method b. Jesus as the Old Testament Christ c. Christological Old Testament interpretation d. Timeless revelation e. A relationship of identity 4.3 Comparison a. Karl Barth b. Edmond Jacob c. George Knight d. Brevard Childs e. Christopher Seitz

87 87 88 90 92 93 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 98 99 100 106

5.

The Old Testament as the essential Bible 5.1 Arnold van Ruler a. The Old Testament itself b. The Old Testament and Christ c. The Old Testament and the church 5.2 Critique a. Incongruity b. The ‘surplus’ c. Jesus Christ as God’s ‘emergency measure’ d. Creation and salvation e. Kingdom of God f. A relationship of priority 5.3 Comparison a. Kornelis Miskotte b. James Barr

109 109 110 112 117 119 119 121 122 123 124 126 127 127 131

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 9

22/12/09 12:35:15

10

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

c. Walter Brueggemann d. John Goldingay e. ‘Sectarian impatience’ 6.

The two Testaments as one salvation history 6.1 Gerhard von Rad a. Actualization b. The world and humanity c. The saving event d. The law 6.2 Critique a. History and historicity b. History and story c. Tradition history d. Salvation history e. The question of reality f. A relationship of actualization 6.3 Comparison a. Oscar Cullmann and George Ernest Wright b. Samuel Amsler c. Wolfhart Pannenberg d. Jürgen Moltmann e. Hartmut Gese and Peter Stuhlmacher

PART 3: FOUR KEY THEMES 7.

Typology 7.1 Typology in modern study a. Modern definitions of typology b. Typology in the Old Testament c. Typology in the New Testament d. The relationship between the Testaments 7.2 The basis of typology a. Example and pattern b. Analogy and correspondence c. Illustration 7.3 The nature of typology a. Principles and definitions b. False ideas of typology c. Suggested characteristics of types d. Confusion with fanciful interpretation

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 10

133 134 137 139 139 140 141 142 144 145 145 146 149 151 152 154 155 156 156 160 162 163 167 169 169 170 171 172 173 175 175 177 178 179 179 180 182 183

22/12/09 12:35:15

contents

e. The ‘fuller meaning’ f. Types and paradigms g. A relationship of analogy

11

184 185 187

8.

Promise and fulfilment 8.1 Prediction, prophecy, promise a. Three British scholars b. Three German scholars c. The Biblischer Kommentar group d. Consensus achieved e. Definitions 8.2 Promise in the Old Testament a. Terminology b. The basic promise c. The promise to David d. The prophetic books 8.3 Fulfilment of promise a. Terminology b. Fulfilment within the Old Testament c. Fulfilment in Jesus Christ d. Fulfilment without consummation e. A relationship of interdependence

191 191 191 194 196 198 199 202 202 203 205 206 208 208 209 210 213 217

9.

Continuity and discontinuity 9.1 Continuity and discontinuity a. A continuous history b. Intertestamental period c. Judaism and Christianity d. Historical discontinuities 9.2 Israel and the church a. The new Israel b. One people of God c. Palestine, the Jews and Judaism 9.3 Unity in diversity a. Theological unity b. Theological diversity c. A relationship of tension

219 219 219 220 221 223 224 225 226 228 230 230 232 233

Covenant 10.1 Old covenant a. Terminology

237 237 237

10.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 11

22/12/09 12:35:15

12

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

b. Covenants in the Old Testament c. God’s covenant with Abraham d. Confirmation of the covenant e. Covenant and worship 10.2 Covenant-breaking and renewal a. Early days b. Monarchy c. After exile 10.3 New covenant a. The prophetic message b. The newness of the new covenant c. New covenant in the New Testament

239 242 243 247 248 249 250 254 255 255 259 261

PART 4: CONCLUSION

265

11.

267 267 268 268 268 269 270 271 271 272 273 273 274 275 276 276 278 279

The theological relationship between the Testaments 11.1 Summary of the problem a. Biblical foundations b. Historical survey c. ‘New Testament’ solutions d. ‘Old Testament’ solutions e. The need for a ‘biblical’ solution 11.2 Towards a ‘biblical’ solution a. Christology b. Salvation history c. Typology d. Promise and fulfilment e. Continuity and discontinuity f. Covenant 11.3 Implications for theology and church a. The authority of the Old Testament b. Old and New Testament interpretation c. Biblical theology

Bibliography Index of Bible references Index of authors Index of subjects

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 12

282 351 362 371

22/12/09 12:35:15

P RE FACE

Do we need the Old Testament today? Is this collection of ancient writings still relevant in our postmodern and increasingly post-literary world? If we need books at all, is not the New Testament a sufficient basis for the Christian faith? Surely it is difficult enough to contextualize the teachings of Jesus and Paul, without trying to retrieve something of lasting value for Christians from the even more archaic world of Israel’s heroes and antiheroes? What does the Old Testament God of power and glory have to do with the New Testament God of love, whom Jesus calls ‘Father’? Are these two very different Testaments really one Bible? During the past two millennia, the church has repeatedly faced challenges to its acknowledgment of both Old and New Testaments as Scripture. None of these challenges has been successful. At the dawn of the third Christian millennium, the Bible contains the same books as it did in the early church, with only slight variations between different traditions. Yet doubts remain and questions continue to be asked. In practice many Christians rarely read the Old Testament, and more often than not sermons are based on New Testament texts and themes – if based on the Bible at all. At the same time, it is recognized that what the church has named the ‘Old Testament’ is for Jews the only Bible, and so some Christians refer to it as the ‘Hebrew Bible’ and feel it is more appropriate to interpret it in a Jewish rather than a Christian way. This book investigates the theological basis for the continued acceptance

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 13

22/12/09 12:35:15

14

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

of the ‘Old Testament’ as Christian Scripture, through a study of its relationship to the New Testament. Scholars have written a vast amount on different aspects of this subject and readers will be introduced to the main issues, as the most important writings representing four major approaches are analysed, criticized and compared. Four key themes are then presented, which provide a framework for Christian interpretation of two Testaments in the context of one Bible, namely ‘typology’, ‘promise and fulfilment’, ‘continuity and discontinuity’ and ‘covenant’. Finally, there is a summary of the main conclusions and a consideration of their implications for the use of the Bible today. This study originated as a doctoral thesis, accepted by the University of Sheffield in 1975 and published in 1976 by Inter-Varsity Press. A substantially revised second edition was published in 1991 under the Apollos imprint. The material was restructured and brought up to date, with some sections abridged or omitted, while others were expanded and several completely new sections included. An Indonesian edition, incorporating further changes, was published in 1993. The text of this third English edition has been thoroughly revised, and the footnotes and bibliography updated. There are several completely new sections (on the 1990s, Seitz, Brueggemann and Goldingay) and a new chapter (on covenant). Many teachers, colleagues, students and friends have contributed directly or indirectly to the various editions of this book, and it is impossible to thank them all here by name. I mention just one – my wife, Elizabeth, who has made an incalculable contribution by reading drafts, by urging me to finish the project, and by simply being there. My parents have supported and encouraged me unfailingly at every point in my life. I dedicate this book to my mother and in memory of my father, who died as this book went to press. ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die’ (John 11:25–26). David L. Baker

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 14

22/12/09 12:35:15

ABBRE VI AT IONS

Bible av esv lxx niv njb nrsv reb rsv tev tniv

Authorized (King James) Version (1611) English Standard Version (2001) Septuagint New International Version (1984) New Jerusalem Bible (1985) New Revised Standard Version, Anglicized edition (1989, 1995) Revised English Bible (1989) Revised Standard Version (1952) Today’s English Version [Good News Bible] (1976) Today’s New International Version (2005)

Biblical quotations are taken from the nrsv unless otherwise stated. Old Testament references follow the verse numbering of the English Bible, on the assumption that readers who use the Hebrew Bible will be aware of the differences.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 15

22/12/09 12:35:15

16

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Journals, series, reference works AB ABD AER AmUS AnBib ASNU ATM ATR AUSS BA BCOTWP BETL BETS BEvT BGBH BGLRK Bib BibInt BIS BJRL BKAT BR BRev BSac BSem BT BTB BTS BU BWANT BZ BZAW BZNW CahNRT CBQ CBQMS

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 16

Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) American Ecclesiastical Review American University Studies Analecta biblica Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis Altes Testament und Moderne Anglican Theological Review Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Hermeneutik Beiträge zur Geschichte and Lehre der Reformierten Kirche Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblical Interpretation Series Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Biblical Research Bible Review Bibliotheca sacra Biblical Seminar Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblisch-theologische Studien Biblische Untersuchungen Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Cahiers de la Nouvelle Revue Théologique Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

22/12/09 12:35:15

a b b r ev i at i o n s

CBR CHB CQR CR:BS CRINT CTJ EAJT ERev ERT ETL ETR EuroJTh EvQ EvT ExpTim FAT FRLANT GBS GNS GPBS HBT HeyJ HT HTR HTS ICC IDB IDBSup IJT Int IRT ITC JAOS JBC JBL

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 17

17

Currents in Biblical Research The Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. G. W. H. Lampe et al. (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963–70) Church Quarterly Review Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Calvin Theological Journal East Asia Journal of Theology Ecumenical Review Evangelical Review of Theology Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Études théologiques et religieuses European Journal of Theology Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to Biblical Scholarship Good News Studies Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship Horizons in Biblical Theology Heythrop Journal History and Theory Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) Indian Journal of Theology Interpretation Issues in Religion and Theology International Theological Commentary Journal of the American Oriental Society The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown et al. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968) Journal of Biblical Literature

22/12/09 12:35:15

18

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

JBR JBT JCBRF JCPS JES JETS JR JSNT JSNTSup

Journal of Bible and Religion Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie Journal of the Christian Brethren Research Fellowship Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTC Journal for Theology and the Church JTS Journal of Theological Studies KD Kerygma und Dogma LCC Library of Christian Classics LD Lectio divina LEC Library of Early Christianity LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LQ Lutheran Quarterly MCNT Modern Concordance to the New Testament, ed. Michael Darton (London: Darton Longman & Todd, 1976) MdB Le monde de la Bible NCB New Century Bible NFT New Frontiers in Theology NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIDB The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld et al. (5 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–) NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown (3 vols.; Paternoster: Exeter, 1975, 1976, 1978) NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. W. A. VanGemeren (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997) NKZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NRTh La nouvelle revue théologique NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology NTL New Testament Library

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 18

22/12/09 12:35:15

a b b r ev i at i o n s

NTS OBT OED

OTE OTL OTM OTS OtSt PBTM PFES PIBA Presb QD RB RevExp RHPR RTP RTR SBA SBET SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBLSymS SBS SBT SBTS Scr SEÅ SECT SHANE SHBC SHS SJOT SJT SNTSMS SOTBT SSN

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 19

19

New Testament Studies Overtures to Biblical Theology Oxford English Dictionary, ed. John Simpson & Edmund Weiner (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); plus online revisions up to 2008 Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Old Testament Message Old Testament Studies Oudtestamentische Studiën Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association Presbyterion Quaestiones disputatae Revue biblique Review and Expositor Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de théologie et de philosophie Reformed Theological Review Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Scripture Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok Sources of Early Christian Thought Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Scripture and Hermeneutics Series Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology Studia semitica neerlandica

22/12/09 12:35:15

20

TBl TDNT

TDOT

Them ThQ ThSt ThTo TJ TLZ TNTC TTS TUGAL TynBul TZ VE VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ WUNT ZABR ZAW ZKTh ZRG ZSTh ZTK

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 20

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Theologische Blätter Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (10 vols.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1964–76; tr. from German, 1933–73) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck & Helmer Ringgren (15 vols.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977–2006; tr. from German, 1970–95) Themelios Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Studien Theology Today Trinity Journal Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Trierer theologische Studien Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vox evangelica Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie Zeitschrift für Theologie and Kirche

22/12/09 12:35:15

PART 1 : T HE PROB LEM

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 21

22/12/09 12:35:15

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 22

22/12/09 12:35:15

1 . BIBL ICAL FOUNDAT IONS

1.1 Introduction Christianity has the New Testament as the record and testimony of the life, death and resurrection of its founder, Jesus Christ, and of the formation of the Christian church. One of the most fundamental problems that has faced theology and the church in every age and still demands a solution today is whether or not Christianity also needs an Old Testament. Is the Old Testament to be thrown away as obsolete, or preserved as a relic from days of yore, or treasured as a classic and read by scholars, or used occasionally as a change from the New Testament, or kept in a box in case it should be needed some day? Or is the Old Testament an essential part of the Christian Bible, with continuing validity and authority alongside the New Testament? The importance of this problem was forcibly expressed by Bernhard Anderson (1964a) in his introduction to a symposium on the significance of the Old Testament for the Christian faith: No problem more urgently needs to be brought to a focus than the one to which the following essays are addressed: the relation of the Old Testament to the New . . . it is a question which confronts every Christian in the Church, whether he be a professional theologian, a pastor of a congregation, or a layman. It is no exaggeration to say that on this question hangs the meaning of the Christian faith.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 23

22/12/09 12:35:15

24

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Twelve years later Segundo (1976) reckoned that the problem still awaited a clear solution: What is the exact relationship between, for example, the revelation of Jesus in the New Testament and the revelation of God in the Old Testament? Though it may seem hard to believe, the fact is that this basic and important question has scarcely been given a clear answer over the past twenty centuries of Christian living. And that fact has conditioned the whole of theology.

The complexity of the problem is shown by the vast number of studies on particular aspects of the relationship between the Testaments and the fact that at the beginning of the third millennium only a few published books tackle the problem as a whole.1 There are many possible ways of approaching the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. One of the most obvious is the historical, since it is indisputable that there is a historical relationship between the two Testaments, that the New Testament is historically later and to some extent derivative from the Old Testament.2 It would also be possible to use a linguistic, literary, sociological, psychological, ethical or philosophical approach. A comprehensive study of the relationship between the Testaments including all these perspectives is obviously not feasible. In this book I concentrate on the theological level of the problem because, as has been increasingly recognized in modern biblical scholarship, the Old and New Testaments are first and foremost theological works. Their linguistic, historical and ethical aspects are subordinate to this central concern. However, even the theological problem of the relationship between the Testaments is too complex to be dealt with fully in one book. So I focus on the major aspects of the problem, the major solutions proposed and the major issues involved, without entering into detailed exegetical, historical or theological issues. Sometimes this means that important matters are dealt with only briefly, but references to more detailed discussions are provided in the footnotes. The first part of the book introduces the problem of the theological

1. Apart from earlier editions of the present book, the following may be noted: Amsler 1960a; Barr 1966; J. Bright 1967; Gunneweg 1977; Oeming 1987; Childs 1992. Several symposia also address the problem: Westermann 1960; B. W. Anderson 1964c; Dohmen & Söding 1995; Dimitrov 2004. 2. E.g. Noth 1954; Bruce 1969. See below: 9.1.a.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 24

22/12/09 12:35:15

b i b l i c a l f o u n dat i o n s

25

relationship between the Testaments by means of a biblical and historical survey. The second part is devoted to a study of four modern solutions to the problem. In each case the work of the most important proponent of the solution is analysed in detail and subjected to critique, followed by a briefer discussion of other works that fall into the same category. The third part of the book is concerned with four key themes in the relationship between the Testaments. Finally, the results of the study are summarized and some of their implications for theology and church today considered. A word about terminology may be helpful at this point. The terms ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’ derive from ‘old covenant’ (palaia diathēkē) and ‘new covenant’ (kainē diathēkē), first found in 2 Corinthians 3:14 and Jeremiah 31:31 respectively. However, these terms were not used as designations for the two parts of a canon of Scripture until the end of the second century, by Irenaeus.3 In recent years there have been various discussions about alternative terms, and many scholars favour use of the supposedly neutral term ‘Hebrew Bible’ instead of ‘Old Testament’, while others prefer ‘First Testament’. Seitz (1998: 61–74) examines the former alternative at length and shows it to be seriously unsatisfactory.4 The latter is less problematic, so long as the ‘New Testament’ is renamed ‘Second Testament’, but the advantages over traditional terminology are doubtful. The contrast ‘first/second’ is no more accurate or comprehensible or interesting than ‘old/new’. I remain unconvinced that it is necessary to modify these well-established terms.

1.2 Old Testament view It might be thought that the earliest, and therefore definitive, approach to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments would be that of the New Testament. Yet important though this is, it is necessary to go further back into history. The Old Testament itself has a good deal to say about its relationship to future faith. Indeed Bultmann, von Rad and others have taken the Old Testament’s ‘openness to the future’ to be the controlling factor in its view of God, humanity and history.5 This forward-looking aspect should not

3. Trigg 2003: 327; L. M. McDonald 2007: 15; cf. McKane 1993; Kinzig 1994. The English term ‘Testament’ comes from testamentum, the Latin translation of diathēkē. 4. See also B. W. Anderson 1999: 5–7. 5. See Bultmann 1949a: 183; cf. 15–56; von Rad 1960: 319–322, 332, 361–363, passim; Zimmerli 1975: 238–240; cf. Brueggemann 1987; Preuss 1992: 305–307.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 25

22/12/09 12:35:16

26

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

be overemphasized, for the Old Testament is also very concerned with past and present realities.6 Nevertheless a significant aspect of Old Testament faith and religion is its expectation of the future.7 a. Development of future expectation From early times Israel had some kind of hope for the future. This is apparent from such passages as Genesis 12:1–3; 49; Exodus 3:8; Numbers 24; Deuteronomy 33; 2 Samuel 7; 23:3–5; Amos 5:18; and Psalms 2; 45; 68; 110. Zimmerli (1968) traces this Old Testament hope in great detail and points to seven examples of future expectation in the primeval history alone (Gen. 1:26; 2:17; 3:14–20; 4:11–15; 6:5–8; 8:21–22; 11:4).8 Early Israel generally had an optimistic view of the future, expecting material and spiritual blessings, both in the political and the family realms. This early salvation hope was mainly concerned with the continuation of the present order and did not envisage a radical renewal, as found in prophetic literature.9 The belief in a radical change to be brought about by God in the future appeared later on. It was based on the conviction ‘that history moves in a direction, that this direction is set by God, and that God acts within history to ensure this direction’.10 Such beliefs are often called ‘eschatology’, though the narrower understanding of eschatology as ‘the doctrine of the last things’ is scarcely present in the Old Testament.11 Various attempts have been made to explain the origin and basis of Israel’s eschatology. Smend I (1893) and Volz (1897) suggested its source to be nationalism. Gunkel (1895) and Gressmann (1905) pointed to mythical elements and argued for an origin in ancient Eastern mythological thought. Mowinckel (1922) found the basis of the Old Testament expectation in the enthronement festival and the disappointment that ensued when the kings of Israel proved to be far different from the ideal of kingship. While there may be some truth in these observations, such explanations are inadequate to account for Israel’s distinctive expectation of the future.12

6. See Vriezen 1966: 431–432. 7. For general introduction to Old Testament eschatology, see Petersen 1992; Cook 2007. 8. For a more recent study of hope in the Old Testament, see Knierim 1995: 244–268. 9. See Eichrodt 1933: 472–480; Jacob 1955b: 319–325; Preuss 1968. 10. P. R. Davies 1980: 38. 11. See Vriezen 1953: 200–203; Jenni 1962; J. Bright 1963; Clements 1965: 103–106. 12. Eichrodt 1933: 494–499.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 26

22/12/09 12:35:16

b i b l i c a l f o u n dat i o n s

27

Old Testament eschatology is grounded in its distinctive view of history and theology, in which God is seen to be active in the history of Israel. So the Old Testament’s hopes for the future are based on • the certainty that God is real though life may be hard (Vriezen 1953); • the tension between the immanence and hiddenness of God, which leads to the hope that God’s presence will be perfected in a future coming ( Jacob 1955b: 317); • the perception of the radical sin and unbelief of the people that can be overcome only by God’s grace (Bultmann 1933); • the prophetic conviction that God will act in the future as he has acted in the past, though in an entirely new way (von Rad 1960: 116). b. Prophetic eschatology The classical period for the development of Israel’s eschatology was that of the prophets.13 Judgment and salvation are portrayed with unparalleled clarity in their message, as may be seen by looking at almost any page of the prophets’ writings. The pre-exilic prophets attack the popular optimism of Israel and proclaim the radical judgment of God; the exilic prophets introduce optimism as they point to a new beginning, a new creation and a new salvation. At least four major features of the prophetic expectation of the future may be isolated: a time, a people, a place and a person. Day of the Lord From the beginning of the prophetic period there was a belief in a time (‘day’) when God would intervene in the history of Israel (Amos 5:18–20). This belief was expressed distinctively by the term ‘Day of the Lord’ (see also Isa. 13:6, 9; Ezek. 13:5; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7, 14; Zech. 14:1) and related forms such as ‘day of vengeance’ (Isa. 34:8; 61:2; Jer. 46:10) and ‘on that day’ (Ezek. 29:21; cf. Isa. 2:11–12; Jer. 3:16–18; Amos 3:14).14 Spiritual renewal The prophets look forward to a renewal of the people of God. After judgment will be restoration ( Jer. 29:14; 30:3; Ezek. 16:53; Zeph. 3:30). The nation will be

13. See Vriezen 1953; Clements 1965: ch. 6; Zimmerli 1968: 86–137; J. Bright 1976; Hubbard 1983; Gowan 1986. 14. On the ‘Day of the Lord’, see Černý 1948; Rowley 1956: 177–201; von Rad 1959; Gray 1974; van Leeuwen 1974; House 2007; cf. Everson 1974.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 27

22/12/09 12:35:16

28

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

exiled but a remnant will return (Isa. 7:3; 10:20–22; Jer. 23:3; Mic. 2:12; Zech. 8). They will take part in a new exodus (Isa. 4:5; 10:24–27; 35; 51:9–11; 52:12; Hos. 11:10–11; Zech. 10:8–11), a new covenant will be made ( Jer. 30 – 33; cf. Isa. 55:3; Ezek. 16:60; 34:25–31) and God will give them a new spirit (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; 37:1–14; Joel 2:28; cf. Isa. 11:2; Ezek. 18:31; Hos. 6:1–3).15 Materialistic hope There was also a materialistic aspect to prophetic eschatology, particularly concerning the question of a place. This is often expressed by Utopian ideas of world renewal and has two main strands: the return of paradise is a recurring theme (Isa. 11:6–9; 25:8; 51:3; Mic. 4:3); and alongside this is the expectation of a renewed holy land (Isa. 62:4; cf. 65:17; Jer. 30:3; 32:6–15; Ezek. 20:40–42) and holy city (Isa. 60 – 62; Ezek. 40 – 48; Mic. 4:1–2; Zech. 2).16 Messiah Finally, when Israel’s thoughts turned to the future they sometimes focused on a person whom God would send. That is hardly surprising in view of their belief in God’s provision of individuals to meet the nation’s political or spiritual need, in the form of prophets, judges, priests and kings. The concept of a messiah, though hardly ever linked in the Old Testament with the Hebrew word from which it comes (māšîah.), may be perceived in various periods, especially in connection with the figures of the Son of David (2 Sam. 7; Isa. 9; 11; cf. Pss 89; 132) and Servant of the Lord (Isa. 42; 49; 50; 53). Without doubt, the expectation of the Messiah is one of the most important ways in which the Old Testament looks forward to the New.17

15. On the renewal of the people of God, see Hebert 1941: 58–65; Zimmerli 1960; B. W. Anderson 1962; 1964b; Ackroyd 1968; Buis 1968; Hasel 1972; Weinfeld 1976; cf. Barstad 1989. For further discussion of the new covenant, see below: 10.3. 16. On materialistic hope, see Hebert 1941: 44–52; H. Gross 1956; Porteous 1961. 17. On the Messiah, see Gressman 1929; Klausner 1950; Mowinckel 1951; Ellison 1953a; Ringgren 1956; Coppens 1968; 1974; Rehm 1968; Becker 1977; Clements 1989; Struppe 1989; van Groningen 1990; de Jonge 1992; Dassmann & Stemberger 1993; J. E. Smith 1993; Kaiser 1995; Satterthwaite et al. 1995; Alexander 1998; Horbury 1998; H. G. M. Williamson 1998; Sailhamer 2001; Hess & Carroll Rodas 2003; Hossfeld et al. 2004; Mihoc 2004; Porter 2007. On the Servant of the Lord in particular, see Rowley 1952a; 1952b; Zimmerli & Jeremias 1952; R. F. Johnson 1993; Scobie 2003: 301–466; Dempster 2007.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 28

22/12/09 12:35:16

b i b l i c a l f o u n dat i o n s

29

c. Apocalyptic eschatology Towards the end of the Old Testament period, apocalyptic began to take the place of prophecy. The beginning of this change may be seen in texts such as Isaiah 24 – 27 and 56 – 66, Daniel 7 – 12 and Zechariah 9 – 14; and many apocalypses were written in the intertestamental period. Von Rad argued that the origins of apocalyptic thought are to be found in the wisdom tradition,18 but most scholars agree that apocalyptic is to be understood primarily as a development from prophecy, though not denying that there are also links with wisdom.19 The initial impetus for this development may be seen in the disappointment experienced by those who returned with high hopes from exile to the Promised Land, but found themselves still under foreign rule and with little prospect of ever being an independent nation again. The Persian province of Judah was a mere shadow of the former kingdoms of Israel and could only with extraordinary stretching of the imagination be understood as the fulfilment of God’s promises of glorious restoration. How could prophetic eschatology be reconciled with the harsh realities of life after exile? The problem was resolved by visionaries who were able to look beyond national history to a new age of salvation that would be inaugurated by God. Thus there was a development towards transcendentalism (understanding the ultimate fulfilment of God’s purpose to be beyond the history of this world) and dualism (contrasting the present age with an age to come). Two distinctive features of this apocalyptic eschatology are the figure of the ‘son of man’ (Dan. 7:13–14) and the picture of the resurrection of the dead (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12), both of which become very important in later Jewish and Christian thought.20 d. Expectations and tensions One of the results of modern biblical study has therefore been to highlight the significance of Old Testament future expectation. The importance of this

18. Von Rad 1960: 301–308; 1970: 263–282. 19. E.g. D. S. Russell 1964; P. D. Hanson 1975; Bauckham 1978. 20. On apocalyptic, see also Funk 1969; Koch 1970; Mays 1971; Morris 1973; Collins 1979; 1998; Rowland 1982; 2006; P. D. Hanson 1983; 1987; Hellholm 1983; Hanson et al. 1992; Carey 1993; D. S. Russell 1994; Dumbrell 1997; Cook 2003; Sandy & O’Hare 2007: 191–233. On the ‘Son of Man’, see Borsch 1967; Ferch 1979; Caragounis 1986; Nickelsburg 1992; also many New Testament theologies. Translations and commentaries on many extra-biblical apocalypses may be found in Charlesworth 1983.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 29

22/12/09 12:35:16

30

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

should be appreciated, though it is unnecessary to go to the extreme of interpreting the Old Testament solely with reference to the future. It is clear that the Old Testament in itself is incomplete and looks forward to completion by an act of God outside its limits. This act is to be performed by the same God in the context of the same history as acts described in the Old Testament, though in apocalyptic literature there are hints that this divinely directed history should be understood as something much more comprehensive than purely the national history of Israel or even the history of this world. It is expected that the new act will be analogous to earlier ones in many respects, yet at the same time it will be radically different and more comprehensive. Thus the Old Testament looks forward to the future; and – according to Christian faith – looks forward to the New Testament. However, the Old Testament ends not only with expectations of the future but also with inner tensions that remain unresolved. There is a tension between Jewish exclusivism and universal missionary concern, deriving ultimately from the belief in both the election of Israel and the world supremacy of the one God.21 There are also tensions in the roles of Israel’s leaders: between the prophets, priests and the wise,22 and between charismatic leaders and dynastic monarchs.23 Above all, there is a tension in the Old Testament between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.24 Probably all the Old Testament authors are convinced of God’s ultimate sovereignty over creation and history, but in practice it often seems that the divine purpose will remain unfulfilled because of human sin and rebellion.

1.3 New Testament view Just as the Old Testament looks forward to the New, so the New Testament looks back to the Old.25 The New Testament writers were convinced that the

21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

J. Bright 1981: 442–446. See Whitley 1963: ch. 4; McKane 1965; Clements 1965: ch. 5; 1975: ch. 6. See Eichrodt 1933: 441–442; von Rad 1957: 93–102. See Seeligmann 1963. The ‘Old Testament’ known by Jesus and his disciples would have been primarily the scrolls of the Hebrew Bible that were read and studied in synagogues of the first century. However, the New Testament was written in Greek and cited the earlier Scriptures in Greek, so writers generally used the translation known today as the Septuagint. Inevitably there are differences between an original text and its

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 30

22/12/09 12:35:16

b i b l i c a l f o u n dat i o n s

31

Messiah had been born, the long awaited Son of Man had come. The Day of the Lord had dawned; the world and the people of God were about to be renewed. a. Jesus and the Old Testament France (1971) shows that Jesus’ use of the Old Testament had two main features: types and predictions. In persons, institutions and experiences of Old Testament Israel, Jesus saw ‘types’ of his own person and work which demonstrated the continuity between God’s acts in past and present history. And in the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, as well as more general passages about the work of God, Jesus found ‘predictions’, which he fulfilled in his life and future glory. However, Jesus’ interest in the Old Testament was not limited to passages specifically reflected or fulfilled in his life and work. In the words of Jeremias (1971: 205), ‘Jesus lived in the Old Testament.’ From the Old Testament he learnt about God and humanity, worship and ethics; and he frequently used Old Testament language in formulating his own teaching. Sometimes Jesus followed contemporary methods of interpretation, but often his Old Testament interpretation was quite revolutionary.26 On the one hand, he asserted firmly the absolute authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17–20; 22:34–40); on the other, he ventured to sharpen or suspend some of its provisions (Matt. 5:21–48; Mark 7:14–23).27 b. The substructure of Christian theology The early church developed a method of biblical study in which certain major passages of the Old Testament (especially from Isaiah, Psalms and the Twelve) were interpreted as testimonies to Christ. This was demonstrated in the classic works of Harris (1916–20) and Dodd (1952), and has recently been reviewed and refined by Albl (1999). The principles of interpretation are intelligible and consistent, and all the main New Testament writers agree on the selection of

translation, but they do not significantly affect the arguments of the present section. For further discussion, see Bruce 1988: 27–67; Jobes & Silva 2000; Hengel 2002; Greenspoon 2003; McLay 2003. 26. France 1971: 172–226. 27. See Jeremias 1971: 204–211; Goppelt 1975: 87–105. On Jesus’ view of the Old Testament, see also J. W. Wenham 1972; Powery 2003. For a very helpful and readable study of the relationship between Jesus and the Old Testament, see C. J. H. Wright 1992.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 31

22/12/09 12:35:16

32

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

passages. These Old Testament passages and their New Testament interpretations contain the fundamental ideas about Christ that form the substructure of Christian theology. According to Dodd, sentences from these passages are quoted not as independent testimonies but in order to point to the longer passage in which they have their context, though Albl advises caution on this point since some early Christians may have known only the excerpt collections and been unaware of the wider scriptural context. The doctrinal significance of New Testament quotations of the Old has also been the focus of a detailed study by Lindars (1961). His work is governed by two main presuppositions: the results of Dodd’s research, referred to above; and the results of Qumran research, which brought to light their distinctive midrash pesher method of biblical interpretation. In this method, significant events, more or less contemporary with the interpreter, were declared to be the realities to which Old Testament prophecies look forward. Stendahl (1954) and Ellis (1957) had previously shown the influence of this method on the biblical interpretation of Matthew and Paul respectively, and Lindars finds its influence throughout the New Testament.28 In particular he uses form criticism to concentrate on two factors in New Testament quotation of Old Testament passages: shift of application and modification of text. In this way he traces the apologetic of the early church from its core in the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection, through the presentation of his passion, earthly life and birth, to the conviction of his pre-existence. c. New Testament interpretation of the Old Almost all the New Testament writers quote frequently from the Old Testament, and such quotations inevitably involve interpretation of Old Testament texts. There has been a wealth of study of New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament and it is impossible to go into detail here.29 For the present purpose it is sufficient to establish one main point: that

28. Cf. Fitzmyer 1961; Longenecker 1970. 29. As well as the works discussed and cited in the present section, see Shires 1974; Longenecker 1975; 1987; A. T. Hanson 1980; 1983; Archer & Chirichigno 1983; Kaiser 1985; Ellis 1991; Juel 1988; Carson & Williamson 1988; Barrera 1993: 490– 513; Evans & Sanders 1993a; 1993b; 1997; Beale 1994; Evans & Stegner 1994; Moyise 2000; 2001; 2008; Juel 2003; C. A. Evans 2004; Osborne 2006: 323–344; Porter 2006; Beale & Carson 2007; Berding & Lunde 2007. Detailed studies of the use of the Old Testament by particular New Testament authors include Stendahl (1954) and R. H. Gundry (1967) on Matthew; Suhl (1965) on Mark; Bock (1987) on

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 32

22/12/09 12:35:16

b i b l i c a l f o u n dat i o n s

33

the historical and theological basis for the writing of the New Testament was the Old Testament, and I refer to the work of just one major scholar. Amsler (1960a) investigates interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews, 1 Peter, John, Paul, Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, deliberately starting with texts in which the interpretation is most sophisticated and progressing to those where it is most simple. He concludes that New Testament interpretation is based on the dei (‘must’) of the passion and resurrection announcements in the Synoptic Gospels, which is summed up in Jesus’ words recorded in the third Gospel: ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you – that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled’ (Luke 24:44). While different New Testament authors have different interpretative emphases, there are several common characteristics. They • have the same basic orientation to the Old Testament, recognizing that the significance of the Gospel events is seen clearly only in the light of the Old Testament; • recognize in the Old Testament a witness that corroborates their own; • claim the Old Testament to be an advance witness, a promise that shows the theological significance of events within the history of salvation prior to their occurrence; • interpret the Old Testament as a witness to God’s revelation and salvation in history. This historical perspective contrasts with the legal perspective of contemporary Judaism, and because of this perspective the New Testament authors agree in their preference for citing certain parts of the Old Testament. d. Fulfilment and resolution Modern biblical study has shown the extent and manner of the New Testament’s dependence on the Old. The New Testament proclaims that a

Luke; Freed (1965) on John; Ellis (1957), A. T. Hanson (1974), R. B. Hays (1989), Stanley (1992; 2004), Rosner (1994) and Porter & Stanley (2008) on Paul; Schröger (1968) on Hebrews. Studies of particular Old Testament figures, topics and texts in the New Testament include Siker (1991) on Abraham; Lierman (2004) on Moses; Öhler (1997) on Elijah; Koester (1989) on the tabernacle; Menken & Moyise (2007) and Allen (2008) on Deuteronomy. For further bibliography, see Baker 1976a: 34–40; Carson & Williamson 1988; Litwak 1998; Childs 2004: 24–31.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 33

22/12/09 12:35:16

34

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

new and unprecedented act of God has taken place in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, yet a central aspect of this proclamation is that Jesus is the fulfilment of Old Testament hopes and expectations. Moreover the Old Testament ‘Scriptures’ were the source and standard for the New Testament church in preaching, teaching, apologetics and ethics. The discussion above has been largely concerned with the explicit relationship between the Testaments: in other words, the Old Testament’s future expectation, the New Testament’s dependence on the past, and the relationship between the two. It would also be possible to analyse material concerned with the implicit relationship between the Testaments. Implicit tensions in the Old Testament were mentioned above (1.2.d), and it may be asked how far and in what way such tensions are resolved in the coming of Jesus Christ. Have new tensions been created and what new understanding of the meaning of the Old Testament has now become possible? One key issue in the early church was the tension between Jew and Gentile, Israel and church; another was the interpretation of the Old Testament, which Christians understood to affirm Jesus as Messiah, while Jews saw it as the basis for demanding his execution for blasphemy. At this point we turn from the biblical material to consider how the theological problem of the relationship between the Testaments has been understood in the history of Christian interpretation of the Bible.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 34

22/12/09 12:35:16

2 . HISTORY OF B IB LIC AL INT ER P R ETAT I ON

2.1 Early church The writers of the New Testament were confronted with the problem of relating the events of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus to the words and events recorded in the Hebrew Bible. However, it was only at a later date that the relationship between the New Testament itself and the Old Testament became a problem. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this was the change in role of the Old Testament. Jesus, Peter and Paul presupposed the Old Testament as the basis of their faith and their problem was to relate the new events in which they were involved to earlier ones. The post New Testament church, on the other hand, adopted the New Testament as the basis of its faith and the Old Testament became the problem. How far was the Old Testament to be considered valid and relevant now the New Testament was complete, and in what way was the Old Testament related to the New?1

1. On biblical interpretation in the early church, see R. M. Grant 1957; Kelly 1958: ch. 3; Daniélou 1964–77; Sundberg 1964; R. P. C. Hanson 1970; Hay 1973; Rogers & McKim 1979: 3–34, 55–72; Woodbridge 1982: 31–46; Grant & Tracy 1984: 39–82; Froehlich 1984; Kugel & Greer 1986; Horbury 1988; Dockery 1992; Barrera 1993:

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 35

22/12/09 12:35:16

36

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

a. Apostolic Fathers In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers it is possible to see the beginnings of a movement towards recognizing the two Testaments as one Bible, though this is never stated explicitly. The terms ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’ are not used and the limits of the canon not precisely defined. Nevertheless the Scriptures are essentially the same documents as were later recognized as canon. Texts from the law and prophets, Gospels and epistles are cited in exhortation and argument, with literal and allegorical meanings each having their place.2 b. Marcion This uncritical acceptance of Old and New Testament writings as Scripture lasted only a few decades. In the middle of the second century Marcion of Sinope issued a challenge to the church’s view of the relationship between the Testaments that has made him one of her most notorious heretics. Whether or not he should be considered a Gnostic, his thought was undoubtedly similar to Gnosticism in its dualistic emphasis. For Marcion there was a radical discontinuity between flesh and spirit, law and gospel, the god of Israel and the Father of Jesus, the Old Testament and the New Testament. Marcion followed his theory through to its logical conclusion and eliminated the Old Testament from his Bible – together with parts of the New that he considered inconsistent with his theory.3 c. Reactions to Marcion Like most heretics, Marcion gained a following but failed to convince the majority. Nevertheless his challenge was serious and several of the early church’s greatest theologians devoted much energy to countering his arguments. Justin Martyr (c. 100 to 165), a leading apologist, rejected dualism and argued for the unity of God’s revelation. He interpreted the writings of the prophets as looking forward to the Messiah and the new covenant, which are attested by the memoirs of the apostles. Irenaeus (c. 130 to c. 200) considered

Footnote 1 (cont.) 513–544; Bray 1996: 77–128; Grech 2004; Karakolis 2004; C. J. H. Wright 2004: 388–391; Yarchin 2004: 31–92; O’Keefe & Reno 2005; Kannengiesser 2007b. 2. For further discussion of biblical interpretation by the Apostolic Fathers, see von Campenhausen 1968: 62–74; Hagner 1973; Trigg 2003: 305–315. 3. For more detailed discussion of Marcion, see von Harnack 1921; Blackman 1948; von Campenhausen 1968: 148–167; Barton 1997: 35–62.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 36

22/12/09 12:35:16

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

37

Jesus Christ to be the link between the Testaments, and was probably the first to use the terms ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’. For him the Old Testament, while subordinate in the scheme of progressive revelation, was of real value for a complete understanding of God’s activity in history. Tertullian (c. 160 to c. 225) systematically refuted Marcion’s dualism, showing that even Marcion’s own version of the Bible presented a Christ who was the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. Finally, Origen (c. 185 to c. 254), perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of the early church, and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 to c. 215) added their voices to the defence of the Old Testament against Marcion, dealing with many of its difficult texts by means of allegorical or spiritual interpretation.4 d. Theodore and Augustine Orthodoxy prevailed over Marcion, and the Old Testament remained part of the church’s Bible. Two of the most significant biblical interpreters in the succeeding years were Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 to 428) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430).5 Theodore was an outstanding commentator of the Antioch school of interpretation, which emphasized the importance of the literal meaning of the text in contrast to the Alexandrian school (e.g. Origen), which emphasized the allegorical meaning. He understood the relationship between the Testaments primarily in terms of historical development, although he also saw Old Testament events as types of New Testament ones.6 Augustine did not follow one school but drew on any kind of interpretation

4. On the early church theologians who refuted Marcion, see von Campenhausen 1968: 88–102, 182–206, 269–326; Barton 1997: 63–105. For more detailed studies on Justin Martyr, see Shotwell 1965; 2007; Watson 1997: 305–329; Trigg 2003: 316–321; Childs 2004: 32–44; on Irenaeus, see Lawson 1948; Nielsen 1968; Trigg 2003: 327–331; Childs 2004: 45–55; Norris 2007; on Tertullian, see O’Malley 1967; E. Evans 1972; Kearsley 2007; on Origen, see Daniélou 1948; R. P. C. Hanson 1959; Wiles 1970a; F. M. Young 2003; Childs 2004: 62–74; Reno 2006; Nassif 2007; on Clement of Alexandria, see Childs 2004: 56–61; Berry 2007. 5. Others included Eusebius (c. 260 to c. 340; see Childs 2004: 75–89); Jerome (c. 342 to 420; see Sparks 1970; D. Brown 2003; Childs 2004: 90–103); Chrysostom (c. 347 to 407; see Childs 2004: 104–109); Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378 to 444; see Kerrigan 1952; Childs 2004: 110–129); Theodoret (c. 393 to c. 466; see Childs 2004: 130–147). 6. On Theodore, see Greer 1961; Wiles 1970b; B. A. McDonald 2007.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 37

22/12/09 12:35:16

38

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

that served to illuminate the Bible, though he clearly had a liking for allegory. In a sense his work marked the transition from the early church to the Middle Ages. It was the culmination of several centuries of Christian thought and became the foundation of theology in the West for the following centuries. He expressed his view of the relationship between the Testaments in these classic words: To the Old Testament belongs more fear, just as to the New Testament more delight; nevertheless in the Old Testament the New lies hid, and in the New Testament the Old is exposed.7

2.2 Middle Ages Biblical interpreters in the Middle Ages generally followed the methods of the Fathers, and like them understood the Bible as a unity that witnesses to Christ. Those of particular interest include Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), Hugh of St Victor (c. 1096 to 1142), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 to 1274) and Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270 to c. 1340). A fourfold interpretation – literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical – was employed, but increasingly there was a tendency to stress the literal meaning. This was influenced partly by contemporary Jewish scholarship (e.g. Rashi). The New Testament was considered to be continuous with the Old Testament, though superior. According to Hugh, for example, the theological meaning of the Old Testament is seen clearly only after the coming of the New Testament; and Aquinas considered the Old Testament to be imperfect and the New Testament perfect, like a seed compared to a tree.8

7. ‘Multum et solide significatur, ad Vetus Testamentum timorem potius pertinere, sicut ad Novum dilectionem: quanquam et in Vetere Novum lateat, et in Novo Vetus pateat’ (Quaestiones in Exodum 73). On Augustine, see Polman 1955; J. S. Preus 1969: ch. 1; Bonner 1970; Norris 2003; P. Bright 2006; Kannengiesser 2007a. 8. On biblical interpretation in the Middle Ages, see Gribomont 1946; Smalley 1952; de Lubac 1959; McNally 1959; Torrance 1962; Leclercq 1969; J. S. Preus 1969; Rogers & McKim 1979: 34–72; Grant & Tracy 1984: 83–91; Bray 1996: 129–164; Childs 2004: 148–180; Yarchin 2004: 93–108; Weinandy et al. 2005; Candler 2006; Ocker 2007; Hauser & Watson 2009.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 38

22/12/09 12:35:16

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

39

2.3 Reformation The central issue of the Reformation was the Bible and its interpretation. A life-and-death debate took place over whether Christians should rely on church interpretation to establish the meaning of Holy Scripture, or go back to the Old and New Testaments themselves to study them afresh. Luther and Calvin devoted enormous energy to writing commentaries and expositions of biblical books, breaking away from traditional church theology that tried to contain God and the Bible within familiar categories. Scripture was to be allowed to speak for itself, liberated from the shackles of ecclesiastical tradition. On the one hand, literal interpretation was emphasized rather than allegory; on the other, the whole Bible was understood to be Christocentric. These two aspects were not easy to reconcile. Moreover the two great reformers had rather different views about the relationship between the Testaments.9 a. Martin Luther Luther (1483–1546) recognized both unity and diversity in the Bible. For him the unity was in God, who revealed himself in Christ; and the diversity in the contrast between law and gospel. The contrast, however, was the dominant factor for Luther, as shown by the summary of his position in his ‘Preface to the Old Testament’ (1523): The ground and proof of the New Testament is surely not to be despised, and therefore the Old Testament is to be highly regarded. And what is the New Testament but a public preaching and proclamation of Christ, set forth through the sayings of the Old Testament and fulfilled through Christ? (§2) The Old Testament is a book of laws, which teaches what men are to do and not to do . . . just as the New Testament is gospel or book of grace, and teaches where one is to get the power to fulfil the law. Now in the New Testament there are also given . . . many other teachings that are laws and commandments . . . Similarly in the Old Testament too there are . . . certain promises and words of grace . . . Nevertheless just as the chief teaching of the New Testament is really the proclamation of grace and peace through

9. On biblical interpretation in the Reformation, see Carter 1928; Kraeling 1955: chs. 1–2; Bainton 1963; Rogers & McKim 1979: 73–146; Kraus 1982: 6–24; Woodbridge 1982: 49–67; Grant & Tracy 1984: 92–99; Bray 1996: 165–220; Hauser & Watson 2009. For detailed studies of Luther and Calvin, see the following notes. On Melanchthon, see Sick 1959. On Karlstadt, see Sider 1974: 105–122.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 39

22/12/09 12:35:16

40

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e the forgiveness of sins in Christ, so the chief teaching of the Old Testament is really the teaching of laws, the showing up of sin, and the demeaning of good. (§4)10

This contrast is also clear in his sermon entitled ‘How Christians Should Regard Moses’ (1525), in which he explained the value of the Old Testament law while emphasizing that it is not binding for Christians. b. John Calvin Calvin (1509–64) also recognized both the similarities and the differences between the two Testaments but, in contrast to Luther, stressed the similarities. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536–59) he devoted twenty-three sections to the similarities, compared with only fourteen to the differences. Both law and gospel are understood as aspects of one covenant: Christ, although he was known to the Jews under the law, was at length clearly revealed only in the Gospel. (§2.9, title) The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same . . . First, we hold that carnal prosperity and happiness did not constitute the goal set before the Jews to which they were to aspire. Rather, they were adopted into the hope of immortality . . . Secondly, the covenant by which they were bound to the Lord was supported, not by their own merits, but solely by the mercy of the God who called them. Thirdly, they had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share in his promises. (§2.10.2) I freely admit the differences in Scripture . . . but in such a way as not to detract from its established unity . . . all these pertain to the manner of dispensation rather than to the substance. (§2.11.1)11

Evidently for Calvin the Old and New Testaments constituted one Bible.

10. On Luther’s biblical interpretation, see Bornkamm 1948; Heintze 1958; Pelikan 1959; A. S. Wood 1960; Althaus 1963: chs. 9, 19; J. S. Preus 1969; Forde 1983; Childs 2004: 181–206; C. J. H. Wright 2004: 391–392; Mattox 2006; Hagen 2007. 11. On Calvin’s biblical interpretation, see Wolf 1958; Grin 1961; Forstman 1962; Hesselink 1967; 1992; Kraus 1968; S. H. Russell 1968; Leith 1971; Parker 1986; Puckett 1995; Childs 2004: 207–229; C. J. H. Wright 2004: 392–395; Moon 2006; Zachman 2006; Puckett 2007.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 40

22/12/09 12:35:16

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

41

c. The Anabaptists One of the most significant groups among those who proposed a more radical reformation than the mainline reformers was the Anabaptists. They agreed fervently with the principle of sola scriptura, but in its application tended to concentrate on the New Testament and to distinguish it from the Old. The Old Testament was understood to be preparatory for the final revelation of the New and to have authority for the Christian only in so far as it witnesses to Christ, agrees with the New Testament and is relevant to Christian living. It was therefore the New Testament that the Anabaptists considered normative for Christians, though they did not completely reject the Old Testament and often interpreted it allegorically or spiritually in order to find Christian teaching in it.12 d. Council of Trent The Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation was also interested in interpretation of the Bible, as was evident in the discussions of the Council of Trent.13 In its fourth session (1546) the Council decreed that the purity of the gospel be preserved in the church, and described that gospel in the following words: This Gospel was promised of old through the prophets in the Sacred Scriptures; Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, first promulgated it from His own lips; He in turn ordered that it be preached through the apostles to all creatures as the source of all saving truth and rule of conduct.

No doubt the Reformers would have agreed with that; but the Council differed decisively from the Reformers on two issues: the relationship of Scripture and tradition, and the restriction of biblical interpretation to the church. The decree continues: This truth and rule are contained in the written books and unwritten traditions . . . [the Synod] receives and venerates with the same sense of loyalty and reverence all the books of the Old and New Testaments . . . together with all the traditions.

12. On Anabaptist biblical interpretation, see Estep 1975: 140–145; Keeney 1968: 31–43; Wenger 1957; G. H. Williams 1962; Janzen 1990; Murray 2004; C. J. H. Wright 2004: 396–399; cf. Swartley 1984. 13. The text of ‘The Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent’ may be found in Megivern 1978: 179–185. On biblical interpretation in the CounterReformation, see Kidd 1933; Crehan 1963: 199–205, 236–237; Prudlo 2006.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 41

22/12/09 12:35:16

42

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Then in another decree from the same session it was decreed: That no one, relying on his own prudence, twist Holy Scripture . . . contrary to the meaning that holy mother the Church has held and – since it belongs to her to judge the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture – that no one dare to interpret the Scripture in a way contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers.

The implications for understanding the relationship between the Testaments were that the unity of the Bible was recognized, with a relationship of promise and fulfilment between the two Testaments, but there was little room for further investigation since acceptance of the traditional interpretation was mandatory. There was little change in this outlook until the twentieth century.

2.4 Seventeenth to nineteenth centuries The Reformation brought a new concern for study of the Bible, but the problem of the theological relationship between the Testaments was far from settled. During the next three centuries there was a polarization between the upholders of orthodoxy and more progressive thinkers. The period may conveniently be bisected for study, with the figure of Schleier macher standing at the juncture of the two halves.14 a. Orthodoxy The predominant characteristic of Protestant biblical study in the years following the Reformation was orthodoxy. Several important creeds and

14. On biblical interpretation during these three centuries, see Franz Delitzsch 1881; W. R. Smith 1881; Carpenter 1903; C. Preus 1950; Fritsch 1951; O. R. Johnston 1951; Glover 1954; Kraeling 1955: chs. 3–7; Crehan 1963: 217–230; Neil 1963; A. Richardson 1963: 294–311; Schütte 1970; Willi 1971; Frei 1974; Maier 1974; Krentz 1975; Stuhlmacher 1975; Rogers & McKim 1979: 147–322; Kraus 1982; Woodbridge 1982: 69–140; Grant & Tracy 1984: 100–118; Reventlow 1984; Rogerson 1984; Hayes & Prussner 1985: 1–142; T. L. Smith 1985; Morgan & Barton 1988: 17–88; Stiewe 1994; Bray 1996: 221–375; Watson 1997: 128–141; Harrisville & Sundberg 2002: 62–82; Childs 2004: 230–277, 288–290; Hensley 2006; Ratheiser 2007: 12–70; Smend II 2007: 1–117.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 42

22/12/09 12:35:16

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

43

confessions were formulated to define orthodox faith more precisely; and a systematic kind of study developed, which had some resemblance to that of the Middle Ages and is often termed ‘Protestant Scholasticism’. Calvin’s view of the relationship between the Testaments was widely followed and the Old Testament highly regarded. b. Reaction to orthodoxy This orthodoxy was not to survive long without a reaction. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries an increasing number of theologians became dissatisfied with traditional ways of interpreting the Bible. The influence of grammatical-historical biblical scholarship, federal theology (developed by Cocceius, 1603–69) and rationalism (e.g. Hobbes, 1588–1679; Spinoza, 1632–77) led to a more humanistic approach to the Bible and consequently a greater readiness to reject parts that were considered less acceptable, particularly in the Old Testament. This trend continued into the eighteenth century in the works of Lessing (1729–81) and Kant (1724–1804), though there were also many who combined traditional piety with scholarly biblical study (e.g. Bengel, 1687–1752; John Wesley, 1703–91). c. Friedrich Schleiermacher The nearest significant approach to Christian rejection of the Old Testament since Marcion, though less audacious than that of the second-century heretic, was made by Schleier macher (1768–1834). With a background of Pietism, Rationalism and Romanticism, he wrote voluminously and widely. In his dogmatic theology (1830: §12) he virtually denied any theological relationship between the Old Testament and the New. Though he did not disparage the former as Marcion had done, he placed it on the same level as heathenism (Greek and Roman thought). His discussion of the doctrine of Holy Scripture deals with the Old Testament only in a postscript: The Old Testament Scriptures owe their place in our Bible partly to the appeals the New Testament Scriptures make to them, partly to the historical connexion of Christian worship with the Jewish Synagogue; but the Old Testament Scriptures do not on that account share the normative dignity or the inspiration of the New. (§132)

So Schleiermacher’s suggestion was not the elimination of the Old Testament from the Bible but the transposition of the two Testaments to show the priority of the New. Thus the Bible would consist primarily of the New Testament but the Old would be retained as an appendix.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 43

22/12/09 12:35:16

44

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

d. Historical criticism In spite of the influence of Schleiermacher’s thought in other respects, his view of the Old Testament received little attention until a century later, as he himself had predicted (1830: §132). The dominant influence in nineteenthcentury biblical interpretation was historical criticism, so the relationship between the Testaments was understood in historical rather than theological terms. The Old Testament was viewed as the history of the theocracy, and the New Testament as the record of the coming of Jesus Christ to bring this history to completion. There were studies of the history of Israelite religion, but few scholars concerned themselves with biblical theology. e. Conservative reaction The increasing acceptance of historical criticism in the nineteenth century did not prevent a number of conservative scholars from defending and developing more traditional approaches to the Bible. Their reassertion of the orthodox belief in the inspiration of the Bible did not exclude consideration of new ideas, and they made a lasting contribution to biblical interpretation. For example, von Hofmann (1841–4) developed the idea of ‘salvation history’, which influenced much later theology based on this concept;15 while Hengstenberg’s Christology (1829–35) and Franz Delitzsch’s commentaries on the Old Testament are still in print more than a century later.

2.5 Developmental approach At the beginning of the twentieth century, the most widely accepted way of understanding the relationship between the Testaments was a developmental approach, based on an evolutionary idea of history and historical criticism of the Bible. The characteristic concept of this approach was ‘progressive revelation’. This was the primary background upon which the modern solutions examined in the present book were formulated, and so it will be examined in some detail now, beginning with the work of two significant British writers. a. A. F. Kirkpatrick Kirkpatrick (1891) pointed out that the New Testament affirms the permanent value of the Old Testament by explicit statements (e.g. Matt. 5:17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:14–17) and also by using it to expound Christ and his work.

15. See below: ch. 6. On von Hofmann, see Harrisville & Sundberg 2002: 123–145.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 44

22/12/09 12:35:16

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

45

The simplicity of Old Testament moral demands and the depth of its praise and devotion are of continuing value in the Christian era, so the church should recognize its permanent value as teaching about national, social and personal life.16 However, the greatest value of the Old Testament is in relation to the New: • The Old Testament is the essential historical basis of the New Testament and Christianity, without which they cannot be properly understood. The coming of Christ was the consummation of a long history of God at work in human affairs. • Study of the language, concepts and theology of the Old Testament is essential for proper understanding of the New Testament. The New Testament is written in the Hebraic Greek of the Septuagint and many fundamental New Testament ideas such as righteousness, holiness, sacrifice and sin come from the Old Testament and can be understood only with reference to it. • Christians can find encouragement in the Old Testament by looking at God’s outworking of his plan in spite of human weakness and failure. Reading the Old Testament will clarify the close link between prophecy and fulfilment, and strengthen the Christian hope that God will bring victory for Christ’s kingdom, even though there may be much discouragement in the interim. Kirkpatrick concluded with a warning not to confuse the two Testaments. The Old Testament has its value for the Christian but is clearly different from the New Testament. It must not be used as a court of appeal for Christian doctrine, although support for that may well be found there; nor may it be used to justify anything contrary to the mind of Christ. He argued that the Old Testament is valid for the church only in so far as it is fulfilled in Christ. This demands recognition of the completion, realization, development and universalization in Christ of what was before incomplete and limited. Christ has given a deeper insight into God and his purpose for humanity, thereby enabling a new perception of his working in the Old Testament. b. R. L. Ottley In the last of his Bampton Lectures (Aspects of the Old Testament), Ottley discussed use of the Old Testament in the New Testament and in the contemporary church.

16. Cf. Driver 1905.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 45

22/12/09 12:35:17

46

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

First, according to Ottley, the New Testament understands the Old Testament revelation as fragmentary, varied and rudimentary (1897: 337–400). The Old Testament is the record of a developing religion and revelation, and is therefore to be interpreted historically. Every part – whether type or prophecy, sign or promise – is incomplete and looks forward to God’s perfect plan for the future. Moreover the New Testament recognizes that much in the Old is imperfect and must be assessed by the standard of the gospel. New Testament exegesis of the Old is notable for its breadth and freedom, its concern with morals and human duty, and its messianic nature. It represents the Old Testament as an ‘organic whole, to which the Messiah and His Kingdom are the key . . . a shadow of good things to come’ (396). Secondly, Ottley was convinced of the importance of the Old Testament in church life. He suggested six ways in which it may be used (401–436). The first three concern the intrinsic value of the Old Testament: • for education in morals • in the spiritual life • in social righteousness The other three concern understanding the Old Testament in the context of the whole Bible: • The Old Testament reveals the mind, character and will of God. It also shows God’s preparation for the coming of the Messiah and introduces the concept of suffering, the chosen tool for accomplishment of God’s purpose – the perfection of humanity. • The Old Testament witnesses to Christ. The theology of the Old Testament presupposes its unity as a history of redemption, to which the coming of a redeemer is a natural climax. Christ is prefigured in law, history, prophecy, song and wisdom. Moreover much of the Old Testament is idealistic, and this is sufficient to describe it as messianic. • The Old Testament serves as an aid to interpretation of the New. Many of the most fundamental concepts of the New Testament are taken from the Old: for example, the concepts of Christ, kingdom of God and Son of God would be virtually unintelligible without the Old Testament. c. Analysis Many scholars at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century held similar views about the Old Testament and its relationship to

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 46

22/12/09 12:35:17

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

47

the New.17 They accepted the historical-critical method, at least in principle, and assumed the Bible to be both human and divine – an account of human history and a revelation from God. There was general agreement that the Old Testament is indispensable for the church. First, the Old Testament is valuable in itself: • It contains truths that are permanently and universally valid. • It may be used for instruction in social relationships, national life and personal morality and devotion. Secondly, the Old Testament has a vital role to play in relation to the New Testament: • The Old Testament is the most important historical basis of the New. • The language, concepts and theology of the Old Testament are essential for interpreting the New. • The Old Testament is a witness to Christ. A balance was generally maintained between the obvious differences between the Old Testament and the New and the belief that the two are essentially a unity. On the one hand, the Old Testament was considered to be incomplete and imperfect, presenting early stages in a development or progression, and must be judged by the standard of the final and perfect revelation in Christ. Moreover the Old Testament is concerned with a nation, the New with a supranational people of God. On the other hand, in both Testaments it is one God who speaks and one plan of redemption that is presented. The two extremes of separating and identifying the two Testaments were therefore rejected. The fundamental concept underlying this approach was ‘progressive revelation’.18 The Old Testament was considered to have permanent value both as preparatory revelation and in looking beyond itself to the perfect revelation in Christ. Today the term ‘progressive revelation’ is outmoded, along with the optimistic evolutionary idea of history that it presupposed. Nevertheless this was the view of the Bible that formed the basis of twentieth-century biblical interpretation and many of the key ideas of later

17. E.g. Westcott 1889: 480–482; Bennett 1893: 39–40; G. A. Smith 1899: 145–176; A. B. Davidson 1904: 1–12; Kent 1906. 18. E.g. Bennett 1914; cf. Moltmann 1964: 69–71, 74–76.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 47

22/12/09 12:35:17

48

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

biblical theology are to be found in these works. The Bible was understood as a history of redemption and the Old Testament in particular was considered to be oriented to the future. The way in which ‘prophecy and fulfilment’ was interpreted was not unlike modern interpretations of ‘promise and fulfilment’, and typology was conceived – at least by Westcott – in a similar way to many modern scholars. Westcott’s statement that ‘each promise fulfilled brings the sense of a larger promise’ (1889: 482) could almost have been taken from Moltmann’s Theology of Hope (1964). The assertion that the Old Testament ‘does not merely contain prophecies; it is from first to last a prophecy’ (quoted by Kirkpatrick 1891: 124) might have found a place in Vriezen’s Old Testament theology (1966). Ottley (1897) took the Bible to be the history of redemption, considered the Old Testament to point towards the future, noted reinterpretation of texts within the Bible and mentioned typology; in fact, most of the major themes of von Rad’s Old Testament theology (1957–60) were in his lecture! Even Bultmann’s radical view of the Old Testament was foreshadowed in McFadyen’s assertion that the Old Testament did not bring the redemptive purpose of God to fulfilment but ‘by its repeated failures pointed men to something more strong and saving than itself ’ (1903: 347). d. Conservatism It is clear that the prevailing solution to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments at the beginning of the twentieth century was the developmental approach, characterized by the concept of ‘progressive revelation’. Even the more conservative sections of the church, Protestant Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism, adopted this solution. Protestant Fundamentalism rejected many of the presuppositions, methods and results of historical criticism.19 On the relationship between the Testaments, however, its view was not greatly different from the consensus of contemporary scholarship. Orr (1906), for example, considered divine guidance rather than natural evolution to be the principle of development, but nevertheless accepted the concept of progressive revelation.20 In the Roman Church at the beginning of the twentieth century there was a

19. The term ‘Fundamentalism’ was taken from a series of twelve booklets entitled The Fundamentals published in USA between 1910 and 1915. See Rogers & McKim 1979: 323–405. 20. Cf. Pierson 1906; Patton 1926.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 48

22/12/09 12:35:17

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

49

stronger reaction to historical criticism than that in Protestantism, supported by official maintenance of orthodox teaching about the Bible.21 As with Fundamentalism, however, its concern was mainly to defend areas of Christian faith threatened by historical criticism, and the relationship between the Testaments was not one of them. Through much of the twentieth century the Old Testament was seen in Roman Catholic theology as the historical and theological preparation for the New Testament.22 This differs from the developmental approach in stressing divine ordering and overruling of history, whereas the latter is more concerned with human evolutionary development, but the resultant views of the relationship between the Testaments are very similar.23

2.6 Neo-Marcionism One result of the developmental approach was a devaluation of the Old Testament. It was understandable that what was considered to be imperfect and preparatory should be regarded less highly than a later superior stage of revelation. In the 1920s two well-known German scholars took this devaluation to its logical but extreme conclusion and resurrected the proposal of Marcion, only temporarily revived by Schleiermacher, that the Old Testament be excluded from the Christian Bible. Friedrich Delitzsch’s view of the Old Testament was summed up in the title of his two-volume work The Great Deception (1920–21). And von Harnack concluded his standard work on Marcion (1921) with the oft-quoted thesis To reject the Old Testament in the second century was a mistake which the church rightly rejected; to keep it in the sixteenth century was a fate which the Reformation

21. See especially the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on ‘Study of Holy Scripture’ (1893) and the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission 1905–15. The texts of these and other related documents are in Megivern 1978: 193–266. Cf. Vidler 1934: ch. 10; Heinisch 1949–50: 3; Grelot 1962: 21–22, 196–209, 275–286; Crehan 1963: 227–233; J. L. McKenzie 1967. 22. On Roman Catholic biblical interpretation during the latter part of the twentieth century, see below: 7.3.e, esp. n. 30. 23. For further discussion of the developmental approach, see Kraeling 1955: ch. 9; A. Richardson 1963: 311–318; Nicolaisen 1966: 12–18; J. Bright 1967: 96–109; cf. Childs 2004: 277–290.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 49

22/12/09 12:35:17

50

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e could not yet avoid; but to retain it after the nineteenth century as a canonical document in Protestantism results from paralysis of religion and the church.24

a. The Nazi Bible Though their intention was explicitly theological rather than political, the works of Friedrich Delitzsch and von Harnack were published about the time that anti-Semitic thought began to develop in Germany after the First World War. Inevitably they aided its growth and penetration into biblical studies. During the years between the two wars an increasingly fierce debate raged over the Old Testament: the Nazis and theologians sympathetic to their cause attacked it vehemently, while others who were brave enough defended it with equal vehemence. The Nazis and ‘German Christians’ (Deutsche Christen) aimed to eliminate every trace of Judaism from Christianity. They rejected the Old Testament and its god, and encouraged people to read Nordic and Aryan literature instead. Luther was invoked in support, who they claimed would have done the same had he lived in the twentieth century.25 Some (e.g. Rosenberg 1930) despised the Old Testament completely; others (e.g. Leffler 1935) acknowledged its historical and religious value but recommended that serious Germans should forget the Old Testament and study their own history and piety. It was certainly consistent that those who hated and killed Jews should do the same to Jewish literature. It was also consistent that they should try to purge the New Testament of Jewish elements, as Marcion had done eighteen centuries before. As a result, the Nazi ‘Bible’ was a very select collection of extracts from the Christian Scriptures, and the Nazi ‘Christ’ was very different from the usual referent of the word. Tanner (1942: 52) comments, ‘The crucifixion was only the first in a long series of devices by which the Western world has attempted to be rid of Jesus . . . the most subtle of these devices has been reinterpretation.’ b. Defence of the Old Testament Naturally such attacks on the Old Testament provoked a reaction among biblical scholars, many of whom sided with the Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) in the German Church Struggle (Kirchenkampf ). Some openly condemned the anti-Semitism of National Socialism and its adherents, but

24. On von Harnack, see Watson 1997: 141–153. These views were naturally not received without question: see e.g. Sellin 1921; cf. Kraeling 1955: ch. 10; J. Bright 1967: 64–67. 25. Cf. Wiener 1945; Rupp 1945.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 50

22/12/09 12:35:17

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

51

most simply reaffirmed in different ways the value of the Old Testament for the Christian faith. Vischer, Barth, Hellbardt and Procksch claimed the Old Testament for the church by interpreting it as a witness to Christ, thus diverting attention from its connection with the Jews.26 Brunner (1930: 264) argued that ‘the understanding of the Old Testament is the criterion and the basis for understanding the New’. This was because of the characteristic Old Testament ideas presupposed but not explicitly defined in the New, especially the personal creator God, eschatological realism and the people of God. We cannot therefore replace the Old Testament with our own national history and piety. Bonhoeffer also wrote and spoke much about this question.27 c. Implicit Marcionism The Third Reich fell, and with it the most extreme forms of neo-Marcionism disappeared. Open attack on the Old Testament lost its political motivation and would have been likely to bring its proponent into disrepute. However, there are other ways to dispose of the Old Testament. We can, for example, be ‘generous’ and give it to the Jews. This was done in effect by Isaac Matthews (1947) in his presentation of Israel’s religious history. Though he traces the history up to ad 135, he virtually never refers to Christ or Christianity, assuming that Judaism is the natural continuation of Old Testament religion. He concludes: Judaism, the religion of the book, and of a people scattered to the four corners of the earth but united in allegiance to the one God, was well equipped to succeed in the struggle of existence. By losing its life as a nation, it saved itself as a religion. Happy was the man whose delight was in the law of the Lord, in whose law he meditated day and night. (268)

A similar tendency is found in the approach to mission that substitutes other national religions and literatures for the Old Testament as the basis for

26. See further below: ch. 4. 27. E.g. Bonhoeffer 2002: 93–102. See Kuske 1970; Andersen 1975. In spite of the Third Reich, many Old Testament studies were published in Germany during the 1930s. Von Rad, for instance, published twenty-eight books and articles during the years 1933–9 and another ten during the war (see bibliography in Wolff 1971). Eichrodt’s famous Theology of the Old Testament was also published in this critical period. For a thorough study of the debate about the Old Testament during this period, see Nicolaisen 1966; 1971; cf. Chandler 1945; Kraeling 1955: ch. 12; Niemöller 1956.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 51

22/12/09 12:35:17

52

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Christian preaching. For example, Chenchiah considered the Old Testament to be inferior to the New and unnecessary for non-Jewish Christians, arguing that the Hindu scriptures were a better preparation for the gospel (praeparatio evangelii ) for the people of India.28 Moreover a similar thing happens in established churches when contemporary thought and culture are used to introduce the Christian message, and new approaches to religious studies take the place of biblical studies (especially Old Testament) in theological curricula. On an even more basic level, there is a habit of simply ignoring the Old Testament. It is thought difficult to understand or too bloodthirsty or irrelevant to modern life. As a result, the Old Testament is rarely read and expounded, or is read in terms of the New Testament. In many churches relatively few sermons are preached on the Old Testament, and small groups prefer to study the New Testament. The Revised Common Lectionary has a greater proportion of Old Testament material than its predecessor, but large portions of the largest section of the Bible are still never read. What is more, the readings appear to have been chosen primarily to provide background for the New Testament, rather than because they are considered important in their own right. The same is true of the Roman Catholic lectionary, and even more so in Orthodox worship.29 So it seems that many churches today, in spite of official rejection of Marcionism and neo-Marcionism, still allow implicit Marcionism in practice. This is not the case everywhere, however. The religious traditions of Africa have also been seen as preparation for the gospel, and thus to be analogous to the Old Testament, but this has not led to implicit Marcionism. On the contrary, the Old Testament is highly valued by African Christians.30

2.7 Four key decades The implication of Marcionism is separation of the two Testaments. In other words, the Old and New Testaments belong to different religions, so there is no theological relationship between them. If Marcion was right, the present

28. See R. H. S. Boyd 1975: 158–159; cf. 137–138; John 2004; cf. Phillips 1942: 14–21; Filson 1951: 136; Sovik 1982. 29. On the use of the Old Testament in modern lectionaries, see J. A. Sanders 1983; Alexeev 2004; Peppard 2005; van Wijk-Bos 2005: xvii; Allen & Williamson 2007: xvi–xix. 30. Phillips 1942: 6–13; Shorter 1978: 22; Mbiti 1986: 36, 50, 156.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 52

22/12/09 12:35:17

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

53

study would be a pointless exercise. But among serious biblical theologians, in spite of the implicit Marcionism so common in practice, there is virtually unanimous agreement that Marcion was wrong. While there are still many different evaluations of the Old Testament and interpretations of its relationship to the New, modern scholarship generally recognizes a theological relationship between the two Testaments of the Christian Bible. The task that remains is to define this relationship. Many of the most significant modern studies of the relationship between the Testaments were published during two decades of the twentieth century – the 1930s and the 1950s. They may be classified into four main approaches and are discussed in detail in the second part of the present book. In the 1970s and 1990s a number of new approaches to biblical interpretation emerged that are also relevant to the problem and are discussed at various points in the book. a. 1930s The twentieth-century church gradually digested the results of nineteenthcentury scholarship, following in general the developmental approach.31 Meanwhile, a number of scholars were reconsidering the conclusions of their nineteenth-century predecessors and expressed deep dissatisfaction with them. The matter was brought to a head by the anti-Semitic attacks on the Old Testament in the 1930s, which highlighted the problem of the relationship between the Testaments and gave new impetus to finding a satisfactory solution. Two of the most important modern solutions stem from the troubled 1930s. In 1933, the year of the rise of National Socialism, Bultmann published an important essay on ‘The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christian Faith’, in which he emphasized the radical difference between the Old and New Testaments. In the following year, Vischer’s major work, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, appeared. Baumgärtel and von Rad were also concerned with the issues raised by the German Church struggle in the early part of their careers, though their major works were published two decades later. In fact, it is likely that every subsequent study that takes serious account of German theology has been influenced to some extent by the debates of the 1930s. b. 1950s The next major contribution to the theological understanding of the Old Testament in relation to the New was made by the collaborators of the

31. E.g. Burney 1921; Welch 1933; Elmslie 1948; Higgins 1949.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 53

22/12/09 12:35:17

54

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament. This was an Old Testament commentary project launched in 1952 with a series of programmatic essays by von Rad, Noth, Zimmerli, Kraus and Wolff.32 The essays dealt with aspects of the theological interpretation of the Old Testament such as typology, re-presentation, actualization, promise and fulfilment, salvation history, and tradition. The commentaries themselves follow an original pattern for the systematic interpretation in five stages of each biblical passage: Text (translation and textual criticism), Form (literary analysis), Ort (setting), Wort (exegesis) and Ziel (aim). The most interesting and important stage for the question of the relationship between the Testaments is the final one, in which the theological significance of the passage is considered in the context of the whole Bible. Several of the essays, and other works written in response, are discussed in the present book, as well as von Rad’s Old Testament theology. Important though this was, the German-speaking church and its theological scholarship were not the only source of new theological ideas in the post-war period. Significant approaches to the problem were also made in Dutch (e.g. van Ruler, Miskotte), French (e.g. Amsler) and English-speaking scholarship (e.g. Hebert, Rowley). The ‘biblical theology movement’ flourished during this time, with influential works by Cullmann, Vriezen, G. E. Wright, J. Bright, Jacob, G. A. F. Knight and others. The journal Interpretation and SCM series ‘Studies in Biblical Theology’ were launched and provided forums for the movement. c. 1970s During the 1960s a good deal was written about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, mostly interacting with and building on ideas put

32. The essays which first set out the principles for Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament (BKAT) were published in EvT 12 ( July/August 1952). English translations of three of the essays were published in Interpretation 1961 and again in Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (ed. Westermann, 1960). The essays provoked a heated debate about the interpretation of the Old Testament, and two scholars in particular wrote major responses to the programme: Baumgärtel (1952: 106–127) and van Ruler (1955). Several collaborators of BKAT replied to their critics and elaborated their programme further in five essays published in EvT 16 (August/ September 1959), three of which are translated in Westermann 1960. In the same year BKAT commenced publication with a slim volume on Lamentations by Kraus (1956). Many volumes in the series have now appeared, including outstanding commentaries by Kraus on Psalms (1960–78), Zimmerli on Ezekiel (1969), Wolff on the minor prophets (1961–86) and Westermann on Genesis (1974–82).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 54

22/12/09 12:35:17

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

55

forward in the 1930s and 1950s. For example, Bultmann’s 1933 essay was the basis for an international symposium on The Old Testament and Christian Faith (B. W. Anderson 1964c). Barr (1966) wrote a full-length survey and critique of earlier writings. It was during the following decade that some major new approaches to biblical interpretation became apparent, some of which had implications for the relationship between the Testaments. The main source of new ideas during this period was no longer Europe but the Americas. Four particularly important new approaches emphasized the significance of the canon of Scripture, the use of literary and social-scientific methods in biblical interpretation, and the role of ‘praxis’ as the starting point of theology. The canonical approach In 1970 Childs started a major debate with his thesis that biblical theology and exegesis should be done in the context of the Christian canon of Scripture, a thesis he developed with great fervour and impressive scholarship during the following years. Childs’s proposal provoked many reactions, both positive and negative, but perhaps its greatest significance for biblical interpretation in general lies in his insistence on the importance of studying the biblical text in its final form.33 The intentions of the original authors and the processes by which their writings were edited and transmitted are of interest to him only in so far as they enable us to understand better the meaning of the canonical form of the text. However, the relevance of Childs’s work to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments lies primarily in his interpretation of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. Literary approaches The text in its final form is also the focus of interest in modern literary approaches to the Bible. Older methods of literary study (such as source, form, tradition and redaction criticism) tended to dissect texts in the search for their origins and growth, whereas newer methods (such as rhetorical criticism, structuralism and narrative analysis) are more interested in texts as texts, which are considered to have an objective value in themselves. The aesthetic dimension of the Bible as literature has been re-emphasized. Scholars have moved from the history of the text to studying its present shape, from obtaining knowledge of the past to understanding the impact of the text on readers in the present.

33. See Barton 1984: 25–28. For further discussion of the canonical approach, see below: 4.3.d.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 55

22/12/09 12:35:17

56

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

‘Reader-response criticism’ has developed literary theory still further, arguing that texts are not objective realities that exist apart from their readers, and that it is possible to have several different but equally valid ‘readings’ of the same text. In this sort of approach the emphasis shifts again, from the text itself to its audience/readership. One point at which literary approaches to the Bible touch on the problem of the relationship between the Testaments is in their understanding of ‘story’ and its relationship to biblical ‘history’.34 A pragmatic approach Liberation theology originated in the Roman Catholic Church of Latin America in the 1960s, as an expression of Christian faith from the perspective of the poor and oppressed. During the 1970s (and 1980s) it spread into many other churches and parts of the world, taking various forms, for example Minjung theology in South Korea and Kairos theology in South Africa.35 It has affinities with European theologies of revolution and of hope, with black theology and feminist theology, though it is by no means derivative from them. On the contrary it has been described as ‘the first non-imitative theology to have sprung from the Third World nations; indeed, the first creative theological thought to have arisen outside of Europe or North America since the earliest years of the Church’.36 In reaction to theologies that emphasize dogma, liberation theology emphasizes ‘praxis’ (historical practice or reality). Theology is understood as ‘critical reflection on praxis’. The key to this approach is the praxis of liberation, which involves an intimate bond between theoretical theology and the practical life of faith.37 Some liberation theologians emphasize the relevance of the Old Testament to current political struggles, seeing the exodus in particular as a paradigm of liberation from oppression. Others prefer New Testament themes such as the coming of the kingdom of God and the person of Jesus as one who identified himself with the poor. Concerning

34. On which, see below: 6.2.b. On literary approaches to the Bible, see further Muilenburg 1969; Clines 1978; Gunn 1978; 1987; Alter 1981; Clines et al. 1982; Barton 1996; Sternberg 1985; G. Green 1987; Long 1988; Morgan & Barton 1988: 203–268; Brueggemann 1997: 53–60; Firth & Grant 2008. 35. On Minjung theology, see Christian Conference of Asia 1983; Niles 1985b: 284–295; Kim 2004. On Kairos theology, see Kairos Theologians 1985; Goba 1987; cf. Mosala 1989. 36. Kirk 1979: 204; cf. Hanks 1983: 61–69. 37. Gutiérrez 1971: 6–15; Boff & Boff 1986: 15–18.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 56

22/12/09 12:35:17

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

57

the relationship between the two Testaments, liberation theologians have not taken a distinctive approach, though several works touch on the problem and are mentioned below. Their approach to biblical interpretation is essentially pragmatic, concerned to address the needs and reflect on the faith of the people of God in their everyday lives, in their suffering and hope.38 Social-scientific approaches The methods of the social sciences have long been used in studying Christianity, particularly in the psychology and sociology of religion. More recently sociological methods have been used for study of the biblical text itself, for instance in Theissen’s analyses of the sociology of early Christianity (1974–7) and Gottwald’s reinterpretation of the origin of Israel as a revolutionary class struggle by peasants against the Canaanite feudal system (1979). There have also been psychological, anthropological and socioeconomic studies of specific phenomena (e.g. prophecy, apocalyptic, wealth and poverty) and exegeses of biblical texts using social-scientific methods.39 Sociological studies of the Bible are obviously relevant to the concerns of liberation theology,40 but have little to contribute to understanding the theological relationship between the Testaments. d. 1990s During the 1980s there was further discussion and consolidation of the new approaches to biblical interpretation of the 1970s, and during the last decade of the twentieth century significant new developments took place.41

38. See Gudorf 1987. For an example of biblical interpretation by a liberation theologian, see Pixley’s commentary on Exodus (1983). On liberation theology, see also Branson & Padilla 1983; Fuliga 1986; Lohfink 1987; Ateek 1989; Sugirtharajah 1991; West 1991; Perdue 2005: 76–101. 39. On the use of social sciences in biblical interpretation, see R. R. Wilson 1984; Morgan & Barton 1988: 138–166; Mayes 1989; Osborne 2006: 173–180; Brueggemann 1997: 49–53; Whitelam 1998; Carroll Rodas 2000. 40. The two approaches are brought together in a wide-ranging collection of essays edited by Gottwald (1983). See also Perdue 1994: 69–109. 41. Some old debates continued as well, e.g. concerning the relationship between Old Testament theology and the history of Israelite religion (on which, see Perdue 2005: 25–75). Also, feminism had an increasing influence on biblical interpretation: for examples, see Fiorenza 1993–4; for discussion, see Bach 1993; Trible 1993; Perdue 1994: 197–227; 2005: 102–182; Watson 1994: 155–219; Loades 1998.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 57

22/12/09 12:35:17

58

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Postmodernism Postmodernism is defined as ‘the state, condition, or period subsequent to that which is modern’, and refers to ‘various styles, concepts, or points of view involving a conscious departure from modernism, especially when characterized by a rejection of ideology and theory in favour of a plurality of values and techniques’ (OED). In modernism it was assumed that truth is objective, and attainable – at least in principle – by means of human reason and research. In postmodernism, however, truth is considered subjective. Historicism and positivism are displaced by pluralism. During the 1990s postmodernism began to influence biblical interpretation.42 In connection with texts, it led to a radical change of emphasis from authors and editors who produce texts to readers and interpreters who make use of them. In postmodern interpretation, authorial intention no longer determines the meaning of a text, for it may have different meanings in different contexts and for different readers. Any metanarrative or unifying vision that brings all things together in a coherent whole is rejected on principle, because it implies that it is possible to know the truth and interpret other things in the light of the truth. Postmodern interpreters often assume that authors write out of self-interest and have hidden agendas that need to be exposed, apparently ruling out other possible motives such as human altruism and divine inspiration. Among Old Testament scholars, Brueggemann has been particularly influenced by postmodernism, and his approach to the relationship between the Testaments is discussed below. Theological interpretation During the 1990s, several scholars began to develop a distinctively theological approach to biblical interpretation, notably Watson (1994; 1997), Fowl (1998) and Seitz (1998; 2001). They approach biblical interpretation as a theological, scriptural and ecclesiastical enterprise – concerned with the God to whom the canon of Scripture bears witness and the church devotes her faith and worship. This stems from dissatisfaction with historical-critical approaches that assume biblical texts to have single fixed meanings that can be recovered by critical reasoning and historical reconstruction. Their approach emphasizes the final form of the Bible, which is seen to focus on the work of the triune

42. E.g McKnight 1988; Brueggemann 1993; Aichele et al. 1995; Clines 1998; Jobling et al. 2001. For critical discussion, see Watson 1994: 79–153; Brueggemann 1997: 61–89; Bartholomew 1998; Carroll 1998; Barr 2000; Childs 2004: 291–298; Perdue 2005: 239–279; Loughlin 2006.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 58

22/12/09 12:35:17

h i s t o ry o f b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e tat i o n

59

God. Key elements are the creation of the universe; redemption of Israel from Egypt; incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus; empowerment of the church by the Spirit; and the ultimate dominion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus both Old and New Testaments have an equal place in the twotestament Scripture, which is recognized as a providentially provided canon of texts that constitute the basis of Christian theology, ethics and liturgy.43 Globalization By the end of the twentieth century, the dominance of Europe and North America in biblical interpretation had begun to be tempered by contributions from South America, Asia and Africa. Although prosperous countries inevitably have greater resources for research and writing, a growing number of scholars from developing countries have written theses and published books.44 Some use well-worn methods, often with a little local colour; others are more innovative in their approaches. Either way, it can no longer be assumed that new theological developments will take place in the global North, nor that they will necessarily be published in the traditional scholarly languages of English, French and German. In the years ahead, scholarship in languages such as Spanish, Chinese and Indonesian is likely to be increasingly important. The globalization of hermeneutics may well highlight the provincialism of many current readings of texts, as is already being attempted by some postcolonial interpreters.45 Nevertheless, for the purpose of the present work, I am unaware of any major new approach to the relationship between the Testaments, though I have incorporated references to works from various parts of the developing world as appropriate.

43. My summary is based on the survey of recent theological interpretation of Scripture by Cummins 2004. For a more detailed discussion, see Treier 2008a; 2008b. The work of Seitz is discussed in more detail below (4.3.e). For a selection of classic and contemporary readings on theological interpretation of Scripture, see Fowl 1997. For recent essays, see Adam et al. 2006; Lincoln & Paddison 2007. For an encyclopaedic dictionary, see Vanhoozer 2005. 44. On African scholarship, for example, see Holter 2000; 2002; 2006; West & Dube 2000; Getui et al. 2001; Ukpong et al. 2002; Otto & LeRoux 2005; Adeyemo 2006. 45. On postcolonialism, see Perdue 2005: 280–339.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 59

22/12/09 12:35:17

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 60

22/12/09 12:35:17

PART 2 : FOUR MODERN SOLUT ION S

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 61

22/12/09 12:35:17

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 62

22/12/09 12:35:17

3 . THE NEW T ESTAMENT AS THE ES S EN T IA L B IB L E

3.1 Rudolf Bultmann One of the big issues in the German Church struggle, as discussed in the previous chapter, was the continued use of the Old Testament in the church. It was at this time that Bultmann, a noted German New Testament scholar, published an article entitled ‘The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christian Faith’ (1933). He affirmed the Old Testament to be part of the ‘history out of which we come’, so that it would be senseless to retain Christianity and reject the Old Testament: ‘it is either–or: keep either both or neither’ (20–21). But he also saw a problem in this. How far can the Old Testament be revelation for the Christian faith? Bultmann concluded that this can be possible only in an indirect way. It has often been thought that Bultmann rejected the Old Testament. His view of its relationship to the New has been quoted from part of one sentence in his article: ‘to the Christian faith the Old Testament is no longer revelation’ (31). But this is unfair, because it ignores the next few words, which read, ‘as it has been, and still is, for the Jews’. Bultmann did not revive Marcion’s notorious separation of the Testaments, nor did he yield to the pressure of Nazi antipathy to the Old Testament. Though not a Christian book, the Old Testament was for Bultmann the presupposition of the New Testament and Christianity.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 63

22/12/09 12:35:17

64

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Our first task is to understand clearly Bultmann’s essay mentioned above and also a later essay on ‘Prophecy and Fulfillment’ (1949b). This will be followed by a critique of his proposal.1 a. The Old Testament and the Christian faith The developmental approach Bultmann (1933: 8–13) points out that the developmental approach2 treats the Bible as a source for understanding the historical development of religion, specifically the religions of Israel and the early church. Moreover it regards the Old Testament as the source of Christianity, because the ‘ethical monotheism’ perfected in Jesus came originally from Israel. This spiritual faith was the core of the preaching of the prophets, and the cultic and nationalistic elements of the Old Testament were eventually subordinated to it. Jesus simply continued that prophetic message, albeit in a distinctive and unsurpassed way. It follows that the relationship between the Testaments is straightforward: the only difference between the two is progression. On this view the more sophisticated teaching in the New Testament – such as Christology, eschatology, soteriology – is not merely unnecessary, but obscures the basic message of Jesus and must be rejected as mythology. The problem with this approach, according to Bultmann, is that it does not fit the New Testament. Elimination of sophisticated ideas as being mythology involves loss of the distinctively Christian element of the New Testament, its affirmation that God and humanity can meet only in the person of Jesus Christ. Moreover the basic message of Jesus cannot be used as a critical standard for eliminating mythology, because it is not simply ethical teaching about the fatherhood of God and love for others, but an eschatological message that points to the dawn of a new age. As a result, Jesus’ message itself, together with the New Testament proclamation about him, must also be regarded as mythological. What this means is that the developmental approach removes the distinctively Christian element from Christianity, making it nothing more than refined Judaism. Bultmann refrains from forming a judgment on the developmental approach in general, however, arguing that its concern is with the historical relationship between the religions of the two Testaments and is therefore irrelevant to the

1. Other writings of Bultmann concerning the relationship between the Testaments include those of 1940; 1948a; 1949a; 1950a; 1957a. 2. See above: 2.5.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 64

22/12/09 12:35:17

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

65

theological problem of their relationship. A truly theological approach to the problem will ask ‘whether the Old Testament still has a meaning for the faith which perceives in Jesus Christ the revelation of God’ (12). In contrast to the objective developmental approach, which simply analyses the relationship between historical phenomena, a subjective approach is required that considers the significance of the Old Testament for Christian faith. An existential approach Bultmann asks ‘what basic possibility [the Old Testament] presents for an understanding of human existence (Daseinsverständnis)’ (1933: 13). This he claims is a ‘genuinely historical’ (echt geschichtlich) approach to the relationship between the Testaments, because its concern is not simply to place events in the context of world history but to discover their relevance to us as human beings (13–21). Such a ‘genuinely historical’ approach to the Old Testament leads to expressing the relationship between the Testaments in terms of law and gospel. The Old Testament is the presupposition (Voraussetzung) of the New, according to Bultmann, not in the sense of religious evolution but because it is necessary first to be under the law before it is possible to comprehend Christ as the end of the law. Moreover, even when one is no longer under the law but under grace, faith is ‘a reality only by constantly overcoming the old existence under the Law’ (15). So the law does not cease to exist for the Christian who is freed from it, but ceases to be a means of justification. When the Old Testament acts in this way as the presupposition of the New, it loses its specifically Old Testament character. The cultic and ritual demands are now obsolete and the moral demands – though still valid – are not unique to the Old Testament since all know the law in this general sense (Rom. 1:32). Further, since what is vital is that the law – rather than the Old Testament – be understood, it is not essential that the law be the Old Testament itself. Human beings may come to a realization of their nothingness through their relationships with other people or through contemplation of some other history. The reason for using the Old Testament is expedience. Its expression of God’s demand is exceptionally direct and clear. Nevertheless, although as law the Old Testament is addressed to ‘a particular people who stand in a particular ethnic history which is not ours’ (17), it confronts us with an understanding of existence that is relevant to us. This understanding of existence shows human beings to be subject to the unconditional moral demand of God, which is neither idealistic nor utilitarian but existential. We live in history and are called not to a timeless ideal but to temporal and historical behaviour in obedience to God. This Old Testament understanding of existence is also found in the

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 65

22/12/09 12:35:17

66

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

New Testament and Christianity, in contrast to the humanistic or idealistic understanding of existence characteristic of Greek thought. Modern history has both Greek and biblical roots, so the Old Testament is an important part of that history, and a proper understanding of human existence today depends on serious interaction with the Old Testament. In particular the Old Testament is essential to understand the contemporary significance of Christianity. Thus Bultmann concludes that it would be senseless to hold on to Christianity and at the same time discard the Old Testament. The two must be accepted or rejected together. The Old Testament as revelation On an existential interpretation alone there would be no difference between the Testaments, since both have the same understanding of existence. A further question is therefore considered by Bultmann: in what sense, if at all, is it right to treat the Old Testament as revelation for the Christian faith (1933: 21–35)? To hear the Old Testament as Word of God is quite a different matter from the recognition that it is existentially part of Christian history. In order to answer this question it is necessary first to define more precisely the relationship between law and gospel in the Old Testament. Existence under the law in the Old Testament is in the first place existence under grace, since it is by grace that God called his people into being (through election and covenant) and by grace that God keeps sinful and unfaithful Israel as his people (through forgiveness and faithfulness). If ‘gospel’ is understood as ‘the proclamation of God’s grace for the sinner’, it is certainly known in the Old Testament, even if not always in an equally radical way (Pss 51; 90:7–8; 130; cf. 103:14–16). And God’s first requirement in the Old Testament is not moral behaviour but trust in his grace; that is, faith (Ps. 147:10–11; Jer. 9:23–24; Isa. 7:9; 28:16; 30:15; 45:23–25). It follows that Israel’s sin is unbelief. The radical nature of this unbelief is perceived by the prophets, who proclaim that the people deserve nothing but judgment from God. Yet in this situation eschatological hope is born, as sin and judgment release the possibility of forgiveness and salvation by God’s grace (Ezek. 36:22–27; 37:1–14; Jer. 31:33–34). ‘So far as Israel conceived the idea of God radically by grasping the ideas of sin and grace radically, the faith of the Old Testament is hope’ (28). In other words, although they are aware of its radical nature, the prophets experience the gospel of grace only partially. Its fulfilment is yet to come. And that fulfilment is the distinctive element of the New Testament as compared with the Old. Thus the difference between the Testaments becomes clear: in Jesus Christ God has inaugurated the new age. What God has done in Jesus is not

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 66

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

67

a historical event in the same sense as the events that constituted Israel as a people. God’s eschatological act in Christ has shifted the locus of his revelation from ethnic history to personal existence. So Christians do not look for God’s grace in history but meet it existentially in the Word proclaimed to them. In contrast to Israel, whose existence depends on its history, the church is a community bound together by the message it exists to proclaim. The answer to the question of whether the Old Testament is revelation for the Christian faith now begins to emerge. According to Bultmann, Israel and the church are fundamentally different entities and therefore Old Testament history is not Christian history. Grace in the Old Testament is specifically directed to Israel, whereas the law is an expression of God’s universal moral demand. So the Old Testament, though in itself both gospel and law, is for the Christian only law. It follows that the Old Testament history is not revelation for Christians in the same way as for Jews. This does not necessarily mean that the Old Testament itself, apart from its history, cannot be revelation for the Christian faith. There is still the possibility that Christians may claim the Old Testament as God’s Word to them, as an expression of what is made fully clear only in Christ. This is the approach of the New Testament and the early church, by whom the Old Testament is interpreted eschatologically, as written for Christians and in Christ receiving its true meaning. Bultmann considers such ‘scriptural proof ’ to be inconsistent with the original meaning of the Old Testament, however, and unable to convince and produce genuine faith. Moreover this approach means finding in the Old Testament what is already known in Christ, and thus effectively denies that the Old Testament is God’s Word in the true sense. So the Old Testament is not revelation for Christians in the historical sense that it is for Jews, nor in the direct eschatological sense as in the New Testament. The question still remains, however, whether there is any legitimate sense in which the Old Testament may be understood as Word of God by those who have read the New Testament. Bultmann assumes that Jesus Christ is God’s Word and argues that any other words that elucidate this Word are therefore God’s Word indirectly (in vermittelter Weise). The Old Testament understanding of human existence is normative for Christian life: that human beings are sinful creatures (revealed by the law) who need God’s grace (expressed in the gospel). Faith takes hold of the Old Testament, sees in it an image of its own existence, and claims it as God’s Word. In this indirect sense the Old Testament may be considered revelation for the Christian faith. If this is done, two conditions apply: the Old Testament must be used literally (though without its original reference to Israel) and only to the extent that it really prepares for the Christian understanding of existence.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 67

22/12/09 12:35:18

68

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

b. Prophecy and fulfilment Prediction Bultmann begins his second essay by stating that the early church understood prophecy as prediction of future events, and fulfilment as the occurrence of what was predicted (1949b: 50–55). He distinguishes two aspects of this understanding of prophecy. First, the Old Testament contains messianic prophecies, which are concerned with the eschaton (final event) that has become present for the church. Secondly, the Old Testament as a whole is understood as a book of prophecy whose words point to Christ. Thus early church use of the Old Testament combines Jewish eschatological tradition with the allegorical tradition of Hellenistic culture. Such a view of prophecy and fulfilment, Bultmann argues, is impossible today. The New Testament approach may be followed when it treats Old Testament prophecies as eschatological promises of salvation, but not when it ignores the original meaning of the biblical text. Often New Testament writers read a Christian meaning into Old Testament texts so that prophecy is recognized only retrospectively, after fulfilment has occurred. This method was important in the apologetic of the early church, but has several shortcomings. It is theologically untenable, because difficult doctrines such as the crucifixion are not overcome by pointing out that they were prophesied in the Old Testament but by understanding their real significance. It is arbitrary, since the interpretation is not exegesis but eisegesis (reading meanings into the text). It is unnecessary, since the texts are made to affirm Christian truths already known. Moreover, in spite of its superficial value in defending the Christian faith, this method really has the effect of concealing the true stumbling block of faith and the proper way to deal with it. History In the nineteenth century von Hofmann advanced a view of prophecy as history, understanding the history of Israel as prophetic history that finds its fulfilment in Christ and the church (Bultmann 1949b: 55–58). Thus prophecy is not the foretelling of future historical events but the movement of history towards a goal. Each word and event of the Old Testament is to be understood in its plain historical meaning and has prophetic significance only by virtue of its place in the prophetic history. The goal of history is Christ and so history is a prophecy of Christ. Von Hofmann’s view, according to Bultmann, is a theologically irrelevant philosophy of history. It cannot prove Christ, since Christ must be recognized as the goal of history before this view becomes possible, and in any case the

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 68

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

69

real significance of Christ cannot be confirmed by philosophy but only by faith. The attempt to understand prophecy as history is a move in the right direction but ‘according to the New Testament, Christ is the end of salvation history . . . not in the sense that he signifies the goal of historical development, but because he is its eschatological end’ (58). Covenant, kingdom and people of God Dissatisfied with the ideas of prediction and history, Bultmann develops a view of prophecy on the basis of the New Testament conviction that Christ is the eschatological end of salvation history. He does this by examining three Old Testament concepts that are eschatologically reinterpreted in the New Testament (1949b: 59–72). First, God’s covenant with his people is based on mutual loyalty, originated by God’s election and maintained by the people’s obedience. Bultmann argues that in popular belief this obedience is conceived primarily as sacrificial worship, a condition that can realistically be fulfilled by a people as such. If it was conceived in moral terms, obedience could be expected only of individuals within the people, and the covenant would no longer be a relationship between God and the people as an entity. The natural consequence of this popular belief is to root the security of individuals in membership of the chosen people rather than their own moral behaviour. It became clear to the Old Testament prophets, as to John the Baptist and Jesus, that there was a problem. They objected to assumptions that God was tied to the land and that the covenant was unbreakable. They were convinced of the necessity for a moral aspect to the covenant, though this meant that it could no longer be the relationship between God and an empirical people. ‘God’s covenant with a people whose individuals suffice for the moral demands of God as members of the people is an eschatological concept, because such a people is not a real empirical and historical, but an eschatological, dimension’ (61). So the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament idea of covenant eschatologically, affirming that the promises of Jeremiah (31:31–34) and Ezekiel (37:26–28) have been fulfilled in the church. Thus Bultmann argues that the church is not an empirical and historical people. Although the church is inaugurated by the death of Christ and membership is linked with the sacraments, these do not have the same historical significance the Sinai event and worship of the Old Testament had for Israel. The New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament covenant institutions is not found in any material observance but in the spiritual institution of salvation. ‘The new covenant is a radically eschatological dimension, that is, a dimension outside the world, and to belong to it takes its members out of the world’ (63).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 69

22/12/09 12:35:18

70

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Secondly, Bultmann points out that it was common among Semitic peoples to represent their gods as kings, and Israel was no exception. The kingdom of God, a tenet of Israelite faith from pre-exilic times, was celebrated every New Year in an enthronement festival. Its implications were that God expected obedience from his people, acted as their judge and helped them in war. The end of the monarchy and God’s abandonment of his people to Babylon was a crisis for the belief in the kingdom of God. In the event, however, the belief was not discarded but was re-formed into an eschatological concept. Both during and after the exile it was obvious that God’s kingdom had not yet been established in the world, and so prophets projected their hopes further into the future while apocalyptic eschatology looked beyond the present age to a supernatural age of salvation. Jesus took up this eschatological view of the kingdom of God, ‘no longer understood in the sense of Old Testament theocracy, as the dominion of the divine king in the liberated land . . . but as the wonder of a new era for the world breaking in from heaven’ (66). For Jesus and Paul the kingdom of God was a present reality; the new age was realized in the formation of the church: The rule of God and so of Christ is therefore something completely different from what Old Testament prophecy had expected. It is eschatological and supramundane in its entirety; and the man who has a part in it is, as it were, already taken out of the world, so that he lives no longer ‘according to the flesh,’ however much he still lives ‘in the flesh’ (2 Cor. 10:3). (67)

Thirdly, Bultmann argues that the concept of the people of God in the Old Testament is in conflict with that of a national state. Gideon recognized the impossibility of serving more than one ruler ( Judg. 8:23), and the monarchy was subject to continual prophetic criticism for neglecting its responsibility to God as the true monarch. So theocracy was an ideal rather than a reality during much of the Old Testament period. After the exile, Israel might perhaps be described as a theocracy, but by this time it had forfeited its existence as a state and become a religious community. Such a community, limited to Jews and bound together by its exclusive worship, was scarcely the realization of the people of God. A new understanding of the people of God was introduced by the New Testament claim that the new age has arrived in Christ. Now the church has become the people of God, the true Israel, not an ‘empirical historical entity’ but an ‘eschatological unit’. Membership of the people is no longer through birth but through individual calling and setting apart by God. So the idea of people

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 70

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

71

of God, like the ideas of covenant and kingdom of God, becomes an eschatological idea in the New Testament that is realized in Christ and his church. Miscarriage and promise In the light of his study of these three concepts Bultmann develops his view of prophecy as miscarriage and promise (1949b: 72–75). He argues that Old Testament Jewish history ‘is fulfilled in its inner contradiction, its miscarriage (Scheitern). An inner contradiction pervades the self-consciousness and the hope of Israel and its prophets’ (72). The miscarriage of history shows the impossibility of realizing the covenant, kingdom of God and people of God within the historical community of Israel. In so doing, however, the miscarriage becomes a promise since God’s grace is available only to those who recognize the complete impossibility of their situation. Thus fulfilment is not the result of historical development (which is miscarriage) but the result of encounter with the grace of God (which is an eschatological new creation). Such an interpretation of Old Testament history, Bultmann claims, follows from Paul’s view of the law as a false way of salvation, which must nevertheless be known in order to understand faith as the true way (cf. Gal. 3:22–24; Rom. 10:4; 11:32). He concludes: Faith requires the backward glance into Old Testament history as a history of failure, and so of promise, in order to know that the situation of the justified man arises only on the basis of this miscarriage. (75)

3.2 Critique Bultmann’s solution to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments raises many important issues, including his existential methodology, the nature of history, the antithesis between law and gospel, his idea of the miscarriage of history and his understanding of the people of God.3

3. The most important work on Bultmann’s view of the relationship between the Testaments is a symposium entitled The Old Testament and Christian Faith (ed. B. W. Anderson 1964c), which includes a translation of his 1933 essay and responses by B. W. Anderson, Cullmann, Dillenberger, J. L. McKenzie, Michalson, A. Richardson, J. M. Robinson, Vischer, Voegelin, Westermann, and G. E. Wright. Other studies include Westermann 1955; Barr 1965; N. J. Young 1966; Ricoeur 1969; de Valerio 1994; Watson 1997: 153–169; cf. Kegley 1966; Harrisville & Sundberg 2002: 217–248.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 71

22/12/09 12:35:18

72

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

a. Existence ‘Existentialist Christomonism’ is how George Ernest Wright (1969) categorizes Bultmann’s approach. The concept of existence is his ‘methodological starting point of theology’ (Bultmann 1930: 92) and the central distinctive characteristic of the New Testament is the idea that ‘man’s relation to God is bound to the person of Jesus’ (1933: 11). Existential philosophy is undoubtedly one of the most basic influences on Bultmann’s theology,4 so it is unsurprising that he formulates the relationship between the Testaments in terms of the possibilities for human existence that they express. There is, of course, no inherent objection to an existential investigation of the problem. Bultmann shows something of the historical value of the Old Testament for Christendom. Also, by means of the concept of ‘presupposition’, he illuminates the way in which the Old Testament embodies God’s moral demand and thus functions as preparation for the New.5 However, a fundamental limitation of the existential method is its own self-limiting nature. By definition its concern is with human existence and therefore only indirectly with God. Bultmann’s existential interpretation of Pauline theology, for instance, is concerned ‘with God not as He is in Himself but only with God as He is significant for man’, so that ‘Paul’s theology can best be treated as his doctrine of man’ (1948b: 191). It follows that existential interpretation of the Bible, however illuminating, will be inadequate because the Bible is concerned not only with human beings and their experience of God but with God himself, who in the beginning created the universe (Gen. 1:1) and in the end will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). Moreover if the Christ-event is relevant only to individual existence, as Bultmann claims, it is not the fulfilment of the Old Testament promise because that embraced not only individuals but the people of God and the world.6 In any case, as Bultmann himself recognizes (1933: 20), the result of an existential investigation of the relationship between the Testaments is merely to show that both have the same understanding of human existence. To determine the difference between the two it is necessary to formulate the problem in a specifically theological way: ‘What is meant by saying that the Old Testament is revelation, and to what extent, if any, can the Christian proclamation really be related to the Old Testament understood as God’s revelation?’ (21).

4. See Macquarrie 1955. 5. Bultmann 1933: 15–17; 20–21; cf. 1950a. 6. Westermann 1964.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 72

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

73

b. History Another fundamental issue raised by Bultmann’s work is the nature and significance of history.7 It is unnecessary to discuss this in detail, but two points must be mentioned. First, Bultmann recognizes that there is a historical (historisch) relationship between the Testaments. The Old Testament is a historical document that has influenced the formation of the New Testament in many ways (1949a: 15–56; cf. 1933: 8; 1948b: 108–121). Secondly, Bultmann argues that it is more profitable to consider the relationship between the Testaments in a ‘genuinely historical’ (echt geschichtlich) way (1933: 13–15). By this he means that one should try to reactualize the understanding of human existence expressed in the Old Testament in order to gain an understanding of one’s own existence: Thus the Old Testament is the presupposition of the New. Not in the sense of a historical (historisch) view, as though the historical phenomenon of the Christian religion had become possible only on the basis of the evolving history of religion attested by the Old Testament; but rather in the material (sachlich) sense that man must stand under the Old Testament if he wants to understand the New.

The problem with this view is that Bultmann, while emphasizing the existential significance of the past, ignores another aim of serious historical study, namely to find out what actually happened at a particular point in time and space.8 The implications of this method are rejection of the world and history, features that characterize Gnosticism.9 The fault in Bultmann’s approach is not in what he says, which is generally unexceptionable, but in his failure to grapple with the question of reality. An important factor in both Old and New Testaments is that God acts in real history to bring about salvation.10 c. Law and gospel One of the classic expressions of the relationship between the Testaments is Luther’s antithesis between law and gospel.11 Bultmann gives provisional

7. See also 1957a; cf. A. Richardson 1964a; J. M. Robinson 1964; Rottenberg 1964; N. J. Young 1969; Goldingay 1972; 2003: 859–876; Bebbington 1979; Thiselton 1980; Nash 1984; Maier 1990: 209–246; Bartholomew et al. 2003. A bibliography of nearly a thousand works on theology and history is given by North 1973. 8. See G. E. Wright 1964. 9. Voegelin 1964. 10. See A. Richardson 1964b; see further below: 6.2.e. 11. Cf. above: 2.3.a.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 73

22/12/09 12:35:18

74

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

approval to this, attributing its truth to the fact that the Reformation period still had ‘a genuinely historical relation to the Old Testament’ (1933: 14). He argues that existence under the law is the presupposition of existence under grace. Thus the Old Testament is the presupposition of the New Testament, since the gospel can be understood only by one who is under God’s law, which is expressed with incomparable clarity in the Old Testament.12 The message of the gospel is that Christ, the end of the law, gives freedom from the law and opens up a new way to holiness by means of grace (Bultmann 1940). At this point Bultmann’s argument is to be rejected. Of course, Paul does contrast law and gospel as false and true ways of salvation (e.g. Gal. 3 – 4). But that does not mean there is anything wrong with the law in itself, so long as it is used according to its original intention (which was not to bring about salvation). In both Testaments law is the consequence of the covenant, not its presupposition.13 People do not achieve a relationship with God by means of good behaviour, faithful piety or sustained effort. On the contrary, God saves people by his grace, bringing them into relationship with himself, and it is expected that these people will respond in gratitude by obeying his law.14 It follows that ‘gospel and law’ should be seen as complementary and it is inappropriate to treat ‘law and gospel’ as antithetical.15 Bultmann is aware of this objection to his thesis and attempts to forestall it by showing that the Old Testament contains the idea of grace as well as that of law, so that from its own point of view the Old Testament may be considered both law and gospel (1933: 22–31). Moreover he appears to admit the priority of grace over law in the Old Testament when he writes, ‘the people are not constituted as a people by first obeying the Law but, rather, God’s grace precedes, so that obedience is always to occur through faith in God’s prevenient and electing grace’ (23). However, this does not affect his acceptance of the law–gospel antithesis, since he goes on to argue that grace in the Old Testament is different from grace in the New Testament. In the Old Testament grace is bound to the history of Israel, whereas in the New it is eschatological, God’s act in Jesus Christ having ended his gracious activity in the people of Israel. Thus Bultmann concludes that from the Christian point of view the Old Testament is no longer gospel but only law (29–31).

12. 13. 14. 15.

Cf. Bultmann 1957b; Michalson 1964. Siegwalt 1971; Braulik 1984; cf. Zimmerli 1975. Cf. Hals 1980; Goldingay 2003: 369–385. Cf. K. Barth 1935; Dodd 1951a; Crüsemann 1992: 1–5.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 74

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

75

A thorough discussion of the relationship between law and gospel is beyond the scope of this book.16 I refer very briefly to just three key texts that relate to the issue. The first is the introduction to the Decalogue, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me’ (Exod. 20:2–3). This makes quite clear that the laws follow on from the ‘gospel’ – God’s deliverance of his people from slavery – and are not its precondition. The second is Paul’s declaration that ‘Christ is the end of the law’ (Rom. 10:4). Badenas (1985) demonstrates at length that its meaning is teleological, not temporal; in other words, Christ is the goal and fulfilment of the law, not its termination. This is consistent with Jesus’ own view of his mission as expressed in the third key text: ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil’ (Matt. 5:17).17 d. Miscarriage and promise Probably the most original, important and controversial aspect of Bultmann’s solution to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments is his interpretation of prophecy as miscarriage and promise (1949b: 72–75). He argues that Old Testament history contains an inner contradiction between the ideal of the people of God and the reality of the empirical community, and that the failure to resolve this contradiction resulted in the miscarriage of history. Paradoxically, however, this miscarriage amounts to a promise, since it proves the failure of human ways and directs humanity to the grace of God, which alone can deal with the situation. This idea is not entirely original. McFadyen (1903: 347) remarked that the Old Testament ‘by its repeated failures pointed men to something more strong and saving than itself ’. Later Phythian-Adams argued that Christianity is ‘the triumphant sequel’ of Judaism, in which ‘the tragedy of the Old Covenant is transfigured in the glory of the New’ (1934: 5). Nevertheless Bultmann’s proposal is distinctive in its radical assertion of contradiction and miscarriage

16. For more detailed studies, from various perspectives, see Hirsch (discussed below: 3.3.a); Thielicke 1948; Wingren 1958: 123–135; G. A. F. Knight 1962; J. A. Sanders 1975; Sloyan 1978; G. J. Wenham 1978; Lochman 1979: 28–32; Fuller 1980; Chiu 1984; Hofius & Stuhlmacher 1989; Perlitt 1990; Childs 1992: 532–565; Hesselink 1992; Strickland 1993; Bahnsen et al. 1996; Focant 1997; Limbeck 1997; Thielman 1999; Bayes 2000; Bockmuehl 2000; Watson 2001; Fuller 2002; Fretheim 2003; Levinson & Dance 2004; Bloomquist 2005; T. A. Wilson 2006; Schreiner 2007. 17. Cf. Holwerda 1995: 113–145.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 75

22/12/09 12:35:18

76

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

in Old Testament history, and demands a serious response. Such a response is provided by Miskotte (1963: 167): The consequences of this conception are enormous and disastrous. For this means that not only is the meaning of the Old Testament history found solely in profound meaninglessness, but also that no meaningful history can be ascribed to the New Testament community; the new beginning, inaugurated by Christ, is in no sense the beginning of a real historical development . . . The inevitable result of this is a failure to appreciate the Law, a withdrawal from history, a depreciation of the world, a negation of creation, a deafness to the typical Old Testament affirmation of godgiven life.

In short, Bultmann’s existential method involves depreciation of history, and so cannot deal adequately with the Old Testament, which is essentially a historical document. The conclusion must be drawn that Bultmann’s proposal, perceptive and illuminating as it is, does not fit the Bible.18 e. People of God Another element of Bultmann’s proposal that must be questioned is his view of the people of God. In the Old Testament, on the one hand, ‘God’s forgiveness is inextricably tied up with the destiny of the people’ and ‘so far as man belongs to this people, he can take comfort in the grace of God’ (1933: 29). In the New Testament, on the other hand, ‘the message of the forgiving grace of God in Jesus Christ is not a historical account about a past event, but . . . addresses each person immediately as God’s Word’ (30). The church is therefore ‘not a sociological entity, an ethnic or cultural community bound together by the continuity of history; but is constituted by the proclaimed Word of God’s forgiveness in Christ and is the community of this proclamation’ (30–31). So Bultmann concludes that the church has no history as ethnic, national and cultural communities have their history.19 This view contrasts with biblical teaching. Salvation was not automatic

18. Cf. Zimmerli 1952: 117–120; Marquardt 1968: 636. 19. Bultmann 1933: 31; cf. 1949b: 62; 1957a: 21–22, 31–32. His view is rather similar to that of the Jewish scholar Buber (1951), who contrasts two types of faith: in early Israel, faith (’ĕmûnâ) is trust in someone and is an attribute of a nation; in early Christianity, faith ( pistis) is acknowledgment of the truth of something and is an attribute of individuals. For a criticism of this simplistic view, see Vriezen 1966: 123n.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 76

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

77

through membership of the people in the Old Testament; indeed this very presumption was one of Israel’s greatest failings. On the contrary, salvation was given to Israelites only on the condition of obedience (Deut. 30:15–20) and the possibility of finding God and salvation was open also to non-Israelites (Ruth; Isa. 56:3–8; Jonah). In the New Testament, moreover, salvation is tied to the church in the sense that it is offered to those who identify themselves with Christ in this particular way, though again it is not automatic but dependent on a personal relationship with God (Acts 2:37–47; Eph. 2:11–22). It is true that the church is brought together by its message and exists to proclaim it, but it is not thereby prevented from being a historical and cultural community, a ‘sociological entity’. There is a contrast between the Old Testament people of God as a nation based on political and military power and the New Testament people of God as an international religious community without any political power.20 But although history does not have the same significance in a spiritual community as in an ethnic one, the church does have a history and believes God to be at work in that history. Bultmann (1949b) also claims that the covenant, kingdom of God and people of God are ideals that were shown to be unrealizable in Israel as a historical entity. However, although it is true that the reality fell far short of the ideal, it does not follow that the ideal was unrealizable. On the contrary, the people who entered into covenant with God at Sinai were given perfectly realistic moral and ceremonial obligations to keep as an expression of their loyalty. They broke the covenant not because they could not keep these obligations – in which case they would scarcely have been considered guilty – but because they would not keep them. So also the kingdom of God was not an unrealizable ideal. The problem was not that Israel could not be a theocracy but that she refused to be one, wanting to be like the other nations, and demanded a human king to rule her. One consequence of Bultmann’s contrast between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church concerns use of the Old Testament. His first condition for Christian reading of the Old Testament as God’s Word is ‘that the Old Testament is used in its original sense, although without its original reference to the Israelite people and their history’ (1933: 34). In this Bultmann reveals an inner contradiction in his approach. He insists on historical-critical principles of interpretation, so that the Old Testament is understood in ‘its original sense’; but in order to fit his theory of a radical contrast between

20. Westermann 1978: 218–221.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 77

22/12/09 12:35:18

78

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Israel and the church he has to exclude the most fundamental aspect of that original sense – the Old Testament’s reference to Israel and its history.21 f. A relationship of contrast The central idea in Bultmann’s view of the relationship between the Testaments is that the New Testament is the essential Bible and the Old Testament its non-Christian presupposition. Other important aspects include the antithesis between law and gospel, the view of Old Testament history as miscarriage (and thereby promise), and the contrast between Israel and the church. The dominant characteristic of Bultmann’s solution is therefore ‘contrast’. He assumes that the New Testament is the real Bible and treats the Old Testament as theologically secondary, obsolete and non-Christian. So is Bultmann guilty of Marcionism, as often accused?22 No! In spite of certain similarities between his approach and that classic heresy, Bultmann does not follow Marcion’s separation of the god of the Old Testament from the God of the New. Moreover, unlike Marcion, Bultmann is happy to retain the Old Testament in the church as a historical document and even with certain qualifications as the indirect Word of God.23 The perceptiveness with which Bultmann has analysed certain aspects of the problem is not to be doubted and his work contains valuable insights into biblical theology. Nevertheless there are several fundamental objections to his solution, in particular that it is based on an understanding of existence which involves depreciation of Old Testament history, and that his ideas of law and gospel, the miscarriage of history, and the people of God are inconsistent with what the Bible actually says.

3.3 Comparison To conclude this chapter, let us look at the proposals of four other scholars who offer ‘New Testament’ solutions to the problem of the relationship

21. On the people of God in the Bible, see Dahl 1956; Cazelles 1966a; 1966b; Bruce 1968: 51–67; Ehrhardt 1968; P. D. Hanson 1986; Goldingay 1987: 59–96; Nicholson 1986; Hamm & Weth 1992; J. B. Wells 2000; Scobie 2003: 469–651; Poorthuis & Schwartz 2006; Martens 2007. For further discussion of the people of God, in connection with the relationship between Israel and the church, see below: 9.2.b. 22. E.g. Surburg 1974. 23. Cf. Marlé 1956: 482; Michalson 1964.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 78

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

79

between the Testaments, considering the New Testament to be the essential Bible and the Old Testament in some way inferior. a. Emanuel Hirsch Hirsch was a New Testament scholar who supported the ‘Ger man Christian’ movement in the 1930s.24 He takes the New Testament to be the essential Bible and emphasizes the contrast between the Testaments (1935; 1936). However, for Hirsch the Old Testament is not the presupposition of the New but its antithesis. It has no direct relevance to the Christian, although it illuminates the distinctive nature of Christianity as gospel by presenting its opposite – legalistic Judaism. Hirsch’s characteristic theme is ‘law and gospel’,25 and he interprets it in the most radical way possible so that the two are irreconcilably contrasted. This view was particularly attractive in Nazi Germany and lent weight to contemporary anti-Semitic rejection of the Old Testament, although Hirsch himself does not advocate this. He recognizes that the Old Testament has a limited value for Christian preaching and asserts that in the history of Christianity it has been blessed with God’s authority as a preacher of the law. Nevertheless Hirsch’s approach is even more extreme than that of Bultmann and its implication is virtual dissolution of the relationship between the Testaments. b. Friedrich Baumgärtel Like Bultmann, Baumgärtel assumes that the Old Testament is to be read through the spectacles of the New and sees a contrast between the two Testaments, but there are important differences between his view and that of Bultmann. Baumgärtel’s major work is entitled Promise (Verheissung), written about twenty years after Bultmann’s essay. He propounds a threefold thesis (1952: 7).26 First, Christian faith is founded on God’s ‘promise in Christ’ (Eph. 3:6), which Baumgärtel defines by means of a creed: ‘Jesus Christ, my Lord, has saved me, a lost and condemned man, from every sin; so that I may be his, live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in eternal righteousness, innocence

24. On which, see above: 2.6. 25. Cf. von Rad 1937. 26. Many of Baumgärtel’s other works also concern the relationship between the Testaments, e.g. 1925; 1938; 1954a; 1954b; 1967. There have been many critiques of Baumgärtel’s approach, e.g. Köhler 1953: 248–251; von Rad 1953; Westermann 1955: 128–133; Schmidt 1975.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 79

22/12/09 12:35:18

80

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

and bliss.’ Secondly, God has authenticated his promise by the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thirdly, the Christian participates in the promise through the gospel. This threefold basis of faith is used by Baumgärtel to determine the nature of promise in the Bible and so to establish how the Old Testament should be understood from a gospel perspective. Promise in Christ The New Testament conceives ‘promise’ as an absolutely valid pledge made by God (Baumgärtel 1952: 7–16). Its characteristic aspects are • • • • • •

facticity (in the promise God is presently active) existence (the promise establishes and supports existence) judgment (realization of the promise is also judgment on sin) grace (the promise is given by God’s grace) universality (the promise is valid for all believers, Jews and Gentiles) futurity (the Old Testament promise of the future is understood by the New Testament to express a present gift, since it has come true in Christ)

This concept of promise has a double relationship to the Old Testament promise: the promise in Christ includes the promise of the Old Testament, though the promise in Christ itself cannot be found in the Old Testament. There are many individual promises in the Old Testament, but underneath them stands one basic promise, the statement of grace: ‘I am the Lord your God’ (16–27). Old Testament preaching interprets this characteristically in terms of law and nation, so that in practice it is quite different from the promise in Christ. However it is this basic promise – from which every Old Testament promise derives its essence – which is relevant for Christian faith. The promise in Christ offers salvation, which is to be appropriated in faith; and faith, according to the New Testament, is simply to hold on to the promise (37–39). Thus Baumgärtel defines the basis of Christian experience, and then elaborates its implications. Christians, he argues, experience the revelation of the transcendent God together with awareness of their own worldliness. They sense that this divine revelation is intended for them, and yet it frightens them that God both opens the way to blessing and judges their sin. The Old Testament as promise The Old Testament is theologically understood in faith, if by faith its message is conceived as promise (Baumgärtel 1952: 39–64). Thus the experience

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 80

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

81

of Old Testament people under the basic promise corresponds to that of Christians, though they are not identical. In the Old Testament, God is revealed as the living Lord and human beings as mortal creatures. This divine revelation confronts humanity under the law with the demand of God’s will; and God reveals his will in the law and prophets to judge sin and grant blessing. So Baumgärtel, like Bultmann, recognizes an essential congruity between the understanding of human existence in the Old and New Testaments. There are differences, for the Old Testament does not know the New Testament concept of eternal life, nor does it conceive an individual to be in relationship with God other than as a member of the people of Israel. Nevertheless he considers that Israel under God’s basic promise experiences God as the revealed Lord just as Christians under the promise in Christ experience him as their Lord, though the distinctively Old Testament character of the Old Testament experience must not be ignored. Baumgärtel has argued earlier that the promise in Christ includes the promise of the Old Testament. It follows that the Old Testament is in fact old and therefore abolished. Christ is the confirmation of God’s basic promise, but not of the way in which the Old Testament conceives the promise and the blessing that accompanies it. Christians have living communion with God by faith, something for which Old Testament believers can only wait. Such waiting is abolished for Christians, whose life under the promise in Christ is based on the certainty of present salvation. Is this valid? Can we draw such a strong contrast between Old and New Testament humanity? Baumgärtel admits there is a sense in which the Old Testament is still relevant for Christians. Those within the new covenant are fellow-travellers with those of the old covenant, experiencing under the divine promise a history that – like that of Israel – is salvation (and disaster) history. God has revealed himself and opened the way of faith to Christians, as to Israel; the Holy Spirit calls, illuminates and sanctifies in order to incorporate members into the one Christian church; and the cross of Christ brings judgment and freedom. Christian understanding of the Old Testament Baumgärtel’s argument has two implications for Christian understanding of the Old Testament (1952: 64–71). First, the Old Testament is the present word of God to Christians, to those who stand under the promise in Christ. Christians understand the Old Testament as a witness to God’s basic promise, which has become a reality for them through Christ, and thus the Old Testament speaks to them of Jesus Christ. It not only judges and humbles but also raises up and imparts power, thus becoming gospel.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 81

22/12/09 12:35:18

82

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Secondly, according to Baumgärtel, the Old Testament is only relevant for the Christian faith when understood as promise. It is often understood as prediction, but this is irrelevant to faith since Christian existence is not based on human insight but on trust in God’s grace in Christ, the realization of the promise. Christological interpretation is also inappropriate because the Old Testament does not develop a Christology by making statements about the person, office and work of Jesus Christ. Thus the relationship of the Old Testament to Jesus Christ does not lie in prediction or Christology but is found in its basic promise ‘I am the Lord your God,’ which the Christian faith affirms to have come true in Jesus. This has several consequences for theology and preaching (128–159). The Old Testament message is understood as promise, a concept derived from the New Testament rather than the Old Testament itself. Old Testament interpretation cannot be based on prediction and fulfilment, nor on typology, but only on the New Testament’s own principle of interpretation: promise in Christ. Preaching the promise from the Old Testament is simple at a theological level but difficult at a practical level, since the ‘holy simplicity’ of the basic promise has to be communicated in a meaningful way to the ordinary person in the street. A relationship of contrast Like Bultmann, Baumgärtel finds a relationship of contrast between the Testaments. He claims that the Old Testament idea of promise is closely linked to the law and the nation, in contrast to the New Testament idea, which is characterized by grace and universality (1952: 7–27). Moreover the Old Testament does not know the New Testament ideas of eternal life and personal relationship with God in the present (40, 49–53). Baumgärtel sums up his view succinctly: ‘the Old Testament is the witness of faith from a strange religion’ (1954b: 147). From the perspective of the history of religions it is clear that Israelite religion is different from Christian religion; and in practical terms Christians find they cannot understand the Old Testament because it belongs to a radically different situation in the history of piety (1954b: 138, 147–149). Thus for Baumgärtel the Old Testament can be understood only as Old Testament (1952: 49–53; 1954b: 150). A relationship of witness Another important aspect of Baumgärtel’s view is the idea of ‘witness’; that is, he understands the Old Testament as a witness to the promise in Christ. This is possible in two ways. On the one hand, the Old Testament witnesses to God’s realization of his basic promise through Christ. On the

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 82

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

83

other, Christians affirm that Christ has realized the basic promise of the Old Testament (1952: 64–71). In itself, to be sure, the Old Testament would not be understood in this way. But Christians can recognize the Old Testament to be a witness of God’s promise in Jesus Christ, as they interpret it on the basis of the prior understanding given by the New Testament (1954b: 134–139; cf. 1954a: 298–303). Thus for Baumgärtel the New Testament is the essential Bible, though the Old Testament also has continuing value if it is understood in the light of the New. c. Franz Hesse The New Testament is superior to the Old, according to Hesse (1960). It is more directly related to Christians than the Old and therefore has a higher position. Yet Hesse’s judgment on the Old Testament is not entirely negative and he recognizes that it has some authority for Christians (1959: 293). Perhaps the two most important concepts are ‘promise’ and ‘salvation history’. In a similar way to Baumgärtel, Hesse sees ‘promise’ as the key to Old Testament interpretation (1966: ch. 4). There are three aspects to this promise – pledge, factic gift and eschatological blessing – and beyond the form of Old Testament promises as human predictions a basic promise is determinative for the message of the whole Old Testament. Moreover God’s salvation history is seen in the Old Testament ‘as the history of promise, promise subsequently redeemed in Christ’ (1959: 294). Put another way, since this promise is expressed in words, ‘in, with, and under the Old Testament Word, witness is borne to the redemptive activity of God which finds its telos [end] in Jesus Christ’. There is a problem, however, because the biblical picture of salvation history is different from the history reconstructed by historical criticism: The Old Testament does indeed set out to describe the redemptive activity of God which happens in, with, and under the history of Israel; but the Old Testament witnesses have a conception of the course of this history which does not agree with the actual course. (1959: 295)

Because he accepts the results of historical criticism, Hesse considers the Old Testament presentation of history to be defective. In the New Testament, on the other hand, history is crucially important and there are only secondary differences between what the New Testament says and what actually happened. Thus the function of history is different in the two Testaments, according to Hesse. The New Testament is superior to the Old because its witness is based on real historical events and is thus constitutive for Christian faith. But

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 83

22/12/09 12:35:18

84

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

the witness of the Old Testament often contradicts the real basis of salvation history and so is not constitutive for Christian faith, though it ‘smoothes the way’ for it and deepens our understanding of it. So the Old Testament gives an incomplete picture of salvation history, and also records human responses to God’s words and activity that do not always witness to salvation history but can even go directly against it (1959: 299–304). Human listening can misunderstand or disobey God’s voice. Indeed every response to God’s word in the Old Testament is inadequate and often also misconceived or even perverted. Hesse explains that this happens because the faithful people of the Old Testament live in a situation where God’s revelation has not yet been clearly received. From the viewpoint of the history of religions, it could be said, ‘the Old Testament religion is something qualitatively different from the faith of the New Testament’ (300). Yet even in the error and disobedience of the Old Testament, God is present, since it was he who ordered history in such a way that salvation history includes a history of condemnation. So Hesse concludes that the Old Testament may be understood as a witness to the Word of God, which addresses Christians in so far as they are still on the way to salvation and are thus Old Testament people (304–313). Hesse clearly emphasizes the value of the New Testament and depreciates the Old. Although he does not reject the Old Testament completely or deny it a place in the Christian Bible, for Hesse the New Testament is constitutive for Christian faith and the Old has only indirect authority. d. Antonius Gunneweg Two facts provide the starting point for Gunneweg’s Understanding the Old Testament (1977): • The Old Testament is a collection of Israelite and Jewish writings. • The Old Testament is part of the Christian canon of Scripture. Can these two facts be reconciled, or do we have to choose one and ignore the other as was done in the early church by the allegorical approach, on the one hand, and Marcion, on the other? Gunneweg discusses both allegorical interpretation (31–35, 40–42, 48, 106, 143–147) and Marcionism in its various forms (39, 115–120, 142–172), concluding: The only attempt which was thought to have appropriated the whole of the Old Testament for Christianity, namely the allegorical approach practised in the early church, proved to be a pseudo-solution; it no longer allowed the Old Testament to have a message of its own, but attributed to it a different, Christian sense. (219)

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 84

22/12/09 12:35:18

t h e n e w t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

85

Moreover: For the most part the New Testament speaks the language of the Old and therefore presupposes its validity as a testimony to one and the same God. Thus the rejection of the Old Testament would not only make the message of the New Testament incomprehensible, but curtail its content. That is why Marcionitism – in its ancient and more recent forms – is always an attack on the very substance of Christianity. (236)

The Old Testament is still valid for the Christian church, according to Gunneweg, but only in so far as it is validated by the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament is the criterion for the canonicity of the Old. This means in effect that parts of the Old Testament are valid for Christians (48–51, 170–172, 218–223, 227). For example, the Old Testament understanding of human existence and the world and the Old Testament’s monotheistic conception of God are presuppositions for Christian proclamation of Jesus Christ (223–232). The Old Testament provided early Christians with a language to formulate witness to Christ, though Gunneweg argues that Christian proclamation and faith are not bound to that Old Testament language for always, since it is only the testimony of the New Testament that is binding for Christianity (16, 38, 232–236). Thus for Gunneweg – like Bultmann, Baumgärtel and Hesse – the New Testament is the essential Bible and the Old Testament its non-Christian presupposition.27

27. See also Gunneweg 1979; 1993. For further discussion of Gunneweg’s approach to biblical theology, see Mays 1979; Zimmerli 1979; J. H. Schmid 1986: 187–220; Oeming 1987: 165–180.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 85

22/12/09 12:35:19

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 86

22/12/09 12:35:19

4 . THE T WO T ESTAMENT S AS EQUA L LY CHR I S T I A N SCRIP T URE

4.1 Wilhelm Vischer The most important of Vischer’s many writings is The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ (1934; 1942). He wrote this programmatic work against the background of the conventional view of the Bible as part of the history of religion, in which the relationship between the Testaments was interpreted in terms of ‘progressive revelation’. He was also concerned about the revival of Marcion’s proposal to throw the Old Testament out of the window.1 These solutions satisfied neither the church nor biblical scholarship, and the political situation in Europe in the 1930s made the need for an answer all the more pressing. Just as Barth’s commentary on Romans (1918/1921) heralded the end of liberal theology and the beginning of a new era in biblical interpretation, so Vischer’s study of the Old Testament witness to Christ signified a turning point in the history of Old Testament interpretation. Although Vischer had written on the subject in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and Barth’s work was pointing in a similar direction,2 it was the first volume of Vischer’s major work that started a debate in the 1930s, which continued into the 1960s.

1. See above: 2.5–6. 2. See below: 4.3.a.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 87

22/12/09 12:35:19

88

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

I begin my analysis with this volume (1934). The argument of the introductory essay is first summarized, showing the theoretical basis of his thesis. Then his interpretation of the Old Testament is considered, with reference to the rest of his major work and other exegetical writings. The final section of the analysis concerns another theoretical essay that Vischer published later as a response to Bultmann. a. The witness of the Old Testament to Christ Vischer makes ten introductory points. Jesus is the Christ (1934: 7–8). This is the statement of faith of the Bible and the Christian church. The Old Testament defines the word ‘Christ’ and the New Testament supplies the name ‘Jesus’, thus identifying Jesus as the Christ. So the Old Testament points forward to the New and the New Testament back to the Old. The Christ has come and he is Jesus of Nazareth (8–11). This close relationship between the Testaments is clear in the way Luke, for example, presents the good news. The angels who speak to Zechariah, Mary and the shepherds announce that God is about to fulfil the promises made in the Old Testament. At his dedication in the temple Jesus is recognized by Simeon as the Christ; and when twelve, visits the temple again and reveals his own awareness that he is the Son of God. After baptism and temptation he commences his ministry in Galilee with the astounding claim that through his presence Scripture is being fulfilled. Jesus’ claim to be the Christ inevitably means a short ministry and an early death, and it might be thought that such a death disproves his claim. But the testimony of the New Testament is that this happened according to Scripture, that in his life and death Jesus was the Christ promised in the Old Testament. In their encounter with the risen Lord and in receiving the promised Holy Spirit, the disciples are given the knowledge and power to witness that Jesus is indeed the Christ. Jesus is the Christ of the Old Testament (11–14). The intention of the apostles in their witness to Jesus as the Christ is not to give a Christian interpretation to the ‘historical Jesus’, but to proclaim that Jesus is the Christ of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ is a historical event that is the source and goal of all history, yet he is a real man whose historicity is proved by his birth and above all his death. The Bible is a witness to Jesus Christ (14–17). Consistent with the historicity of Jesus Christ are the historical documents that support it. The Bible is not Holy Scripture because it fell from heaven but because it tells about Jesus Christ, the Son of God made flesh. It contains words of men and women rooted in history. To some this may be a stumbling block to belief that it is also the

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 88

22/12/09 12:35:19

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

89

Word of God, but it is no more a stumbling block than the incarnation of the Word of God. Thus historical and linguistic studies are essential to understand the Old Testament, though without the operation of the Holy Spirit the writings are dead. So there is a logical circle: God reveals himself in Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is attested by the Bible and the Bible is made effective by the Holy Spirit of God. Jesus Christ is the decisive event of history (18–19). According to the Bible, Jesus Christ is not merely one of many historical facts but the origin and destination of history, who lived in history and died to take away the sin of the world. Jesus Christ has united the Old and New Testaments (19–21). The death of Christ has made the two Testaments one, and it is only if they are a unity that Jesus is really the Christ. It follows that believers before and after Christ share the same salvation through the same mediator, thus belonging to one church of Christ. This is possible because Jesus Christ was not only a specific event in history but is eternally present (Heb. 13:8) and therefore contemporary with every Christian. Jesus Christ has fulfilled the Old Testament promises (22–24). The essence of the unity of the Testaments, according to the New Testament, is that Jesus the Christ has fulfilled what was promised by the law and the prophets. But this does not mean that the Old Testament is now unnecessary. The promises, though fulfilled, are not dissolved. On the contrary, they are clarified and completed and the expectation becomes even more vigorous. ‘To the witness of the old covenant Jesus is near as the Coming One; to those of the new covenant as the Returning One.’ The Old Testament belongs to the Christian canon (25–27). It is often asked whether the church was right to bring together both Old and New Testaments into one Bible. No doubt there could be piety on the basis of the New Testament alone, but Christianity demands both Testaments as a basis since it claims that Jesus is the Christ, in the sense that the Old Testament defines ‘Christ’. It was natural and essential therefore that Christians should appropriate Israel’s Bible as their own. Is Jesus the Christ? (27–33). The unity of the Testaments is the basis of the Christian church, since without the Old Testament the church cannot be Christian. At this point, however, the question arises whether the New Testament interpretation of the Old as a witness to Jesus the Christ is correct. It is not merely a question of faith. The Bible consists of human words and these words must be examined intellectually to see if they really point to Jesus Christ. True scholarly study will read the Old Testament naively, not assuming that it already knows its content but discovering in it the meaning of ‘Christ’. The ultimate decision whether or not Jesus is the Christ, although a matter of

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 89

22/12/09 12:35:19

90

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

faith, is a decision based on the testimony of Scripture, and intelligent study will show that it has a sound basis. The Old Testament is a witness to Christ (33–34). Vischer concludes his introduction by quoting Augustine: ‘Read the prophetic books without reference to Christ – what couldst thou find more tasteless and insipid? Find therein Christ, and what thou readest will not only prove agreeable, but will intoxicate thee.’ b. Old Testament interpretation It will be helpful now to look at a few samples of Vischer’s Old Testament interpretation, not because of their unusual features – which would give an unbalanced impression of his method – but almost at random, in order to understand his view of the relationship between the Testaments in a wider context.3 These samples are presented in chronological order of Vischer’s writing, which happens to coincide with their order in the Hebrew Bible. Genesis 14 Abraham is unaffected by the campaign of the kings but in loyalty to Lot leads his 318 ‘devoted servants’ into battle. On his return in triumph he is met by the priest-king of Salem ( Jerusalem), the city where God’s rule and presence are revealed from David to Jesus, and to the end of all things. The letter to the Hebrews compares the priesthood of Melchizedek with that of Christ: neither belongs to a priestly family but each is accredited directly by God. Thus before God makes the covenant with Abraham, Melchizedek reveals the office of the Son, ‘who has been made perfect for ever’ (Heb. 7:28), agreeing with Jesus’ declaration that Christianity is older than Judaism ( John 8:58). Exodus 3:13–14 Moses asks God his name and is told the name Yhwh, not a conventional divine name but ‘an utterance in the first person in which the subject does not become an object but remains subject’.4 It is a revelation not of a new God but of the God of the fathers, known formerly as El Shaddai (God Almighty).

3. Vischer has written widely on the Old Testament and only a few examples of his interpretation are discussed here. For these examples, see Vischer 1934: 128–133; 169–170; 1942: 203–209; 1955; 1959; 1961a; 1971. For other examples, see his works of 1944; 1954b; 1958; 1961b. 4. Vischer 1934: 169–170.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 90

22/12/09 12:35:19

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

91

1 Samuel 17 In the absence of any other volunteers, David responds to Goliath’s challenge to Israel – implicitly a challenge to the God of Israel. His only visible weapon is a staff and sling but he has the invisible armour of the panoply of God (Eph. 6:13). In the name of the Lord, David defeats the giant and delivers Israel, and by his faith in that same name is appointed king of Israel and founder of the messianic dynasty. Thus the shepherd becomes the princely witness to the promised true Shepherd, through whom God delivers and rules his people ( John 10; cf. Ezek. 34). Jeremiah 1:4–10 The most significant aspect of Jeremiah’s call is that he is appointed as prophet to the nations. He may be compared with Paul, the apostle to the nations (Gal. 1:15–16; cf. Jer. 1:5), though Paul travels the world to fulfil his ministry whereas Jeremiah stays at home and addresses most of his prophecies to Jerusalem and Judah. God speaks to the nations through Israel, and so Jeremiah’s mission to superintend the destruction and rehabilitation of Israel is indirectly a mission to the world. Both Jeremiah and Paul concur in their message that not only Israel but every nation of the world is subject to God’s justice and dependent on his grace. Amos 5 The message of Amos is as relevant to present-day Christians as to the Israelites, though both groups are inclined to ignore it on the assumption that they have a special relationship with God. Amos does not deny this special relationship, but shows that the very uniqueness of God’s people makes them especially liable to God’s justice (Amos 3:2; cf. Luke 12:48). In Jesus Christ, God has given Christians even more than he gave Israel, and therefore his demand on them is correspondingly greater and their unfaithfulness all the more serious. Like Israel, the church is condemned to death for its sin and empty religion; like Israel, it is given a last chance of life if it will ‘seek the Lord’ (Amos 5:6; cf. John 5:39–40). If people do this, it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph. (Amos 5:15)

Job God’s truth is Jesus Christ; the human lie is to make Jesus Christ into Christianity. The book of Job exposes this lie and points to this truth. It tells

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 91

22/12/09 12:35:19

92

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

the story of a man who was upright and, with no ulterior motives, trusted God fully. He rejected his friends’ attempts to explain life theologically and accepted only God’s own solution, ‘God’s free, joyous goodness which is the meaning and ground of the world’ (Vischer 1961a: 144). No doubt Job feared God for nought, but more important is the fact that God loves human beings for nought. The truth of this book is not proved by Job but by Jesus Christ, in whom God has taken the part of Job. Jesus was humiliated and tempted but placed his life in God’s hands on the cross, who answered him by raising him from the dead. Nehemiah As the king’s minister with special responsibilities and governor of Jerusalem, Nehemiah supervises the fortification of the holy city. He is neither priest nor prophet but a politician who realizes that there is a political aspect to the kingdom of God. The Jews have only a high priest at the head of their renewed state but – although the Persian regime would scarcely have tolerated its open expression – nurture a hope for a king. This hope remains unsatisfied until Jesus declares with authority that God’s kingdom is at hand and is acclaimed by the crowd on his entry into Jerusalem. c. Everywhere the Scripture is about Christ alone The essence of Vischer’s approach to the relationship between the Testaments is evident from his major work, but is clarified further by his later theoretical essay ‘Everywhere the Scripture Is About Christ Alone’ (1964).5 As a starting point, Vischer examines Bultmann’s radical claim that the Old Testament is not genuinely God’s Word for Christians.6 He takes issue with Bultmann’s distinction between the Old Testament (in which revelation is bound to the history of Israel) and the New Testament (in which revelation confronts the individual in the proclaimed Word). Concerning the Old Testament, Vischer admits that God’s revelation is bound to the history of his people, but argues that membership of that people is not enough. Faith and obedience are also required to experience the grace of God. Concerning the New Testament, Vischer acknowledges that the particularity of revelation is broken and God’s act in Jesus Christ is understood differently from his acts in the Old Testament. Nevertheless ‘the New Testament asserts that God’s deed in Jesus Christ is not merely one but rather THE decisive event for the history of Israel ’ (97; italics original). The New Testament message is that Jesus lived, died and rose again for all

5. He has also written several other theoretical essays on the subject, e.g. 1938; 1960. 6. On which, see above: ch. 3.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 92

22/12/09 12:35:19

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

93

who believe in him. This message is presented by showing that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Testament, both its end and its goal. Thus the New Testament points Christians to the Old, where they may see examples of God’s judgment and grace towards his people. These examples are relevant because in both Old and New Testaments God’s people live in time and history, and in both Testaments encounter God in Christ within that situation. However, the Old Testament is not simply helpful in understanding the Christian life; it is essential to apprehend God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, which cannot be known without the Old Testament.

4.2 Critique a. Method Vischer insists on a historical and linguistic approach to the Old Testament, based on sound scholarly method (1934: 14–17, 27–33). Yet one of the main criticisms directed against his work is that he does not take history seriously and in his exegesis substitutes guesswork for scholarship.7 Now it is true, as his reviewers have pointed out at length, that some of Vischer’s interpretations are open to question and others plainly fanciful, though these are the exception rather than the rule. It is also true that he evades the question of historicity and is more concerned to expound the text in its final form than to study its origins and development. Nevertheless, in spite of these qualifications, Vischer’s work is essentially what he intends it to be: exegesis based on historical and linguistic principles.8 Another common criticism of Vischer’s work is that he uses unacceptable methods of interpretation such as typology and allegory.9 Yet Vischer explicitly rejects these methods, apart from typology in the sense of ‘example’ or ‘pattern’,10 and emphasizes scholarly study of the text. His view of the relationship between the Testaments and his exegeses of Old Testament texts depend not on allegory – nor on typology as popularly misunderstood – but on historically based scholarship.

7. E.g. Thielicke 1948: 105–106; Porteous 1951: 339; Kraeling 1955: 226. 8. Cf. Hertzberg 1936; Jacob 1945: 76; Filson 1951: 144–145; Congar 1949: 11–12; J. Bright 1967: 86–87. 9. E.g. Baumgärtel 1952: 93; Köhler 1953: 251–253; W. J. Harrington 1973: 314; contrast Barr 1993. 10. See 1964: 99–100; cf. below: 7.2.a.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 93

22/12/09 12:35:19

94

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

b. Jesus as the Old Testament Christ One of Vischer’s key points in explaining the relationship between the Testaments is that Jesus is the Christ of the Old Testament (1934: 11–14). This is fundamental and surely unproblematic. Any Christian theology presupposes that Jesus is the Christ, and it is naturally the Old Testament that defines the concept ‘Christ’.11 It is only one side of the truth, however, and we need also to account for the element of surprise in the coming of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. There is no doubt that Jesus, according to the testimony of the New Testament, was the fulfilment of Old Testament promises of a Messiah;12 but there is equally no doubt that the fulfilment was so radically different from the expectation, that Jesus can be understood only to be the Christ of the whole Bible.13 The New Testament not only identifies the Christ; it also explains his nature and function in much more detail than is done in the Old Testament.14 c. Christological Old Testament interpretation It follows that Vischer interprets the Old Testament Christologically. Following good exegetical procedure, he takes account of the context of the passage in question and for him this context is the whole Bible. He dismisses the possibility of giving a theological interpretation of the Old Testament in the Christian church without reference to Christ: The hallmark of Christian theology is that it is Christology, a theology that can affirm nothing of God except in and through Jesus Christ . . . ( John 1:18) . . . From this it is clear that all the knowledge of God which resides in the Old Testament scriptures is mediated through Jesus Christ. Consequently, the theological exposition of these writings within the Church can be nothing other than Christology. (1934: 28–29)

Such a method lays Vischer open to the criticism that he reads New Testament meanings into Old Testament passages.15 But it is consistent with his presupposition of the theological identity of the Testaments, which enables him to move freely in the whole Bible to find analogies and explanations for clarification of difficult passages.

11. Cf. Brunner 1934; Cullmann 1957: 111–136. On the Old Testament and Christ, cf. van Ruler 1955: 34–68; see below: ch. 5. 12. Promise and fulfilment will be discussed in greater detail below: ch. 8. 13. Cf. Baumgärtel 1952: 91. 14. Porteous 1951: 337–338. 15. Porteous 1951: 338.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 94

22/12/09 12:35:19

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

95

Vischer does not claim that Jesus Christ was present in Old Testament times, or that he may be found and expounded directly in Old Testament texts,16 but simply that Old Testament interpretation must take seriously the fact that Christians believe the Old Testament to have been fulfilled in the New.17 Immanuel, for instance, is not identical with Jesus Christ. On the contrary, Immanuel is a sign – a person, thing or event that has an essential correspondence with something greater in the future and thus points to it and confirms it though it is not yet known.18 For Vischer, Christological interpretation means that every Old Testament text points towards the death of Christ and cannot be fully understood without reference to him. ‘The witnesses of the Old Testament and those of the New stand facing each other like the two sections of an antiphonal choir looking towards a central point . . . Immanuel.’19 Vischer’s Christological interpretation provoked much interest and disagreement;20 but it is a natural corollary of his view that the Old and New Testaments have the same – Christian – theology.21 d. Timeless revelation Another significant aspect of Vischer’s work is his view of revelation.22 He takes the unity of the Bible to mean that ‘the events which happened in the life of Christ as temporal history form an eternal now . . . In every generation every true Christian is contemporaneous with Christ’ (1934: 21). However, while it may be agreed that God himself is outside time, God’s plan is enacted within history and it is there that his revelation is to be found.23 The dynamic nature of God’s revelation in the Bible is obscured if it is abstracted into timelessness in this way.24 Though Vischer starts from a very different

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24.

Contrast A. T. Hanson 1965. Cf. Vischer 1934: 27–28. Vischer 1954a: 52. Vischer 1934: 25; cf. Goldingay 1990: 34. On Jesus Christ as the ‘centre’ of the Bible, see Dalferth 1997; J. A. Motyer 1996; Hermisson 1997; Dimitrov 2004: 1. E.g. Baumgärtel 1952: 93–95. On Christological interpretation of the Old Testament, see also Glen 1951; M. Barth 1954; Fohrer 1970; R. H. S. Boyd 1975: 136–137; Mildenberger 1975; Wainwright 1982; Escobar 1983; Juel 1988; Rendtorff 1989a; Seitz 1999; Beauchamp 2000. Cf. Thielicke 1948: 100–117. Cf. de Vaux 1952. Cf. Porteous 1951: 327, 339.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 95

22/12/09 12:35:19

96

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

point, the end result of this view resembles Bultmann’s existential view of revelation.25 A corollary to this view of a timeless revelation is that ‘in its nature and essence salvation under the old covenant was in no way different from ours’ (1934: 21; italics original). Vischer qualifies this by indicating differences in the way salvation was administered, in earthly forms in the Old Testament and spiritual ones in the New. But he virtually ignores the fundamental difference, that in the New Testament Jesus Christ has come and brought blessings, such as new birth and eternal life, which are unknown or unexpected in the Old Testament. e. A relationship of identity The title of the present chapter sums up Vischer’s thesis: the Old and New Testaments are equally Christian Scripture. It follows that the theological relationship between the Testaments involves not only ‘unity’ but ‘identity’.26 Of course, Vischer is aware of the differences between the Old and the New, as is clear from his starting point: ‘the Old Testament tells us what the Christ is; the New, who He is’ (1934: 7; italics original). Nevertheless he considers that the two Testaments have the same theology and Christology. This leads to Christological interpretation of the Old Testament and a timeless view of revelation and salvation. Vischer’s approach dates back to the earliest days of the church. In fact, it may be considered the traditional Christian approach to the Old Testament, apart from that of Marcion and his followers, until the rise of historical criticism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.27 The Fathers and Reformers affirmed in different ways their conviction that the Old Testament is Christian Scripture and therefore to be interpreted Christologically. They viewed the two Testaments as essentially identical in their value, inspiration and theology.28 Thus Vischer is really restating the traditional view in a twentieth-century context, aware of the results of historical criticism of the Bible and sensitive to the historical situation in which he lived. There is no doubt that a Christian solution to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments must take account of Vischer. He

25. 26. 27. 28.

See above: 3.2.a. Cf. Eichrodt 1938: 75–76; Thielicke 1948: 104; Kraeling 1955: 220; cf. 225–226. See Florovsky 1951: 173–174; J. Bright 1967: 79–84. See above: 2.1–2.4.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 96

22/12/09 12:35:19

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

97

has pointed out that thousands of years of history can be contemporaneous to an eternal God, without neglecting the temporal nature of his revelation and salvation. Above all, Vischer has reminded us that the New Testament identifies Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ promised in the Old Testament, though it should be noted that the full meaning of the word ‘Christ’ is known only from the whole Bible. The Old Testament is not self-contained but has a conclusion outside itself, in the New Testament revelation of Christ. So, although the term ‘Christ’ originates in the Old Testament, it can be fully understood only in the light of Jesus. Christian Old Testament interpretation must take this into account and is in that sense Christological.29

4.3 Comparison Many other writers have argued that the Old and New Testaments are equally Christian Scripture, generally with Jesus Christ as the key that unites the two. Five of these ‘scriptural’ solutions will now be examined.30 a. Karl Barth In a lecture during the early period of his life Barth stated his view as follows: The Old Testament mainly concerns us through its relation to the New Testament. If the Church is represented as the successor of the synagogue, then the Old Testament witnesses to Christ before Christ (but not apart from Christ). The Old and New Testaments are related to one another as prophecy to its fulfilment, and the Old Testament should always be regarded in this light . . . The Old Testament, though a completely Jewish book, none the less refers to Christ . . . The Old Testament looks forward, and the New Testament speaks of the future while looking back, and both look to Christ. (n. d.: 93–94)

29. For a very thorough recent study of Vischer’s biblical interpretation, see Felber 1999; 2007. For older reviews, apart from those already cited, see von Rad 1935; Herntrich 1936; Obbink [1937]; Zimmerli 1940; de Vaux 1950; Reventlow 1979. For a Jewish perspective, see Ratheiser 2007: 72–74. 30. Others that could have been discussed in this category include Procksch 1933; 1950; Hellbardt 1937; de Diétrich 1945; Coppens 1949; Diem 1955; Larcher 1962; Clements 1978; Sabourin 1980; Scobie 2003.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 97

22/12/09 12:35:19

98

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

He continued to interpret the Old Testament as a witness to Christ in later works, especially Church Dogmatics. The Old Testament points forward while the New Testament points back to Christ as the centre of the Bible.31 Like Vischer,32 Barth emphasizes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of Israel,33 and recognizes the ‘essential identity of Old Testament and New Testament’.34 He sees the two Testaments as one in their witness to God’s revelation, in their message about God, his creation, his sovereignty and his grace.35 b. Edmond Jacob In Jacob’s Theology of the Old Testament he states, in words that could almost have been written by Vischer: A theology of the Old Testament which is founded not on certain isolated verses, but on the Old Testament as a whole, can only be a Christology, for what was revealed under the old covenant, through a long and varied history, in events, persons and institutions, is, in Christ, gathered together and brought to perfection . . . a perfectly objective study makes us discern already in the Old Testament the same message of . . . God . . . which characterizes the Gospel. (1955b: 12; cf. 15, 17, 328)

Christ is therefore at the centre of the Bible, and the Old Testament is the road that leads to Jesus Christ and can only be interpreted as such, although it should not be Christianized (1950: 156–157; 1955a: 84). Jacob recognizes that there are obvious differences between the Old Testament and the New,

31. K. Barth 1938: 70–101, 481, 489; 1955: 822. 32. Although Vischer was influenced by Barth’s thought, most of Barth’s works considered here are later than Vischer’s major work (1934), and he quotes Vischer with approval (e.g. 1938: 80; 1942: x). 33. K. Barth 1938: 448; 1942: 198; 1945: 239, 276; 1953: 166. 34. K. Barth 1938: 74; cf. 1940: 364–367; 1950: 216; 1953: 167. 35. K. Barth 1938: 80–101; 1940: 381–382; 1945: 63–64, 202–203; 1950: 178–183; 1955: 822. Barth’s view of the relationship between the Testaments has been summarized briefly here on the basis of a few relevant passages from his works. For a more detailed study of his position, see Bächli 1987; also Thielicke 1948; L. A. Davis 1965; Kelsey 1975: 39–50; Ford 1979; Brueggemann 1997: 16–20; Burnett 2001; Cunningham 2006; W. S. Johnson 2007.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 98

22/12/09 12:35:19

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

99

but nevertheless affirms that the two are essentially united in their language, structure and message.36 c. George Knight Knight has the distinction of being the author of a ‘Christian’ Old Testament theology (1959). He makes no secret of his presupposition that ‘the Old Testament is nothing less than Christian Scripture’.37 This does not mean, however, that the Old Testament is a collection of prophecies of Christ. Rather there is a close parallel between God’s acts through his son Israel and those through his son Jesus.38 Knight’s thought here resembles the idea of typology as ‘patterns’.39 Moreover, he argues, the Old and New Testaments are equally revelation and have fundamentally the same theology.40 This explains the adjective ‘Christian’ in the title of his theology: it is not individual passages but the Old Testament as a whole that is messianic, looking forward to Christ.41 It follows that there is an ‘essential identity between the Israel of old and the Church which has come into existence through Christ’.42

36. Jacob 1955b: 31–32, 61–62, 112; 1966b: 393; 1968b: 431–432. Like Vischer, Jacob has been criticized for inconsistencies in method ( J. Bright 1962), and for giving inadequate consideration to the history of salvation (Rhodes 1959). Perhaps in response to such criticism, Jacob later emphasized the importance of historical method and affirmed his work to be a theology of the history of salvation (1966a: 126n.; 1968a: vii–ix). On Jacob’s approach to Old Testament theology, see also Laurin 1970; Hayes & Prussner 1985: 226–227. 37. G. A. F. Knight 1959: 7; cf. 1953: 51; 1962: 9–10, 13–14. 38. G. A. F. Knight 1959: 8, 225–247; cf. 1953: 71–73. 39. See G. A. F. Knight 1960: 57; cf. below: 7.2.a. 40. G. A. F. Knight 1959: 8; 1953: 27, 36–37, 66; 1962: 61–65. 41. G. A. F. Knight 1959: 286; cf. 285–320. 42. G. A. F. Knight 1959: 335; cf. 336–343; see also 1949. There have been many reviews and discussions of Knight’s ‘Christian’ Old Testament theology (e.g. Ackroyd 1962; Durham 1970; W. J. Harrington 1973: 34–40; Hayes & Prussner 1985: 229–231; Ratheiser 2007: 82). Some scholars acknowledge this to be the natural approach of a Christian, but others complain that he has failed to produce a distinctively Christian theology and that the result is little different from other Old Testament theologies. Examples of his biblical interpretation, which is rather similar to that of Vischer, may be found in his many commentaries on Old Testament books, e.g. 1950; 1955; 1961; 1976; 1984; 1985.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 99

22/12/09 12:35:19

100

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

d. Brevard Childs ‘The canon of the Christian church is the most appropriate context from which to do Biblical Theology’ (Childs 1970: 99). This is Childs’s basic thesis, and the basis of what is commonly described as the ‘canonical approach’, perhaps the most significant new approach to biblical interpretation of the 1970s. Childs acknowledges his debt to Barth, whose exegesis he describes as consistently rooted in the theological context of the Christian canon (110–111). The Christian canon of Scripture Childs elaborates his thesis as follows (99–103): • The Old and New Testaments together constitute Christian Scripture, in accordance with the confession of virtually all branches of the Christian church. • These Scriptures must be interpreted in relation to their function within the community of faith that has treasured them and expects to encounter God through them. • The biblical tradition is not merely illustrative but is normative for the life of the church. • The biblical text must be interpreted in its canonical form, because it is in this form and not in its prehistory that it is normative for Christian faith. • Nevertheless the text of Scripture must not be separated from the reality of which it speaks, for it points faithfully to the divine reality of Christ. In this canonical context, the two Testaments are not identical, since they speak of Christ in different ways; yet neither should they be separated nor one subordinated to the other. The Christian canon of Scripture consists of both Old Testament and New Testament. A relationship of witness Childs argues that the recognition of Old and New Testaments as Christian Scripture is based on the conviction that both Testaments bear witness to God’s redemptive activity; and this involves a proper understanding of the historical and cultural context in which that witness was originally given (112– 113). ‘The Old Testament within the context of the canon is not a witness to a primitive level of faith, nor does it need to be Christianized. Within its historical context it is a witness to Jesus Christ’ (111). Unlike Vischer’s idea of

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 100

22/12/09 12:35:19

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

101

a timeless revelation, Childs emphasizes the historical nature of the biblical witness.43 However, he argues that this involves not only historical-critical study but also study of the canonical shape of the literature that reflects Israel’s unique history.44 Thus Childs rejects any suggestion that the Old Testament is simply background material for the New or indeed that the New Testament is simply an appendix to the Old: The Christian church confesses to find a witness to Jesus Christ in both the Old Testament and the New . . . By reading the Old Testament along with the New as Christian scripture a new theological context is formed for understanding both parts which differs from hearing each Testament in isolation.45

This does not mean that the two Testaments are identical or to be harmonized, however, but simply that they witness independently and together to the one purpose of God (1964: 440–441). ‘What binds the testaments indissolubly together is their witness to the selfsame divine reality . . . [Scripture] points beyond itself to the reality of God’ (1992: 721). A relationship of continuity The early Christians were convinced of the continuity between the Old and New Testament witnesses. Childs demonstrates this on the basis of New Testament quotations of Old Testament texts, making three main points (1970: 202–209): • The Christian God is identified with the God of Israel. • The Old Testament idea of God is consistent with faith in the person of Jesus Christ; indeed Old Testament texts are used in the development of Christology.

43. McEvenue 1981: 233–236 claims that Childs’s canonical interpretation involves the relativization of historical perspectives and the timeless applicability of Scripture. However, this claim ignores Childs’s specific statements that ‘The Bible does not function in its role as canon to provide a collection of eternal ideas’ (1970: 101) and that God’s will has been revealed ‘not in timeless universal truths but in concrete manifestations of himself, restricted in time and space, and testified to by particular witnesses’ (105). Moreover McEvenue produces very little evidence that Childs does this in practice in his works. 44. Cf. Childs 1978; 1979: 71. 45. Childs 1979: 671; cf. 1970: 109; 1992: 74, 78.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 101

22/12/09 12:35:19

102

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

• Attempts to separate Christ and the Old Testament are rejected by affir ming the dynamic, personal and practical unity between God and Christ. It might be asked whether this continuity is really representative of the relationship between the Testaments as a whole. Is there not an essential discontinuity in the tension between monotheism and trinity, old and new creation, old and new covenant? Childs does not deny these elements of discontinuity, but they are less important to him than the fundamental continuity of divinity, creation and covenant.46 The Old Testament as Scripture This ‘canonical approach’ is worked out on a grand scale in Childs’s later works, particularly in his commentaries on Exodus (1974) and Isaiah (2001), Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (1979) and Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (1992).47 In the first commentary Childs aims ‘to interpret the book of Exodus as canonical scripture within the theological discipline of the Christian church’ (xiii; cf. 1964), and pursues this aim with a format for each section reminiscent of – though distinct from – that of the Biblischer Kommentar:48 • text (translation, textual and philological notes) • prehistory of the text (literary, form-critical and tradition-historical problems) • Old Testament context (exegesis of the text in its final, canonical form) • New Testament context (New Testament understanding of the text in the light of its confession of Jesus Christ)

46. See Childs 1970: 211–216; cf. 1958: 268–270. 47. He has also written a New Testament introduction (1984a) and Old Testament theology (1985). The Exodus commentary was described by a reviewer as ‘a commentary whose challenges and contributions are so large that it claims and deserves the attention of a more diverse readership than any commentary published in this century’ (Wharton 1975). JSOT devoted an entire issue to seven reviews of the Old Testament introduction (Kittel et al. 1980) – mostly acknowledging it to be original and exciting, imaginative and pioneering – followed by a response by Childs himself. By no means all reviewers agreed with Childs’s canonical approach, but none could dispute that he had thrown down a major challenge to the disciplines of Old Testament exegesis and introduction that could not be ignored. 48. On which, see above: 2.7.b.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 102

22/12/09 12:35:19

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

103

• history of exegesis (analogous to the section on prehistory, which deals with the period before the text took its canonical form, this section is concerned with interpretation after the formation of the text – ‘posthistory’) • theological reflection (in the context of the Christian canon) Childs explains that the first and second subsections are directed primarily to the technical scholar, and the fifth subsection stands on its own as part of intellectual history, but it is the subsections on Old and New Testament context and theological reflection that form the heart of the commentary and are intended for all readers. This is consistent with his stated aim of interpreting the text in its final form; that is, in the context of the Christian canon of Scripture. The Isaiah commentary has the same aim. It is relatively briefer and includes only the first three subsections, but is complemented by a separate book on the history of interpretation (2004). In his Old Testament introduction, Childs has a slightly different programme. Here he is concerned ‘to describe the form and function of the Hebrew Bible in its role as sacred scripture for Israel’ (1979: 16). The introductory chapters discuss the understanding of canon and emphasize the importance of interpreting the final form of the biblical text in the light of its function for a community of faith.49 Most of the work is devoted to an analysis of each of the books of the Hebrew Bible, with three main sections: • historical-critical problems • canonical shape of the book • theological and hermeneutical implications The sections on theological and hermeneutical implications summarize and reflect on the significance of each book in the canonical context of the Hebrew Bible, but do not generally consider its significance in the broader context of post-biblical Judaism or of the Christian canon of Scripture that includes both an Old and a New Testament. As Barr (1983: 152) points out, the Old Testament is interpreted as Scripture, but not as Christian Scripture, in quite a different way from Barth, who emphasizes a consistently Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. It seems that in his commentary Childs interprets Exodus as Christian Scripture, but in his introduction pursues only the more limited aim of understanding the Old Testament as Israel’s

49. Cf. Childs 1978: 53–55.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 103

22/12/09 12:35:19

104

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Scripture. Childs is aware of this and touches on it in the final chapter of his introduction, where he argues for a fundamental continuity between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Bible. Further, in his biblical theology he undertakes a magisterial study of both Old and New Testaments as Christian Scripture. The canonical form of the text Without doubt, Childs has had a profound effect on the development of Old Testament studies since the 1980s. Many scholars today follow a canonical approach to biblical interpretation, focusing on the texts in their ‘final’ form; that is, in the context of the scriptural canon as we know it now. Many scholars have analysed and discussed the approach in much more detail than is possible here, especially Barton, Brett, Noble and Seitz.50 Almost all are broadly appreciative, though not uncritical.51 Childs’s most vehement critic has been Barr (1983; 1999: 378–438). One important question Barr raises is how far the canonical form of the text should be considered normative.52 Barr argues that the later form of a text is

50. Barton 1996: 77–103; Brett 1991; Noble 1995; Seitz 1998: 102–109; 2006. See also Rendtorff 1983; Gese 1987a; Brueggemann 1991: 119–142; Perdue 1994: 153–196; Watson 1994: 30–45; 1997: 209–219; Fowl 1998: 24–28; Harrisville 1999; Lindbeck 1999; McGlasson 1999; Harrisville & Sundberg 2002: 304–328; Elliott 2007b: 41–67; Sheppard 2007. For more negative assessments, see Oeming 1987: 186–209 and Barr (discussed below). For a Jewish perspective, see Ratheiser 2007: 89–93. 51. E.g. Barton indicates the positive achievements of the canonical approach, while drawing attention to the fundamental theological problem of which of the available canons of Scripture should be its basis. He also demonstrates the affinities of the canonical approach with the ‘new criticism’ of twentieth-century secular literary studies, and argues that many of the arguments against the latter may also apply to the former (1996: 140–179). Whether or not that is the case depends to a large extent on how far the Bible is correctly described as ‘literature’: the inadequacies of the new criticism for understanding secular literature do not necessarily transfer to the canonical approach to sacred Scripture, which sets out to understand a diverse collection of writings (law, history, poetry, liturgy, prophecy etc.), most of which were not written primarily with literary aims nor are they read now primarily because of their literary interest. 52. Barr 1983: 75–104. Barr also argues that in many respects Childs’s programme is little different from the ‘Biblical Theology Movement’, which it purports to replace, and may in fact be seen as completing the quest of that movement (130–139).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 104

22/12/09 12:35:20

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

105

not necessarily superior to earlier forms, and that there may even be a deterioration in traditions over the course of time. While we are perfectly entitled to read the text as it stands, it is another matter to claim that it is this form that is determinative for theology. This raises the important question of truth. Which form of the text represents the truth about God most clearly and accurately? Does the recognition of certain writings as canonical Scripture mean that truth is to be found in them and nowhere else?53 How far has historical criticism, which Childs considers to be of only secondary importance, discovered the truth about the Bible?54 Should we be looking for truth behind the texts themselves, in the basic facts of the gospel or in the history of salvation?55 To formulate the question in a different way, is biblical truth to be sought in • the text in its final, canonical, form? or • earlier stages in the development of the text, as discovered by historicalcritical scholarship? or • the events that happened and words that were spoken which gave rise to the text? Perhaps all of these have their place, so long as interpreters make clear their intentions and do not claim a monopoly of truth. Moreover readers need to be aware that even the ‘final’ canonical form of the text has a continuing history of interpretation, as its meaning is discovered afresh in new historical and cultural situations.56 Childs himself does not claim to present the only valid method of interpretation, but simply to stand within the tradition of the church which has recognized these writings in their canonical form to be normative for its faith, ‘a channel of life . . . through which God instructs and admonishes his people’ (1970: 99). ‘This understanding of the Scripture’s uniqueness remains

53. 54. 55. 56.

Barr’s critique is marred by his description of Childs’s approach as ‘canonical criticism’, a term specifically repudiated by Childs (1978: 54; 1979: 82), by his caricature of several of Childs’s arguments, and by his failure to provide a clear statement of what approach to biblical interpretation he himself proposes. Childs (1984b) replies to Barr’s criticisms in a major review of the latter’s book. Cf. McEvenue 1981: 236. Cf. Barr 1983: 118–119. Cf. Childs 1970: 102; 1992: 80–85. Melugin 1988; cf. Clements 1978: 15–19.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 105

22/12/09 12:35:20

106

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

a statement of faith’ (104), but it has at least as much claim to be taken seriously as statements that give priority to interpretation of earlier forms of the text, a process fraught with many more difficulties than Childs’s canonical approach.57 e. Christopher Seitz Towards the end of the second millennium, a distinctively theological approach to biblical interpretation emerged, the main characteristics of which are summarized above (2.7.d). I focus here on the work of Seitz, as seen in his collections of essays entitled Word Without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (1998) and especially Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (2001).58 The basis of theological work for Seitz is the ‘rule of faith’, interpreting Scripture in a way that is consistent with its literal sense while learning from the clear teaching of the creeds and the long tradition of Christian interpretation.59 Two essential truths are the unity of the Trinity and the unity of the Bible: ‘As the Son and the Father are one, so, too, is the witness to them from the Old and New Testaments, which witness is perceived by eyes of faith through the work of the Holy Spirit’ (2001: 6). The triune God is the subject of the two-testament Scripture: ‘the Holy One, the living God who called Abraham and was called on by Jesus, who gave a holy and good law and sent the Son to obey it and take its curse that in exchange blessing might be had within a New Covenant’ (1998: 9).

57. Cf. Ellul 1970: xvii–xviii. For further discussion of canon and related issues, see Sundberg 1964; von Campenhausen 1968; Kaestli & Wermelinger 1984: Beckwith 1985; J. A. Sanders 1987; 2003; Baldermann & Stemberger 1988; Bruce 1988; Stuhlhofer 1988; Childs 1992: 55–69; Pannenberg & Schneider 1992; Sanders & Gamble 1992; Goldingay 1994: 83–197; Barton 1997; Stuhlmacher 1997; S. B. Chapman 2000; McDonald & Sanders 2002; Auwers & de Jonge 2003; Barton & Wolter 2003; Gamble 2003; Helmer & Landmesser 2004; Moberly et al. 2004; Bokedal 2005; Bartholomew et al. 2006; Trebolle 2006; L. M. McDonald 2007; Goldingay 2008; Seitz 2008; Zaman 2008. 58. See also his study of the Old Testament prophets (2007). Other scholars who take a similar approach include Francis Watson (1994; 1997; 2001) and Stephen Fowl (1998). For discussion of Watson’s work, see review articles of his books by Rowland (1995), Riches (1998) and Seitz (1999), each of which is followed by Watson’s response (1995; 1998; 1999); also Fowl 1998: 21–24. 59. Seitz 1998: 11; 2001: 6; cf. Fowl 1998: 7–8, 153.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 106

22/12/09 12:35:20

e q ua l ly c h r i s t i a n s c r i p t u r e

107

Historicism is the major challenge of our age, according to Seitz. He does not deny that it is valid to ask historical questions about the reference and intention of a text, as has always been done by responsible interpreters, but by historicism he means ‘appeal to the human dimension of scripture to such a degree that the actual form and structure of the literary witness is eclipsed’ (2001: 7). For example, both liberals and conservatives try to get behind the text to find the ‘historical Jesus’, assuming that to know him directly would be better than to know what the New Testament tells us about him. Seitz points out that to do this ignores the theological significance of the fourfold form of the Gospels and the fact that it is this presentation of Jesus that has canonical authority, not our reconstructions of his life and ministry. Even supposing we could accurately reconstruct the history of Jesus, that does not necessarily mean we would know him better. We cannot assume that those who met Jesus by Lake Galilee or on the streets of Jerusalem understood him more truly than those who later wrote the Gospels and whose testimony was recognized by the early church as true (cf. John 21:24). Seitz considers various examples of how Scripture has been ‘figured out’ in different times and places. The hallmark of early twentieth-century biblical interpretation was to understand Scripture as religion, thereby emphasizing a developmental approach to the relationship between the Testaments. Von Rad rejected this approach, and offered a tradition-historical method as an alternative, which was taken up in different ways by Brueggemann, Gese and Stuhlmacher. These scholars see Old Testament traditions as part of an ongoing tradition process, which is completed by the New Testament, so that the Old Testament has no fixed form as Scripture until Christians (and Jews) give it one. Seitz disagrees, arguing that the New Testament does not relate itself to ‘traditions’ but to a stable canon. Like Childs, Seitz affirms the Old Testament to be Scripture in itself, as it witnesses to ‘the One who raised Israel from the dead, and who, in turn, raised Jesus from the dead’ (2001: 47). Thus the Bible is not one continuous tradition history, but two distinct scriptural, authoritative witnesses.60 The problem with historicism is that origins and development are taken to be more important than the final form of Scripture (Seitz 2001: 83). Where

60. Similarly Watson 1999 assumes the interdependence of the two Testaments, and at the same time emphasizes that each has a ‘discrete voice’. So Old Testament texts should be interpreted first of all in their Old Testament context; and the discrete witness that emerges should then be clarified and expanded by a second, explicitly Christian, reading.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 107

22/12/09 12:35:20

108

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

biblical traditions differ, historicism assumes that the later writer has corrected or modified the former tradition, and therefore we need to go behind the present form to investigate ‘the true state of things’. This approach is related to the recent trend towards atavism, the notion that we need to know something lost to our time, from a golden age which holds the clue to setting all things right. But this is a kind of idolatry, according to Seitz, opposed to the Christian conviction that it is the Bible in its present canonical form that is our authority and guide.61 Seitz concludes that there are two matters at stake. First, historical-critical reading was based on a view of inspiration that focused on the original authors, now hidden below the present canonical form of Scripture. As a result it emphasized the past to such an extent that it marginalized another kind of history – the history of biblical interpretation. Secondly, it followed that the two Testaments were considered to be related only in a historical sense, not as revelations of the one God. Thus Seitz challenges readers ‘to learn again how to read the witness of a two-testament Scripture, armed with all the tools supplied by the science of biblical scholarship’ (2001: 197). He provides examples of how to do this in some wide-ranging essays on biblical exegesis and church practice (1998: 113–339; 2001: 91–190).

61. On the final form of the biblical texts, see Watson 1994: 15–77.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 108

22/12/09 12:35:20

5 . THE OLD T ESTAMENT AS THE ES S EN T IA L B IB L E

5.1 Arnold van Ruler As shown in the previous two chapters, Bultmann and Vischer see the relationship between the Testaments in terms of ‘contrast’ and ‘identity’ respectively. A third term that has been used to sum up this relationship is ‘priority’. It is not simply a matter of historical priority, noting that the Old Testament was written before the New and is concerned with events that took place prior to those of the New. Several scholars have taken the view that the Old Testament also has theological priority over the New Testament. The most important proponent of this view is a Dutch Reformed scholar, van Ruler, and his proposal will now be examined. Van Ruler set out to make a contribution to the 1950s debate about Christian interpretation of the Old Testament that was provoked by the launching of the Biblischer Kommentar.1 Starting from the basis of systematic theology, he put forward a provocative thesis that stimulated much further debate. The most important statement of the thesis is his book The Christian Church and the Old Testament (1955).2

1. On which, see above: 2.7.b. 2. Van Ruler’s Dutch manuscript was translated into German and published as Die

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 109

22/12/09 12:35:20

110

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

The vital question about the Old Testament for van Ruler is how it may be recognized as the Word of God. He points out that the Old Testament is decisively important since it deter mines one’s understanding of Christianity, yet from the earliest times the church has found difficulty in using it and today the question needs to be thought through once more. a. The Old Testament itself First, van Ruler deals with four preliminary questions about the Old Testament. Are both Testaments about the same God? A more precise way of putting this question would be to ask whether it is Yhwh, the God of Israel, who is also the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ (13–16/15–18). This question is very important in determining the church’s attitude to the Old Testament because a positive attitude to the Old Testament is dependent on a positive answer. Both faith and scholarship are involved and – although faith will reply first – it is also the responsibility of scholarship to search for an answer. Van Ruler’s own answer is clear throughout the whole book: both Old and New Testaments are about the same God. Revelation and scholarship The identity of the God of the Old Testament leads on to the question of revelation, and van Ruler asks how revelation may be perceived in Old Testament literature (16–21/18–24). He believes that the primary prerequisite for recognizing revelation is faith, and that the decision of faith to find revelation in the Old Testament is not arbitrary since Jesus Christ establishes its authority. Scholarship supports this decision of faith by demonstrating the uniqueness of the Old Testament’s understanding of life. In other words, the function of scholarship is to determine what the Old Testament says, and the function of faith is to decide whether or not what it says is revelation.

Footnote 2 (cont.) christliche Kirche und das Alte Testament (1955). The German edition was then translated into English (1966; and 1971, an identical edition which does not mention the former). There are a number of significant errors in the English translation, so both versions are referred to in the present book with the German and English page numbers given in that order: e.g. 1955: 11/13, or simply 11/13. Most of his other writings are available only in Dutch (e.g. 1945; 1947), though two expositions of Old Testament passages have been translated into English (1960; 1962).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 110

22/12/09 12:35:20

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

111

This simple distinction between the roles of faith and scholarship is inadequate, however. It does not solve the problem of whether the recognition of the Old Testament as revelation affects scholarly exegesis. Does scholarship study only the human aspect of revelation, or can it study revelation itself ? The fundamental problem is the relationship between revelation and the Bible. According to van Ruler, the Bible is not only a record of revelation, nor even a witness to revelation, but is itself a means of revelation. The hermeneutical problem of relating exegetes and their methods to authors and their subjects involves tension between establishing the meaning of the text and receiving it as revelation. As a result, theological scholarship will not be satisfied with investigation of the text on a purely human level, but will attempt to understand that revelation. What does the Old Testament mean by ‘revelation’? Revelation in the Old Testament, according to van Ruler, refers to the selfcommunication or presence of God among his people in concrete historical events (22–27/24–30). ‘The dimension of history is of predominant significance for what the Old Testament understands by revelation’ (23/25). And for van Ruler, history is a vital part of the revelation itself, not just the sphere in which it takes place (25n./28). This understanding of revelation as God’s active presence in Israel’s history has at least two implications. First, although it contains religious and theological ideas, the quintessence of the Old Testament is not found in these but in God himself, who is present in the history of Israel. Secondly, the concept of progressive revelation, which implies that human beings gradually come to know more of God, is inappropriate since revelation is not concerned with what we know but with what God does among us. Human knowledge becomes fuller with the progress of time; but God’s presence, and therefore revelation, cannot be more or less real at different times. It follows that the Old and New Testaments are equally revelation. There is no progress in revelation from the Old Testament to the New Testament.3 God is actively present in Jesus Christ, as in Israel, and in both cases his presence needs to be authenticated and clarified by signs and witnesses.4

3. Van Ruler admits a progress in salvation history, but this is a historical/temporal progress rather than a spiritual or intellectual progress, as is implied by the term ‘progressive revelation’. 4. He refers to the resurrection, Spirit and apostles in the New Testament, which are perhaps intended to correspond to the exodus, prophetic word and historical confessions (the creeds and histories of which they are the core) in the Old Testament.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 111

22/12/09 12:35:20

112

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Next van Ruler asks for what purpose and in what way God is present in Israel. He answers briefly that God’s purpose is not simply redemption but the establishment of his kingdom, the theocracy. He also argues that the manner in which God is present in Israel is forceful, in contrast to his treatment of other nations to whom he gives comparative freedom. This forceful aspect of God’s presence among his people comes to a climax when he becomes man for them in the incarnation. Christian preaching of the Old Testament This understanding of revelation raises a problem for Christians who preach from the Old Testament (28–33/30–36). How can revelation so inextricably tied to the history of Israel be revelation for the Christian church? In the words of Wolff (1952: 97), ‘What is the message that the text has for us in the name of God today if it is still to be the message of the Old Testament text, even though God has now uttered his definitive word in Jesus Christ?’ If the Old Testament is to be revelation for Christians, and van Ruler assumes that it will be, they must either be Israel or be related to Israel in such a way that what happened to Israel applies to them also. It might be suggested that ‘tradition’ is the key: that is, Christians stand in the same tradition as Israel, so that salvation is ‘passed on’ from the Jews to the Gentiles. However, since the Old Testament revelation is rooted in the history of Israel, it can be passed on fully only if there is a ‘repetition’ of Israel. This takes place as ‘around Christ and by the Spirit we are appointed and made Israel’. It means that Christians are involved in the sanctification of life and the world as well as in the sanctification of the church, and that the final prospect for the world is the presupposition of Israel – theocracy. So Christian preaching of the Old Testament is not simply preaching of Christ as he may be found in the Old Testament but also preaching of the kingdom. The concrete earthly things this involves are in fact the most important, since God’s ultimate purpose is the sanctification of the earth. At first sight the New Testament appears more spiritual than the Old Testament, but this is a negative rather than a positive attribute. ‘If the church’s preaching is to be full preaching of the kingdom, in which all reality is set in the light of the Word and counsel of God, the Old Testament is quite indispensable. The New Testament is not enough’ (32n./34–35). Thus the Old Testament stands as an independent source for Christian preaching, which includes preaching not only of the gospel but also of the kingdom. b. The Old Testament and Christ It may seem that the problem of Old Testament interpretation focuses on the idea of ‘Christ in the Old Testament’ (13/15). However, van Ruler has

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 112

22/12/09 12:35:20

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

113

deliberately postponed discussing this and first establishes the validity of the Old Testament as the Word of God independently of Christological interpretation. Revelation in the Old Testament, he has claimed, is the active presence of the one God – who is Father of our Lord Jesus Christ – in the history of Israel, and it becomes revelation for Christians as they become Israel. Therefore preaching of this revelation will be preaching of the presence of God, and this is manifested above all in his kingdom. Now van Ruler turns to ask whether it is also valid to use the Old Testament to preach Christ. Is it possible to preach a Christian message from an Old Testament perspective? Does the Old Testament itself ‘see’ Christ? Jesus Christ as an act of God in his history with Israel Van Ruler first remarks that the Old Testament in its entirety is not a single promise of Christ, but contains a history that is continually moving from promise to fulfilment, within the Old Testament itself (34–37/37–40). This is a real history, with concrete promises fulfilled in visible ways, each fulfilment pointing further into the future so that the history is never finished. It is here in the history of Israel itself that the basis of typology is to be found, not only in its relationship to Christ but in the pattern of promise and fulfilment that links later events to earlier ones. Jesus Christ is one act in this history of God with his people, and thus fulfils promises of the Old Testament in a similar way to fulfilments within the Old Testament itself. In this way, and only in this way, Jesus Christ becomes theologically significant for the history of Israel, and thus for the Old Testament. A new phase or the final phase? The question follows whether Jesus Christ is only one act among others, or whether this act has a special character. Does it bring about a new phase in God’s dealing with Israel or the final phase of ultimate fulfilment (38–40/41–43)? On the one hand, it is certain that the New Testament is more than an extension of the Old Testament. It speaks of a completely new act of God in Christ, which brings the end of the law and the old covenant. It inaugurates the last days in a revolutionary way by introducing Jesus Christ as the centre of history. On the other hand, the New Testament does not devalue the Old Testament. Promise and expectation are still important as Christians look into the future to the consummation of history. Van Ruler concludes therefore that the New Testament is more than a new phase, but not yet the final phase, in the history of God with his people.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 113

22/12/09 12:35:20

114

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Attempts to harmonize the Testaments Christian theologians, in particular those involved in the Biblischer Kommentar, often try to understand this integration of the New Testament events into God’s history with Israel by means of the concepts of promise and expectation (40–46/43–49). They say, for example, that God is free to interpret and fulfil his promises, and so Jesus Christ may be seen as God’s fulfilment of his promises to Israel in the Old Testament. There are many promises, some contradictory to others and some nebulous, but all are fulfilled in Christ. Old Testament expectation is concerned with the coming Lord himself rather than with those to whom he will come, and he is expected as the one who comes to kill and make alive. This pattern is fulfilled in the New Testament when God himself comes in the person of Jesus Christ, whose life centres on his death and resurrection. Van Ruler does not deny that there is truth in these observations but thinks they oversimplify the issues. The people Israel has an essential place in Old Testament expectation, and the fulfilment of Old Testament promises is not in every case to be found in Christ by the spiritualization of promises belonging to Israel. There is a ‘plus’ in the Old Testament compared with the New Testament, a remainder that is not part of the New Testament fulfilment. It is true that the New Testament focuses on death and resurrection. However, they are not the fundamental purpose of New Testament revelation, which is the same as in the Old Testament: that men and women may live rightly and to the glory of God. Incongruity between the Testaments Van Ruler rejects such harmonizing attempts to integrate the New Testament into God’s dealing with his people Israel, arguing that incongruities and differences of emphasis occur at vital points (49–57/46–53): • God himself comes as the Messiah in the New Testament, whereas in the Old Testament the Messiah is only a man. • The New Testament is concerned above all with forgiveness, but the Old Testament with kingship. • The dominant event of the New Testament (the rejection of the Messiah by the chosen people) is not even foreseen by the Old Testament. • Suffering and the love of God are the keynotes of the New Testament, in contrast to the wrath and glory of God in the Old Testament. • The New Testament has one way of atonement, but the Old Testament many.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 114

22/12/09 12:35:20

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

115

• In the New Testament the apostles are sent to the nations, whereas in the Old Testament the nations have to come to Israel for salvation. Allegory One way of seeing ‘Christ in the Old Testament’ is to renew allegorizing, a method that has often been popular in the history of the church (53–58/57–62). This appears to solve many problems by giving the entire Old Testament to the church, which is therefore free to interpret it. But allegorical interpretation is arbitrary, often taking words out of context in order to find Christ in the Old Testament, and it implies that God inspired the Old Testament in a mysterious way and thus deliberately obscured the meaning. Further, van Ruler argues, if the Old Testament were an allegory it would not matter what it actually said since the real meaning would be something other than what it said. Its bond to the history of Israel would be irrelevant and the Old Testament would no longer be revelation in the sense of God’s presence in the history of his people. Allegorical exegesis is superficially attractive because it avoids the problem of the historical reliability of the Old Testament. But it ignores God’s history with his people and so inevitably fails to understand the nature of revelation, finding in the Old Testament a subjective or other-worldly Christ rather than the historical Christ. Van Ruler recognizes a difference between intellectual knowledge and spiritual understanding of the Bible. He argues that scholarship, if it is to take the Bible seriously as God’s revelation, should attempt to penetrate beyond study of the actual words to understanding God’s purpose in revelation. However, this is no justification for allegorical exegesis, since God has chosen to express himself in ordinary words and it is through these that his purpose is to be understood. Allegorizing must be rejected and historical-grammatical study remains fundamental, according to van Ruler. Nevertheless scholarship alone is insufficient to understand God’s words, and true exegesis is possible only in and by the Holy Spirit. Typology Another way of finding ‘Christ in the Old Testament’ is typological interpretation, a method that was being revived in the 1950s.5 Van Ruler analyses the way the method was being used as follows (58–68/62–72):

5. Typology and typical interpretation are discussed at length below: ch. 7.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 115

22/12/09 12:35:20

116

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

• Earlier historical facts are related to later ones (in particular, Old Testament facts to those in the New Testament), both kinds of facts being recognized as acts of God, so that features of the earlier time recur or have parallels or are continued or developed in the later time. • It is stressed that typology concerns the whole Old Testament and not just messianic prophecies. • It is asked whether the typological relationship is perceived only in retrospect or is fixed by God from the beginning. • It is conceded that the real meaning of a text may not originally have been understood. • It is considered that Christian theologians must understand the Old Testament from the New, although this cannot be made into a strict method. • Jesus Christ is seen as ‘the final goal of the way of God’ with his people Israel, and thus secretly present in the Old Testament. Van Ruler’s critical comments on this typological method bring him right to the heart of his thesis, defining the place of Jesus Christ in God’s plan and the authenticity of the Old Testament as the canonical Word of God. His first comment concerns the centrality of Jesus Christ in God’s plan. He contests the usual formulation that God’s history with Israel is directed towards Jesus Christ. On the contrary, God’s act in Jesus Christ is for the benefit of Israel. Similarly, God’s history with Israel is for the benefit of the peoples of the earth and God’s purpose in salvation is for his creation, not the other way round. ‘We are not men in order that we might be Christians; we are Christians in order that we might be men’ (65/68). Jesus solved the problem of guilt by his sacrifice, and is therefore the centre of God’s purpose, but this is different from saying that God is concerned exclusively with him. God is not only concerned with reconciliation but also with sanctification, not only with the Messiah but also with the Spirit. From the beginning God’s kingdom is central, which means that ‘Jesus Christ is an emergency measure that God postponed as long as possible (cf. Matt. 21:33–46). Hence we must not try to find him fully in the Old Testament’ (65/69). Secondly, van Ruler advocates a more cautious use of typology, limiting types to those authenticated by God (in the New Testament, presumably). Types can be recognized only in retrospect and therefore Jesus Christ fulfils the Old Testament by putting into effect what it says, not because the Old Testament foresees what he will do and speaks about it. So the Old Testament speaks about Jesus only in the sense that he fulfils it. Thirdly, according to van Ruler, Jesus Christ fulfils the Old Testament above

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 116

22/12/09 12:35:20

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

117

all by solving its root problem, the broken relationship between God and human beings.6 So the primary importance of the Old Testament is not found in elements typologically related to Christ, but in the main concerns of the Old Testament itself – Israel, the world and God. ‘The Old Testament is and remains the intrinsic Bible (die eigentliche Bibel ). In it God has made known himself and the secret he has with the world’ (68/72). Thus van Ruler states explicitly the underlying theme of his whole book, that the Old Testament is the original, essential and canonical Word of God, and the New Testament is its interpretative glossary (erklärendes Wörterverzeichnis). So the Old Testament must not be interpreted simply in terms of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It must be interpreted in its own terms: the life of individuals and the history of God’s people. c. The Old Testament and the church Finally, van Ruler considers the question of why and in what way the Old Testament is necessary for the Christian church. Six concepts First, the Old Testament is necessary for the Christian church as a legitimation of Jesus as the Christ (69–71/75–77). The Old Testament shows that Jesus is in harmony with God’s relationship to his people and that he has been sent by God. It supports Jesus’ claim to do the works of God by showing what those works are. Further, its attestation of Jesus as Messiah links the two Testaments as it combines the Old Testament concept of the kingdom of God with the New Testament concept of the deity of Jesus. It is also possible to look at the relationship between the Testaments in the opposite way. Not only does the Old Testament legitimate Jesus as the Christ, but Jesus himself authenticates the Old Testament. In van Ruler’s terminology, he is its foundation (71–74/77–80). In Jesus Christ • God’s promises are fulfilled; • God’s relationship with Israel, humanity, and the world has been ratified; • the kingdom of God has been founded on earth. So the Old Testament is necessary for the Christian church because Jesus has confirmed that what it says is valid. It follows that only the church can

6. Here he says that forgiveness and expiation are fundamental in the Old Testament, in apparent contradiction to his previous statement that forgiveness is the characteristic of the New Testament in contrast to the Old Testament (48/51–52).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 117

22/12/09 12:35:20

118

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

understand the Old Testament. Although it is indeed Israel’s book, it has become evident through the coming of the Messiah and the Spirit that the Old Testament is not only concerned with Israel but with the whole world. The promises and the kingdom of God are passed on from Israel to the church in the incarnation and rejection of Christ. The third way in which the Old Testament is necessary in the church is for interpretation of the gospel (74–77/80–82). The New Testament can be understood historically only on the basis of the Old Testament. Without the Old Testament the kingdom is lost from sight, as is the historical, worldly, theocratic element of Christianity. Systematic theology should therefore take the Old Testament more seriously and use it to help express the significance of Jesus being the Christ. Next, van Ruler refers to the importance of the Old Testament for illustration (77–79/83–85). It is not simply that Old Testament imagery has lasting value, but that Jesus Christ cannot be understood other than in Old Testament terms. Van Ruler gives four examples of the necessity of Old Testament expressions and concepts for Christian preaching: • the fact that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah • Jesus’ close involvement in the difficult situation in which Israel had got entangled • Jesus’ answer to the problem of guilt, expressed in the language of Jewish ‘blood-theology’ • the fact that the church is now ‘Israel’ The fifth concept is historicization (79–82/86–87). The Old Testament shows Jesus Christ to be part of God’s history with Israel and thus genuinely historical. Although obvious to ordinary people, the fact that history is central to Christianity has been continually evaded by theologians. So the Old Testament with its unmistakable concern for history is essential as a reminder that God’s revelation is inextricably linked to historical facts. Finally, the church’s need of the Old Testament is expressed by the concept of eschatologization (82–85/88–91). By this van Ruler means that initially, finally and therefore all the time it is God and the world that are fundamentally important. This is seen more clearly in the Old Testament (which is positively concerned with creation, kingdom, law, sanctification, culture, marriage, the state etc.) than in the New (where it is recognized but obscured by the details of revelation, the incarnation of the Messiah and the indwelling of the Spirit). So the Old Testament has a surplus over the New Testament, not only in the ceremonial sphere, but in its social and political ideal of the sanctification

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 118

22/12/09 12:35:20

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

119

of the earth. This is an ideal the church has lost, through a false deduction from the necessity for Christ’s death that nothing more can be done with the earth. Some further implications Van Ruler concludes his book with two questions and two problems (85–92/92–98). ‘Should the church preach only Christ?’ is answered in the negative, since preaching of the kingdom – for the sake of which Christ came – is more fundamental. ‘What should follow the recognition of the Old Testament as canon?’ is that the church is bound to the Old Testament, not the Old Testament to the church, as is so often the case. The problems of the relationship between the two Testaments as Christian canon and the Old Testament as Israel’s book today are outlined but not solved. What is clear is that both Old and New Testaments are recognized as authorities and that, although the Old Testament becomes valid for Gentiles through Jesus Christ, the people of Israel still exist and have an important part in God’s history with the world.

5.2 Critique a. Incongruity Van Ruler draws attention to several incongruities between the Old Testament and the New (49–57/46–53). First, he distinguishes between the Old Testament idea of the Messiah as a man and the New Testament teaching that he is God. But this ignores the fact that the Old Testament looks forward to the coming not only of a human Messiah but of the Lord himself (e.g. Mal. 3:1); and that the New Testament recognizes the genuine humanity of Jesus (e.g. John 1:14; Rom. 9:5). Secondly, he claims that the Old Testament emphasizes kingship, whereas the New Testament emphasizes guilt and atonement. Yet human guilt and the need for forgiveness is a dominant theme in the law and prophets;7 and the

7. E.g. in the Old Testament the word ‘sin’ (h.āt.ā’) occurs 593 times, ‘iniquity’ (‘āwōn) 223 times, ‘atonement’ (kipper) 101 times and ‘forgive’ (sālah.) 50 times. Cf. in the New Testament the word ‘sin’ (hamartia and compounds) occurs 149 times and ‘forgive’ (aphiēmi) 46 times. Even van Ruler admits elsewhere (67/71) that the root problem of the Old Testament is the broken relationship between God and human beings, i.e. the need for expiation and forgiveness.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 119

22/12/09 12:35:20

120

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

kingdom of God is fundamental to the teaching of Jesus (Mark 1:15) and Paul (1 Cor. 15:24–28).8 Thirdly, van Ruler suggests that the Old Testament does not envisage the dominant event of the New Testament, the rejection of the Messiah.9 But what about the prophetic expectation that the Servant would be rejected (Isa. 53) and the common rejection of God’s messengers in the Old Testament (Isa. 6:9–10; Jer. 11:19; Ezek. 3:7; Amos 7:12–13)?10 In any case, it is questionable whether the rejection of the Messiah is the dominant event of the New Testament. The resurrection is as important as the crucifixion, and the latter is presented as the fulfilment of God’s plan of salvation as much as the human rejection of his Son (Acts 2:23; cf. Mark 8:31; Luke 18:31; Acts 3:18; 4:28; 13:29; 1 Pet. 1:19–20; Rev. 13:811). Then van Ruler claims that the Old Testament has many ways of atonement, whereas the New Testament has only one. There is some truth in this contrast, but his further claim that the idea of substitution emerges clearly only in the New Testament cannot be accepted. On the contrary, substitution is an important concept in the Old Testament: ‘Israel knew very well what substitution and atonement meant; what it did not know was the way of their final realization in Jesus of Nazareth’ (Stamm 1956: 208). There is also some truth in van Ruler’s distinction between the Old Testament expectation of the nations coming to Israel for salvation and the New Testament apostolate that evangelizes the nations. Nevertheless both Testaments recognize the fundamental point, that salvation is possible for Gentiles as well as for Israel.12 World mission and blessing for all nations through the chosen people are implicit in Abraham’s call (Gen. 12:1–3). Jonah is sent to Nineveh to preach his message and his reluctance to fulfil this mission is due to jealousy and small-mindedness rather than ignorance of God’s plans to save the nations ( Jon. 4:1–2). Further evidence of the missionary aspect to Israel’s faith is to be found in the proselytes Paul found throughout the Roman Empire in the first

8. The word ‘kingdom’ (basileia) occurs 157 times in the New Testament, usually accompanied by the explanation ‘of God’ or ‘of heaven’. In the Old Testament the words for ‘king’ (melek) and ‘kingdom’ (mamlākâ), though very common, are not often related to God. 9. Cf. J. Bright 1953: 198–208; Eichrodt 1933: 510–511; P. Richardson 1969. 10. Cf. O. H. Steck 1967; Crenshaw 1971: 94–99. 11. Translate: ‘the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world’ (tniv); cf. Caird 1966; Morris 1987. 12. Cf. Stamm 1956: 209; see also Rowley 1944; Jeremias 1956; Martin-Achard 1959.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 120

22/12/09 12:35:20

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

121

century, showing that Judaism had in fact made many converts (Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43; cf. Matt. 23:15).13 On the other hand, the Old Testament expectation of the nations coming to Israel for salvation is not entirely forgotten in the New Testament. At the birth of Jesus ‘wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews?”’ (Matt. 2:1–2). And at Pentecost it is the ‘nations’ who come to Jerusalem to hear the gospel preached for the first time after the resurrection (Acts 2:5–11). To conclude, although there are differences in emphasis and content between the two Testaments, the contrast is not nearly so sharp as van Ruler claims. b. The ‘surplus’ One major aspect of the relationship between the Testaments, according to van Ruler, is that the Old Testament has a ‘surplus’ over the New: To the very depths of Old Testament expectation, the people of Israel as a people, the land, posterity and theocracy play a role that cannot possibly be eliminated. This role cannot be altered by regarding Christ and his church as the fulfilment, in other words, by spiritualizing. There is a surplus (zu viel ) in the Old Testament, a remnant that cannot be fitted into the New Testament fulfilment. (42–43/45)

At this point Stamm (1956: 206–208) criticizes van Ruler, arguing that fulfilment should be seen in the context of the whole and not in terms of individual promises, since Jesus – admittedly to the surprise of contemporary Jews – claimed to fulfil all the different messianic promises. But van Ruler has more to say: In the Old Testament what matters is everyone sitting under his vine and fig tree, in other words, earthly possessions and inhabiting the earth where righteousness dwells – all to God’s praise. The element of the earth is not eliminated, not even when the cross of Jesus Christ is planted in that earth. Here too is a surplus in the Old Testament as compared with the New. (46/49; cf. 83–85/89–91)

It is indeed true that these things are characteristic of the Old Testament, perhaps more so than of the New Testament.14 But the New Testament is

13. See J. Bright 1953: 160–161. 14. Liberation theologians have placed a particular emphasis on the Old Testament. Its ‘earthly realism’ (Fierro 1977: 480) and depiction of ‘God the liberator’ in the exodus (Segundo 1976: 485) are particularly congenial to their political concerns. Hanks (1983: 85–96) also finds many points of similarity between Judaism and liberation theologies.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 121

22/12/09 12:35:20

122

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

also interested in ordinary life on earth,15 and the Old Testament is interested in spiritual things.16 Van Ruler’s characterization of the Old Testament as ‘earthly’ and the New Testament as ‘spiritual’ is an oversimplification.17 c. Jesus Christ as God’s ‘emergency measure’ From the Old Testament standpoint Jesus Christ is either of theological significance only as an historical fact – as an act of God in the history with his people, Israel – or he is of no significance at all.18

Indeed for van Ruler, Jesus Christ is not even an essential part of this history but an emergency measure that God delayed and eventually found necessary in order to establish his kingdom (65/69). This presumably implies that Jesus will no longer be needed once his rescue mission has been accomplished (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28).19 Now it is not to be disputed that Jesus Christ, as his title testifies, came as the Messiah of Israel. This is fundamental for any evaluation of the relationship between the Testaments. But van Ruler’s formulation is dependent on a questionable view of revelation and history, and does not adequately account for the radical newness of God’s act in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of his Son.20 Van Ruler’s approach warns us against a premature Christological interpretation of the Old Testament, which would find Jesus himself there. Moreover there is an element of truth in his view that Jesus’ coming was an emergency measure, because if human beings had not sinned salvation would not have been required. However, to understand Jesus Christ as only an emergency measure ignores the New Testament claim that he was part of God’s plan from the beginning (cf. John 1:1–18; Col. 1:15–20).

15. See Matt. 13; Luke 1:53a; John 10:10b; Acts 2:44–46; Rom. 12–13; 1 Cor. 7; 16; Phil. 4; Col. 3:18–25; James; Rev. 21; cf. Wilder 1955. 16. See Gen. 6:8; 15:6; Num. 16:30; Deut. 29:18–19; 1 Sam. 2:26; Job 19:25–27; Ps. 16:9–11; Isa. 43:1–7; Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 37; Dan. 12:2–3; cf. Eichrodt 1933: 210– 220; Vriezen 1966: 153–175. 17. See Wolff 1956a: 176–179. On the ‘surplus’, see also K. H. Miskotte (discussed below: 5.3.a) and Oeming 1987: 237–241. 18. Van Ruler 1955: 37/40; cf. 34–40/37–43; also 80/86. 19. See Moltmann 1973: 259–266. 20. Cf. von Rad 1960: 382–383; Barr 1966: 65–102; Thomas 1966.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 122

22/12/09 12:35:21

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

123

d. Creation and salvation Van Ruler views the doctrine of creation as more fundamental than the doctrine of salvation, so that sanctification is greater than reconciliation (63–65/67–69, 82–85/88–91). The Old Testament is concerned with creation and the New Testament with salvation, so the Old Testament has priority over the New. This view is apparent in van Ruler’s devotional study God’s Son and God’s World (1960). Unlike many books that deal first with the Old Testament and then progress to the New Testament, the first part is devoted to the New Testament (the ‘I am’ sayings, 28 pp.) and the second part to the Old Testament (Ps. 104, 39 pp.). ‘The intention of the gospel of Christ is that we do rejoice in the world . . . Through the gift of Jesus Christ we are able again to love the world and be glad in it’ (5). This makes good sense. If God’s purpose is for the world, then salvation may be understood as a remedy to heal the world’s sickness, and health is obviously more important than healing. Moreover it may be urged that ‘for those who believe their God to be Lord of all, the supreme act of the past is the act of creation itself ’ (Foulkes 1958: 31). The doctrine of salvation needs to take account of what is to be saved and the purpose for which it is to be saved. In line with van Ruler, Bonhoeffer (1951) counters those who advocate Christianity simply as a religion of salvation in these terms: Is there any concern in the Old Testament about saving one’s soul at all? Is not righteousness and the kingdom of God on earth the focus of everything? . . . It is not with the next world that we are concerned but with this world as created and preserved and set subject to laws and atoned for and made new. (94–95) The Christian hope sends a man back to his life on earth in a wholly new way which is even more sharply defined than it is in the Old Testament . . . This world must not be prematurely written off. (112; cf. 50, 93)

However, as Vriezen (1956: 221) points out, the earth as creation cannot be truly loved without the deep confession of sin which desecrates it, and without knowledge of the power of God which has broken the power of sin and prepares a new future for the earth. Sanctification without redemption is impossible.

The basic problem is that van Ruler does not deal adequately with the fact of sin and the theology of salvation, which are fundamental to the whole

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 123

22/12/09 12:35:21

124

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Bible, not just the New Testament.21 A balanced Christian appreciation of the whole biblical message must recognize that creation and salvation are each of fundamental importance and neither exists without the other.22 Indeed Jesus the saviour is also the one who inaugurates the new creation ( John 14:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 3:2).23 Clearly there are different emphases in the Old and New Testaments, and ‘creation’ is more dominant in the former and ‘salvation’ in the latter. Nevertheless both Testaments have the same ideal of a sanctified earth and both acknowledge that this can be brought about only by the activity of God, who not only created the world but also provided for its salvation.24 e. Kingdom of God The theme of the kingdom of God underlies the whole of van Ruler’s book, as well as his popular exposition of Zechariah (1962). This is closely related to his view that the doctrine of creation is more important than the doctrine of salvation. On this basis, van Ruler argues that the purpose of God’s revelation is not only redemption but more particularly the setting up of his kingdom – the theocracy.25 Israel starts as a theocracy, the church becomes the theocracy, and theocracy is the final expectation for the world (1955: 32/34). Thus for van Ruler Israel is more important than the church26 and the Old Testament is more important than the New. One reason why the Old Testament is necessary for the Christian church is because its concern for the kingdom brings out the aspect of kingship in the concept of messiah, which would be lost from sight if Jesus was understood only through the New Testament (75/81). So the Old Testament should not be interpreted Christologically but eschatologically, which for van Ruler means theocratically.27

21. See above: 5.2.a; cf. Festorazzi 1967; Grogan 1967; Hill 1967; Gunneweg 1977: 113. 22. Cf. Toombs 1969: 310–312; Gutiérrez 1971: 153–160; Westermann 1978; Goldingay 1987: 200–239; Rendtorff 1987. 23. Cf. Moltmann 1973: 263. 24. See also Bonhoeffer 1951: 126–127; Barr 1966: 149–170; 1970; Westermann 1971; H. H. Schmid 1973; Fretheim 1991b; 2005; Perdue 1994: 113–150. 25. Van Ruler 1955: 26–27/28–29; cf. 1947: 29–47. The recognition of theocracy as central to the Old Testament is not new. The word was originally coined by Josephus (Against Apion 2:164–167). Smend II (1970: 39–44) traces the concept of theocracy as the ‘centre’ of the Old Testament since the seventeenth century, showing that it belongs with the idea of God as the Lord (e.g. Wellhausen 1883: 411–425). 26. On the relationship between Israel and the church, see below: 9.2. 27. See van Ruler 1955: 82–83/88–89; cf. Vriezen 1956: 219–220; Plöger 1959.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 124

22/12/09 12:35:21

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

125

Undoubtedly, the kingdom of God is fundamental to biblical theology,28 and van Ruler’s work provides a balance to others that stress the importance of concepts such as ‘covenant’, ‘communion with God’, ‘salvation history’ and ‘people of God’. It is also true that God saves people in order that they may live under his rule, and Jesus came in order to set up God’s kingdom. In this sense theocracy is more ultimate to the biblical message than soteriology. However, van Ruler’s ‘theocratic theology’29 does not take sufficient account of the variety of biblical theology, nor of the failure of the Israelite attempt at theocracy. Not one of the forms of statehood experienced by Israel – wilderness community, tribal federation, monarchy, post-exilic community – succeeded as theocracies, and it was not until the coming of Jesus that the kingdom of God was at last inaugurated. Van Ruler’s claim that theocracy is the presupposition of Israel must therefore be challenged.30 No doubt many Israelites assumed that they lived in a theocracy and the false prophets encouraged them in their complacency, but the burden of the canonical prophets was to proclaim the eschatological kingdom of God, a theocracy to be established on the ‘day of the Lord’ (Isa. 9:7; Ezek. 20:33; 37:24–28; Hos. 3:5; Obad. 21; Zech. 14:9, 16–17). Nor are Christians called to establish a theocracy on earth in the Old Testament sense, though there have been tendencies towards this in both traditional Catholicism and militant Protestantism.31 One of the stumbling blocks of Jesus’ preaching is that the kingdom comes in an unexpected way, through the death and resurrection of the Son of God. So Vriezen (1956: 218) can say: It had been demonstrated in Israel that theocratic preaching could not save Israel, that Israel could not be transformed into a theocracy without the suffering and sacrificial death of the Servant of God. Theocracy could become a living reality in Israel only through the cross, as in fact it can be realized in any way at all only through the cross . . . Jesus Christ is the locus of the breaking through of the kingdom of God in the world.

28. On the kingdom of God in biblical theology, see J. Bright 1953; Ladd 1974; Bruce 1968: ch. 2; Klein 1970; Gray 1979; Goldsworthy 1981; Willis 1987; Duling 1992; Chilton 2008. It is also one of the key themes of liberation theology (see Kirk 1979: 136–140; Dussel 1979; Hoesl 1982). 29. Hommes 1967. 30. See Vriezen 1956: 216–222. 31. Gunneweg 1977: 107–111.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 125

22/12/09 12:35:21

126

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Although the Old Testament envisages the kingdom of God, it is the New Testament that portrays its coming. Thus it is a fallacy to make the Old Testament superior to the New on the grounds that it deals with kingdom rather than redemption.32 Both Testaments are vital for the biblical understanding of the kingdom of God. f. A relationship of priority So there are five distinctive features of van Ruler’s view of the relationship between the Testaments: (1) incongruities between the Testaments, (2) the Old Testament surplus, (3) Jesus Christ as an emergency measure, (4) creation more important than salvation, and (5) kingdom of God as central concept of the Old Testament. All five features are aspects of his thesis that the Old Testament is primarily and inherently the Bible, and the New Testament its interpretative glossary. It follows that the relationship between the Testaments is one of priority. The Old Testament has historical and theological priority with respect to the New Testament. In van Ruler’s words: The Old Testament is and remains the intrinsic Bible. In it God has made known himself and the secret he has with the world. All goodness and also all truth and beauty – the fully redemptive knowledge of being – shines out before us in this book. It is the book of humanity . . . Both exegetically and homiletically one must continually begin afresh and remain occupied with the text of the Old Testament itself . . . The Old Testament itself remains the canonical Word of God, and it constantly confronts us with its own authority. (68/72)

This is true up to a point. God’s plans for salvation and sanctification are set out first of all in the Old Testament, and the New Testament records the fulfilment of those plans. Jesus Christ is part of God’s historical dealings with his chosen people, and the church of Jesus Christ is spiritually Israel. God’s ultimate purpose is that his kingdom should be established over all creation. This much may be learnt from van Ruler, and the most fundamental criticism of his thesis concerns not so much what he says but what he fails to say. He does not take account of the failure of the Israelite theocracy. Moreover he underestimates the radical nature of God’s act in Jesus Christ, which is not simply the final stage of God’s activity in Israel but also a new event that inaugurates God’s kingdom. From the Old Testament point of view, Jesus Christ is the final act; from the New Testament point of view, he is the centre of

32. Cf. Wolff 1956a: 196n.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 126

22/12/09 12:35:21

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

127

history.33 So the New Testament is not merely a glossary to interpret the real meaning of the Old Testament. It is equally the record of God’s activity in the history of his people and thus God’s self-communication or ‘revelation’. Van Ruler’s Old Testament interpretation is stimulating and educative, drawing attention to aspects often ignored. Nevertheless his view of the relationship between the Testaments is unbalanced and overestimates the importance of the Old Testament.

5.3 Comparison Kornelis Miskotte approaches the relationship between the Testaments in a similar way to van Ruler. His work will now be discussed, followed by several other approaches that imply the theological priority or independence of the Old Testament in relation to the New Testament.34 a. Kornelis Miskotte Like van Ruler, Miskotte was a Dutch scholar, a prolific writer in the fields of literature and philosophy as well as theology. His view of the Old Testament is expounded in his book When the Gods Are Silent (1963).35 It was called the theological book of the decade in Germany, and was one of the most important works on the significance of the Old Testament published in the twentieth century, though never given the attention it deserved in biblical scholarship. A full-scale study is not possible here, and I simply discuss Miskotte’s view of the relationship between the Testaments. A relationship of priority Miskotte’s work implies the theological priority of the Old Testament over the New Testament, and has numerous similarities to that of van Ruler. Like him,

33. Cullmann 1946. 34. The first edition of this book (pp. 150–151) also included here a section on H. Wheeler Robinson. 35. Published originally in Dutch (1956), in a revised form in German (1963), then translated into English (1967). The subtitle (‘On the Significance of the Old Testament’) has been omitted in the English translation, except on the dust jacket. K. H. Miskotte has written several other works on the Old Testament and its relationship to the New (e.g. 1948; 1959; 1966), but unfortunately none is available in English.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 127

22/12/09 12:35:21

128

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Miskotte rejects any suggestion that the New Testament is about a different God or has a different message from the Old Testament (1963: 131–132, 143) and finds the essence of the Old Testament in its testimony to God himself, to whom he refers by the term ‘the Name’ (65–71, 114–119, 257–264). He recognizes differences between the Testaments (107),36 but rejects formulae such as ‘provisional and definitive’, ‘law and gospel’ and ‘promise and fulfilment’ as inadequate descriptions of these differences (108–110). The difference is not to be understood systematically but as part of the human aspect of the Scriptures. Whereas the Bible is united in its testimony to one God and one Christ, the humanity of the Scriptures means that ‘though the one Word is the same in the Old Testament as in the New, it is nevertheless very decidedly different’ (153). The unity of the Bible per vades the text, yet is never visible or demonstrable as something ‘given’ (1948: 84). The theocracy is the basis of Israel and the ideal of the church, and the kingdom is God’s ultimate purpose for the world.37 Like van Ruler, Miskotte accepts Bonhoeffer’s view that the Old Testament presents a ‘worldly Christianity’ (1963: 80–81; cf. 273), but diverges on the relationship between salvation and creation.38 Here Miskotte argues that salvation is part of God’s plan in creation and that ‘the Creation is already a part of God’s redemptive history, that the existence of salvation is superior and antecedent to that of Being’.39 This may be compared with the view of Nixon (1963: 5): ‘In the Old Testament the Exodus has pride of place even over the Creation.’ The surplus The Old Testament has both a deficit and a surplus compared with the New Testament, but the relative importance of the latter is shown by the fact that Miskotte devotes half a page to the deficit and 132 pages to the surplus (1963: 169–302)!40 In using the word ‘surplus’ he refers to elements in the Old Testament neither surpassed nor denied in the New Testament but which have simply receded into the background:

36. Cf. above: 5.2.a. 37. K. H. Miskotte 1963: 138, 207–214, 216, 274–275, 279, 292–294, 298, 301, 417; cf. above: 5.2.e. 38. Cf. above: 5.2.d. 39. K. H. Miskotte 1963: 118; cf. 471, 475; cf. also von Rad 1936; B. W. Anderson 1955: 6–10, 19–20; Barr 1966: 18–19. 40. On the ‘surplus’, cf. above: 5.2.b.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 128

22/12/09 12:35:21

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

129

We observe that when the essential substance and tendency of the Old and the New Testament are balanced there remains a margin of ideas . . . which includes scepticism, rebellion, erotics, politics (themes which are hardly mentioned in the New Testament). (170–171; cf. 252–257, 264–282)

Miskotte rejects disparagement of the primitive mentality of the Old Testament, seeing anthropomorphism to be an advantage rather than a fault (173; cf. 128–129; 1959: 40), an idea developed by several other scholars.41 He argues that expounding the New Testament without reference to the Old Testament has the danger that naivety will be replaced by abstraction, which is a flight from the reality of God (1963: 177–179). Other aspects of the surplus are the Torah, suffering and poverty, the presence of God, expectation and prophetism (228–252, 262–263, 283–295). It may be true that these things are more prominent in the Old Testament than in the New, but that does not mean they are unimportant in the New Testament. They are assumed, and sometimes reinterpreted as they are confronted with the cross and empty tomb. It follows that they continue to be valid for Christianity, so long as they are understood in the light of Jesus Christ and his fulfilment of the Old Testament.42 ‘Let the Old Testament speak for itself ’ So far Miskotte’s view of the Old Testament appears similar to that of van Ruler. But there is one way in which Miskotte emphasizes the priority of the Old Testament over the New Testament even more clearly: in his consistent plea that the Old Testament should be allowed ‘to speak for itself ’.43 ‘Everything’ is in the Old Testament, and it follows that the New Testament is in the Old Testament, not in detail but in the sense that the Old Testament has already said everything essential. It is therefore a mistake to read the New Testament message of Christ into the Old Testament. On the contrary: We need constantly to be learning from the Old Testament what is the meaning and the intent of that which we call ‘Christ’. (159)44

41. Vischer 1949; Jacob 1955b: 39–42; Mauser 1970; Clines 1973. 42. Vriezen 1966: 97–98. 43. K. H. Miskotte 1963: 104–105, 225–226, 239, 243, 262, passim; cf. von Rad 1960: 333; J. Bright 1967: 112. 44. Cf. Jacob 1965: 48.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 129

22/12/09 12:35:21

130

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

The New Testament used in isolation needs to be corrected on the basis of the fundamental words of the Old Testament. (461) The testimony in the Old Testament proclaims a knowledge of salvation which, in that it becomes an event, already includes within it the fulfilled salvation as its own presupposition. (467)

Thus Miskotte views the Old Testament as an independent witness to ‘the Name’, and the New Testament as its Christian sequel, the Talmud being its Jewish sequel. One corollary is that New Testament use of the Old Testament is not binding, because this idea is based on the false assumption that the New Testament performs exegesis on the Old Testament. In fact, he argues, the New Testament does not explain the Old Testament, but the Old Testament – which speaks for itself as a witness to the Name – is used by New Testament writers to explain Christ (468–469). The question arises here, however, whether the Old Testament was really accepted and understood in the early church as easily as Miskotte implies. Acts 15, Romans 14 and similar passages suggest it was not.45 A relationship of identity? There are also similarities between Miskotte’s thought and that of Vischer and Barth. Although he will have nothing of Christological interpretation of the Old Testament (1959: 119), Miskotte sees Christ at the centre of the biblical witness: The testimony of the Old Testament goes out into the time of expectation, that of the New Testament into the time of recollection. Both are relative to the time of revelation itself. What they have in common is their relationship to, their orientation toward one and the same Object, one and the same Name, one and the same Event, one and the same Salvation. (1963: 113; cf. 143)

In other words, every part of the Bible points to the unique and definitive event of revelation in Jesus Christ, though every part views it from a distance, looking forward to what God would do or back to what he had done in the past. So the Old Testament is an indirect witness to Christ (132, 144; cf. 159, 467), speaking not only through the New Testament but ‘“for itself ” as a fully valid witness of Him who has come’ (105).

45. So Vriezen 1966: 48n.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 130

22/12/09 12:35:21

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

131

A further link with Vischer and Barth is Miskotte’s recognition that the two Testaments have essentially the same theology.46 But in spite of these resemblances, the dominant aspect of Miskotte’s approach is the priority of the Old Testament over the New rather than their identity, and so it is classified here with that of van Ruler as an ‘Old Testament’ solution. b. James Barr A similar approach to van Ruler and Miskotte is taken by Barr, a British scholar whose series of lectures on Old and New in Interpretation (1966) made an important contribution to the debate about the relationship between the Testaments. Barr rejects formulations that understand the Old Testament ‘in the light of the New Testament’, arguing that ‘in the minds of the apostles . . . the relation was the opposite: the problem was not how to understand the Old Testament but how to understand Christ’ (139). It is often assumed that Christ is a known quantity and the place of the Old Testament in the church is the problem. In fact, however, the problem faced by the early church was not the authority of the Old Testament but the identification of the Christ. So also today, according to Barr, the church’s strategy should not be to take Christ as the ‘key’ to the meaning of the Old Testament. Rather, ‘taking the Old Testament as something we have in the Church’, we need to ask ‘in what way the guidance it affords helps us to understand and discern and obey the Christ more truly’ (140; italics original). This means that a Christian formulation of the relationship between the Testaments must be related to the Old Testament from the beginning (149) and the interpretation of Old Testament texts is not automatically dependent on New Testament interpretation (154–155; cf. 141–146). Even so, Barr dismisses as naive any attempt to let ‘the Old Testament speak for itself ’ (167, 170).47 He sees at least five levels to the relationship between the Testaments (134–139, 157–166): • the religion of late Judaism (which developed out of the Old Testament and was the basis for the New Testament)48 • the text of the Old Testament (which was the authority of the New Testament)

46. E.g. K. H. Miskotte 1963: 131–132, 257, 411–412; also x, 160; cf. 1948: 80–86; cf. Jacob 1966b. 47. Cf. above: 5.3.a. 48. Cf. Barr 1968.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 131

22/12/09 12:35:21

132

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

• the mind of Jesus (whose self-understanding was shaped by biblical patterns, but who interpreted the Old Testament in an authoritative manner) • the minds of the apostles (who came to understand Jesus as the Christ and used the Old Testament in preaching)49 • the relationship between Jews and Gentiles (who were made into one body in the church)50 So Barr argues for the priority of the Old Testament, while denying that it is therefore more important than the New Testament: The Christian faith stands equally upon the basis of the Old Testament and of the New or, more correctly, upon the basis of the God of Israel and of Jesus of Nazareth. In this sense the importance of Old and New Testaments is in principle more or less equal: and the two have a certain independence, an independence warranted by the newness of that which took place in Jesus . . . If for Christians Jesus is the finality and the culmination, which might place the New Testament in the higher position, Jesus himself stands under the God of Israel, which might place the Old Testament in the higher. (1973: 166–167)

At the deepest level, the relationship between the Testaments is not a matter of common patterns of thought nor a balance of different emphases but an aspect of the unity of the one God (1973: 181). The real basis of the relationship, and the reason for continuing to read the Old Testament in the New Testament church, is the assertion of faith that the One God of Israel is Father of the Lord Jesus Christ (1966: 149–153). Barr’s view is evidently not so extreme as that of van Ruler and Miskotte, since he argues that the Old Testament has theological and historical priority over the New, while demonstrating that the relationship between the Testaments is mutual and neither Testament is more important than the other.51

49. Cf. K. H. Miskotte 1963: 100–101. 50. Cf. below: 9.2. 51. On Barr’s view of the Bible, see further P. R. Wells 1980; Penchansky 2007. Barr’s recent writing on biblical theology (1999; 2005) does not depart significantly from the views expressed in his earlier works discussed above. For extended reviews of his 1999 magnum opus, see Brueggemann 2000; Gnuse 2001.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 132

22/12/09 12:35:21

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

133

c. Walter Brueggemann A quite different approach, which nevertheless has an affinity with the ‘Old Testament solutions’ already discussed, is taken by Brueggemann. This is set out most clearly in his Theology of the Old Testament (1997), and is implicit in his interpretations of Isaiah (1998b; 1998c) and Jeremiah (1983–2002; 1998a; 2007), as well as his introduction to the Old Testament (2003). Brueggemann is strongly influenced by postmodernism, and so welcomes multiple interpretations of the Old Testament, assuming that each is subjective and provisional but may well be enlightening. There is a place for Christian interpretations that link the Old Testament with the New, and also Jewish interpretations that see its continuation in the Talmud. For example, he argues that the book of Isaiah is open to various interpretations, both Jewish and Christian, and rejects the idea that it specifically predicts the coming of Jesus (1998b: 6). Jeremiah does not predict the future but proposes an ‘imaginative construct’ of an alternative world and invites his listeners to participate in this world (1998a: 17). The Old Testament is ‘polyphonic’ in its testimony, and thus invites imaginative interpretation (1997: 731). As a result, it was natural and appropriate that the early church took hold of the Old Testament in an ‘imaginative construal of the Old Testament toward Jesus’, including the identification of Jesus as the Messiah and the church as the ‘Israel of God’ (1997: 732–733). Such interpretations are permitted – but not required – by the Old Testament text, so Brueggemann argues. It follows that a Christian Old Testament theology is legitimate so long as it is not exclusivist, because interpretation by the Jewish community is equally legitimate (733–735). A corollary is that the contrast of old covenant and new covenant must not be understood as supersession, so that the church is seen to displace Israel (1998a: 291–295; 2007: 191). Like Miskotte, Brueggemann would have the Old Testament speak for itself, without accommodating it to a larger reality such as modernity or classical Christianity (1997: 86, 731). ‘The church . . . held on to the Old Testament as Scripture because [it] affirmed something definitional for Christianity that was not elsewhere affirmed and that Christians dared not lose’ (730). What was that something? According to Brueggemann, it was the ‘scandal of particularity’ by which the creator of the universe got involved with the Jewish people and revealed himself in and through their particular culture (730). Brueggemann believes that the two Testaments are concerned with the same God, but disagrees with Childs’s Christological reading of the Old Testament, as well as Bultmann’s view of the Old Testament as a history of failure (1997: 93, 730). ‘The Old Testament text is resiliently Jewish’ (80; cf.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 133

22/12/09 12:35:21

134

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

107–112; italics original). This means that ‘this text is of, with, and for a particular historical community’, and therefore Christian interpretation can treat this Jewish text only paradigmatically or typologically (81). For example, exile and homecoming are paradigmatic events for the Jewish community, and this model receives ‘a christological equivalence in terms of crucifixion and resurrection’ (77; cf. 2007: 191–192). New Testament interpretation of the Old is of interest to Brueggemann, as a Christian, and he refers to it intermittently in his work. However, it is only of interest, and has no authoritative status. New Testament writers read a Christian interpretation back into the Old, which is perfectly valid in postmodern theory, but that does not mean the Old Testament itself witnesses to Christ (1997: 107). According to Brueggemann, the pattern of promise and fulfilment does not move forward from the Old Testament to the New, but begins with the fulfilment and looks backwards to the Hebrew Scriptures (109, 732). In other words, the theological relationship between the Testaments can be seen only from the perspective of the New Testament. The Old Testament itself does not point to Jesus or the New Testament (731). The result of Brueggemann’s approach is to reject the Christian conviction of a unified Bible, in favour of two separate Testaments. Those who wish to read one in the light of the other are free to do so, just as they might choose to read it in the light of another sacred or secular text, but there is no integral connection between the Old and New Testaments. Clearly the Old Testament is fascinating and valuable for Brueggemann, and is essential reading for Jews and Christians, but it is not treated as Christian Scripture.52 d. John Goldingay Goldingay (2003) describes the first volume of his monumental Old Testament Theology as ‘a theological commentary on the Old Testament story’ (13). After an introduction on ‘Old Testament Theology as Narrative’, he takes readers on an epic journey from ‘Creation’ to ‘The Coming of Jesus’. Consistent with his presentation of the work as a ‘theology’, each chapter title consists of a simple sentence in which God is the subject: ‘God Began’, ‘God Started Over’, ‘God Promised’, ‘God Delivered’ and so on. Goldingay does not enter into debates about historicity, nor try to reconstruct original texts or forms of

52. For further discussion of Brueggemann’s approach, see Perdue 1994: 285–298; 2005: 251–255, 265–266; Bartholomew 1998: 99–102, 107–114; Barr 1999: 541–562; Childs 2004: 291–298; Parrish 2007; Ratheiser 2007: 93–101.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 134

22/12/09 12:35:21

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

135

the narrative, but expounds the narrative as we have it in its canonical form. In this respect his approach is comparable to that of Childs.53 The subtitle of this first volume is ‘Israel’s Gospel’, and the Old Testament is treated as ‘the story of God’s relationship with the world and with Israel’ (2003: 28). This story is ‘of unique and decisive importance for the whole world, not least because it is the story that leads up to Jesus’ (31). Just as the core story of the New Testament is its ‘gospel’ (good news) of the coming of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15), so the Old Testament gospel announces that ‘Your God reigns’ (Isa. 52:7). Goldingay points out that the word euangelizomai (bring good news) came into Christian usage from the Greek translation of this verse. So he uses the term ‘gospel’ to refer to the macro-narrative of the whole Bible, the story about ‘things God has done’. This story is good news, though in fact it contains a good deal of bad news too (e.g. rejection, destruction, exile). ‘The good news is that bad news has neither the last word nor the first word. It stands in the context of a purpose to bless that was set in motion at the Beginning, and a purpose to create that persists to the End’ (33). The second volume of the planned trilogy deals with ‘Israel’s Faith’ (2006b). It focuses on the prophets, psalms and wisdom literature, but also refers to Old Testament narratives and the New Testament. ‘God’, ‘Israel’, ‘The Nightmare’, ‘The Vision’, ‘Humanity’, ‘The World’ and ‘The Nations’ are covered in depth, with Goldingay’s characteristic insight and humour. Each topic concludes with a short section on its relationship to New Testament theology, for example on ‘The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ’ and ‘Israel and the Church’ for the first two topics respectively. These concluding sections, like the final chapter of volume 1, accord with Goldingay’s description of the New Testament as ‘a series of Christian and ecclesial footnotes to the Old Testament’ (2003: 24; 2006b: 13). This provocative description is reminiscent of van Ruler’s view of the priority of the Old Testament and of Jesus as God’s ‘emergency measure’.54 Like van Ruler and Miskotte, Goldingay points to emphases in the Old Testament that are important for Christians, which are clearer in the Old than in the New, such as creation, politics, family life, reverence for God, and sacramental worship (2003: 21). The understanding of God in the two Testaments is not identical, because the Old Testament emphasizes his character as ‘Lord’ and ‘holy’, whereas the New focuses more on ‘Father’

53. Cf. Goldingay 2008: 6–9. On Childs’s approach, see above: 4.3.d. 54. On which, see above: ch. 5.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 135

22/12/09 12:35:21

136

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

and ‘love’. Also, the Old Testament is more concerned with God’s involvement in the world, whereas the New centres on forgiveness and spiritual renewal (1990: 29).55 Nevertheless Goldingay distances himself from van Ruler’s extreme views, suggesting that the two Testaments be given parallel status as ‘joint witnesses to the one God whose speaking in each helps us to understand the Christ who came between the Testaments’ (34). Goldingay argues that ‘reading the New Testament in light of the Old is . . . more pressing . . . than reading the Old in light of the New because the church has systematically neglected the Old Testament’ (2003: 23). While it is advantageous to supplement study of the Old Testament with the New, it is essential to place study of the New Testament within the framework of the Old (24).56 The first part of the Christian canon is significant in its own right, without reference to the New Testament’s use of Old Testament texts, though the two parts of the canon illuminate each other because they are two variants on the same reality (2008: 17–26). Something decisively new has taken place in Christ, but even this is not unprecedented because there are also decisive new stages within the Old Testament itself (1990: 31, 35). Like Brueggemann, Goldingay has been influenced by postmodernism, and comments that it is a characteristic of postmodernity to recognize that our insights are partial, and to refuse oversimplification of complex realities (2003: 40; cf. 1990: 30–32). Unlike Brueggemann, however, Goldingay sees a very close relationship between the two Testaments. They may be seen as successive acts in a drama, in which full understanding is possible only by knowing the whole (2003: 23, 26). The Old Testament story does not lead

55. In a more recent article, Goldingay puts things rather differently: ‘The God of love whom we encounter in Jesus is the God who created the world out of love and commissioned Abraham out of love and related to Israel out of love and in love’ (2001: 100; cf. 2008: 22–25). He also claims that God’s relationship with his people is primarily corporate in the Old Testament, in distinction from the New Testament, which gives more emphasis to relationships between individual believers and God (1990: 30). But elsewhere (1987: 82) he says that Christian faith is no less corporate than Old Testament faith. 56. In one of his earlier works Goldingay suggests the equality of the Testaments in this matter: ‘For a Christian, everything of which the OT speaks has to be seen in the light of Christ. But . . . everything in the NT has to be seen in the light of the OT. For the Christian view is that Jesus is the one on whom the faith of Israel ultimately came to focus. But faith can only be Christian if it is built on the faith of the Hebrew scriptures’ (1990: 37).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 136

22/12/09 12:35:21

t h e o l d t e s ta m e n t a s t h e e s s e n t i a l b i b l e

137

inevitably to Jesus, but is an unfinished drama, and the Gospels provide a ‘plausible continuation’ (2001: 102). That is not to say the drama becomes complete with the publication of the gospel story, for even in the New Testament there are unrealized hopes for the establishment of justice and the end of salvation history (1990: 32). Goldingay often uses the term ‘First Testament’ to designate what others call the Old Testament, Hebrew Bible or Tanakh. Although the term itself is innocuous, I am unconvinced that it is an improvement for Christians over the traditional term ‘Old Testament’, nor is it likely to appeal to Jews or other non-Christians any more than the traditional Christian terminology. There would be more point in introducing this term if the New Testament was likewise renamed, but he does this much less frequently. As a result, ‘First Testament’ and ‘New Testament’ make an untidy pair. Goldingay dislikes the phrase ‘Old Testament’ because it suggests something antiquated and inferior (2003: 15). But the contrast between ‘old’ and ‘new’ is important in biblical theology, and does not always involve a negative evaluation of what is old (e.g. Song 7:13; Matt. 13:52; Luke 5:36–39; 1 John 2:7). Even in our postmodern world, where novelty and innovation are watchwords, most people appreciate the value of older things too, such as World Heritage sites, antique cars and furniture, and Shakespeare.57 e. ‘Sectarian impatience’ Many sects treat the Old Testament as directly and completely valid today. Van Ruler (1955: 11–12/13) uses the term ‘sectarian impatience’ to describe the extreme literalism that often characterizes this attitude to the Old Testament. It may be seen in the insistence of Seventh-Day Adventism that Saturday should be observed as the sabbath,58 the promotion of polygamy in Mormonism,59 and the application of Old Testament prophecies to modern Britain and America in British-Israelism.60 Perhaps the clearest example is that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who retain the ‘Old Testament’ name for God, insist on the unity – as distinct from the trinity – of God, refuse blood transfusions on the basis of Leviticus, and forbid the use of Christmas trees on the basis

57. For examples of Goldingay’s approach in practice, see his expositions of Daniel (1989), Isaiah 40 – 55 (2005) and Psalms (2006–8), as well as his studies on the nature of Scripture (1994) and biblical hermeneutics (1995). 58. Bear 1956: 56–64; van Baalen 1956: 216–223; Hoekema 1963: 161–169. 59. R. F. Boyd 1956: 442–443; van Baalen 1956: 160–168, 178. 60. Baron 1915; van Baalen 1956: 189–203.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 137

22/12/09 12:35:21

138

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

of Jeremiah.61 ‘Almost everywhere they subordinate Christian and New Testament themes to those of Judaism and the Old Testament’ (Stuermann 1956: 345). This sectarian approach may be compared with the emphasis on the direct relevance of the Old Testament in some African independent churches.62

61. Specifically Jer. 10:3–4. Cf. Stuermann 1956: 329–330; Hoekema 1963: 249–250. 62. Mbiti 1969: 235; Loccum Report 1977: 62; cf. Muzorewa 1985: 115.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 138

22/12/09 12:35:21

6 . THE T WO T ESTAMENT S AS ON E S A LVAT I ON HISTORY

6.1 Gerhard von Rad The key to von Rad’s exposition of Old Testament theology and its relationship to the New Testament is the concept of ‘salvation history’ (Heilsgeschichte).1 Israel’s history in the Old Testament is ‘confessional’, since essentially it is confession of the saving acts of God: Israel’s origin in the patriarchs, redemption from oppression in Egypt, and the gift of the Promised Land. The whole of von Rad’s theology is founded on this ‘salvation history’, which is therefore the predominant theme in his Old Testament interpretation. Cullmann (1965: 54) sums up his approach as follows: The progressive reinterpretation of Israel’s old traditions is continually awakened by new events in the present. This development of the traditions is itself salvation history and stands in continuity with the original event basic to the traditions.

1. Von Rad’s major work is his Old Testament Theology (1: 1957; 2: 1960) but many of his other writings also touch on the relationship between the Testaments, e.g. 1937; 1952; 1953; 1961a; 1963. A full bibliography is given in his Festschrift (Wolff 1971).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 139

22/12/09 12:35:21

140

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Von Rad structures his theology in accordance with this understanding of saving history, presented and developed in Israel’s traditions. His first volume deals with ‘historical traditions’, by which he means the primeval history, patriarchal stories, law, psalms and wisdom literature. The first three are integrated into the ‘canonical’ saving history and the last two form Israel’s response to God. In the second volume von Rad deals with a major element of Old Testament thought which does not fit into this structure – the prophetic traditions. The prophets rejected the efficacy of past saving acts for their own time and looked forward to a new salvation in a new history (1957: vii). Nevertheless the theology of Israel’s prophetic traditions is also based on ‘salvation history’ and complements that of the historical traditions. The most important elaboration of von Rad’s solution to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments is the final section of the second volume of his Old Testament Theology (1960). An analysis of this section will now be made. a. Actualization Von Rad begins by considering ‘The Actualization of the Old Testament in the New’ (1960: 319–335). He limits himself to a tradition-historical approach to the problem, already taken as the basis for understanding Old Testament theology. He argues that ‘the way in which the Old Testament is absorbed in the New is the logical end of a process initiated by the Old Testament itself, and that its “laws” are to some extent repeated in this final reinterpretation’ (321). Thus von Rad does not begin with New Testament use of the Old, but attempts to show how the Old Testament points forward to the New. The Old Testament is oriented towards the future, and ‘can only be read as a book of ever increasing anticipation’ (319). It presents a dynamic religion, which is never complete or satisfied but continually looks to the future for improvement, fulfilment or re-formation. At any particular point in time this religion is part of a continual appropriation, reinterpretation and actualization of more primitive forms of the religion. This is seen in the way Yahwism adopts and adapts pre-Mosaic religion, and the way in which prophets take election traditions and reinterpret them with reference to the coming ‘day of the Lord’. It is also seen in the way New Testament writers take Old Testament traditions, accepting, rejecting or revising them in much the same way that the Old Testament writers themselves interpreted and used the traditions at their disposal. Central to the New Testament is the conviction that a new saving event has taken place. It announces the inauguration of the kingdom of God in the person and work of Jesus, the promised Christ. Old Testament traditions

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 140

22/12/09 12:35:21

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

141

are cited as promises now fulfilled, and correspondences are noted between God’s earlier saving acts and the supreme saving act that has occurred in Christ. There is both contrast and continuity between the Old and the New: • On the one hand, the newness of the Christ-event is emphasized. • On the other, Old Testament prophecies and parallels are pointed out. The New Testament exhibits great freedom in the way it takes over the Old, showing sometimes the contrast and at other times the continuity between the Testaments. ‘Proof from Scripture’ is therefore inadequate to describe this method. The Old Testament is not only used for proof but also because the New Testament needs the Old to express its message. The New Testament approach is ad hoc, presupposing a general understanding of the relationship between the Testaments and actualizing Old Testament texts by citation or allusion. The most difficult problem raised by continued Christian use of the Old Testament is whether it was only of temporary value and should have been given to Israel when the church separated from her. Studying New Testament use of the Old may provide an answer to this question, and that is a task for New Testament theology. Christianity, however, is not only based on the New Testament but on the whole Bible, and it is therefore important to consider the Old Testament view of the matter as well. This von Rad elaborates in the next three chapters, starting with the relationship between ‘The Old Testament’s Understanding of the World and Man, and Christianity’. b. The world and humanity Is the Old Testament still revelation now that Christ has come? Or, to rephrase the question in a more penetrating way, is the real meaning of the Old Testament brought to light only with the coming of Christ? The church has always recognized the theoretical equality of Old and New Testament revelation, but in practice has often found interpretation of the Old Testament to be a problem. Christians have rarely achieved the New Testament’s freedom and insight in biblical interpretation, though even the New Testament does not contain an exhaustive account of its relationship to the Old. Von Rad’s attempt to deal with the problem (1960: 336–356) is based on the proposition ‘that it is in history that God reveals the secret of his person’ (338). A study of the world, humanity and death in the Old Testament follows. In each case von Rad concludes that Israel’s view was decidedly secular, in

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 141

22/12/09 12:35:22

142

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

contrast to the mythological views of contemporary nations. The God of Israel is not limited to the realms of myth or the sacred but is active in the world, in history, in everyday life. The same is true of Christianity, according to von Rad. The message of the New Testament is not mythological, nor primarily didactic, but describes God’s action in history by which he renews his relationship with Israel and the world. This similarity between Israel’s secular view of the world and Christianity is of course not coincidental. Rather Old Testament language and thought are fundamental, expressing the New Testament saving event. Israel’s unique experience of God prepared her quite specifically for the supreme experience of God made possible in Jesus Christ. c. The saving event ‘The Old Testament is a history book’, according to von Rad (357; cf. 1952: 25).This history extends from creation to the end of time and includes Israel, the nations and the world. It is saving history since every part is presented as the activity of God whose will and purpose is to save. God reveals himself by words and acts in this history, and there are two corresponding kinds of account in the Old Testament: • theological (where the event is put in a wider interpretative context) • pre-theological (where the account concentrates on the event itself, without interpretation) It is the pre-theological accounts that make the Old Testament characteristically a history book, though they are fewer in number than accounts that give a theological interpretation to the events they describe. Even the pretheological accounts received new interpretations as they were placed in wider contexts by redactors or adapted to suit the style of a particular strand of the Old Testament, for example the Deuteronomic History. Nevertheless this continual reinterpretation did not do violence to the stories since ‘their intrinsic openness to a future actually needed such fresh interpretations on the part of later ages’ (1960: 361). Theologians such as Bengel, Beck and von Hofmann2 explained the relationship between the Testaments in terms of a detailed and connected divine plan or ‘economy’ of salvation. Modern biblical theology, on the other hand, emphasizes discontinuity both within the Old Testament and between

2. See above: 2.4.e.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 142

22/12/09 12:35:22

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

143

the Old Testament and the New. Von Rad rejects such extreme views of continuity and discontinuity, and suggests a unity in the sense that ‘the true goal of God’s relationship with Israel is the coming of Jesus Christ’ (363). He argues that there is a ‘structural analogy’ between the saving events in the Old and New Testaments.3 Old Testament events should be understood in the context of God’s action in history, which comes to fulfilment in Jesus Christ. Indeed it is only in the Christ-event that analogies and correspondences with earlier events become truly meaningful. ‘The coming of Jesus Christ as a historical reality leaves the exegete no choice at all; he must interpret the Old Testament as pointing to Christ, whom he must understand in its light’ (374). This raises a double question. How far can Christ elucidate the Old Testament and how far can the Old Testament elucidate Christ? Von Rad answers simply that Christ is necessary to understand the Old Testament and the Old Testament is necessary to understand Christ. This proposition, he argues, has the support of church history and the Old and New Testaments themselves. Without the New Testament saving event, the Old Testament would be understood only incompletely; without the Old Testament, the New Testament witness to Christ would have to be radically reinterpreted. Von Rad’s previous chapter has shown the relationship between the understanding of the world and humanity in the Old Testament and in Christianity, but there is more to the relationship between the Testaments than this. ‘The chief consideration in the correspondence between the two Testaments does not lie primarily in the field of religious terminology, but in that of saving history’ (382). There is a close relationship between divine words and historical acts as means of revelation in the Old Testament, and in Jesus Christ this dual form of revelation comes to its highest expression. Thus von Rad affirms that the central theme of his whole theology, God’s salvation in history, is also the fundamental factor in the relationship between the Testaments. This has two aspects (383): • ‘the New Testament saving event appears as the prolongation and conclusion of Israel’s history with God’4 • ‘the New Testament saving event has at the same time to be understood in the sense of a repetition, though . . . on the basis of an entirely new saving event’.

3. This is essentially the same as ‘typology’ (cf. 1952a). 4. Cf. van Ruler (see above: 5.2.c).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 143

22/12/09 12:35:22

144

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

d. The law There are two reasons why biblical studies cannot ignore the problem of the relationship between the Testaments, according to von Rad. On the one hand, the most essential characteristic of the Old Testament is that it points forward, and it is naturally important to know what it points forward to. On the other hand, the New Testament explicitly refers back into the past, so it is important to consider what its origin is. It follows that to understand the law, the final aspect of the relationship between the Testaments considered by von Rad, it is necessary to take full account of its meaning in both Testaments (388–409). First, von Rad considers the significance of the law in early Israel. He rejects the idea that the law was the primary or essential aspect of the relationship between Israel and God. Israel’s relationship to God was not dependent on the law; on the contrary, the law presupposes Israel’s relationship to God. Secondly, von Rad considers prophetic attitudes to the law. In early Israel it was assumed that it was possible to obey the law. If it was not obeyed, the reason was not Israel’s inability but her unwillingness to obey. This understanding of the law, and of Israel’s relationship to God as a whole, was transformed by the prophets. The early prophets took the law and applied it to Israel in a radical way, showing that disobedience to the law demonstrated the failure of her relationship with God, which meant that judgment and death were on the way. Jeremiah and Ezekiel penetrated the situation more deeply still, realizing that Israel was in fact unable to keep the law, and announced that God would make possible a new obedience. This process of renewing the law may be understood by means of von Rad’s fundamental approach to Old Testament theology, the reinterpretation of earlier traditions: ‘Confronted with the eschatological situation, the prophets were set the task of taking the old regulations and making them the basis of an entirely new interpretation of Jahweh’s current demands upon Israel’ (400). Thirdly, even after the exile the law was not central to Israel’s faith. The first steps in the direction of a more legalistic religion may perhaps be seen in parts of the Chronicler’s history. Nevertheless, salvation in the Old Testament is always based on grace: There is no basis in the Old Testament for the well-known idea which early Lutheranism exalted to almost canonical status, that Israel was compelled by God’s law to an ever greater zeal for the Law, and that it was the Law and the emotions it evoked which prepared the way for true salvation in Christ. (405)5

5. Contrast Bultmann (see above: 3.2.c).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 144

22/12/09 12:35:22

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

145

Finally, von Rad turns to the early church’s understanding of Old Testament law. He argues that the same principle is found here as in the Old Testament prophets: ‘reinterpretation in the light of a new saving event’ (407). There is no normative interpretation of the Old Testament, but many charismatic interpretations, among which that of Paul is central. According to him, the Old Testament law is radically fulfilled in Christ, who himself lived a perfect life before God, took the punishment for other people’s disobedience to the law, and made possible a more personal relationship with God than existed under the old covenant.

6.2 Critique Von Rad’s Old Testament theology is a work of major importance, and cannot be discussed fully here.6 The following discussion focuses on the issues it raises for understanding the relationship between the Testaments. a. History and historicity As a starting point, it is helpful to look at von Rad’s view of history.7 With great clarity he explains Israel’s distinctive idea of history as the sequence of acts that God performed for her salvation (1960: 99–112). Like Bultmann, von Rad assumes a distinction between history as interpreted by the historian (Geschichte) and the historical facts that form the material for such history writing (Historie).8 He takes up some of the insights of existential ‘kerygma theology’, understanding the Bible as a witness to God’s saving activity in history rather than a presentation of general truths or a source for historical research.9 Thus he expounds the significance of the canonical history of

6. There are many critical works on von Rad’s approach to Old Testament theology, e.g. Eichrodt 1961; Pannenberg 1961b; Barr 1962; 1999: 32–37, 45–47; Harvey 1971; Martin-Achard 1972; Wolff et al. 1973; Greig 1974; Spriggs 1974; Schmidt 1975; Crenshaw 1978; 2007; Hayes & Prussner 1985: 233–239; Oeming 1987: 20–33, 58–103; Brueggemann 1997: 31–48; Watson 1997: 197–209; Seitz 1998: 28–40; 2007: 155–182; Levinson & Dance 2004; Ratheiser 2007: 83–88; Smend II 2007: 170–197; Oeming et al. 2008. For others, see Baker 1976a: 276–277. 7. Cf. Honecker 1963; Greig 1974; G. J. Wenham 1976. 8. On Bultmann’s view of history, see above: 3.2.b. On Historie and Geschichte, see also Westermann 1985. 9. Pannenberg 1961b; cf. Eichrodt 1961: 515.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 145

22/12/09 12:35:22

146

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

election, oppression, exodus and the gift of a new land (Geschichte); though he can say very little about what actually took place in those ‘events’ (Historie) since he accepts the critical reconstruction of Alt and Noth, which denies that most of Israel was ever in Egypt.10 So a fundamental criticism of von Rad’s thesis is its failure to provide a real foundation for the ‘history’ it describes.11 In spite of his claim that Israel’s view of history has a real historical basis (1963: 423–425), von Rad gives little content to this ‘reality’ in his actual exposition.12 A satisfactory solution to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments must give due weight to the centrality of ‘real’ history in the Bible, without neglecting its other aspects. The Bible is a history book, in the sense that it contains detailed and ordered accounts of events asserted to have taken place. This does not mean that chronology is always a dominant concern. Sequences of events are often incomplete and different writers may record the same events differently. Some accounts are not specifically stated to be either fact or fiction, so that interpreters may draw different conclusions (e.g. the stories of Job and Jonah; the parable of the good Samaritan). However, the biblical writers are clearly convinced that the formative and crucial events of the history of Israel and the life of Jesus really happened. The essence of the biblical creeds, as also those of the early church, is the statement of certain events affirmed to have taken place (e.g. Deut. 26:5–10; 1 Tim. 3:16). It is true that the significance of these events lies in their function within the sequence of divinely planned and prophetically interpreted history, and not simply in their historicity. Nevertheless the conviction that the foundational events really took place is the basis of both Old Testament and New Testament faith, and without such events there would have been no faith. If there had been no Abraham and Moses, there would have been no Israel. If there had been no crucifixion and resurrection, there would have been no Christian church.13 b. History and story The idea that the Bible is a history book is disputed by Barr (1976), who argues that the narratives of the Old Testament are more accurately designated

10. For the Alt–Noth reconstruction of Israel’s history, see Alt 1913–56 and Noth 1954. Critiques include J. Bright 1956; G. E. Wright 1960; cf. von Rad 1961b. 11. Eichrodt 1961: 516; de Vaux 1963. 12. Cf. G. H. Davies 1970: 73–77; Pannenberg 1973. 13. For a wide-ranging collection of essays on hermeneutical issues related to biblical history, see Bartholomew et al. 2003.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 146

22/12/09 12:35:22

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

147

‘story’ than ‘history’. He admits that they have certain historical features (e.g. continuity and chronology), that parts of them constitute a fairly reliable source of historical evidence, and even that some sections could almost be described as history-writing. On the other hand, he claims that large elements of the narratives are myth or legend, human and divine causation are not clearly distinguished, the writers often had motives other than that of writing history (e.g. aetiology or analogy), and there is no critical evaluation of sources and reports. Thus the Old Testament story ‘spirals back and forward across history, sometimes coming closer to it, sometimes going farther away from it’ (8). Barr’s proposal should be seen in the context of the new emphasis on the literary character of the Bible that was characteristic of the 1970s.14 Many scholars were concerned with understanding the biblical text in its final form and found ‘story’ to be a useful category for this purpose, since it illuminates literary characteristics of the narrative without demanding decisions about the historicity of what is narrated.15 In fact, biblical interpreters have not been alone in their interest in the role of ‘story’, for many other theologians have recognized the importance of stories in human life and the effectiveness of communicating theological truth through them.16 Without disparaging the achievements of literary study, it may be questioned whether the term ‘story’ is a more appropriate term than ‘history’ for most of the biblical narratives. According to a standard definition, history is ‘a written narrative constituting a continuous methodical record, in order of time, of important or public events, esp. those connected with a particular country, people, individual, etc.’ (OED). On this definition it is appropriate to call the narrative from Genesis 12 to the end of Kings ‘history’. Opinions may differ about the accuracy of the history, but there is little doubt that the Old Testament writers intended to write a continuous methodical record of public events connected with the growth of their nation. Inevitably they had different presuppositions, methods and emphases from modern historians, but that does not mean they were not writing history.

14. On which, see above: 2.7.c. 15. E.g. Frei 1974; Alter 1981; Moberly 1986; Kort 1988; Hasel 1991: 133–138; Armerding 1994; Millard 1994; B. W. Anderson 1993; Perdue 1994: 231–262; Bauckham 2003; Dempster 2003; Bartholomew & Goheen 2004b; Pate et al. 2004; van Wijk-Bos 2005. 16. E.g. Stroup 1981; Song 1984; Niles 1985a; cf. Lischer 1984.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 147

22/12/09 12:35:22

148

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Old Testament history was written on the presupposition that God was in control of events on earth and that he had revealed himself to his people Israel in a variety of ways. Of course, many modern historians would dispute the validity of such a presupposition and consider matters of divine causation to be outside the scope of historical enquiry.17 However, this presupposition would have been perfectly acceptable in ancient Palestine, since everyone in those days – as still the majority of the world’s population! – believed in gods who really affected everyday life. The biblical writers chose to record certain events and omit others, and what they considered important may be different from the concerns of a modern historian writing a history of ancient Israel. That does not mean they did not write history, but simply that their presuppositions and emphases were different from those of modern historians. It is unrealistic to use the modern humanistic view of historical-critical research as the standard by which to evaluate the work of ancient writers who could not possibly have had such a view. To sum up: in terms of literary form, the biblical narratives have many of the characteristics of ‘story’. However, in terms of aim and content, most of the writers did not use this literary form to entertain or for the sake of art, but for the purpose of recording events which they believed had really happened and were historically significant for their nation. Irrespective of our views on the historicity of those events, and acknowledging that authorial intention is not necessarily the final arbiter of a text’s

17. Barr 1976: 7 argues that the mingling of human and divine causation of events in the Old Testament story is an indication that the writer did not have primarily historical aims. ‘History is about what really happened. It may not be able to tell us precisely, definitively or incontrovertibly what really happened; but what really happened is the assumed standard by which it operates’ (1980: 41). But is it unreasonable for a historian who believes in God to consider whether or not there really was divine intervention in certain events? It may be difficult to deter mine objectively when divine intervention has occurred in human history, but is there any fundamental reason why a historian should not attempt to do so? To rule the attempt out is to decide a priori that divine intervention does not really happen, a presupposition no more justifiable than that of the biblical writers who believed that it did happen. For a valuable discussion of approaches to history, see Moltmann 1964: 172–182. He points towards a more adequate approach based not merely on the principle of analogy (which tends to exclude extraordinary events), but that can grasp the whole of history (including unique events such as the resurrection of Christ).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 148

22/12/09 12:35:22

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

149

meaning, there is no reason to deny that the biblical writers set out to write history.18 c. Tradition history Von Rad’s classic contribution to the study of Old Testament tradition history is his short monograph on ‘The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch’ (1938). He argues that the Hexateuch (Genesis–Joshua) elaborates one simple idea, namely God’s grace to Israel shown in election of the patriarchs, exodus from Egypt and settlement in Palestine. This idea is expressed in Israel’s earliest creeds, among which Deuteronomy 26:5b–9, Deuteronomy 6:20–24 and Joshua 24:2b–13 are the most important. A notable feature of von Rad’s study is his claim that these creeds do not mention the events of Sinai and therefore the Sinai tradition was originally independent of the exodus tradition. He argues that the combination of these two traditions was the work of the Yahwist, who gathered many scattered traditions around the central coordinating concept of the ancient creeds. Subsequent redaction added many other elements to form the Hexateuch, but always in subjection to the one central idea.19 In a similar way, the Deuteronomic and Chronicler’s histories have certain fundamental bases – going back originally to the hexateuchal traditions – which have been expanded to form the present works. So tradition history is the starting point of von Rad’s Old Testament theology, as he explains in the preface to his first volume (1957): If there is any truth in the recognition that the whole of the Hexateuch is built upon a very few ancient credal statements which became constitutive for the Israel of all ages, then this is so important that a theology of the Old Testament would practically have to start out from this fact.

Von Rad’s use of the tradition-historical method is particularly significant in connection with the relationship between the Testaments. The Bible contains a few fundamental traditions, which are continually reinterpreted

18. Barr returns to the relationship between story and history in his work on biblical theology (1999: 345–361). For other recent discussions, see Nicholson 1994 and Goldingay 2003: 859–876. 19. This reconstruction of the origin of the Hexateuch provoked considerable debate; e.g. Beyerlin 1961; Vriezen 1963; Huffmon 1965; G. H. Davies 1970: 71–73; Hyatt 1970; Nicholson 1973.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 149

22/12/09 12:35:22

150

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

to make them relevant to the contemporary situation. Repeatedly Israel is addressed as the people of God and claims the old saving history as her own: ‘Not with our ancestors did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today’ (Deut. 5:3).20 In the Deuteronomic and Chronicler’s histories, the same traditions are taken up and applied to the election of David and his dynasty.21 The message of the prophets does not belong to the basic theology of the Old Testament, according to von Rad. But understood in terms of tradition history, it is seen as reinterpretation of salvation history, initially as condemnation and later as a new salvation (1957: 66; 1960: 3–5). This new salvation is expressed in the language of the old, even though its newness implies that the old salvation has come to an end. There is to be ‘a new David, a new Exodus, a new covenant, a new city of God’ (1960: 323). Such continual reinterpretation is made possible and valid by the fact that Old Testament traditions are ‘open to the future’ (319–321, 360–362). Moreover the same fact makes it possible to understand the relationship between the Testaments in terms of tradition history: We said earlier that the prophets do not improvise, that they show themselves to be bound to definite traditions, that they move about within the realm of older witnesses to Jahwism in an extraordinarily dialectic fashion, that they take their own legitimation from these and at the same time, because of new content which they give them, go beyond them and even break them up, that, while they certainly select from among the traditions, at the same time they keep them as the broad basis of their arguments – does not this also describe the relationship of the Apostles and the writers of the Gospels to the Old Testament? (327)

Tradition history is therefore an important clue to understanding von Rad’s view of the relationship between the Testaments.22 Even more important, however, is a concept closely related to tradition history in von Rad’s theology and sometimes hardly distinguishable from it – salvation history.23

20. See von Rad 1963: 413; cf. 1957: 193; 1960: 109, 268. 21. Von Rad 1957: 306–354; cf. Rost 1947. 22. See also von Rad 1960: 239–240, 321–333, 367–369, 384–386; 1961a: 10–11. On tradition-historical study of the Old Testament, see D. A. Knight 1973; 1977; also Noth 1948; Barr 1957; Childs 1962; Zimmerli 1971; Clements 1975; Goldingay 1990: 125–133; Perdue 1994: 45–68. 23. Cf. D. A. Knight 1973: 133–136.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 150

22/12/09 12:35:22

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

151

d. Salvation history The idea of ‘salvation history’ was proposed long ago by von Hofmann (1841–4) but it was not until the second half of the twentieth century that it became popular, particularly as a result of von Rad’s theology. Both writers were concerned to find a genuinely theological way to understand the Old Testament, in contrast to the widespread ‘history of religions’ approach.24 The major difference is that von Hofmann was interested in an objective saving history, von Rad in an existential one.25 For von Rad, the basis of Israel’s salvation history is found in her early creeds (e.g. Deut. 26:5b–9) and is essentially confessional (concerning what Israel believed to have happened) rather than factual (concerning what could be proved to have happened). The idea of salvation history has been subjected to wide-ranging debate,26 and discussion here is limited to von Rad’s use of the idea to express the relationship between the Testaments. The first point concerns whether salvation history is an adequate structuring concept for a theology of the Old Testament and its relationship to the New. Does it do justice to the Old Testament creation story, psalms and wisdom literature to fit them into the category of historical traditions? Barr (1963) argues that it does not, since the Old Testament contains more than salvation history.27 Christoph Barth (1963: 368–369) challenges von Rad’s treatment of the psalms and wisdom literature as Israel’s answer to God’s history of salvation, considering the whole Bible to be both God’s word and Israel’s answer. Burdett (1974), on the other hand, attempts to show that the wisdom literature is an integral part of the history of redemption, demonstrating the ideal character of a citizen in the messianic kingdom.28 There is another more fundamental point. Is the creed of ‘salvation in history’ really the kernel of Old Testament theology? Barr (1962: 144) claims:

24. Greig 1974: ch. 1. 25. Cf. Pannenberg 1961b: 91. 26. E.g. K. G. Steck 1959; A. Richardson 1964a: 133–139; Feiner & Löhrer 1965–76; Croatto 1966; Christ 1967; Peter 1970; Gutiérrez 1971: 149–187; Hesse 1971; Gunneweg 1977: 173–217; Groenen 1989; Goldingay 1990: 66–96; Hengel 2003; Ciampa 2007. 27. See also Barr 1966: 72–76; cf. Spriggs 1974: 40–42. 28. On wisdom as a key concept in the relationship between the Testaments, see Goldsworthy 1987.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 151

22/12/09 12:35:22

152

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

There is no evidence that von Rad treats this concept critically, and it is obvious that he feels he can use it as an ace of trumps against all other ideas of the planning of an Old Testament theology, or of the treatment of certain details within it.

Barr overstates the case, for von Rad does recognize at least some of the limitations of his work. He acknowledges that he has not written a complete and comprehensive Old Testament theology (1957: vii; 1960: vi). He points out that the idea of salvation history was lost in the legalism and apocalyptic of the post-exilic period (1957: 91; 1960: 303–304). Moreover his claim that ‘the Old Testament writings confine themselves to representing Jahweh’s relationship to Israel and the world in one aspect only, namely as a continuing divine activity in history’ (1957: 106) is immediately qualified by reference to the fact that it is apparently not true of some parts of the Old Testament. Concerning some of the psalms, von Rad argues that they presuppose God’s historical activity. Concerning Job and Ecclesiastes, he suggests that the failure to relate to the salvation history ‘is closely connected with the grave affliction which is the theme of both these works’. No single concept can sum up the meaning of the whole Old Testament nor its relationship to the New. Nevertheless ‘salvation history’ is undoubtedly central. Even Barr (1963: 201), while emphasizing other important axes through the biblical material, admits: There really is a Heilsgeschichte . . . we have been generally right in saying that this can be taken as the central theme of the Bible, that it forms the main link between Old and New Testaments, and that its presence and importance clearly marks biblical faith off from other religions.

e. The question of reality A crucial problem in von Rad’s use of the concept of ‘salvation history’ is the reality of the ‘salvation’ and the ‘history’.29 First, is this ‘salvation’ real, or merely a product of Israel’s imagination? Von Rad evades the question. He separates the ‘objective’ picture of Israel’s history obtained by historical criticism on the basis of Troeltsch’s principle of analogy from the kerygmatic picture in Israel’s confessions, which understand history in terms of God’s activity.30 Yet the question remains.

29. On the question of reality, see further Zimmerli 1952: 115–116; G. E. Wright 1964; Pannenberg 1973; G. J. Wenham 1976; Childs 1992: 20, 80–83; Barr 2000: 8–14. 30. Von Rad 1957: 107–108; cf. C. Barth 1963: 368.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 152

22/12/09 12:35:22

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

153

Did God choose and deliver Israel and give them a new land in fulfilment of his promise, or is salvation history an invention or misapprehension? The Old Testament writers believed that God really acted in history to save his people, and von Rad’s existential presentation fails to take account of this.31 A second question concerns the reality of the ‘history’.32 The crux of the matter is that von Rad expounds saving history on the basis of Israel’s own understanding of her history, not on scholarly reconstruction of this history.33 From a canonical point of view, this makes sense, and he certainly provides an illuminating exposition. The problem is that von Rad accepts the view of contemporary critical scholarship that the real course of Israelite history was quite different from that recounted in the Old Testament. It may be that von Rad contrasts the two pictures of Israel’s history too sharply, and historical-critical study does not invalidate the Old Testament picture of Israel’s history as a whole.34 But if theology is concerned with history, as von Rad argues, it needs to be based on either the historical-critical reconstruction of Israel’s history (if that is taken to be correct35) or Israel’s own account of her history (if that is considered to have a real historical basis36). More recent historical research has not settled the matter. On the one hand, ‘minimalist’ scholars argue for an even more extreme dichotomy between the biblical picture of ancient Israel and the reality of ancient Palestine than that envisaged by von Rad.37 On the other hand, many scholars see a fundamental correlation between biblical texts and archaeological finds, even though some of them are far from being ‘maximalist’.38 In any case, the fact that von Rad bases his theology on what he admits to be an invalid foundation remains a weakness in his work.

31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Pannenberg 1961b: 94n.; Spriggs 1974: 57, 81; cf. above: 3.2.a. Cf. Hasel 1970; Brueggemann 1997: 43. Von Rad 1957: vi; cf. above: 6.2.a. Cf. Soggin 1964; Hasel 1991: 120–132. E.g. Hesse (1960: 24–26; cf. 1958; 1969), in contrast to von Rad, refuses to separate salvation history from ‘real’ history (cf. Hasel 1991: 117–120). The real course of Israel’s history is therefore more important for Christian theology than Israel’s own conception of her history, which according to Hesse is fragmented and inaccurate. 36. E.g. Eichrodt 1961: 516; Ladd 1966. 37. E.g. P. R. Davies 1992; Thompson 1992; Lemche 1996; Whitelam 1996; cf. Grabbe 2007. 38. E.g. Millard et al. 1994; B. W. Anderson 1999: 345–352; Malamat 2001; Long et al. 2002; V. H. Matthews 2002; Dever 2003; Provan et al. 2003; Day 2004.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 153

22/12/09 12:35:22

154

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

f. A relationship of actualization Martin Noth, in his contribution to the 1952 symposium that launched the Biblischer Kommentar, wrote about ‘The “Re-presentation” of the Old Testament in Proclamation’. He is concerned with the problem of transition from exegesis to proclamation. To address this problem, Noth turns to the Old Testament itself, where he finds a process of re-presentation (Vergegenwärtigung) of historical events. The festivals of Passover and Booths, for instance, came to be understood as re-enactments of events related to the exodus. The proclamation of the law took place ‘in such a way as to make Israel hear the law as if it were for the very first time’ (82). Such cultic re-presentation is related to the ancient Oriental cyclic view of history, Noth admits, but there is also a fundamental difference. ‘The “re-presentation” at the periodical feasts of ancient Israel does not involve some timeless myth, but something which by nature is a unique historical event . . . the Exodus from Egypt’ (85). The Old Testament re-presentation is distinctively historical. It is concerned not with myth but with the saving acts and moral demands of God. Noth surveys the Old Testament evidence briefly, concluding that a legitimate re-presentation of the Old Testament in modern proclamation cannot use historical individuals, nor can it use specific historical situations, since both of these are unrepeatable. It can only re-present the saving acts of God by ‘telling’ them. Von Rad expresses a similar idea with the term ‘actualization’.39 This may be seen in Old Testament worship, for example in the great festivals (1960: 103–110). These originally agricultural festivals were historicized by Israel, and the saving events connected with the festivals were ‘actualized’ in the celebration (e.g. Exod. 12:11; cf. Deut. 5:2–3; 29:14–15). Another example of a somewhat different nature is the book of Deuteronomy, which von Rad considers to be ‘a unique actualization of God’s will designed to counter specific dangers which appeared at a definite hour in the already lengthy history of Jahwism’ (1960: 394). It is one of the most basic concepts of Old Testament theology: In each specific case, Israel spoke in quite a different way about the ‘mighty acts’ of her God . . . Israel constantly fell back on the old traditions connected with the great saving appointments, and in each specific case she actualized them in a very arbitrary,

39. On which, see above: 6.1.a. For a thorough study of actualization in the Old Testament, see Groves 1987; also a brief study by Murphy 1996. A similar idea is found in liberation theology: the progressive reinterpretation of the exodus in new historical situations (Kirk 1979: 99–100, 147–148, 157–158; Branson & Padilla 1983: 173).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 154

22/12/09 12:35:22

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

155

and often novel, way . . . This continual actualization of the data of the saving history, with its consequence that every generation saw itself anew on the march towards a fulfilment, occupies such a prominent position in the Old Testament that a ‘Theology of the Old Testament’ must accommodate itself to it. (1963: 413–416)

‘Actualization’ is therefore a very suitable term to express the relationship between the Old Testament and the New: The way in which the Old Testament is absorbed in the New is the logical end of a process initiated by the Old Testament itself (1960: 321) . . . The history of tradition showed us how old material could suddenly be put on a new basis and into new theological horizons, and the question therefore is whether the reinterpretation of Old Testament traditions in the light of Christ’s appearance on earth is not also hermeneutically perfectly permissible . . . The Apostles clearly take the view that the texts of the Old Testament only attain their fullest actuality in the light of their fulfilment. (333)

To sum up, von Rad has made a very significant contribution to understanding the theological relationship between the Testaments, especially with the concepts of tradition history, salvation history and actualization. Two further aspects of von Rad’s approach are also important – typology and promise/fulfilment – and these are discussed in detail below (chs. 7–8). Nevertheless there are also some weaknesses in his work, especially in his view of history and the reality of salvation history, as has been shown above and discussed at length by his critics.

6.3 Comparison Many scholars have found the idea of salvation history to be helpful in understanding the relationship between the Testaments, though they develop it in different ways and with different emphases. Several of their works are discussed here to conclude the present chapter.40

40. Other works that could have been discussed include Eichrodt (1933; 1957; 1961); Phythian-Adams 1938; Stauffer 1941; Schwarzwäller 1966; Ladd 1968; Goppelt 1975; 1976; Fuller 1992; Martens 1994; also some of the works on ‘typology’ and ‘promise and fulfilment’ discussed below (7.1; 8.1).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 155

22/12/09 12:35:22

156

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

a. Oscar Cullmann and George Ernest Wright Although the exposition of salvation history in von Rad’s Old Testament theology was influential, he was not the first twentieth-century scholar to follow this approach. One of the most important was Oscar Cullmann, who expressed his view of the centrality of salvation history to New Testament faith in two major works (1946; 1965).41 He argues that ‘New Testament man was certain that he was continuing the work God began with the election of the people of Israel for the salvation of mankind, which God fulfilled in Christ, which he unfolds in the present and which he will complete at the end’ (1965: 13). Another significant contribution was made by the American scholar George Ernest Wright. In God Who Acts (1952), Wright maintains that ‘Biblical theology is the confessional recital of the redemptive acts of God in a particular history, because history is the chief medium of revelation’ (13; italics original).42 Such recital is characteristic of the Bible (66–76), as shown by von Rad in his traditionhistorical study of Old Testament confessions of faith, and Cullmann and Dodd in their New Testament studies. It follows that the coming of Jesus Christ is to be understood primarily as ‘a historical event which was the climax of God’s working since the creation. All former history had its goal in him because God had so directed it’ (56). Thus Wright’s study of biblical theology led to conclusions similar to those of von Rad, several years before the latter published his Old Testament theology.43 b. Samuel Amsler Amsler’s doctoral thesis, L’Ancien Testament dans l’église (1960a), is probably the most important French Protestant work on the relationship between the Testaments.44 It is relatively unknown in English-speaking scholarship, so the

41. See also his article in B. W. Anderson 1964c. Critiques of Cullmann’s proposal include Bultmann 1948b; Frisque 1960; W. J. Harrington 1973: 197–201. Cf. Hasel 1978: 111–119; Dorman 2007. 42. On revelation through history, see Lemke 1982; cf. P. D. Hanson 1978. 43. G. E. Wright wrote several other works relevant to the relationship between the Testaments (e.g. 1951; 1955; 1964; cf. 1970). He later qualified his view in certain respects (1969: 39–69), but his basic position remained the same. For discussion of Wright’s work, see Gilkey 1961; Kelsey 1975: 33–38; Hayes & Prussner 1985: 224– 225; Perdue 1994: 23–30, 38–41; B. W. Anderson 1999: 345–352; Hicks 2007. 44. Other relevant works by Amsler include two articles on typology (1952; 1953) and one on text and event (1960b).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 156

22/12/09 12:35:22

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

157

argument is summarized at some length here. First, Amsler analyses what the Bible itself says about Christian reading of the Old Testament,45 then he relates this to the results of contemporary scholarship. He begins with the fact that the Old Testament was the Bible of the primitive church. Early Christians did not use the Old Testament simply because it was convenient to do so in their Jewish context, but because they were convinced that the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ were the fulfilment of the old covenant and therefore inextricably related to it. The ultimate reason for Christian use of the Old Testament is therefore quite simply that Jesus is the Christ promised by the Old Testament (10). It is often asked how far we can imitate New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament. Amsler rejects a simple adoption of New Testament methods, choosing to go beyond them to the fundamental principle by which they are governed (103–104). Their value does not lie in themselves but in their expression of the early church’s faith in Jesus Christ. This faith implies a theological relationship between the old and new covenants that alone can validate Christian reading of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ and salvation history The central aim of the New Testament is to witness to a historical event: the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1960a: 105–121). It is a unique event, since in it God has intervened in the world to save human beings; but it is not an isolated event, since it is the centre of a history that extends from creation to the end of time. The New Testament presents Jesus as the final and definitive meaning of both salvation history and universal history. On the one hand, the last days have come in him and the whole of history is henceforth determined by him. On the other hand, Jesus is related to past history, because he is the final outcome of God’s activity in creation and in the history of Israel. So the central event of history cannot be fully understood apart from the events that lead up to and follow on from it. A question arises here. Does this New Testament perspective of salvation history correspond to that of the Old? Amsler believes it does. The Old Testament witnesses to the living God who revealed himself to Israel by intervening in her secular history (108). According to the Old Testament, God meets his people in historical events. These events are not significant

45. See also above: 1.3.c.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 157

22/12/09 12:35:22

158

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

as a collection of incidental facts but as a sequence of interlinked occurrences that together make a history. This can be seen in the whole Old Testament: • Historical works organize the material into a connected narrative. • Prophets declare that past and future events play a role in the present. • Psalms and liturgical writings concentrate history into the present by means of ceremonial worship. • Law expresses the practical consequences of God’s historical action in making a covenant with his people. • Wisdom literature shows negatively that abandoning the historical perspective results in losing the key to the biblical revelation. It is therefore vital to interpret every event in its historical context, which includes events that both precede and result from it. Amsler notes this orientation to history in the attitude of the Old Testament prophets to time. One stations himself beyond the event (e.g. Ezek. 20:42), another describes a future event as though it has already taken place (e.g. Amos 5:2), while another describes past events as though they have yet to happen (e.g. Dan. 7:23). But it is not only the prophets who interpret events with reference to the future. The whole Old Testament bears witness to a history incomplete in itself and open to the future. It follows that the interpretation of Old Testament historical events will be truly possible only at the end of time. However, the New Testament affirms that the end of time has been inaugurated in Jesus Christ, who shows the full significance of old covenant events by giving them their complete context. At the same time, these events help us to understand the central event of salvation history. Without the Old Testament, salvation history is curtailed and disfigured, and the Christ-event loses its authentic significance. The old covenant and Jesus Christ In the Christ-event God has realized the promises and fulfilled the demands of the Old Testament (1960a: 122–134). The relationship between the two covenants is therefore essentially historical, not doctrinal. It is a relationship between two complementary series of events in salvation history, not two collections of timeless truths. The New Testament adopts the Old Testament idea of salvation history as a chain of events linked by promise and fulfilment, but introduces a new aspect to the fulfilment. This new aspect is Jesus Christ, who does not simply

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 158

22/12/09 12:35:22

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

159

prolong the old covenant but replaces it with the eschatological kingdom of God. This decisive fulfilment is not alien to the Old Testament, however, because it is the goal of the prophetic linking of events by promise and fulfilment. Christian interpretation of the Old Testament must therefore be based on this understanding of fulfilment, since only then can it be true to the prophetic interpretation of history. The witness of the Old Testament Jesus’ fulfilment of the old covenant has two consequences: • Jesus Christ shows the revelatory significance of the old covenant. • Old covenant events throw light on the Event in which they are fulfilled – God’s revelation in Christ. Thus the Old Testament functions as a witness to God’s saving activity in history (1960a: 135–151). Since the climax of history occurred in Jesus Christ, it is only in the church – among those who believe that Jesus is the Christ – that the Old Testament can play its authentic role as witness to salvation history. This witness takes the form of words and events, both of which are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Old Testament words are quoted in the New and explicitly said to be fulfilled in Christ; and Old Testament events are mentioned, implying their typological importance.46 So Old Testament words and events, in their witness to God’s provisional revelation in the old covenant, also bear witness to God’s definitive revelation in Jesus Christ. It is only from the perspective of the New Testament that Old Testament words and events can be recognized as promises and prefigurations of Jesus Christ, because it is the New Testament which shows that Jesus Christ completes the salvation history of the Old Testament. This is legitimate, according to Amsler, because the Old Testament itself is aware of an eschatological aspect to both word and event. The New Testament shows the church the reason and method for reading the Old Testament. Since they have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, all Old Testament events prefigure him in some way and its words bear indirect witness to the meaning of his coming. A relationship of salvation history Clearly Amsler’s solution has many similarities to that of von Rad, particularly in its emphasis on salvation history. This is notable since they approach the

46. On fulfilment and typology, see further below: chs. 8 and 7 respectively.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 159

22/12/09 12:35:23

160

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

problem from quite different angles: von Rad from Old Testament tradition history, Amsler from New Testament interpretation of the Old. So Amsler gives further support to this understanding of the relationship between the Testaments. At the same time, his approach is subject to some of the criticisms applied to that of von Rad. For example, it fits some parts of the Old Testament better than others, and his concern to interpret the whole Old Testament in terms of salvation history leads him to an unduly negative evaluation of material that does not fit this perspective (e.g. wisdom literature, 111). c. Wolfhart Pannenberg Shortly after the completion of von Rad’s Old Testament theology, a programmatic work entitled Revelation as History was published by a group of younger Heidelberg scholars. It was edited by Pannenberg,47 who summed up the programme in seven dogmatic theses (1961a): • God’s self-revelation in the Bible is indirect, being mediated through historical acts. • Revelation is understood fully only at the end of revelatory history. • Revelation is universal, being open to anyone who has eyes to see. • Revelation is first realized in the fate of Jesus, in so far as the end of all events is anticipated in that event. • The Christ-event is revelation in so far as it is part of God’s history with Israel. • The universality of the Christ-event is expressed in the Gentile-Christian understanding of revelation. • The Word relates itself to revelation as foretelling, forthtelling and report. A lively debate on the relationship between revelation and history ensued.48 The close link between God’s history with Israel and Jesus Christ is made

47. The book included essays by Pannenberg, Rolf Rendtorff, Wilckens and Trutz Rendtorff. The clearest expression of Pannenberg’s view of the relationship between the Testaments is in his essay ‘Redemptive Event and History’ (1959). See also 1961b; 1965; 1967; 1997a; 1997b. Cf. Galloway 1973; Tupper 1974. 48. See Loretz 1964: 22–42; Moltmann 1964: 76–84; Braaten 1965; Barr 1966: 65–102; Fuller 1966; O’Collins 1966; Robinson & Cobb 1967; Harder & Stevenson 1971;

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 160

22/12/09 12:35:23

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

161

clear in Pannenberg’s fourth and fifth theses. Like von Rad, Pannenberg uses the category of salvation history to express the relationship between the Testaments:49 The connection between the Old and New Testaments is made understandable only by the consciousness of the one history which binds together the eschatological community of Jesus Christ and ancient Israel by means of the bracket of promise and fulfilment. (1959: 25; cf. 1967: 179–181)

However, Pannenberg rejects von Rad’s separation of salvation history from history as it ‘really’ happened. The history he refers to is not simply salvation history as believed and confessed by Israel. It is ‘reality in its totality’ (1959: 21), which not only includes salvation history but creation and consummation as well. A similar idea is found in liberation theology, which stresses the unity of history and treats salvation history as the heart of human history.50 Thus Pannenberg finds the relationship between the Testaments in real history, which he takes to be God’s characteristic sphere of self-revelation. This history can be fully understood only from the perspective of its end. Nevertheless the end of history is anticipated in the coming of Christ, so that the meaning of the revelation in history recorded in the Old Testament becomes clear in him, at least in an anticipatory sense. In this universal understanding of revelation, apocalyptic has an important place. According to Koch (1970: 14), Pannenberg reintroduced the apocalyptic understanding of history into systematic theology, though it was Käsemann who brought the concept to the forefront of theological discussion. The latter, in his essay ‘The Beginnings of Christian Theology’ (1960: 40), argued that apocalyptic was ‘the mother of all Christian theology’. It follows that apocalyptic is seen to be the chief link between the Testaments.51 Koch (1970) concludes his study of apocalyptic: Late Israelite and early Christian apocalyptic is not one branch of the literature of the ancient world among others, a sector which one may consider philologically

Rendtorff 1981. For a more recent discussion of the Pannenberg group, see Oeming 1987: 139–155. 49. Cf. J. M. Robinson 1964: 127–129. 50. E.g. Gutiérrez 1971: 153; cf. Kirk 1979: 31, 177. 51. Cf. also Sauter 1965: 239–251; Betz 1969. On apocalyptic, see above: 1.2.c.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 161

22/12/09 12:35:23

162

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

and exegetically or leave alone, according to taste. Does the apocalyptic world of ideas not represent the change-over between the Testaments, i.e., does it not reflect that religious movement which, under the impression of the person of Jesus and his destiny, permitted a part of late Israel to merge into early Christianity?

This positive evaluation of apocalyptic contrasts sharply with that of von Rad (1960: 301–308). d. Jürgen Moltmann Many of the insights of von Rad and Pannenberg are taken up by Moltmann in his Theology of Hope (1964).52 He discusses critically the ideas of God’s self-revelation in salvation history, universal history and tradition history (69–84), and often refers to promise and fulfilment in his exposition of history and eschatology (95–229).53 The implications of Christian hope in modern society are expressed in the term ‘Exodus Church’ (304–338), by which Moltmann means that Christians constitute the ‘pilgrim people of God’ (304). They are the ‘community of eschatological salvation’ (325) who are called to transform the face of the world in which they believe, hope and love. This idea is particularly congenial to liberation theologians, some of whom have been influenced by Moltmann’s theology and have engaged in debate on its political implications.54 On apocalyptic, however, Moltmann disagrees with von Rad and Pannenberg (133–138). According to them, he says, ‘apocalyptic applies cosmological patterns to history, with the result that either “history” comes to a standstill [von Rad] or else “history” becomes intelligible as a summary representation of reality in its totality [Pannenberg]’. Moltmann sug gests a third way of looking at apocalyptic, seeing its significance not in ‘cosmological interpretation of eschatological history’, but in ‘eschatological and historic interpretation of the cosmos’. Just as Israel’s ‘hope for history’ became concerned with world history in the message of the prophets, so this hope became concerned with cosmology in apocalyptic. Thus apocalyptic points theological eschatology beyond national history and individual existence to the world as a whole. As a result, for Moltmann, it is one way in which the Old Testament points forward to the New.

52. On Moltmann’s theology, see Bauckham 1987. 53. On promise and fulfilment, see further below: ch. 8. 54. E.g. Gutiérrez 1971: 160–162, 182, 216–220; Moltmann 1973: 314–340; cf. Langley 1978: 967–975.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 162

22/12/09 12:35:23

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

163

e. Hartmut Gese and Peter Stuhlmacher Salvation history is important for biblical theology, according to Gese, but the real key to the relationship between the Testaments is found in tradition history.55 Gese understands canonization as the final stage in the living process of forming tradition, arguing that the Old Testament was not a closed canon by the time of the New Testament.56 The New Testament is the end and goal of a single tradition-building process, so that in terms of tradition history there is no gulf or opposition between the Old Testament and the New. New Testament interpretation of the Old is consistent with interpretation of earlier texts found in the later strata of the Old Testament itself. Thus biblical theology is a continuous process that incorporates the whole biblical tradition, the entire history of God’s revelation. Clearly Gese emphasizes the unity of the Bible and the continuity between its two constituent parts. Gese writes as an Old Testament scholar, and his approach has been taken up and developed further by the New Testament scholar Stuhlmacher. He proposes a New Testament theology that is open to ‘the Old Testament as the principal basis for the formation of the New Testament tradition’ (1975: 91) and recognizes that ‘the New Testament message of faith comes thoroughly from the Old Testament’ (1995: 11–12). This proposal is implemented in his twovolume Biblical Theology of the New Testament (1992; 1999). He agrees with Gese that the Old Testament canon was still open in the New Testament era, and that the two Testaments have a close ‘tradition-historical and kerygmatic relationship’ (1986: x). In fact, he believes the relationship between the Testaments to be so intimate that ‘the testimony of the New Testament cannot be adequately understood without the Old and the exegesis of the Old Testament remains incomplete without taking the New into view’ (1995: 2). At the centre stands Jesus of Nazareth – Messiah of Israel and Son of God (2002: 188).

55. See Gese 1970; 1977a; 1977b; 1979; 1986; 1987b. 56. Gese (1970: 16–17; 1977a: 13–14) argues that the third part of the canon was still open at that time. He believes that it included a great wealth of material, much of which was eliminated by Judaism when the canon was finalized at the end of the first century ad, especially wisdom and apocalyptic materials that had close affinities with the New Testament. In his view the Reformation church was mistaken in following the Hebrew canon and separating the Apocrypha from the biblical tradition, thus creating a historical gap between the Old and New Testaments. Sundberg (1964; 1966; 1968) holds a similar view. For discussion of this point, see Gunneweg 1977: 195–196; Childs 1979: 661–669; Goldingay 1994: 168–171.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 163

22/12/09 12:35:23

164

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

There has been much debate about the Gese–Stuhlmacher proposal, particularly concerning the late closing of the Old Testament canon. During the first six decades of the twentieth century, most scholars thought that the canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures was completed by a council at Jamnia, about ad 90. However, the paucity of evidence for this has been demonstrated by Lewis (1964) and several scholars have since argued for a much earlier date for the closing of the canon.57 The New Testament often refers to writings that it describes as ‘Scripture’ and the extent of those writings approximates that of the Hebrew Bible as we know it today.58 It seems that the formative process of the Old Testament canon was essentially complete at that time, though there is no evidence for an authorized list of canonical books, and differences of opinion between Pharisees and Sadducees about the extent of the Scriptures had not yet been resolved.59 Another criticism concerns understanding the unity of the Bible in terms of tradition history and its key concept of ‘actualization’. This may help to explain aspects of the process by which the Bible came about, but to understand the unity of the Bible solely in this way is unsatisfactory. It does not account adequately for elements of the Old Testament that were not actualized in Jesus, nor elements that found a continuation in post-Christian Judaism, nor central elements of the New Testament that are relatively marginal in the Old.60 What is more, as Seitz (2001: 38) points out, the Old Testament is ‘more than growing traditions and endless refabrication, or else it would forever resist literary fixation’. The concept of canon is based on the belief that the process of Scripture formation has reached a decisive point at which no further development is required. It is true that Christians see the New Testament as the completion of the Old Testament, though they should not forget that Jews consider the Tanakh to be a canon complete in itself. But the New Testament writers themselves set out to record and explain the fulfilment of the Scriptures (Old Testament), rather than to supplement an open canon with new traditions of their own.61

57. E.g. Leiman 1976: 120–124, 131–135 and Beckwith 1985: 127–153, 274–277, who suggest the mid-second century bc. 58. Cf. D. A. Knight 1973: 140; Childs 1979: 669; Guthrie 1981: 953–982; C. A. Evans 2002. 59. J. A. Sanders 2002; Trebolle 2006: 556. 60. Cf. Goldingay 1990: 131–132; Barr 1999: 375–377. 61. Cf. D. A. Knight 1973: 139; Gunneweg 1977: 207–208; Barr 1999: 365–368. For further discussion of Gese and Stuhlmacher, see Kraus 1976; H. H. Schmid 1977;

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 164

22/12/09 12:35:23

o n e s a lvat i o n h i s t o ry

165

One further scholar may be mentioned here in closing. Weber (1989) takes the theme of power as the focus for a biblical theology, concentrating on six biblical traditions of faith: exodus, kingship, wisdom, holiness, poverty and apocalyptic. He expounds each tradition in both the Old and New Testaments and shows its particular relevance to the theme of power. Rather like Gese, Weber understands biblical theology to be ‘a converging bundle of traditions of faith’ which are in tension with each other but converge in Jesus Christ (22). Thus in preference to the common formula of ‘promise and fulfilment’, he suggests that the relationship between the Testaments be described in terms of ‘trajectories of faith’ and their ‘convergence’ on Jesus of Nazareth.

Zimmerli 1979; Grässer 1980, with response by Stuhlmacher (1980); Strecker 1980; Reventlow 1983: 149–154; J. H. Schmid 1986: 28–99; Oeming 1987: 104–135; Hasel 1991: 80–85; Hafemann 1995. The approach of Christensen 2003 to the unity of the Bible resembles that of Gese and Stuhlmacher in seeing an ongoing process that resulted in the ‘Completed Tanakh’, but he does not interact explicitly with them or with other scholarly literature.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 165

22/12/09 12:35:23

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 166

22/12/09 12:35:23

PART 3 : FOUR KEY T H EMES

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 167

22/12/09 12:35:23

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 168

22/12/09 12:35:23

7 . TY P O LOGY

7.1 Typology in modern study One of the key concepts in von Rad’s ‘salvation history’ approach discussed in the previous chapter is typology.1 His essay on ‘Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament’ sets this out clearly: We see everywhere in this history brought to pass by God’s Word, in acts of judgement and acts of redemption alike, the prefiguration of the Christ-event of the New Testament . . . This renewed recognition of types in the Old Testament is no peddling of secret lore, no digging up of miracles, but is simply correspondent to the belief that the same God who revealed himself in Christ has also left his footprints in the history of the Old Testament covenant people. (1952: 36)

Partly as a result of von Rad’s essay, there was a revival of typology in biblical scholarship during the second part of the twentieth century. This concept will now be discussed in some detail, because it is valuable for biblical interpretation but often misunderstood.

1. This chapter is a substantially revised version of an earlier article (Baker 1976b), and is used here with permission of the original publisher.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 169

22/12/09 12:35:23

170

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

All too often ‘typology’ has been used to denote a fanciful method of interpretation, allegorical or symbolical in nature, which is found in many early Christian writings (esp. of the Alexandrian school) and still used by a few interpreters to the present day. As a result, some biblical scholars have outlawed typology as a valid way of interpreting the Bible in the modern church,2 while others have sug gested substitute terms. Phythian-Adams, for example, develops the idea of ‘homology’;3 while Barth prefers the concept of ‘analogy’.4 Rowley rejects the term ‘typology’ but recognizes common patterns in the two Testaments. Anthony Hanson writes of ‘parallel situation’.5 However, the concept of ‘typology’ comes from the Bible itself, often linked with the word typos (type), and should not be dropped simply because it has been misunderstood in some periods of history. I begin with an analysis of modern study of biblical typology, and then attempt a synthesis on the basis of the meaning of typos and its cognates in biblical Greek and the meaning of ‘type’ in modern English. This results in an understanding of typology that is consistent with the nature of biblical literature and illuminates the theological relationship between the Old and New Testaments. a. Modern definitions of typology Many definitions of typology have been proposed in modern scholarship, and they fall into two main categories. The first category comprises definitions centring on the idea of ‘prefiguration’, and these date mainly from the first half of the twentieth century. An example is the definition given by Fritsch (1946–7: 214): ‘a type is an institution, historical event or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected with Christianity’. The second category comprises definitions centring on the idea of ‘correspondence’, and these date mainly from the second half of the century. An example is Lampe’s definition of typology as ‘primarily a method of historical interpretation, based upon the continuity of God’s purpose throughout the

2. E.g. Baumgärtel 1952: 78–85, 138–143; van Ruler 1955: 58–68/62–73; Barr 1966: 103–148. 3. Phythian-Adams 1944: 11. This suggestion was taken up by Hebert 1947: 218–222. 4. See K. Barth 1932: 243–244; 1950: 49–51, 102; cf. Smart 1961: 125–129; also von Balthasar 1951: 93–181; Pannenberg 1953; Pöhlmann 1965. On analogy, see also von Rad 1960: 363–364 and Wolff 1956a. 5. Rowley 1953: 19–20; cf. Hooke 1961; A. T. Hanson 1965: 162.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 170

22/12/09 12:35:23

typology

171

history of his covenant. It seeks to demonstrate the correspondence between the various stages in the fulfilment of that purpose’ (1953: 202; italics original). Both kinds of definition have a historical basis, and both are clearly distinguished from fanciful interpretation. Although opinions differ on details, modern scholars generally agree that typology is to be understood as a form of historical interpretation, based on the Bible itself.6 b. Typology in the Old Testament Several scholars have shown that there is typology in the Old Testament. In the Pentateuch, for example, the life of Abraham is a type of obedient faith (Gen. 12:1–9; 15:6; 22:16–18), whereas Lot is typical of wrong attitudes (Gen. 13:10–13; cf. Num. 11:5; 14:2–4). Moses is a type of the prophets (Deut. 18:15, 18) and the story of the manna has typical significance, showing that God gives to each of his people according to their needs (Exod. 16:9–27). In the Deuteronomic history David is a type of the ideal king (1 Kgs 9:4; 11:4, 6; 14:8; 15:11; cf. Ps. 132:1–4) and Solomon a type of the ideal wise man (1 Kgs 3:3–12, 28; 4:29–34; 10:1–3, 23–24). The prophets look forward to a new exodus (Isa. 43:16–21; 48:20–21; 51:9–11; 52:11–12; cf. 11:15–16; Jer. 16:14–15) and another period in the wilderness (Hos. 2:14–15; 12:9; cf. Jer. 31:2). David is typical of the king who is to come in the future (Isa. 11:1; 55:3–4; Jer. 23:5; Ezek. 34:23–24; Amos 9:11). In Isaiah, images from creation become types for the new paradise (Isa. 9:2; 11:6–9) and Gideon’s victory over Midian is a type for God’s final victory (Isa. 9:4; 10:26). Foulkes (1958) sets out to demonstrate that the ‘theological and eschatological interpretation of history’ that is called typology originates in the Old Testament. He argues that the concept of God’s acts in history being repeated is fundamental to the Old Testament, since the prophets assumed God would act in the future in the same way he had acted in the past (e.g. the call of Abraham, the exodus, the reign of David). However, Israel hoped not simply for a repetition of God’s acts but for a repetition of an unprecedented nature (e.g. new temple, new covenant, new creation). This hope was fulfilled in the New Testament and was the basis of its typological interpretation of history.

6. Stek 1970 contrasts the use of typology by Fairbairn 1870 and von Rad 1960. He concludes that for Fairbairn typology is ‘a divine pedagogical instrument for progressive revelation of a system of spiritual truths about heavenly and earthly realities’, whereas for von Rad it is ‘a useful theological method by which men appropriate for themselves and proclaim to others their experiences of the self-revelation of God in history’.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 171

22/12/09 12:35:23

172

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Hummel (1964) asserts even more emphatically that typology has its basis in the Old Testament, stating that the typical is a dominant concern in history, worship and prophecy. He surveys typical thinking – which he identifies with typological thinking – in the Old Testament, and finds examples in the presentation of historical events (e.g. the exodus), individuals (e.g. Abraham, Moses, David), groups (e.g. the righteous, Israel, the wise), laws (e.g. Pss 15; 24), nations (e.g. Israel, Edom, Babylon, Gog and Magog), places (e.g. the holy land, Jerusalem, the temple), legends (creation, flood, Jonah) and ceremonial worship (in its very nature as re-enaction of God’s redemptive acts). Thus Hummel defends his proposition that ‘Israel’s fundamental concern behind all the personages, events, and scenes of her history was typical, and intended to point to the basic realities of all existence’ (47). c. Typology in the New Testament The typical element is even clearer in the New Testament than in the Old, especially in its interpretation of Scripture. The classic study is Goppelt’s Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (1939). Goppelt examines in detail passages of the New Testament that involve typological use of the Old Testament, against the background of the contemporary Jewish understanding of Scripture and in contrast to the ‘typology’ of the letter of Barnabas. For example, the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus as the Prophet whose ministry and passion continue and fulfil that of the Old Testament prophets (e.g. Mark 6:4, 15; 8:28, 31; 9:2–7; 12:1–11; Luke 7:16, 39; 11:32; cf. Deut. 18:15). He is also identified as the messianic Son of David (Matt. 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; cf. 12:1–8, 42; 22:41–45) and Son of Man (70 times). According to Paul, Jesus Christ is the Second Adam (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:45–49) and each Christian a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). In Hebrews, Jesus is the true high priest, while for John he is the Word of God and perfecter of creation ( John 1:1–18; 3:1–8; cf. 20:22). Throughout the New Testament, the church is understood to be a new people of God, who are not children of Abraham by natural descent but by faith, and related to God by a new covenant (Matt. 10:1–4; 16:18; Luke 22:15–20; Rom. 4; Gal. 6:16; Heb. 3:1–6; Rev. 21:12–14). All of this, and much more, is explained in terms of a typological relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Goppelt’s conclusion is simple and important: typology is the dominant and characteristic method of interpretation for the New Testament’s use of the Old.7 It is not only when the Old Testament is cited that this is apparent,

7. Goppelt 1939: 198; cf. Grant & Tracy 1984: ch. 4.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 172

22/12/09 12:35:23

typology

173

but in all the New Testament allusions to the Old, many of which do not refer to specific texts. The New Testament writers recall Old Testament parallels to Jesus and the salvation that came through him, depicting both similarities and differences. The purpose of this, according to Goppelt, is not primarily to expound Old Testament texts. Typology is not a method of biblical interpretation, but a way of thinking. It is an aspect of the New Testament awareness of being part of salvation history. The New Testament is both a typological fulfilment of Old Testament salvation history and a typological prophecy of the consummation to come. This distinguishes the New Testament from contemporary Jewish biblical interpretation, where typology is relatively unimportant and superficial. It should also be distinguished from the letter of Barnabas, which uses ‘typology’ in a mystical sense to make the Old Testament into a collection of Christian teaching. The New Testament does not do this but uses typology in a historical sense, viewing the Old Testament as a unity that is valid in its own right. d. The relationship between the Testaments Wolff (1956a) develops the idea of typology as the analogy between the Old and New Testaments. He focuses his argument on the special starting point of Old Testament interpretation. First, he rejects any suggestion that ancient Near Eastern religion is this starting point. The Old Testament is quite different from its ancient Near Eastern environment. In spite of parallels in detail, the substance is essentially different. Its distinctive characteristics – including its divine law and prophecy, and especially the unique nature of the God of Israel – show that the Old Testament is a stranger in the ancient Orient. It follows that the essence of the Old Testament cannot be understood by analogy to its religious environment. Secondly, if studies of the ancient Near East are not the key to the Old Testament, will rabbinic studies unlock its meaning? Wolff’s answer is negative. Although there is an apparent continuity between the Old Testament and Judaism, from the Christian standpoint Judaism has not completely understood the Old Testament. Whether the synagogue reads its Bible as law or as the source of all wisdom, the full meaning of the Old Testament is to be sought elsewhere. Thirdly, can the New Testament show the meaning of the Old Testament? Wolff points out that Paul addresses the church as the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), and Israel is a type of the church of Jesus Christ throughout the New Testament (e.g. Mark 3:14; Rom. 11:17–32; Jas 1:1; Rev. 21:12–14). Here is

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 173

22/12/09 12:35:23

174

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

a fundamental analogy: ‘the Church of Jesus Christ can understand itself aright only as the eschatological Israel of God’ (174). There is also an analogy between the basis and the method of salvation in the two Testaments. In spite of obvious differences, the basic pattern is the same. The people of God is formed through God’s saving activity, the covenant is kept intact through the forgiveness of sins, and God’s kingship demands the people’s obedience to his law. Finally, there is an analogy between God’s gifts in the Old and New Testaments. In both cases there are material and spiritual gifts. Although there are differences, the analogy is dominant: ‘the new covenant in Christ corresponds to the covenant will of Yahweh as its fulfilment in the same way that marriage corresponds to engagement’ (179–180). Wolff concludes in these words: The old Oriental environment and the Jewish successors of the Old Testament Israel, while presenting us with numerous aids to understanding details, still do not provide anything comparable to the essential total meaning of the Old Testament. Only the New Testament offers the analogy of a witness of faith to the covenant will of God – a witness founded on historical facts – who chooses out of the world a people for himself and calls it to freedom under his Lordship. (180; italics original)

This analogy he calls ‘typology’. Wolff gives various examples of how this idea of analogy can be used in biblical interpretation, and some will be mentioned here: • The Sermon on the Mount and Paul’s exhortations give insight into Old Testament law as God’s covenant gift. • The concept of ‘witness’ in Luke and John illuminates that in Ezekiel. • God’s salvation of his people by the judges may be seen as an aspect of his continual saving activity throughout their history. • The primeval history witnesses to God’s intention for the world, without which Jesus Christ would not be properly understood. • The Day of Atonement ritual shows God’s principles in dealing with sin, which are the presupposition for the coming of Jesus and apart from which his death would be inexplicable. • Exodus 14 and Ezekiel 37 show the nature of the divinely constituted people of God and thus the self-understanding of the church.8

8. A more detailed survey of typology in ancient and modern biblical interpretation is provided by R. M. Davidson (1981: 15–114). A recent work by Seitz (2001) that makes use of typology and figural interpretation is discussed above (4.3.e).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 174

22/12/09 12:35:23

typology

175

7.2 The basis of typology So typology is not to be dismissed as a fanciful method of interpreting the Bible. On the contrary, many modern scholars agree that it is based in history and originates in the Bible itself. Nevertheless typology does need to be understood properly, so the remainder of this chapter is devoted to a study of its basis and nature. Semantic, theological and hermeneutical aspects are considered. Finally, the value of typology for understanding the relationship between the Testaments is discussed and summarized. a. Example and pattern Our starting point is the biblical use of the word typos (type) and its cognates typikōs (typical), antitypos (anti-type) and hypotypōsis (type). There is no biblical equivalent to the word ‘typology’ for the simple reason that the biblical authors did not analyse or systematize types. For the same reason, ‘typical’ is a more appropriate translation of typikōs than ‘typological’. ‘Type’ is a common word today but in the Septuagint and Greek New Testament the typos word group is used only twenty-two times. To show the meaning clearly, the biblical occurrences of typos and its cognates are set out in the table on p. 176, using the text of the nrsv (the tniv translation of typos is shown in square brackets where it differs). It is clear that the commonest translations of the word typos and its cognates in the Greek Bible are ‘example’ or ‘pattern’. The occasional translations ‘image/idol’, ‘mark’, ‘to this effect’, ‘form’, ‘model’, ‘copy’ and ‘standard’ are closely related in meaning. In no case is any of these words used as a technical term.9 I therefore conclude that the word typos (type) in the Bible means simply ‘example, pattern’. The typos word group is closely related in meaning to another group, which includes deigma (‘example’, Jude 7), paradeigma (‘pattern’, Exod. 25:9; ‘plan’,

9. It is sometimes thought (e.g. Goppelt 1969) that the word typos has a technical sense in Rom. 5:14 and 1 Cor. 10:6 (cf. v. 11). However, translators generally agree that the meaning is ‘foreshadow’ (reb), ‘prefigure’ (njb) or ‘pattern’ (tniv) in Rom. 5:14, and ‘example’ (nrsv, tniv, njb) in 1 Cor. 10:6, 11. In both cases the usual biblical meaning (‘example, pattern’) is entirely appropriate and it is unnecessary to suggest a technical use. It is perhaps to prevent any implication of a technical term that most translations avoid the translation ‘type’ for typos. av, tniv and njb do not use the word ‘type’ at all. nrsv does so only at Rom. 5:14. Vischer (1960) rejects the word ‘typology’ partly because it has poorly understood the meaning of typos, which he argues is ‘example’.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 175

22/12/09 12:35:23

176

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e The use of the typos word group in the Greek Bible

typos Exod. 25:40 Amos 5:26 John 20:25 Acts 7:43 Acts 7:44 Acts 23:25 Rom. 5:14 Rom. 6:17 1 Cor. 10:6 Phil. 3:17 1 Thess. 1:7 2 Thess. 3:9 1 Tim. 4:12 Titus 2:7 Heb. 8:5 1 Pet. 5:3

‘according to the pattern . . . shown you on the mountain’ ‘your images [idols] that you made for yourselves’ ‘the mark of the nails’ (twice) ‘the images [idols] that you made to worship’ ‘according to the pattern he had seen’ ‘He wrote a letter to this effect [as follows]’ ‘Adam, who is a type [pattern] of the one . . . to come’ ‘obedient . . . to the form [pattern] of teaching’ ‘these things occurred as examples for us’ ‘according to the example [model] you have in us’ ‘you became an example [model] to all the believers’ ‘to give you an example [model] to imitate’ ‘set the believers an example in speech and conduct’ ‘Show yourself . . . a model [example] of good works’ ‘according to the pattern . . . shown you on the mountain’ ‘be examples to the flock’

typikōs 1 Cor. 10:11

‘These things happened to them to serve as an example’

antitypos Heb. 9:24 1 Pet. 3:21

‘a mere copy of the true one’ ‘baptism, which this prefigured [symbolizes]’

hypotypōsis 1 Tim. 1:16 2 Tim. 1:13

‘making me an example to those who . . . believe’ ‘Hold to the standard [pattern] of sound teaching’

1 Chr. 28:11–12, 18–19) and hypodeigma (‘example’, John 13:15; Jas 5:10; 2 Pet. 2:6; cf. Heb. 4:11; ‘sketch’, Heb. 8:5; 9:23). Here again, the meaning is ‘example’, ‘pattern’ or something similar. The modern word ‘paradigm’ is derived from this word group, and is closely related in meaning.10

10. This meaning is extended somewhat in two verbal forms: deigmatizō (‘expose to public disgrace’, Matt. 1:19; ‘make an example of ’, Col. 2:15) and paradeigmatizō (‘hold up to contempt’, Heb. 6:6). A detailed semantic study of typos and its cognates in biblical and non-biblical Greek by R. M. Davidson (1981: 115–190)

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 176

22/12/09 12:35:23

typology

177

b. Analogy and correspondence Typical thinking is part of all human thought, arising out of our attempt to understand the world on the basis of concrete analogies.11 It follows that there is nothing surprising about the application of this method to the biblical world. Trench (1870: 12–14) explains: The parable or other analogy to spiritual truth appropriated from the world of nature or man, is not merely illustration, but also in some sort proof. It is not merely that these analogies assist to make the truth intelligible . . . Their power lies deeper than this, in the harmony unconsciously felt by all men, and which all deeper minds have delighted to trace, between the natural and the spiritual worlds, so that analogies from the first are felt to be something more than illustrations, happily but yet arbitrarily chosen . . . They belong to one another, the type and the thing typified, by an inward necessity; they were linked together long before by the law of a secret affinity.

It is the conviction that there is such a ‘secret affinity’ within God’s created order, shared by the biblical writers and many of their interpreters throughout the centuries, that lies at the root of the idea of typology. Some use typology cautiously, others extravagantly, but all base their use of typology on the conviction that there is a ‘secret affinity’ between the natural and spiritual orders, as well as between different events in the same order. Thus it was natural for those in biblical times to see analogies between • the tabernacle and the heavenly pattern shown to Moses (Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Heb. 8:5)

finds three basic meanings: a matrix or Vorbild that makes an impression, the impression or Nachbild that results, and a matrix that is simultaneously an impression (i.e. a combination of the first two meanings, a nachbildliches Vorbild ). The semantic range includes ‘mark, print’, ‘idol’, ‘pattern, mould’ and ‘text, form of expression’. He then analyses several New Testament passages in which the words are found, where he finds both horizontal (i.e. earthly/historical) and vertical (i.e. earth/heaven) typos structures (191–408). 11. Von Rad 1952; 1960: 364. Contrast Bultmann (1950b) who rejects typology because he considers it to be based on the idea of repetition. According to him this is derived from the cyclic view of history of the ancient Near East and classical Greece, whereas the Old Testament has a linear view of history, a history whose course is divinely directed and moves towards a definite conclusion. Von Rad (1952) disputes the validity of this view.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 177

22/12/09 12:35:23

178

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

• the life of Jesus or a Christian leader and the way Christians ought to live (1 Tim. 1:16; Phil. 3:17; 1 Pet. 5:3) • events in Israel’s history and events in the life of the church (1 Cor. 10:6, 11; 1 Pet. 3:21) • an idol and the spiritual reality it symbolizes (Amos 5:26; Acts 7:43) • the man who brought sin into the world and the man who took it away (Rom. 5:14) In each case the presupposition is that God acts consistently so that there are correspondences between different parts of his created order.12 Typology rests on the basic assumption that ‘the history of God’s people and of his dealings with them is a single continuous process in which a uniform pattern may be discerned’.13 c. Illustration So the relationship between the Testaments can be understood in terms of typology, on the basis of the biblical meaning of typos (example, pattern) and the consistency of God, which leads to analogies and correspondences within creation and history. Yet there is something even more basic about the idea of typology. It is the way in which almost any biblical text – Old Testament or New Testament – addresses us. Much of the Bible consists not of propositions but of stories, and these are relevant primarily in the sense of being typical.14 Old Testament characters such as Abraham and Sarah, Elijah and Elisha, were human beings like us (cf. Jas 5:17) and encountered the same God as we do. One of the main reasons their experiences were recorded was because they are typical of the sort of thing that happens to believers in God and therefore are still relevant today. At the end of John’s Gospel it is noted that ‘Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these

12. There are two main kinds of correspondence here: vertical (archetype and antitype, i.e. the relationship between heavenly and earthly realities) and horizontal (prototype and antitype, i.e. the relationship between earlier and later historical facts). In practice, however, the Bible is more interested in horizontal than vertical typology, as is most modern writing on the subject. On this distinction, see Hummel 1964: 39 and Fritsch 1966. On analogy and correspondence, see further Mildenberger 1964: 78–83 and Sauter 1965: 184–207. 13. Lampe 1953: 201; cf. G. J. Wenham 1987: 257–258. 14. See K. H. Miskotte 1963: 199–207; cf. 388–404.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 178

22/12/09 12:35:24

typology

179

are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah’ ( John 20:30–31). This implies that certain signs were recorded because they were typical. In chemistry a ‘type’ is a compound whose structure illustrates that of the group to which it belongs. Hydrochloric acid, for example, is a type of the acids. It is no more an acid than any other, but is typical because it shows clearly the essential nature of an acid in its structure (H-Cl). Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and acetic acid (CH3COOH) have the same basic structure, but it is not so clear. In a similar way John records certain signs because they illustrate one or more aspects of the gospel message especially well and thus can serve as types. This is one reason why so much is made of the affair between David and Bathsheba. There is no question of revelling in the sins of others. Rather the temptation, sin, attempt to conceal, rebuke, repentance, forgiveness, punishment and restoration are recorded because they are typical of what happens frequently in the life of a believer. Another example is Jonah, who is sometimes treated as a type for Christians, because like so many he was led from sin through despair to eventual salvation. He has also been seen as a type of Jesus, who bore the sins of the world, was brought to the point of feeling abandoned by God, and descended to the lowest state possible before being raised from death to life.15

7.3 The nature of typology a. Principles and definitions Two basic principles must be adhered to if typology is not to result in fanciful or trivial biblical interpretation.16 First, typology is historical. It is not concerned with words but with historical facts – events, people, institutions. It is not a method of philological or textual study, but a way of understanding history, on the basis of God’s direction of all history.17 It is based on the conviction that God is consistently active in the

15. On typology as the study of what is typical, see Röhr 1973; cf. Bozzo 1974. 16. Cf. Goppelt 1939: 17; L. Berkhof 1950: 145; Amsler 1952; Woollcombe 1957: 75. 17. It follows that typology does not imply any particular doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible (so Amsler 1952; but contrast S. N. Gundry 1969). The question arises whether Jonah or Job, for instance, must be historical in order to be typical.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 179

22/12/09 12:35:24

180

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

history of this world, especially the history of his chosen people, and that as a result events in this history tend to follow a consistent pattern. One event may therefore be chosen as typical of another, or of many others. Secondly, typology implies a real correspondence. It is not interested in parallels of detail, but only in agreement of fundamental principles and structure. There must be a correspondence in history and theology, or the parallel will be trivial and valueless for understanding the Bible. On the basis of these two principles, I suggest some working definitions: • A type is a biblical event, person or institution which serves as an example or pattern for other events, persons or institutions. • Typology is the study of types and the historical and theological correspondences between them. • The basis of typology is God’s consistent activity in the history of his chosen people. b. False ideas of typology On the basis of these definitions, several incorrect uses of the word ‘typology’ may be eliminated. Typology is not allegory The distinction between typology and allegory was formulated in 1762 by Gerhard: ‘Typology consists in the comparison of facts. Allegory is not concerned with the facts but with the words from which it draws out useful and hidden doctrine.’18 Modern scholars have generally accepted this distinction, laying stress on the historical nature of typology in contrast to the fanciful

Footnote 17 (cont.) According to R. M. Davidson (1981: 398), an Old Testament type ‘is assumed to be a historical reality as it is set forth in Scripture’. However, it may be suggested that – although typology is essentially historical – it is possible to have correspondences between an imaginary person and a real person. Even if such a type is somewhat artificial, it could still have educative value. There is an undoubted correspondence between Macbeth or Hamlet and real people, and the significance of these characters is not lessened by the fact that they are fictional. Likewise, whether or not they ever lived, there are real correspondences between the lives of Jonah and Job as portrayed in the biblical stories and those of Jews and Christians today. 18. Quoted by Goppelt (1939: 7).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 180

22/12/09 12:35:24

typology

181

nature of allegory, which often entirely ignores the historical situation.19 Typology requires a real correspondence between the events, persons and institutions in question, whereas allegory can find ‘spiritual’ significance in unimportant details or words. Typology is not prophecy Prophecy and typology are related, since both presuppose continuity and correspondence in history, but prophecy is prospective whereas typology is retrospective. Prophets speak words which may in due course be recognized as fulfilled, so there is a correspondence between prophecy and its fulfilment. However, typology reflects on events, persons and institutions previously recorded in the Bible, discerning relationships between them in the context of God’s wider creative and saving activity.20 Typology is not exegesis The essential meaning of a biblical text is its literal meaning, which was generally clear to the original reader and may be clarified for us by means of grammaticalhistorical study. This meaning might include reference to the typical significance of an event, person or institution, and in this case is likely to be clear in the text. So sound exegesis is a prerequisite for typology, but typology is not itself exegesis or interpretation of a text. Rather, it is theological reflection on relationships between events, persons and institutions recorded in biblical texts.21

19. A few scholars disagree: Barr (1966: 103–111) denies the validity of the distinction; P. K. Jewett (1954) thinks they are much the same thing; and J. Bright (1967: 79) points out that it is difficult to distinguish between the two in the Fathers. But they have not invalidated the fundamental distinction that typology is generally historical, whereas allegory tends to be fanciful (so Goppelt 1939: 5–18; Florovsky 1951; Lampe 1957; Lys 1967: 54–75; and many others). Goldingay (1990: 102–107) puts it slightly differently: typology studies events; allegory interprets words. 20. Eichrodt (1957: 229) explains the difference as follows: ‘While in prophecy the messenger of God proclaims the future which has been opened to him and seen by him, a type possesses its significance, pointing into the future, independently of any human medium and purely through its objective factual reality; and in many cases its function is still hidden for contemporary people and is disclosed only when the gaze is turned backward from the New Testament time of salvation.’ Cf. France 1971: 39–40. 21. Cf. France 1971: 41–42.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 181

22/12/09 12:35:24

182

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Typology is not a method or system An elaborate typological method was developed by the church Fathers, but in the Bible the typical approach is so unsystematic that it does not even have a fixed terminology. There is no exhaustive list of types and no developed method for their interpretation. On the contrary, there is great freedom and variety in the outworking of the basic principle that the Old Testament is a model for the New. c. Suggested characteristics of types Numerous attempts have been made to define the characteristics of types, many of which make the mistake of treating typology as a fixed system of interpretation rather than a basic approach to the Bible. It is suggested, for instance, that an essential characteristic of a type is that it is designed by God.22 At first sight this is plausible, perhaps even self-evident. However, Christian faith affirms that the whole Bible was designed by God. ‘If David could have been placed where he was, and been what he was, without God’s design, he would still have been typical. But, of course, without God’s intervention, neither he nor his dispensation could have come into existence.’23 Another suggestion is that the limits of typology should be defined by giving a series of standards to which a type must conform or by limiting types to those found in the New Testament.24 But although it is possible to describe what is meant by ‘typical’, it is arbitrary to limit its occurrence in the Bible by a set of rules. The New Testament gives guidelines, but does not give a definition nor an exhaustive list of types. Typology is not only concerned with certain parts of the Old Testament but with the whole Bible, so there are an unlimited number of possible types. It is not a matter of finding types in

22. Goppelt 1939: 18; Moorehead 1939. 23. A. B. Davidson 1903: 237. Cf. Calmet 1837: ‘Whether certain histories which happened in ancient times were designed as types of future events, it is not easy to determine: but observe, (1.) it is likely that such histories are recorded (being selected from among many occurrences) as might be useful lessons, &c. to succeeding ages. (2.) That there being a general conformity in the dispensations of providence and grace, to different persons, and in different ages, instances of former dispensations may usefully be held up to the view of later times, and may encourage, or may check, may direct, or may control, those placed in circumstances, &c. similar to what is recorded, though their times and their places may be widely separated. We have New Testament authority for this.’ 24. Moorehead 1939; Amsler 1952; G. E. Wright 1952: 66.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 182

22/12/09 12:35:24

typology

183

a fixed system. Rather, many events and persons may usefully serve as typical for one purpose or another. It is sometimes suggested that types are always concerned with Christ or with God’s redemptive activity.25 However, much of the Bible is concerned with God’s redemptive activity and thus with Christ! It is unsurprising that this is a dominant concern of types in the Bible. But the Bible is interested in creation and the kingdom of God as well as redemption, and these have typical aspects too. A further suggestion is that types prefigure something future.26 But this implies that they have some meaning other than that which is apparent at the time. It is only in retrospect that an event, person or institution may be seen to be typical. The existence of types necessitates there being other events, persons or institutions – earlier or later – of which they are typical. It is often suggested that there is a ‘progression’ or ‘heightening’ from the type to its antitype.27 However, this is simply an aspect of the progression from Old Testament to New Testament, not a necessary characteristic of a type. The essence of a type is that it is exemplary, and it is also possible for something more advanced to be typical of something less advanced. Moreover it is possible for one thing to be a type of its opposite. For example, the entry of sin into the world by the first Adam is typical of the entry of grace by the second (Rom. 5:14). d. Confusion with fanciful interpretation One of the basic problems is that typology has frequently been misunderstood, as though it were a fanciful kind of biblical interpretation. The word ‘typology’ has sometimes been used for what is really allegorical or symbolic exegesis. A few biblical texts were intended by their authors to be allegorical or symbolic, such as parts of Ezekiel and Revelation, and it would be a mistake to interpret them literally.28 However, such methods should be used with care and only where it is clear that a text was not intended to be understood in a more straightforward way. For example, there is no need for an allegorical approach to Genesis 37 – 50 that finds its real meaning to be prefiguration of Jesus. This text can be understood literally as an account of

25. 26. 27. 28.

Fritsch 1946–7: 220; Amsler 1952; Woollcombe 1957: 75. Moorehead 1939; L. Berkhof 1950: 145. A. B. Davidson 1903: 240; Goppelt 1939: 18, 199–202. Paul gives an allegorical interpretation of Hagar and Sarah in Gal. 4, but does not claim that this was the original or only possible meaning of the Genesis story.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 183

22/12/09 12:35:24

184

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

events which provide historical background for the exodus from Egypt. And if we want to reflect on its relevance for today, typology is more appropriate than allegory. For example, Joseph may be seen as a typical character whose life reveals certain basic principles of God’s activity that are also true for the life of Jesus and his followers. Perhaps the most common misuse of typology is to find correspondences in trivial details. Rahab’s scarlet cord has been said to be a type of the death of Jesus and Aaron’s rod a type of the cross (1 Clement 12; Justin, Dialogue 86), but there is no historical or theological correspondence between these things. There is a consistency in God’s created order which makes it possible for there to be red or wooden objects in both Old and New Testaments; but that does not mean that these things have any typical or exemplary importance for the Christian! The twenty-first-century church should not imitate such exegetical methods, even though we have reason to be grateful to the allegorical school in the early church whose efforts were largely responsible for preserving the Old Testament for Christianity.29 However, the fact that typology has been confused with allegorical and symbolic exegesis, and applied to trivial correspondences, does not invalidate it as a principle if properly used. e. The ‘fuller meaning’ During the second part of the twentieth-century, encouraged particularly by the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu of Pius XII (1943), a deep interest in the interpretation and theology of the Bible grew in the Roman Catholic Church.30 An important aspect of this was the concept of a ‘fuller meaning’ (sensus plenior).31 Raymond Brown (1968) defines it as ‘the deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, that is seen to exist in the words of Scripture when they are studied in the light of further revelation or of development in the understanding of revelation’. In connection with the relationship

29. Cf. Grant & Tracy 1984: ch. 5. 30. For the text of the encyclical, see Megivern 1978: 316–342. On Roman Catholic biblical interpretation since 1943, see J. L. McKenzie 1964; H. H. Miskotte 1966; Scharleman 1972; Lambrecht 2005; Kowalski 2005; Dickens 2006. The documents of the Second Vatican Council also contain an important statement on biblical interpretation: Dei Verbum (1965); see Flannery 1975: 750–765; cf. F. Martin 2004. In 1993 the Pontifical Biblical Commission published a further document entitled ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church’ (see Béchard 2002; cf. P. S. Williamson 2003). 31. The idea was introduced by Fernández (1927: 306) but widely used only after the Second World War.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 184

22/12/09 12:35:24

typology

185

between the Testaments, this implies that the Old Testament has a deeper meaning of which the human authors were unaware but which becomes clear in the light of the New Testament. In the pages of the Old Testament, God so directed the human author’s choice of language that future generations should see there ‘the mystery of Christ’ . . . This choice of language, the secret of which is revealed in the New Testament, shows in a very clear manner the unity of the two Testaments.32

The fuller meaning should not be confused with the ‘spiritual meaning’ (sensus spiritualis), which is essentially a mystical idea based on the interpretation of the Fathers.33 It should also be distinguished from typology. For example, the fuller meaning of an Old Testament text may include reference to Christ and this would be considered part of the ‘real’ meaning of the text, even though the author was unaware of it. Typology, in contrast, does not claim to elucidate the meaning of a text, but cites it to point to an example or pattern (‘type’) of God’s activity in the history of his people. The author may well have been aware of this; indeed in some cases it was precisely the reason he wrote the text. f. Types and paradigms This understanding of typology may be compared with the exposition of the exodus as a paradigm (example, pattern) of God’s saving activity in liberation theology.34 Typical interpretation of the exodus is not new, of course, for it is found in both Old and New Testaments.35 Similar ideas are expressed in hymns such as ‘Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah’ and the classic Negro spiritual ‘Let my People Go!’, the former referring to spiritual and the latter to political salvation. In liberation theology the exodus is understood as ‘the prototype of divine revelation, the privileged moment in which God once manifested himself and now continues to do the same’ and ‘a liberative

32. Sutcliffe 1953: 343. The theory of the ‘fuller meaning’ generated a vast quantity of literature and only a few basic works can be mentioned here: Coppens 1949; 1958; Sutcliffe 1953; R. E. Brown 1953; 1955; 1968. Some Catholic scholars rejected the idea of a fuller meaning (e.g. Vawter 1964), while some Protestants accepted it. See also Amsler 1960a: 183–186; J. M. Robinson 1965; W. J. Harrington 1973: 293–304; LaSor 1978; Moo 1986; Reventlow 1983: 37–47. 33. E.g. de Lubac 1950. 34. E.g. Gutiérrez 1971: 159; cf. Kirk 1979: 99–104. 35. Cf. B. W. Anderson 1962; Daube 1963; Nixon 1963.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 185

22/12/09 12:35:24

186

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

revolution . . . a socially subversive act comparable to slave rebellions or other struggles of oppressed peoples against imperialism’ (Fierro 1977: 474). The emphasis has often been on social justice and political liberation rather than spiritual experience and freedom from sin, though these are not completely overlooked.36 Such an interpretation of the exodus as the archetypal event of salvation history gives it paradigmatic rather than normative significance. Thus Fierro argues that its relevance today is not to tell Christians what they must do but to give an example (model, paradigm) of what they might do. Indeed: The same holds true for other facts and events in the Bible. They are not normative; they are sources of inspiration and liberation. They give rise to a possibility, not to a necessary obligation. In presenting certain actions performed by our forefathers in the faith as an integral part of history in which God is a participant, the biblical account authorizes us to take analogous action on the basis of our faith. (1977: 478–479)

It follows that the function of types and paradigms is not to establish doctrine or ethics, but to suggest possibilities and inspire action. This is consistent with the pragmatic nature of liberation theology, which is more concerned with praxis than dogma.37 However, paradigmatic interpretation of the Old Testament is not limited to liberation theology. For example, Paul Hanson (1978: 86–87) describes the exodus and the life of Jesus as paradigmatic events that form the nucleus of the confessional heritage of the Christian community of faith.38 And Christopher Wright (1984) proposes a paradigmatic approach to use of the Bible in social ethics, explaining that a paradigm is a particular case which functions as a model or example to explain a general principle. In the study of languages, a paradigm refers to a pattern verb learnt not in order to imitate the verb but to apply the pattern. So also the laws and institutions of Old Testament Israel are paradigmatic. They are not simply to be imitated but provide a pattern that enables those who live in a quite different society to think and behave in a way consistent with the principles of the Old Testament. Wright argues that paradigmatic application protects us from two opposite dangers: literal imita-

36. Cf. Branson & Padilla 1983: 163, 173–174; Yewangoe 1987: 296–304. 37. See above: 2.7.c. 38. Cf. Janzen 1994: 187–216.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 186

22/12/09 12:35:24

typology

187

tion of Israel, and limiting the validity of Old Testament laws and institutions to historical Israel so that they are irrelevant today. These paradigmatic approaches to biblical interpretation are based on the principle of God’s consistent activity in salvation history, extending the biblical idea of typology into the modern-day realms of politics and ethics. g. A relationship of analogy I have argued that typology is the study of historical and theological correspondences between different parts of God’s activity among his people, not a method of exegesis. It does not give a procedure for using the Old and New Testaments, but points to the consistent working of God in the experience of his people and looks for what is typical there. Thus parallels may be drawn between different events, persons and institutions, and individual events may be seen as examples or patterns for others. Often the narrator has recorded only a bare event, but in this very lack of interpretation it may have typical, and thus theological, significance.39 Typology cannot be used for exegesis, because its concern is not primarily with the words of the text but with the events recorded in it. The exegete uses grammatical-historical study to discover the meaning of a text and its witness to an event. To relate that event to other events recorded in the Bible is the task of the biblical theologian and historian; and to relate it to modern experience is the task of the preacher. For these typology has its value, so long as it is used judiciously and in accordance with the principles outlined above. The contribution of typology to understanding the relationship between the Testaments is to point to the fundamental analogy between different parts of the Bible. Every part of the Bible reflects the consistent activity of the one God. This means that the Old Testament illuminates the New and the New Testament illuminates the Old. The relationship between the Testaments consists not only of Old Testament expectation of the New and New Testament quotation of the Old, but there is also a fundamental analogy between the Old and New Testaments as witnesses to God’s activity in history. Thus typology, though not a method of exegesis, can supplement exegesis by providing comparisons to throw further light on the meaning of specific texts. The discipline most closely related to Old Testament study is therefore study of the New Testament. Ancient Oriental and Jewish studies clarify details of the Old Testament but lack the intrinsic analogy between Old

39. Von Rad 1952.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 187

22/12/09 12:35:24

188

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

and New Testament studies. The corollary is that the discipline most closely related to study of the New Testament is that of the Old Testament. While Jewish and Hellenistic studies are also important, they do not have a fundamental analogy to New Testament studies in the way that studies of the Old Testament do. This shows a double aspect to the relationship between the Testaments: • Correct understanding and use of the Old Testament depends on the New Testament. • The Old Testament provides the basis for correct understanding and use of the New Testament. It follows that typology is an aid to interpretation of the Bible in the Christian church. As shown above, the essence of the biblical concept of ‘type’ is ‘example’ or ‘pattern’. One of the primary values of the Bible for Christians is that it gives examples and patterns of the experiences of men and women with God, which correspond to experiences of modern men and women. Events, persons and institutions present types for the Christian life. For example: • The flood (cf. 1 Pet. 3:20–21), oppression and exodus (cf. 1 Cor. 10), and exile and restoration (cf. Jer. 23:7–8) are typical of God’s saving activity among his people, and thus patterns of the salvation Christians experience in Christ. • Noah and Job (cf. Ezek. 14:14, 20), Moses (cf. Heb. 3:2) and David (cf. 1 Kgs 3:14; 15:3, 11) are examples of how believers should live. • Balaam (cf. 2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14) and Jeroboam (cf. 1 Kgs 15:26, 34; 16:2–3, 19, 26, 31), in contrast, are examples of how they should not live. These examples could easily be multiplied (cf. Heb. 11). There is also a correspondence between Israelite and Christian institutions, for example between Passover and Lord’s Supper, between Old Testament psalms and New Testament hymns. Old Testament material realities sometimes find spiritual applications in the New, as when temple and church are conceived as divine dwelling places (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16). Sacrifices and offerings in the Old Testament correspond to the ‘living sacrifice’ of Romans 12:1. All these examples – and many others that could be given – apply to Christians. Most of them apply also and especially to Jesus, which is why typology is often thought to be concerned with types of Christ. However, more important is that Jesus Christ himself is the supreme example and

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 188

22/12/09 12:35:24

typology

189

pattern (Matt. 11:29; John 13:15; Phil. 2:5; 1 Pet. 2:21). Perhaps the concern of typology should therefore be not so much to look for types of Christ as to understand Jesus himself as the perfect type for Christians and the world.40

40. For further discussion of typology, in addition to the works discussed and cited above, see Daniélou 1950; Ellison 1953b; P. K. Jewett 1954; Wolff 1956b; 1960; Marcus 1957; Verhoef 1962; Goulder 1964; J. E. Wood 1968; J. Smith 1969; J. A. Sanders 1974; Wifall 1974; Drane 1978; S. L. Johnson 1980; P. J. Cahill 1982; Frye 1982; Hartley 1982; Burns 1983; Reventlow 1983: 14–37; Budic 1986; Grogan 1986; Sharp 1986; Aageson 1987; Buchanan 1987; Karlberg 1988; Ellis 1991: 139–157; Fabiny 1992; C. J. H. Wright 1992: 107–116; Allison 1993; Currid 1994; Hugenberger 1994; Legarth 1996; Glenny 1997; Dietrich 2000; Ninow 2001; Beckett 2002; S. B. Chapman 2008.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 189

22/12/09 12:35:24

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 190

22/12/09 12:35:24

8 . P ROM ISE AND FULFILMENT

8.1 Prediction, prophecy, promise The Old Testament looks forward to a future that Christians believe has become present in the New Testament.1 The way the Old Testament looks forward is expressed in various ways, and three key terms are ‘prediction’, ‘prophecy’ and ‘promise’. I begin by looking at the way these terms have been used in the writings of several British and German theologians. a. Three British scholars B. F. Westcott Westcott (1889) approaches the matter from the perspective of the letter to the Hebrews. God’s purpose for human beings is entry into the divine rest, he writes, but this is never completely achieved in the Old Testament: Each promise fulfilled brings the sense of a larger promise. The promises connected with the possession of Canaan (for example) quickened a hope of far greater

1. On which, see above: ch. 1.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 191

22/12/09 12:35:24

192

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

blessings than the actual possession gave . . . and . . . there remaineth a Sabbath-rest for the people of God (Hebr. iv. 9). (482; italics original) The teaching of the Old Testament as a whole is a perpetual looking forward. (485)

The accomplishment of God’s purpose requires long preparation by discipline, to foster natural moral growth to maturity and to right the wrongs caused by the fall. This is seen in the intimately related revelations of the two Testaments, preparatory in the Old and final in the New. Next, Westcott discusses the work of the messianic nation and the personal Messiah as interpreted by Hebrews, concluding: The Old Testament does not simply contain prophecies, but is one vast prophecy, in the record of national fortunes, in the ordinances of a national Law, in the expression of a national hope. Israel . . . is a unique enigma . . . of which Christ is the complete solution. (491)

Finally, Westcott considers the application of the interpretative principles of Hebrews in the church. He shows that the Old Testament is an indispensable part of the Bible. It still has moral and social lessons to teach, but above all records the history of Judaism as a type of God’s action in history. This was fulfilled in Christ, but even in the Christian era it points to the future: Our highest joy is to recognise the divine law that each fulfilment opens a vision of something yet beyond. The Wilderness, Jordan, Canaan, necessarily take a new meaning as the experience of man extends . . . as yet we do not see the end. (495)

C. H. Dodd Dodd agrees with Westcott that the Old Testament is not final.2 The prophets believe that God is at work in Israel’s history, revealing his purpose there, though this purpose is not completely revealed in the Old Testament. Many questions are raised but left unanswered, such as the relationship between nationalism and universalism, righteousness and grace, divine justice and the human situation. The Old Testament is a process, not a completed whole, and is pervaded by a sense of inconclusiveness. This process is set in the context of a history that moves forward, but whose goal is not seen clearly within the

2. Dodd 1928: 182–183, 195–196, 261; 1938: 24–26; 1951a: 26; 1951b: 158; 1971: 82–84.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 192

22/12/09 12:35:24

promise and fulfilment

193

Old Testament since there are different strands pointing forward in different directions which are not yet resolved. Now that the goal has been reached, it is possible to look back and see that the Old Testament was really looking forward to the centre of history – the cross and resurrection of Christ (1951b: 160). The New Testament – in contrast to the Old Testament – is final, or at least it inaugurates the finale of history.3 It announces that the time is fulfilled and the expected event has taken place. The coming, death and resurrection of Christ bring to a conclusion the whole complex drama of judgment and redemption that made up the history of Israel. God has established a new covenant, which does not simply supplement, amend or supersede the old covenant but is its fulfilment. The New Testament writers assert that the climactic event of history anticipated by prophecy and apocalyptic has been realized in Jesus Christ. This leads Dodd to describe the ministry of Jesus, in a phrase that has become famous, as ‘realized eschatology’.4 H. H. Rowley As New Testament scholars, Westcott and Dodd were primarily concerned with New Testament perspectives on the relationship between the Testaments, whereas Rowley approached the problem from the point of view of the Old Testament. One of his key ideas is ‘prophecy and fulfilment’, and a vital part of prophecy is prediction (1945: 203–206). Some predictions are neither intended nor expected to be fulfilled literally (e.g. Isa. 40:4), some are not fulfilled because they provoke a change of heart (e.g. Jon. 3), and for some the fulfilment is delayed or different from what is expected (e.g. Jer. 4:23–28; 51:28–29). Nevertheless the essence of prediction is that it expects the fulfilment of what is predicted. According to the New Testament, this fulfilment has occurred supremely in Jesus Christ. Jesus applies the term ‘Son of man’ to himself and accepts the title ‘Christ’ from his followers, so linking himself directly with Old Testament hopes for the future (1945: 210; cf. 260–284). Sometimes prophecies that do not refer directly to Jesus, such as the Immanuel oracle, are ‘taken up and filled with new meaning in Him’ (207). Others, such as the Servant Songs, ‘so deeply influenced our Lord that he entered into their spirit,

3. Dodd 1928: 194–211; 1935: 148; 1936: 13, 21, 43, 47, 52–53, 69–70; 1938: 26, 96–101; 1946a: 10, 74–75, 151; 1946b: 129; 1951b: 158; 1952: 72, 88, 102–103, 129–130. 4. On which, see below: 8.3.d.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 193

22/12/09 12:35:24

194

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

and so embodied their mission and message in Himself, and became their fulfilment’ (208). Thus in Jesus Christ ‘the hopes of the prophets were not so much realized as transmuted, and given a higher realization than their authors dreamed’ (211). However, there is more to be said than that Jesus fulfils the predictions and prophecies of the Old Testament. Rowley concludes: • ‘the Old Testament constantly points to something beyond itself ’ (1949: 17); it ‘looks forward to something which should follow it’ (1953: 94). • The New Testament looks back to the Old Testament, offering the answer to its expectation, the response to its faith and hope, and the fulfilment of its promise (1949: 17, 28; 1953: 106, 117). The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New, even though fulfilment is incomplete and awaits consummation in the more distant future (1953: 109–110). Not only does the New Testament discharge the promises of the Old; it takes up the mission and message of the former covenant and makes them its own. Israel was called to be a light to the nations, and Jesus Christ as the Suffering Servant takes this task upon himself ( John 8:12) and passes it on to his followers (Matt. 5:14).5 b. Three German scholars Emil Brunner During the period of the German Church struggle, Brunner persistently maintained that the church stands or falls with the Old Testament, just as it stands or falls with Jesus Christ, since without the Old Testament there is no Jesus Christ (1934: 7). The Old Testament is a beginning and the New Testament its completion (1930: 263). Revelation is promise in the old covenant and fulfilment in the new (1941: 81–118). Walther Eichrodt In the same decade, Eichrodt concluded the first volume of his classic Theology of the Old Testament with a section on ‘Prediction and fulfilment’ (1933: 501–511). He pronounces dead the old view that the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament gave a complete picture of Christ before

5. So Rowley 1945: 215; cf. 1939: 89–94.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 194

22/12/09 12:35:24

promise and fulfilment

195

he came and thus prove the truth of the New Testament gospel. Old Testament predictions arise in and are primarily directed towards specific historical situations, and are not necessarily significant for other periods of history. Nevertheless Old Testament eschatological thought does focus on the future of God’s sovereignty. The decisive factor in Israel’s hope is not supplying material needs nor attaining political aims, but establishing the kingdom of God. It is this essential hope of the realization of God’s sovereignty that is the key to recognizing the New Testament as the fulfilment of Old Testament prediction. Thus Jesus’ saving work is not to be understood mechanically as the working out of Old Testament predictions, as though it were the logical solution to a problem. Rather it should be understood organically as ‘the unfolding and unveiling of a mystery of Creation subject to the divine omnipotence, as a sovereign act of re-shaping, which only now fully brings to light the will of God concealed in prophecy, and is related to all prediction as clear knowledge is related to stammering presentiment’ (510; italics original). Friedrich Baumgärtel Baumgärtel (1952: 16–27) argues that the Old Testament has its own understanding of promise, which it expresses by terms such as ‘word’, ‘mercy’, ‘statute’, ‘covenant’, ‘speak’ and ‘swear’.6 He finds three groups of promises in the Old Testament: • pledges which are affirmed to have been realized in historical facts • promises attached by God to the law, whose realization is dependent on keeping the law • prophetic promises, whose realization is tied to the realization of future historical events He then distinguishes promise from prediction (28–36).7 Prediction, he argues, stems from the basic promise ‘I am the Lord your God’, and its fulfilment is closely linked with realization of the promise. It is communicated by prophecy and apocalyptic, though – unlike soothsaying – not concerned with detailed knowledge about the future but with God’s completion of the whole event. Baumgärtel defines the essential difference between promise and prediction by a series of contrasts (see table below).

6. See also above: 3.3.b. 7. Cf. Westermann 1955: 128–132.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 195

22/12/09 12:35:24

196

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e Promise

Prediction

1. Absolute divine pledge 2. Event 3. Realization of communion with God 4. Conditional: received by faith

Conditioned human witness Word Announcement of future event Unconditional: God acts in spite of man Not always open, dependent on prophets To be established by fulfilment, so that its accuracy may be recognized

5. Always open to the eye of faith 6. To be believed, because authenticated as true

Prediction is important to New Testament writers, who cite Old Testament texts directly with reference to current events and use predictions to show Jesus as the Christ (71–86). However, Baumgärtel (like Bultmann) does not consider such procedures to be possible or relevant today. He argues that the New Testament also understands the Old Testament message as a witness to God’s promise. This is over the old covenant and has come true in the promise in Christ, and it is this that is relevant for Christian faith. Christian existence is not based on scholarly insight into historical processes (prediction), but on the absolute unbreakable pledge of God. Thus Christian interpretation conceives the Old Testament word as promise and incorporates it into the promise in Christ.8 c. The Biblischer Kommentar group The forward-looking nature of the Old Testament is consistently emphasized by the scholars involved in the Biblischer Kommentar.9 Zimmerli (1952) points out that ‘promise and fulfilment’ is New Testament language, and discusses whether or not it corresponds to genuine Old Testament ideas. After considering evidence in the Pentateuch, prophets and elsewhere he concludes that in the whole Old Testament ‘we find ourselves involved in a great history of movement from promise toward fulfillment’

8. Bultmann (1949b) discusses the understanding of prophecy as prediction (in the manner of the New Testament) and as history (as proposed by von Hofmann, 1841–4) and rejects both. His proposal to understand it as the promise that arises from the miscarriage of Old Testament history is analysed and criticized above (3.1.b, 3.2.d). 9. On which, see above: 2.7.b.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 196

22/12/09 12:35:24

promise and fulfilment

197

(111–112). The promises are to be understood in their historical context for they are ‘bound inseparably to history’ (96) and ‘anyone who knows of promise and fulfillment is responsible to a yesterday about which he has heard something, and he walks toward a tomorrow’ (97). Within the Old Testament, fulfilments are always incomplete and continually raise the question of deeper fulfilment in the future, whereas in the New Testament a definitive fulfilment is attested in the person of Christ, who is both the end and consummation of the Old Testament. Von Rad takes these ideas further. He does not dispute the importance of prophecy, nor deny its predictive element, but like Zimmerli prefers the concept of ‘promise’ because it embraces more readily the historical traditions of the Old Testament as well as the prophetic traditions: • The Hexateuch is spanned by a ‘massive arch leading from promise to fulfilment’ (1957: 170). • The Deuteronomic history presents a course of history ‘determined by a whole pattern of corresponding prophetic promises and divine fulfillments’ (1952: 27; cf. 1947: 74–91). • The several Old Testament historical works are united in their understanding of history as ‘a continuum of events determined by Jahweh’s promise, which flows forward to the fulfilment intended by him’ (1963: 426–427). • The Old Testament as a whole is to be seen as ‘the ceaseless saving movement of promise and fulfilment’ (1960: viii). Von Rad shows that this pattern of promise and fulfilment found in the Old Testament is also an aspect of its relationship to the New. The Old Testament is oriented to the future and ‘can only be read as a book in which the expectation keeps mounting up to vast proportions’ (1960: 321). And the New Testament is concerned not only with the newness of the Christ-event but also with the way in which it fulfilled promises and predictions of the Old (1960: 328–335). A third member of the Biblischer Kommentar group who has written on promise and fulfilment is Westermann (1964).10 To understand promise and

10. Westermann (1955) also refers to promise and fulfilment in a critique of the theses of Bultmann and Baumgärtel, where he expresses dissatisfaction with their treatment of these concepts. See further his studies on the patriarchal narratives (1976).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 197

22/12/09 12:35:24

198

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

fulfilment, he argues, it is necessary to start by examining the Old Testament words and events themselves in the context of salvation history. He distinguishes three kinds of promise in the Old Testament: • assurance of salvation, which in the perfect tense ‘announces something coming in such a way as to assure that with God it had already happened’ (1964: 203–204; e.g. Exod. 3:7–8; Isa. 43:1) • announcement of salvation, which in the future tense declares that God will intervene in the history of his people (e.g. Isa. 8:1–4; 43:2) • portrayal of salvation, which depicts the contrast between present distress and the transcendent reality of salvation (e.g. Isa. 11:1–10) These promises are made in three realms: to the people of God, to individuals and to the world. They have a history as they are transmitted in the life and worship of Israel, providing a constant source of encouragement to the faithful. There are also the messianic promises (all of which are based on Nathan’s promise to David in 2 Sam. 7) and the promises of suffering (e.g. Jer. 1:18–19; Servant Songs). The climax of the promises, however, is to be found in the oracles announcing a divine event that will bring about renewal of the covenant ( Jer. 31:31–34), revival of the people of God (Ezek. 37) and offer salvation to the Gentiles (Isa. 45:20–24). So Westermann concludes that the Old Testament presents a ‘way’ of promise, and the coming and work of Christ is a fulfilment of that entire way of promise. It follows that the essence of the relationship between the Testaments is not in New Testament quotations of the Old, but in the crucial event reported in the New Testament that fulfils the promises of the Old. d. Consensus achieved By the early 1960s the understanding of the Old Testament as ‘promise’ had become widely accepted in both Protestant and Catholic biblical scholarship, on both sides of the Atlantic, and the ideas of ‘prediction’ and ‘prophecy’ faded into the background. A clear statement of this consensus is given by Smart (1961: 80–85, 101– 115). He points out that the Old Testament was essential to the early church because it understood the gospel to be the fulfilment of God’s purpose revealed in the Old Testament. Jesus began his preaching with the announcement that ‘The time is fulfilled’ (Mark 1:15; cf. Luke 4:21; Matt. 5:17), and as he died on the cross he prayed in the words of an Old Testament psalm (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; cf. Ps. 22:1). New Testament writers frequently quote Old Testament promises of those events that have brought the church into being.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 198

22/12/09 12:35:25

promise and fulfilment

199

Promise–fulfilment is a basic biblical category that expresses God’s plan for his people as it is worked out in history. ‘What God promises he fulfils, and, because the fulfilment is only partial, it contains within it an unfulfilled promise that points forward to a new fulfilment’ (Smart 1961: 102). So the pattern of promise and fulfilment unites the two Testaments in the conviction that the Old Testament promises of salvation and kingdom, new covenant and new creation, have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). Many other writers agree that promise (and fulfilment) is a key theme in the Old Testament and particularly in its relationship to the New Testament, for example: the Dutch Reformed theologian Berkouwer, the German systematic theologian Pannenberg, the Swiss Old Testament scholar Amsler and the American Roman Catholic scholar Murphy.11 According to Porteous (1954: 168), Christians believe ‘that the Old Testament and the New Testament correspond to each other as promise to fulfilment’. Likewise Bruce (1955: 4) states that ‘the specifically Christian approach to the Old Testament . . . sees the relation of the Old Testament to the New as that of promise to fulfilment’. For Moltmann (1964: 102–112), God’s word of promise and the future fulfilment it implies is a key to understanding Israel’s ‘religion of expectation’ and so the Christian ‘theology of hope’. McKenzie devalues salvation history and typology as expressions of the relationship between the Testaments but nevertheless affirms the importance of promise and fulfilment; while Kaiser structures his whole exposition of biblical theology around the theme of ‘promise’.12 e. Definitions To sum up this survey of scholarship, it may be helpful to define the three key terms: prediction, prophecy and promise. The term ‘prediction’ refers to the foretelling of specific future events. There are predictions in the Old Testament, and some of them are quoted in the New Testament as fulfilled in the coming of Jesus Christ.13 However, it should be noted:

11. Berkouwer 1952: 113–152; Pannenberg 1959; Amsler 1960a: 122–134; Murphy 1964. 12. J. L. McKenzie 1964; 1968: 766–767; 1974: 28, 139–144, 324–325; Kaiser 1998; 2008. See also H. Gross 1959; Achtemeier & Achtemeier 1962; Larcher 1962: esp. 399– 488; Sauter 1965: 251–262; Schniewind 1966; McCurley 1970; Reventlow 1983: 47–54. 13. Cf. Barr 1966: 118–126; France 1971: 83–163; Jensen 1988; Robertson 2004: 407–451.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 199

22/12/09 12:35:25

200

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

• The Old Testament consists of much more than predictions, and the New Testament often quotes Old Testament texts that are not predictions, for example to establish points of theology and ethics. • Old Testament predictions are not all fulfilled in the New Testament, because some are fulfilled in the Old Testament itself, some still await fulfilment after the New Testament and some will never be fulfilled (because they are conditional and the conditions are not met). • The Old Testament does not predict all of the New Testament, since some aspects of the coming of Christ are quite unexpected. So, although there is an element of ‘prediction and fulfilment’ in the relationship between the Testaments, this is only part of the truth. The term ‘prophecy’ is much broader than prediction, and is sometimes distinguished from it by describing it as ‘forth-telling’ rather than ‘foretelling’. Prophecy is the receiving and passing on of a divine message, and the Old Testament prophets are characterized by their call from God and message for the people. Their messages include predictions and also other kinds of sayings. They address individuals, communities and nations with the words of God to remind them of the past, challenge them about the present and prepare them for the future. In the New Testament, Jesus is presented as the expected prophet (Acts 3:22), whose message of salvation is the fulfilment of the hopes and longings of many centuries. But he is also presented as judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42), wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24), great high priest (Heb. 4:14–16) and King of kings (Rev. 19:16), to mention only a few of the ways in which he fulfils Old Testament leadership roles. The New Testament not only fulfils Old Testament prophecy; it fulfils the whole Old Testament, including the law, history, psalms and wisdom literature. The term ‘promise’ refers to a [divine] assurance of something to be done or not done in the future, which may be expressed in a formal announcement or agreement, or implied in an action or attitude. It includes specific predictions of the future and also more general prophecies that have implications fully worked out only in the New Testament. It also includes instructions, commands, assurances, warnings and other sayings that are incomplete or unsatisfying in the Old Testament, but taken up and developed in a fuller and more satisfying way in the New Testament. Moreover the concept of promise may also include events that have an implicit forward reference, even if not accompanied by explicit interpretative words, as we speak of a ‘person of great promise’ or a ‘promising beginning’. So there are many

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 200

22/12/09 12:35:25

promise and fulfilment

201

promises in the Old Testament: explicit and implicit, specific and general, positive and negative, words and events. All are aspects of the movement of history, according to God’s plan, towards his intended conclusion (‘salvation history’).14 To sum up, the term ‘promise’ expresses a major aspect of the Old Testament in its relationship to the New, and is more comprehensive than the alternatives: ‘prediction’ and ‘prophecy’.15

14. A more rigorous definition of promise is provided by the sevenfold statement of Moltmann 1964: 102–106: ‘(a) A promise is a declaration which announces the coming of a reality that does not yet exist . . . (b) The promise binds man to the future and gives him a sense for history . . . (c) The history which is initiated and determined by promise does not consist in cyclic recurrence, but has a definite trend towards the promised and outstanding fulfilment . . . (d) If the word is a word of promise, then that means that this word has not yet found a reality congruous with it, but that on the contrary it stands in contradiction to the reality open to experience now and heretofore . . . (e) The word of promise therefore always creates an interval of tension between the uttering and the redeeming of the promise . . . (f) If the promise is not regarded abstractly apart from the God who promises, but its fulfilment is entrusted directly to God in his freedom and faithfulness, then . . . the fulfilments can very well contain an element of newness and surprise over against the promise as it was received . . . (g) The peculiar character of the Old Testament promises can be seen in the fact that the promises were not liquidated by the history of Israel – neither by disappointment nor by fulfilment – but that on the contrary Israel’s experience of history gave them a constantly new and wider interpretation . . .’ On the basis of Moltmann’s statement, Clines (1978: 111–118) clarifies further the definition of promise in the Old Testament, pointing out that promise is more than hope. Hope is the kernel of human existence, but the divine promise transcends even that as the word of the God who initiates and sustains the history of his people. Whereas hope is ‘realistic’ and envisages possibilities inherent in the real world as it is presently known, promise envisages possibilities that are only possible to the God of the promise. 15. A rereading of the writings of Westcott and Eichrodt shows that – although they used the terms ‘prophecy’ and ‘prediction’ respectively – they were also expressing the same basic conviction that the whole Old Testament looks forward to the future and finds its fulfilment in the New Testament.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 201

22/12/09 12:35:25

202

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

8.2 Promise in the Old Testament Let us now look in greater detail at the promises of the Old Testament, in the light of the theological discussion of promise above.16 a. Terminology No word in the Hebrew Old Testament corresponds exactly to the English word ‘promise’. The concept is certainly there, but is expressed by such words as ’āmar (say) and dābār (word). A general picture may be obtained by an analysis of the use of the word ‘promise’ in the English Old Testament:17 • • • • •

37 times concerning God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 19 times concerning God’s promise to David 12 times concerning other promises of God 16 times concerning God’s promises in general 9 times concerning human promises

The New Testament takes up this concept of promise and expresses it by the word epangelia. It is used both for Old Testament promises and for new promises given in Jesus Christ: • • • •

35 times concerning God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 12 times concerning other promises of God in the Old Testament 16 times concerning new promises of God 5 times concerning human promises

Although statistics of word usage do not necessarily prove the importance of concepts in the life and thought of a people, these figures show that when biblical writers wrote of ‘promise’ they were very often referring to God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As will become clear below, this

16. The following study is particularly indebted to the researches of Zimmerli (1952), Clines (1978: 29–60) and van Roo (1986: 55–73). On the promise of land, see further W. D. Davies 1974: 15–48; Johnston & Walker 2000; Brueg gemann 2002; on blessing, see Westermann 1968a; on the ancestral narratives, see Premsagar 1974. For a rather different exposition, focusing on four elements of God’s purpose (salvation, covenant, knowledge of God, land), see Martens 1994. 17. This analysis was done on the basis of the rsv.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 202

22/12/09 12:35:25

promise and fulfilment

203

promise is the basic biblical promise, and other promises were expansions or reinterpretations of this basic promise. b. The basic promise The key text for understanding promise in the Old Testament is the call of Abraham: Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ (Gen. 12:1–3)

God’s call includes three main elements of promise, which are repeated, expanded and expounded throughout the whole Pentateuch (e.g. Gen. 12:7; 13:14–17; 15; 17):18 • land (‘the land that I will show you’) • descendants (‘a great nation’) • relationship with God (‘blessing’) The major emphasis in the remainder of Genesis is the promise of descendants for Abraham, a promise of something most unlikely in human terms (Gen. 11:30; 12:4; 16:1; 17:1; 18:11) and yet kept (Gen. 21:1–2). One of history’s greatest dramas then takes place as it seems God is about to retract the promise and its fulfilment (Gen. 22). Abraham’s other wives and concubines bear him many children (Gen. 25:1–18), but only Sarah’s son Isaac is counted as the child of the promise (vv. 5, 11, 19). The threefold promise is repeated to Isaac (Gen. 26:2–5, 24) and his son Jacob (Gen. 28:13–15), both of whom have wives who are barren until God’s time to fulfil his promise of descendants (Gen. 25:20–21; 29:31; 30:1, 22–24). The barrenness of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel is significant because it makes clear that the fulfilment of the promise – if it is to be fulfilled at all, which at many stages of the story seems improbable – is in divine, not human, hands. Many other problems occur which threaten the fulfilment of the promise, such as the three-times repeated

18. G. J. Wenham (2000: 21–22) treats the blessing to the nations separately, making four elements; while McComiskey (1985: 15–58) distinguishes eight separate elements.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 203

22/12/09 12:35:25

204

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

endangering of the ancestress (Gen. 12; 20; 26). By the end of Genesis, Abraham’s descendants have become a family of seventy people (Gen. 46:27). But it is not until the time of the exodus, several hundred years later, that they can be described as a great nation (Exod. 1:7, 9, 12, 20; cf. Gen. 47:27). In Exodus and Leviticus the emphasis shifts to the relationship element of the basic promise, though the promise of the land is never far in the background (Exod. 3:8; 12:25; 33:1–3). The special relationship between Abraham’s descendants and God is already clear in Genesis, being described in terms of blessing (Gen. 12:3; 22:17), covenant (Gen. 15; 17) and God’s presence with his people (Gen. 26:3; 28:15; 31:5). Its meaning becomes clearer still in the two focal events of the books that follow: Israel’s exodus from Egypt and God’s revelation at Sinai. In the crisis that precedes the exodus, Israel is consistently depicted as the people of God (Exod. 3:7, 10; 6:7; 7:4, 16) who are to be freed from Egyptian bondage in order to serve him (Exod. 7:16; 8:1, 20; 10:24–26). And it is pre-eminently in the exodus itself that God’s promise to be with his people is seen to be a reality (Exod. 13:17–18, 21; 14:13–14; 15:1–2). On the basis of this event, God confirms his relationship with Israel at Sinai: ‘you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation’ (Exod. 19:5b–6a). The essence of the event that takes place there is confirmation of the covenant relationship between God and his people, in fulfilment of the basic promise (Exod. 20:2–3), and the details of the relationship are set out by God in laws to which the people are expected to respond in obedience (Exod. 19:5a, 8; 24:3). Within a short time the continuance of this relationship is seriously threatened (Exod. 32:1–10), and only through Moses’ appeal to God’s promise (vv. 11–14) and challenge to the people (vv. 15–35) is the relationship saved. Once again the essence of the relationship is seen to be God’s presence with his people (Exod. 33:12–16). The means by which this relationship is to be maintained is elaborated further in Leviticus, and here we find the most succinct statement of the relationship: ‘I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people’ (Lev. 26:12; cf. Exod. 29:45–46). However, it cannot be said that the promise of a special relationship with God is thereby fulfilled. On the contrary, it is just the beginning. Israel has yet thousands of years of history in which to learn what it means to be the people of God. The third element of the basic promise, the land, comes to the fore in Numbers and Deuteronomy. The journeying recorded in Numbers is clearly towards ‘the place of which the Lord said, “I will give it to you”’ (Num. 10:29; cf. 13:2; 14:40; 15:2; 20:24; 32:7, 9). But although the land is to be God’s gift to his people, that does not exempt them from the need to fight for it (Num.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 204

22/12/09 12:35:25

promise and fulfilment

205

13:25–30; 33:50–56). The census taken before setting out from Sinai towards the Promised Land is of those eligible for military service (Num. 1), as also the second census taken before beginning the occupation (Num. 26). As with the other two elements of the promise, there are frequent setbacks in the fulfilment of the promise of the land. At one point it seems that God is about to destroy his people and give the land to someone else (Num. 14:1–12), but again Moses saves the situation by appealing to the ancestral promise (vv. 13–19; esp. v. 16). Nevertheless the people’s sin results in a forty-year delay in receiving the promise (Num. 14:20–35). The last five chapters of Numbers focus on matters relating to the land, and the whole of Deuteronomy is concerned to prepare the people to live in the land in accordance with God’s promise (Deut. 1:8–11; 4:1, 40; 6:3, 18–19; passim). They are reminded again of the special relationship with God they are privileged to experience and of the obligation to obedience that it entails (Deut. 26:17–19; 29:13). At the end of the Pentateuch the people of Israel do not yet live in the Promised Land, but have reached the border and are prepared to appropriate God’s promise. So we see how God’s promise to the ancestors is given, repeated, almost retracted, renewed and partially fulfilled. We also see mixed human reactions to the promise: Abraham responds in obedience (Gen. 12:4; 22:3) and faith (Gen. 15:6), but as often as not his descendants are disobedient and disbelieving. In the end it has become more than clear that fulfilment of the promise has not been brought about by great leadership nor by pious membership of the people (Deut. 9:4–24; 32:48–52), but only by God’s love and power (Deut. 10:14 – 11:7). c. The promise to David Early in the historical books it is affirmed that ‘Not one of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass’ ( Josh. 21:45; cf. 23:14). A less positive picture is presented in the first part of Judges, but it is explained that the problems are not due to God’s failure to keep his promise but are a result of the disobedience of the people ( Judg. 2:1–3). Though not often mentioned explicitly in the historical books, the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob continues to be the basis of Israel’s life and faith from the earliest days in Palestine ( Josh. 24:2–3) throughout the monarchy (2 Kgs 13:23; 1 Chr. 16:15–18; 27:23; 2 Chr. 20:7) until after the exile (Neh. 9:7–8). A new element in the historical books is the promise King David receives through the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 7:8–16; cf. vv. 18–29; 1 Chr. 17; Ps. 89:3–4, 19–37). In many respects this promise is similar to the basic ancestral promise, mentioning the following:

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 205

22/12/09 12:35:25

206

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

• relationship with God (2 Sam. 7:9a, 14–15; cf. vv. 23–24) • land (v. 10a) • descendants (vv. 11b–12) However, the promise of descendants is not concerned with their number (as with Abraham), but with their role in building the temple and forming a dynasty to rule Israel (vv. 13, 16). God also promises David a great name (v. 9b) and national security (vv. 10b–11a). At the dedication of the temple a generation later, Solomon acknowledges that his accession to the throne and building of the temple have been a fulfilment of God’s promise to his father (1 Kgs 8:15, 20), and he links this with the basic promise in his prayer: ‘Blessed be the Lord, who has given rest to his people Israel according to all that he promised; not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke through his servant Moses’ (v. 56). Solomon prays that God will continue to keep his promise that David’s descendants will rule Israel in the future (vv. 25–26). God accepts his prayer and confirms that the promise will be kept so long as David’s descendants live in a right relationship with God as David has done (9:3–9). Tragically, only three chapters further on, we read that ‘the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel’ (11:9). The promise is partially retracted (vv. 11–13). After that things get progressively worse, though the promise to David is not forgotten (2 Kgs 8:19; cf. 2 Chr. 21:7) and his dynasty lasts for several hundred years. By the end of the books of Kings and Chronicles it seems that virtually every aspect of the promises to Abraham and David has been retracted. The people of Israel have to leave their land, no longer a great nation but a decimated remnant, the temple destroyed and the Davidic kingdom brought to an end. In such circumstances does a special relationship with God mean anything at all (cf. Ps. 137:1–6; Lam. 1 – 2)? Many at that time must have echoed the words of the psalmist: ‘Are his promises at an end for all time?’ (Ps. 77:8b). d. The prophetic books The prophets19 are clearly aware that God’s promises to Abraham and David have never been completely fulfilled, albeit largely through the fault of the people who have repeatedly shown disdain for them by their unbelief and

19. It is primarily the promises found in the books of the major and minor prophets that are discussed here, as distinct from promises made by prophets (which would include material from the historical books, such as the promise to David) and

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 206

22/12/09 12:35:25

promise and fulfilment

207

disobedience. They are indeed God’s instruments to warn his people of the dangers of sin and to announce the cancellation of the promises. However, even the most impassioned prophets of judgment retain an element of hope and new promises are given for the future. Beyond judgment there is still the possibility of new life. The predominant emphasis of the promises in the prophetic books is the renewal of the people of God.20 The people will be brought back from exile to live again in the Promised Land ( Jer. 16:14–15; 29:10; 32:42–44; Ezek. 20:42; 36; Amos 9:11–15), where they will experience peace and abundance ( Jer. 31:10–14; Ezek. 34:25–31) and a renewed relationship with God ( Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 16:62–63; 37:26–28; Hos. 2:16–23). God will pour out his Spirit on them (Isa. 32:15; 59:21; Ezek. 39:29; Hag. 2:4–5) and they will have a new heart and a new spirit ( Jer. 24:7; Ezek. 36:25–27). The promise of descendants is scarcely mentioned in the prophetic books, except that the continuance of the Davidic dynasty is reinterpreted in terms of the coming messianic king ( Jer. 23:5–6; 33:14–26; Ezek. 34:23–24; Mic. 5:2–4) who will bring about a new age of righteousness and justice (cf. Isa. 32:1; 42:1–3; Hos. 2:19). However, an aspect of the basic promise that seemed not to have been fulfilled in any significant way during Israel’s history – that Abraham and his descendants would be a blessing to ‘all the families of the earth’ – is reasserted by the prophets. Israel is to be the mediator of salvation for all the nations (Isa. 2:2–4; 19:16–25; 66:18–23; cf. 45:22–23; Jer. 4:2; Zeph. 3:9–10; Zech. 8:13, 20–23; cf. Jonah). There are also some quite new elements of promise in the prophetic books. Throughout her history Israel had theoretically recognized God as her king (Exod. 15:18; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15), indeed as universal king (2 Kgs 19:15; Ps. 145:11–13; Isa. 6:5), and her system of government was ideally a theocracy rather than a monarchy ( Judg. 8:23; 1 Sam. 8:4–7). Nevertheless the reality did not match the theory, and many prophets looked forward to a day when God would decisively establish his kingdom and visibly reign on earth (Isa. 24:23; 33:17–22; 52:7; Obad. 21; Zech. 14:9–21). This is also the theme of

prophetic promises (which would exclude promises in the prophetic books that are apocalyptic rather than prophetic in nature). 20. See also above: 1.2.b. The texts cited as examples here are mostly different from those in ch. 1 and are intended to complement those already cited there. The purpose of this section is to indicate the kinds of promises found in the prophetic books and their relationship to the promises to Abraham and to David. It is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of prophetic eschatology.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 207

22/12/09 12:35:25

208

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

many psalms that celebrate the kingship of Yhwh (Pss 46 – 48; 93 – 99) and his Messiah (Pss 2; 110; cf. 89). Another new element of promise is found in the poems about the Servant of the Lord, who will be a light to the nations and suffer for his people (Isa. 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13 – 53:12). The ideas of messianic kingship and humility are combined in Zechariah 9:9. Finally, there are a number of passages that tend towards an apocalyptic view of the future, where visions are recounted of the consummation of history, the resurrection of the dead, and the creation of a new heaven and earth (Dan. 7:9–14; 12:1–3; Isa. 65:17–25).

8.3 Fulfilment of promise Promises obviously have little value unless they are kept. Clearly it is important to examine the way in which God’s promises in the Old Testament are fulfilled, and whether there are some promises that remain unfulfilled. a. Terminology Two main words in the Hebrew Old Testament express the idea of fulfilment: millē’ and hēqîm. The former comes from a common root meaning ‘full, fill’, which is used both spatially (e.g. Exod. 10:6) and temporally (e.g. Gen. 25:24). It can refer to God’s fulfilment of his promises (e.g. 1 Kgs 2:27; 2 Chr. 36:21) and also more generally to fulfilling requests (e.g. Ps. 20:4–5). The latter word derives from another common root meaning ‘stand up, arise, come about’, and is used in this form for performance of vows and keeping of promises (e.g. Gen. 6:18; Deut. 9:5; 1 Sam. 3:12; 1 Kgs 2:4). The two words are used interchangeably to express the fulfilment of God’s promise to David (1 Kgs 8:15, 20, 24).21 In the New Testament the main word for ‘fulfil’ is plēroō, and it is this which most often translates the Hebrew millē’ in the Septuagint. Like its Hebrew equivalent it means ‘fill, make full’ both in spatial (e.g. Matt. 13:48) and temporal (e.g. Mark 1:15) senses, and is often used of fulfilling words and promises: • 15 times concerning Old Testament prophecies (e.g. Matt. 1:22) • 14 times concerning Old Testament Scriptures, both as a whole (e.g. Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:44) and particular texts (e.g. Luke 4:21)

21. Other words which occasionally express the same idea include ‘āśâ (‘do’; e.g. Num. 23:19), bô’ (‘come’; e.g. Josh. 23:15) and lō’-nāpal (‘not fail’; e.g. Josh. 21:45).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 208

22/12/09 12:35:25

promise and fulfilment

209

• twice concerning words of Jesus (e.g. John 18:9) • once concerning words of an angel (Luke 1:20) • once concerning the promise to the ancestors (Acts 13:32–33) It is also used of fulfilling demands (e.g. Matt. 3:15; Rom. 8:4) and hopes (Heb. 6:11), and completing an assigned task (e.g. Acts 12:25). An alternative word is teleō (or teleioō), used in connection with fulfilling the Scriptures (Luke 22:37; John 19:28) and prophecy in particular (Luke 18:31; cf. Rev. 10:7), as well as fulfilling the law ( Jas 2:8) and a divinely given task ( John 17:4).22 There are also various other ways in which New Testament writers express their conviction that aspects of the Old Testament have been fulfilled, such as the expressions ‘it is written’ (e.g. Matt. 11:10; 26:31), ‘this is what was spoken by the prophet’ (e.g. Acts 2:16) and ‘in accordance with the scriptures’ (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:3–4).23 b. Fulfilment within the Old Testament As already mentioned (8.2), partial fulfilment of the promises to Abraham and to David takes place within the Old Testament period (cf. Josh. 21:45; 23:14; 1 Kgs 8:15, 20, 24; Neh. 9:8). It is God’s nature to do what he has promised (Gen. 26:3; Num. 23:19; Ps. 138:8; cf. Ezek. 21:7), though it should not be forgotten that there are conditions attached to the fulfilment of the promise (Deut. 8:18–19; Josh. 23:15–16; 1 Kgs 2:4; 6:12) and non-fulfilment may be due to lack of faith and obedience on the part of the recipients of the promise. In the historical books many other promises (and threats) are said to have been fulfilled (e.g. 1 Kgs 2:27; 12:15; 2 Kgs 10:10; 15:12; 2 Chr. 36:21; cf. Lam. 2:17; Dan. 4:33). Zimmerli (1952: 112) claims that ‘all Old Testament history, in so far as it is history guided and given by Yahweh’s word, receives the character of fulfillment; but in the fulfillment it receives a new character as promise’. Many events raise the question of whether they are the fulfilment of what has been promised or whether something more is still to be expected. This may be seen

22. In Acts 13:27–29 both plēroō and teleō are used, with apparently identical meanings. Moule (1968) attempts to distinguish between the meanings and uses of millē’/ plēroō and other terms such as hēqîm and teleō but, as he admits himself, there is considerable overlap and the latter terms are often used synonymously with the former. Texts using all of these terms will be used here to illustrate the fulfilment of promise. 23. See e.g. the listing of 142 New Testament verses that include the words ‘scripture’, ‘it is written’ etc. in MCNT: 687–688.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 209

22/12/09 12:35:25

210

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

in the history of the kings of Judah, for example. From one point of view the succession of Davidic kings through four centuries fulfils the promise to David. From another point of view it is a history of failure,24 to use Bultmann’s phrase, and in this failure the promise to David is reinterpreted by the prophets in terms of a coming messianic king (Isa. 9:2–7; 11:1–10; Jer. 33:14–15). The return of the people from exile also raises the question of how far it may be understood as the fulfilment of the prophetic promises concerning restoration of the Promised Land. In a sense it is that fulfilment (2 Chr. 36:22–23), though – as Ezra points out in his prayer of national repentance – they do not return as a free and sovereign people (Neh. 9:36–37; cf. Ezra 9:8–9). In many respects their high hopes must have been disappointed as they began to realize the harsh realities of rebuilding a shattered nation with limited resources and only sporadic enthusiasm (Ezra 3:12–13; 4:4–5; Neh. 1:3; 5:1–5). Certainly much is fulfilled within the bounds of the Old Testament, but much more is to come in the future, more than even the greatest prophets envisage. At the end of his history of Old Testament heroes and heroines, the author of Hebrews puts it like this: ‘Yet all these, though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better so that they would not, without us, be made perfect’ (Heb. 11:39–40). c. Fulfilment in Jesus Christ Early in the Synoptic Gospels we read Jesus’ programmatic words: Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. (Matt. 5:17) The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. (Mark 1:15) Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing. (Luke 4:21)

In the Gospel of John it is Philip who declares:

24. Few of the Davidic kings match up to the standard he set for faithfulness to God (e.g. 1 Kgs 9:4; 11:4, 6; 15:3, 5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2; 18:3; 21:1–9; 22:2; 24:9, 19), and the kingdom is quickly reduced in size (1 Kgs 11:9–13; 12:16–24) and eventually brought to an end (2 Kgs 24:20 – 25:7).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 210

22/12/09 12:35:25

promise and fulfilment

211

‘We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth. ( John 1:45)25

All four Gospel writers quote words of Jesus to the effect that his passion has fulfilled Old Testament scriptures (e.g. Matt. 26:24, 54, 56; Mark 14:49; Luke 18:31; John 13:18). Speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts make the same point and mention the resurrection as well (Acts 2:23–32; 3:18; 13:27–33; cf. 1 Cor. 15:3–4). Matthew and – to a lesser extent – John also point to other ways in which they believe that Jesus has fulfilled prophecy, for example in his birth (Matt. 1:22–23; 2:5–6, 15, 17–18), place of residence (Matt. 2:23; 4:14–16), healing ministry (Matt. 8:17; 12:15–21), teaching ministry (Matt. 13:35) and the unbelief of the people ( John 12:37–38). One of Jesus’ last recorded sayings expresses the conviction that his life, death and resurrection have taken place in fulfilment of the Scriptures: ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you – that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled’ (Luke 24:44; cf. vv. 25–27, 45–47). And after his ascension Jesus continues to fulfil promises of the Old Testament, in particular by pouring out the Holy Spirit on his disciples (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; Acts 2:33; cf. Isa. 32:15; Ezek. 39:29; Joel 2:28–32). As France (1971: 83–171) has shown in his detailed study of Jesus’ application of Old Testament predictions to himself and his mission, the earthly life and future glory of Jesus of Nazareth is presented as the fulfilment of the Old Testament hopes of the day of Yahweh . . . The coming of Jesus is that decisive act of God to which the Old Testament looked forward, and in his coming all the hopes of the Old Testament are fulfilled; the last days have come. (161)

Outside the Gospels and Acts the words pleroō and teleō are rarely used with the meaning ‘fulfil’, but the letters have other ways of expressing the apostolic conviction that Jesus is the supreme fulfilment of the promises of the Old Testament. Paul states it most clearly: ‘In him every one of God’s promises is a “Yes”’ (2 Cor. 1:20). Both the promise to Abraham (Rom. 15:8; Gal. 3:14, 16, 22, 29) and the promise to David (Rom. 15:12; cf. Acts 13:22–23) find their fulfilment in Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ is ‘the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures’

25. John gives Jesus’ own statement of his fulfilment of the scriptures rather later in his account ( John 5:39).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 211

22/12/09 12:35:25

212

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

(Rom. 1:1–2). The death of Christ is ‘once for all’ (Rom. 6:10), the one perfect sacrifice that replaces all other sacrifices (Heb. 7:27; 9:12–14; 10:11–14). Christ is the ‘end (telos) of the law’ (Rom. 10:4) and ‘perfecter (teleiotēs) of our faith’ (Heb. 12:2; cf. 7:28). Indeed ‘in him all the fullness (plerōma) of God was pleased to dwell’ (Col. 1:19; cf. 2:9). Vischer has pointed out that the Old Testament defines the meaning of ‘Christ’, and the New Testament tells us who he is.26 Thus the New Testament takes up the messianic promises of the Old Testament and asserts that Jesus is the Christ who fulfils them all (cf. Mark 8:29; 14:61–62; Luke 2:11, 26; John 1:41; 20:31; Acts 9:22; 17:2–3). Some of the most significant elements of the messianic promises fulfilled by Jesus are reflected in his titles, especially:27 • son of David (Matt. 1:1; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47; Luke 1:32, 69; 2:4; John 7:42; Acts 2:29–31; Rom. 1:3; 15:12; 2 Tim. 2:8; Rev. 22:16; cf. 2 Sam. 7; Isa. 9:7; 11:1, 10) • Son of Man (Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 12:8; 16:27–28; 25:31–33; Mark 8:31; 10:45; 14:62; John 3:13–14; 6:27; Acts 7:56; 1 Cor. 15:25, 27; Rev. 1:13; cf. Ps. 8:4–6; Dan. 7:13–14) • Son of God (Matt. 11:25–27; 14:33; 16:16; 26:63; Mark 1:1, 11; 9:7; 14:36; 15:39; Luke 1:30–35; John 1:14, 34, 49; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom. 8:32; Heb. 1:2, 5; 1 John 4:15; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; Isa. 7:14) • Servant of the Lord (Matt. 8:17; 12:17–21; Luke 2:32; John 12:38; Acts 3:13; 8:32–35; Phil. 2:5–8; 1 Pet. 2:22–25; cf. Isa. 42:1–6; 52:13 – 53:12) • Lamb of God ( John 1:29, 36; 19:14–16, 36; 1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:6–14; 7:9–17; cf. Exod. 12:1–27, 43–46; Isa. 53:7; Jer. 11:19) • good shepherd (Mark 6:34; John 10:1–18; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; cf. Num. 27:17; Ps. 23; Jer. 23:1–4; Ezek. 34; 37:24; Zech. 10:2; 13:7) • Lord ( John 13:13; Acts 2:34–36; Rom. 10:9–13; 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:3; 16:22; Phil. 2:9–11; cf. Ps. 110:1; Isa. 45:22–23; Joel 2:32) There are also many other titles given to Jesus which declare him to fulfil Old Testament promises, such as Immanuel (Matt. 1:23; cf. Isa. 7:14), the humble

26. See above: 4.2.b. 27. See Bruce 1963, E. Achtemeier 1973: 88–99 and van Roo 1986: 139–146, 178–180 for further information; and Guthrie 1981: 235–343 for a detailed exposition. Not all of the Old Testament passages mentioned here are ‘messianic’. Some simply contain ideas that in other places are interpreted in messianic terms.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 212

22/12/09 12:35:25

promise and fulfilment

213

king (Matt. 21:5; cf. Zech. 9:9), the Word ( John 1:1–18; Rev. 19:13),28 the stone rejected by the builders (Mark 12:10; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7; cf. Ps. 118:22), the prophet like Moses ( John 6:14; Acts 3:22–26; cf. Deut. 18:15), the wisdom of God ( John 1:2–3; 1 Cor. 1:24, 30; Col. 1:15–18; Heb. 1:2–3; Rev. 3:14; cf. Prov. 8:22–31),29 and the priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5 – 7:28; cf. Gen. 14:18–20; Ps. 110:4). It is abundantly clear that the New Testament understands Jesus to be the supreme fulfilment of the promises of the Old Testament, both in what he does and who he is. Just as many Old Testament events, persons and institutions are types of Christ,30 so many Old Testament words are fulfilled in the coming of Jesus. Amsler (1960a: 135–147) points out that the New Testament often applies a text that originally referred to God, David, Israel, a prophet and so on to Jesus Christ or the church. In this he notes a striking agreement between the New Testament authors in their interpretation of such Old Testament passages, for example in the Christological use of individual psalms of lament by the Synoptic Gospels, Acts and Hebrews. He suggests that these transpositions are based on the belief that the text of Scripture finds its real meaning only with reference to Christ and the church. This does not mean that Old Testament texts are pure prediction (not referring to anything within the old covenant), but that every word has its own significance in salvation history and also witnesses to its fulfilment in Christ. Not just specific texts, but the old covenant as a whole, the entire history of the promises, are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. d. Fulfilment without consummation The New Testament writers clearly believe that the ‘day of the Lord’, anticipated by Old Testament prophecy and apocalyptic, has dawned in the coming of Jesus Christ. As the carol ‘O Little Town of Bethlehem’ expresses it, ‘the hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight’. What was for so long a possibility has become a reality. To describe this, Dodd (as mentioned above) coined the expression

28. Cf. the importance of the word of God throughout the Old Testament, especially in creation (Gen. 1), the giving of the law (e.g. Exod. 20:1), and the messages of the prophets (cf. Isa. 55:10–11; Jer. 23:16–32). 29. Bruce (1963: 49) suggests that the identification of Jesus with the wisdom of God originates in Jesus’ own teaching, in particular the ‘comfortable words’ of Matt. 11:28–30, which echo the words of wisdom in Sirach 51.23–26. 30. See above: ch. 7.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 213

22/12/09 12:35:25

214

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

‘realized eschatology’,31 by which he meant that the eschatology of the Old Testament had found its goal and fulfilment in the ministry of Jesus. In this way he distinguished his view of the New Testament from that of Schweitzer and others who proposed a ‘consistent eschatology’, meaning that Jesus’ message was exclusively eschatological and looked to the future for the fulfilment of the promises and coming of the kingdom.32 Schweitzer interpreted the essence of Jesus’ message as ‘not yet’, whereas Dodd interpreted it as ‘already’. Like Schweitzer, Dodd overstated his case, and in response to criticism later admitted that the expression ‘realized eschatology’ was ‘not altogether felicitous’ (1953: 447). Nevertheless in his later works Dodd continued to maintain his basic thesis that the crucial event of history expected by the prophets had taken place in the coming of Jesus Christ.33 A different view is propounded by Kümmel (1945) and Cullmann (1946; 1965). They reject interpretations of Jesus’ eschatology as exclusively futuristic (Schweitzer) or present (Dodd), insisting that Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God to be both present and future. Cullmann (1946: 84) uses an analogy from the Second World War, which has often been quoted since: that Jesus’ death and resurrection may be compared to the decisive battle (‘D-Day’) but it is not yet the final victory (‘Victory Day’). Christians live within the interval between that decisive battle and the conclusion of the war ( Jesus’ second coming), experiencing a tension between what has already been fulfilled and what has not yet been completed.34 Various terms have been suggested to express this view of eschatology as both present and future, such as sich realisierende Eschatologie (eschatology that is the process of realization)35 and ‘inaugurated eschatology’.36 The same idea is expressed by the term ‘fulfilment without consummation’ (Ladd 1974:

31. Dodd 1935: 41, 148; 1936: 79–87; cf. Wolfzorn 1962. 32. For surveys of the debate over eschatology from Schweitzer to the 1960s, see Perrin 1963; Ladd 1974: 4–42; for the continuing debate to the late 1970s, see Travis 1980. 33. Cf. Dodd 1951a: 25–32; 1971: 115–116. 34. Cullmann 1965: 166–185; cf. Hoekema 1979: 68–75. 35. A term suggested by Haenchen and taken up by Jeremias 1962: 230; 1st ed., 1947. 36. Florovsky 1951: 179–180. Perhaps because the former term cannot be succinctly translated into English, the term ‘inaugurated eschatology’ was more readily accepted in English-speaking scholarship; e.g. J. A. T. Robinson 1957: 101; France 1971: 162.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 214

22/12/09 12:35:25

promise and fulfilment

215

105–121). Jesus’ first coming inaugurated the eschaton (last days); his second coming will consummate it. To combine the ideas of Schweitzer and Dodd, it is ‘already and not yet’.37 Jesus announces that the kingdom has come and will come, that it has both present and future aspects. What does this mean for the relationship between the Testaments? In the preceding section it was shown that the New Testament presents Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of Old Testament promises. However, promise and fulfilment might also be viewed from the perspective of the Old Testament. Have all the promises of the Old Testament been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, or do they await a more complete fulfilment in the future? First, the promise of descendants, as reinterpreted messianically by the prophets, has been fulfilled in the coming of Jesus as the Christ. Further, the promise about formation of a people finds renewed fulfilment in the emergence of the Christian community as the true inheritors by faith of the promise to Abraham (Rom. 4:13–25).38 Secondly, the promise of relationship has been fulfilled in a new way in the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8 – 9) and new life ( John 3; Rom. 5 – 6) made possible by Jesus. Through him believers have direct access to God (Heb. 10:19–22) and God’s promise to be with his people is renewed (Heb. 13:5b; cf. Matt. 28:20b; John 10:27–29). The promised Holy Spirit has come (Acts 2; Eph. 1:13), and in the power of that Spirit Jesus’ disciples are to take his message of salvation to all nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8). However, the promise of land does not have any obvious fulfilment in the coming of Jesus. Very little is said specifically in the New Testament about the question of land, even though the fact that the Promised Land was under enemy occupation must have been a major theological problem. Jesus himself apparently owned no land (‘the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head’, Luke 9:58) and was unwilling to get involved in family disputes over land (Luke 12:13–14). Indeed he points out the dangers of covetousness in relation to land ownership (vv. 15–21). Jesus assures the meek that they will inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5; cf. Ps. 37:11), though presumably his intention is not to promise his followers worldly prosperity but to assure them that they can rely on their needs being abundantly supplied in the broader perspective of eternity (cf. John 10:10b; 1 Cor. 3:21–23; 2 Cor. 6:10). Only in Hebrews does the

37. Cf. Gutiérrez 1971: 160–168. 38. On fulfilment in Jesus, see above: 8.3.c; on the church as fulfilment of Israel, see below: 9.2.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 215

22/12/09 12:35:25

216

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

land have a prominent place, and there it is clearly a promise as yet unfulfilled (Heb. 11:8–16; cf. the promise of ‘rest’ in Heb. 3 – 4).39 Some of the promises in the prophetic books have been clearly fulfilled in the coming of Jesus, for instance the image of the suffering Servant, which finds its supreme fulfilment in the cross. Others have been partially fulfilled but still await consummation in the future, such as the promise of the Kingdom of God, which Jesus announces to be ‘at hand’ (Mark 1:15; passim).40 And the promises that relate to the consummation of history remain unfulfilled, though Christians are encouraged to hope for their imminent fulfilment (cf. Heb. 12:26), such as the resurrection of the dead ( John 6:39–40; 1 Cor. 15:12–57; 1 Thess. 4:13–18) and creation of a new heaven and earth (2 Pet. 3:11–13; Rev. 21 – 22). There are also new promises in the New Testament, given to those who believe in Jesus. Perhaps the greatest is the promise of eternal life, which is part of God’s eternal plan (Titus 1:241) but revealed only in Jesus Christ ( John 3:16; Rom. 16:25–26; 2 Tim. 1:1; 1 John 2:25).42 Several of Jesus’ promises are concerned with preaching the Good News and establishing an international church (Matt. 4:19; 16:18; 24:14; 28:18–20), and this is explicitly linked with the promise to the ancestors (Matt. 8:10–11; cf. Eph. 3:6). Finally, Jesus’ promise to come again should be mentioned, although it is not entirely new if it is understood as a reaffirmation of the promise in Malachi 3:1–2 of the eschatological coming of the Lord (cf. Rev. 6:16–17). This Old Testament promise is filled with new content and is related to other promises concerning the consummation of history throughout the New Testament (e.g. Matt. 24 – 25; John 14:3, 28; 1 Cor. 1:7–8; 11:26; 1 Thess. 2:19; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1–8; 2 Pet. 3:3–10; Rev. 19). So it is clear that the fulfilment of promise announced by the New Testament is open-ended. Many promises have been fulfilled, but others still await fulfilment in the future. Moreover there are new promises made in Christ that are yet to be fulfilled. Jesus has come and announced the presence of the kingdom of

39. For a much fuller discussion of the land in the New Testament, differing in some respects from the summary view given here, see W. D. Davies 1974. See also B. W. Anderson 1995; Holwerda 1995: 85–112; Brueggemann 2002: 157–172. On ‘rest’, see von Rad 1933. 40. See Kümmel 1945; Ladd 1974. 41. On which, see Kelly 1963. 42. ‘Everlasting life’ is mentioned briefly in Dan. 12:2, and there are occasional hints of the possibility of life after death in the Old Testament, but these glimpses of eternal life are at the fringe of Old Testament faith and I have not included them among the major promises of the Old Testament.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 216

22/12/09 12:35:26

promise and fulfilment

217

God; but the church continues to pray ‘Your kingdom come’ (Matt. 6:10) and ‘Come, Lord Jesus!’ (Rev. 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 16:22). As Christians wait and prepare for Jesus’ return at the end of time and consummation of history, there are continuing opportunities for faith and hope in the promises of God (cf. 2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 3:12–14; Heb. 6:11–12; 10:36). e. A relationship of interdependence Undoubtedly promise and fulfilment is a major theme in both Old and New Testaments. It is not simply a matter of verifying predictions or fulfilling prophecies, though both of these have their place in the Bible. Rather we have seen that God’s promise to the ancestors of Israel forms the basis for the existence of the people of God throughout Old and New Testaments. The basic promise received by Abraham is reaffirmed, partially fulfilled, restated, partially fulfilled, reinterpreted, partially fulfilled and renewed to become further promise. There are many stages in the process: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Moses and Joshua; David and Solomon; the prophets; Jesus Christ; the apostles. Many of the promises have been fulfilled by the end of the New Testament. But new hopes for future consummation of the kingdom of God and recreation of the universe leave no room for complacency, as though Christians have already arrived at their destination. To quote Jesus’ words, ‘the end is still to come’ (Mark 13:7). The theme of promise and fulfilment points to a complementary relationship between the Testaments, a relationship of mutual dependence. Neither stands alone nor can be understood fully without the other. The Old Testament without the New Testament would be a disappointment, a promising beginning with outstanding ethical ideals and wonderful pictures of the future but no conclusion. More than two thousand years since it was written, it would still be a monument to great ideas and lofty visions. But to be realistic we would have to relegate the Old Testament to the museum. On the other hand, the New Testament without the Old Testament would be a tree with no roots, a child with no parents, an ending without a beginning. ‘What are you?’ we should ask it, and ‘Where do you come from?’ Why should we believe that the events recounted in the New Testament were promised long beforehand, if no record of those promises were preserved? And what significance would those events have if they were purely incidental and not the fulfilment of a divine plan? In fact the Old Testament and New Testament belong together – interrelated and interdependent. It follows that another aspect of the theological relationship between the Testaments is interdependence. They cannot be understood rightly except in relationship to each other.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 217

22/12/09 12:35:26

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 218

22/12/09 12:35:26

9 . CO N T INUIT Y AND DISCON T I N UIT Y

9.1 Continuity and discontinuity The relationship between the Old and New Testaments involves elements of continuity and discontinuity, unity and diversity. We begin with continuity and discontinuity in biblical history, and later consider the unity and diversity of biblical theology. In between, there is a brief discussion of a crucial theological issue arising from the study – the relationship between Israel and the church.1 a. A continuous history The Old Testament has a double value for the church, according to McFadyen (1903: 345–364). In an absolute sense, it shows God’s purpose in history, which means that the prophets and psalmists can speak directly to the modern

1. Many other issues arise from the continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments, particularly in the area of ethics; e.g. the continuing relevance of Old Testament law for Christians (see C. J. H. Wright 2004: 281–326; cf. Boulton 1982; N. Anderson 1988; Westerholm 1988; B. L. Martin 1989; Thielman 1999; Allbee 2006). Such issues are beyond the scope of the present work, which discusses only the theological relationship between the Testaments.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 219

22/12/09 12:35:26

220

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

age. Apart from this, however, it has a relative value with reference to the New Testament: It prepared the way for the Testament by which it was transcended, though not superseded, and for Him whose coming marks a new departure, and yet was no less truly conditioned and directed by all that had gone before. (352)

So the Old Testament is essential for the New, both historically and religiously, and in spite of obvious differences between the two the continuity is more important than the distinction. Dodd clarifies the matter further: the unity of the Bible is based on the common origin of every part of the Bible in a ‘community conscious of a continuous history’.2 This history, recorded in the Bible as the inner core of world history, may be called ‘sacred history’ (Heilsgeschichte) because it understands history as a process of redemption and revelation. It culminates in the death and resurrection of Christ, though it does not end at that point but is reconstituted in the history of the church. Since God is the creator and sovereign of all people, the meaning of this sacred history is also the ultimate meaning of all history. All history is therefore ultimately sacred, as is shown by the way the Bible puts sacred history into the context of a world history with a real beginning and end. Thus Dodd shows the essential unity within the Bible, a unity that stems from the history of one community in which God has revealed himself. So the Old Testament and the New Testament together – and only together – constitute the Christian Bible. The Old Testament records the history of the people of God (‘salvation history’) and this same history is continued in the New Testament. Jesus was a member of that people of God; indeed he was the most important figure to appear in the course of its history. Thus the Old Testament can be fully understood only in the light of its continuation and fulfilment in the New. Equally, the New Testament has its historical background in the Old Testament, and its meaning is liable to be distorted if isolated from that background. b. Intertestamental period One problem with the idea of a continuous biblical history is the intertestamental period.3 Old Testament history is recorded only until about 400 bc, and we

2. Dodd 1946a: 3; cf. 1928:10; 1938: 114–125; 1946b: 129; 1951b: 161–162. 3. On the intertestamental period, see Förster 1959; D. S. Russell 1960; Tcherikover 1959; Ellison 1976; Gowan 1976.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 220

22/12/09 12:35:26

continuity and discontinuity

221

have to look to extra-biblical sources for information about the next four centuries, so there is obviously a historical gap at this point. But there is also a gap of several hundred years between the arrival and departure of Israel in Egypt in the second millennium bc, with hardly any information in the biblical history; likewise a gap of almost twenty years between the New Testament account of Jesus’ childhood visit to the temple and the beginning of his ministry. These gaps do not imply historical discontinuity, but simply that the biblical writers did not consider those periods to be particularly significant in recounting salvation history. Likewise we should not conclude from the historical gap between the Old and New Testament books that there is a gap in salvation history. Neither Old nor New Testament gives comprehensive accounts of the history of its times. On the contrary, both are ruthlessly selective in order to achieve their particular aims. So the gap in the intertestamental period does not affect the fundamental historical continuity between the two Testaments. c. Judaism and Christianity Closely related to the question of historical continuity between the Testaments is the question of continuity between Judaism and Christianity. A Jewish scholar, Sandmel (1978), argues for essential historical continuity between Judaism and early Christianity.4 ‘Christianity’, he says, ‘was a Judaism both in its origin and in its basic contours’ (4). Furthermore, he states that ‘not only was Jesus a Jew, but a figure such as he could not have arisen in any other tradition or culture but Judaism. He is to be approached and understood historically only in a Jewish context’ (305). Sandmel is not, of course, claiming that Christianity and Judaism are identical, though he does emphasize the similarities more than many other Jewish or Christian writers. He is simply pointing out that historically speaking there is an unbroken continuum from Judaism to Christianity. Within that continuum Christianity did four things (305, 418–423). It • • • •

perpetuated some aspects of Judaism unchanged; carried over some aspects but altered them; rejected some aspects of its legacy; created its own new materials.

In due course Christians recognized other writings than those of the Hebrew Bible as Scripture and distinguished the two collections as ‘New Testament’

4. Cf. F. C. Grant 1960; Vermes 1973.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 221

22/12/09 12:35:26

222

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

and ‘Old Testament’. Thus ‘in the Christian view, the Old Testament and the New are a single, continuous Bible’ (419). Alan Segal (1986) puts it rather differently. He rejects the idea that Judaism began in the distant past with Abraham, Moses or Ezra, as though it were older than Christianity. On the contrary, he argues, the rabbinic Judaism contemporary with early Christianity that became the basis of future Jewish religion was radically different from the religion of the Old Testament.5 ‘The religions we know today as Judaism and Christianity were born at the same time and nurtured in the same environment’ (1). Likewise John Bright (1981: 463–464) points out that there are two possible destinations of the history of Israel: Judaism and Christianity. On the one hand, the history of Israel continued in the history of the Jewish people, whose faith developed from Pharisaism and was expressed normatively in the Mishnah and Talmud. For them the hope of the Old Testament is still unfulfilled. On the other hand, Christians believe that ‘the destination of Old Testament history and theology is Christ and his gospel’ (464). Their faith finds its normative expression in the New Testament. The choice between these two alternatives depends entirely on one’s answer to Jesus’ question ‘Who do you say that I am?’ (Mark 8:29), but in answering that question one moves beyond history into the realm of faith. All these scholars agree that there is a fundamental historical continuity between the Old Testament and the New. Christianity did not set out to become a new and separate religion. However, as Alan Segal points out, historical and social forces forced every variety of Jewish community at the time to ‘rebuild its ancient national culture into something almost unprecedented, a religion of personal and communal piety’ (1986: 2). Moreover it soon became clear that the difference between recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and rejecting him as a blasphemer was so great that Christianity and Judaism could not coexist for long without becoming separate religions.6 Indeed it was precisely because Christians were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and that those who believed in him rather than those who rejected him were in genuine historical continuity with the Old Testament that the split with Judaism became inevitable.7

5. Cf. Jocz 1961: 166–168. 6. Cf. Noth 1950: 428–432. 7. There are many other studies of the relationship between early Judaism and early Christianity; e.g. Jocz 1949; E. P. Sanders 1977; 1985; W. D. Davies 1980; Riches 1980; McNamara 1983; W. S. Campbell 1984; Neusner 1989; Rowland 2002.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 222

22/12/09 12:35:26

continuity and discontinuity

223

d. Historical discontinuities The continuity of biblical history does not mean that there are no differences between the Old and New Testaments. The sequence of events from the early nomads, through the monarchy and dispersion, to the church was a series of crises rather than a smooth development, and the conclusion is radically different from the beginning.8 New Testament writers are aware of continuity with older traditions, but their experience is revolutionary and their interpretation of those traditions original and creative, following the example of Jesus himself. The church is simultaneously ‘Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16) and ‘new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17). It perpetuates the old and inaugurates the new. Moreover Dodd argues that the subject in the Old Testament is a community (Israel), whereas in the New Testament it is a person ( Jesus Christ).9 So ‘the writers of the New Testament and of early Christianity in general are clearly aware both of continuity and of newness’ (Dodd 1928: 244). Likewise Bernhard Anderson (1964b; cf. 1999: 9–15) concludes that the relationship between the old and new covenants in Jeremiah 31:31–34 is characterized by both continuity and discontinuity. The one God is author of both covenants, which are continuous in being based on one Torah, focused on the relationship between God and his people, and made with ‘the house of Israel’ (236–238). Nevertheless the new covenant will be ‘not like’ the old, because it will bring about a radically inward relationship to the Lord, mark the end of tradition and be based on divine forgiveness (232–236). The New Testament declares that the new covenant has been realized in Jesus Christ, though this is a fulfilment beyond all prophetic expectation. ‘Yet manifest within this deepest discontinuity is the continuity of the same almighty grace which had called Israel into existence and had directed her toward the future’ (242). To sum up, within the basic historical continuity between the Testaments there are elements of discontinuity. The early Christians affirmed their continuity with Abraham and Moses, a continuity grounded in the one God; but at the same time they asserted that Jesus was superior to both.10 Paradoxically, therefore, the greatest discontinuity is in the coming of Jesus. From one perspective he fulfilled the promises and hopes of the Old Testament, and yet from another he surpassed all expectations so that

8. Cf. Dodd 1928: 194–196, 227–248; 1938: 96–98; 1946a: 3–4; 1951b: 157; 1952:109– 110. Cf. Brueggemann’s exposition of the crisis of discontinuity in the exile (2002: 123–125). See also Ackroyd 1977. 9. 1946a: 73. Cf. above: 3.2.e. 10. Baird 1988; Hay 1990; cf. Moberly 1992: 125–130.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 223

22/12/09 12:35:26

224

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

his coming inaugurated a new and final stage in the history of salvation (cf. Heb. 1:1–2; 7:23–28; 8:6, 13). Through his coming a new international people of God was brought into being (Matt. 16:18; 28:18–20); and by the power of his Spirit new life and new hope were offered to all who have faith in him ( John 3; Acts 2). In him ‘the time is fulfilled’ (Mark 1:15), the ‘last days’ have arrived (Acts 2:17), and the ‘day of salvation’ has dawned (2 Cor. 6:2). Many prophets had proclaimed the word of the Lord, but only one could declare, ‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times . . . But I say to you . . .’ (Matt. 5:21–48). In no way does the New Testament contradict the Old. But it tells of so many new things that it is rightly called the New Testament, and the coming of Jesus represents the most important event in the entire unfolding of God’s plan. While the continuity between the Testaments is fundamental, there are also discontinuities that should not be ignored.11

9.2 Israel and the church A major theological issue raised by the question of continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments is the relationship between Israel and the church. This has been the subject of heated debate, and there are widely divergent views among Christians on the matter today. A thorough study is beyond the scope of this book. I simply survey the work of a few scholars, and give some pointers to an understanding of the relationship between Israel and the church consistent with the view of the relationship between the Testaments advocated here.12

11. Liberation theology has tended to emphasize the continuity between the Testaments, though not denying that there are new elements in the New Testament (Segundo 1976: 490; Hanks 1983: 43–60; cf. Kirk 1979: 153–156). 12. A great deal has been written on the relationship between Israel and the church. For bibliographies of older works, see Küng 1967: 116, 132–133, 141; D. J. Harrington 1980: 119–121; and esp. Reventlow 1983: 64–132. Among more recent works, the following may be noted: S. Motyer 1989; Blaising & Bock 1992; Mouw 1992; Menninger 1994; Holwerda 1995; Robertson 2000; P. R. Williamson 2000; Commission Biblique Pontificale 2001; Doukhan 2002; Akpunonu 2004; Karman 2004: 105–136; Fiedler 2005; Goldingay 2006b: 251– 253.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 224

22/12/09 12:35:26

continuity and discontinuity

225

a. The new Israel Dodd’s view of the continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments has clear implications for the relationship between Israel and the church.13 On the one hand, Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and his mission is primarily to Israel, he claims to be the answer to their hopes of a coming king and it is in Jerusalem that his career comes to its climax. On the other hand, Jesus’ messianic claims are rejected by Israel, so that he institutes a new people of God to fulfil the mission that had been entrusted to Israel. This new community is begun with the twelve apostles, symbolizing the twelve tribes, and is confirmed to be the ‘Israel of God’ by the gift of the Spirit. Jesus and the New Testament authors apply Old Testament texts concerning Israel to the church, which gives the basis for use of the Old Testament by Christians. In short, the church is the new Israel. Roderick Campbell (1954) expounds this at length and emphasizes the newness of the age that Jesus has brought into being. This does not mean, however, that the Old and New Testaments are completely discontinuous. On the contrary, it was the faithful remnant of the Jewish people who recognized Jesus as their Messiah and became the nucleus of the new theocracy, the ‘Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16) and ‘commonwealth of Israel’ (Eph. 2:12). With such words, ‘Paul recognizes the continuity of the Remnant with the Christian church, together with its claim to be the rightful heir to all the ancient covenant privileges and promises’ (1954: 121). Likewise many other scholars have argued that the church is the new Israel, the Israel of God, the ‘remnant chosen by grace’.14 A similar view is expressed by Küng (1967: 107–125). He points out that the idea of the people of God was at the heart of biblical faith (Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5–6; Lev. 26:9–12). Jesus’ disciples were convinced that he had fulfilled the promises of the Old Testament. Since the majority of the people of Israel at that time rejected the Christian message, it was inevitable that the disciples should begin to describe their own community as the true people of God. Thus Christians saw themselves as the new Israel, and the ways of the new Israel and the old progressively diverged. Although the early Christian community continued to have close links with the Jewish people, distinctive forms

13. Dodd 1928: 260; 1938: 90–96; 1946a: 4–5, 70, 76; 1951b: 158; 1952: 88, 111–123; 1971: 91–92, 99–103. 14. E.g. Wiesemann 1965; Huffmon 1969; LaRondelle 1983. P. Richardson 1969, however, claims that the identification of the church with the new Israel was later than the New Testament, and first stated explicitly by Justin (c. ad 160).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 225

22/12/09 12:35:26

226

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

emerged such as the sacraments and prayer, leadership and fellowship. Gentile Christianity developed without the Jewish laws, and the destruction of Jerusalem brought temple worship to an end. After ad 70 Jewish Christianity declined in importance, and the church – founded less than half a century earlier as a church of Jews – became substantially a church of Gentiles. Nevertheless there is a typical relationship between the old Israel and the new, made particularly clear in the letter to the Hebrews, so the church should never forget its Old Testament roots.15 b. One people of God The concept of the ‘new Israel’ tends to emphasize the discontinuity between the Testaments, and several scholars have tried to redress the balance by insisting on the continuity of the one people of God. It may be nearer the mark to use the term ‘renewed Israel’, because the New Testament does not bring about a new Israel in the sense of something completely different, but affirms that the one Israel is renewed and extended through the Gospel. Jocz (1958: 102–155), for example, argues that there is only one Israel, that it cannot possibly be plural, and that the people of God is continuous from the time of Abraham to the church of Christ. The ‘Israel of God’ is thus the Christian church, which consists of both Jews and Gentiles, the ‘Israel who is inspired by the spirit of the Master’ (126). There is an indissoluble bond between the church and the Jewish people.16 The difference between Gentiles and Jews is that the former have to renounce their religious past to become members of the Israel of God, whereas the latter have only to reaffirm it. Taylor (1985) objects to the term ‘new Israel’ because it is not biblical, and implies that the church has taken the place of Israel. He shows the continuity of the people of God in the Old and New Testaments, concluding:

15. Cf. E. Achtemeier 1973: 116–123. Van Ruler (1955: 28–33/30–36; cf. 89–92/95–98) argues that the church is a repetition of Israel ‘in the Spirit’ and that the church is Israel, although this does not mean that Israel is the church. For van Ruler, Israel is theologically more important than the church since the church is dependent on Israel for its self-understanding. This is perhaps a strange conclusion for a Christian writer, but it is a natural corollary of van Ruler’s view that the Old Testament is the essential Bible (see above: ch. 5). He sees a typical relationship between Israel and a Christian nation (Christenvolk), and considers that Israel as a nation still has a place in God’s plan alongside the church, though he does not make clear precisely what that place is. He also allows for the possibility that God may eventually restore his people Israel. 16. See Clark 1972; D. J. Harrington 1980.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 226

22/12/09 12:35:26

continuity and discontinuity

227

The Christian Church is the People of God through its spiritual union with Jesus Christ as it bears conscious witness to Him. Israel retains its status as the people of God in its physical union with Christ and unconsciously bears testimony to Christ in its history.

Miskotte also affirms that in the church Gentiles are ‘grafted into the ancient tree of the Covenant people’ (Rom. 11:12–18) and that Israel’s election is the root of salvation for Christendom.17 However, he believes that neither Jews nor Christians alone are Israel, but rather the church and synagogue together form one congregation of God.18 The present breach is therefore not to be removed by missions to Jews, but by a call to brothers and sisters to realize their unity with each other. Miskotte takes up the words of Rosenzweig, ‘What Christ and his church mean in the world, on that we are agreed: no one comes to the Father but by him . . . but it is different if a person no longer needs to come to the Father, because he is already with him’ (1963: 77–78). Thus Miskotte concludes that Christians must face realistically the fact that the Old Testament has two sequels, the New Testament and the Talmud.19 Failure to do this leads to oversimplification and misunderstanding, as in Bultmann’s idea of the miscarriage of Old Testament history. It is true that Judaism and Christianity came from the same root and worship the same God. The two faiths have a great deal in common, and should be able to learn from each other and with each other, and live in love and peace together. Nevertheless there is a fundamental difference that cannot be ignored – the Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and the Jewish rejection of this claim. Jesus’ words ‘No one comes to the Father except through me’ ( John 14:6) were addressed to Jews, and Paul made a point of preaching salvation to the Jews first, even though he was the missionary to the Gentiles (Acts 13:5, 14, 46, passim). The centrality of the Torah to Judaism, and of Christology to Christianity, means an irreconcilable dogmatic difference between the two faiths.20 It would make nonsense of both Judaism and Christianity to pretend that they are really much the same thing.21

17. K. H. Miskotte 1963: 315–318, 308; cf. 1932. 18. Cf. H. Berkhof 1969. M. Barth 1983 agrees, and also includes ‘the State of Israel, as well as all secularised Jews’ (71). 19. K. H. Miskotte 1963: 165–167; cf. Horst 1932: 172; Childs 1964: 444–449; Schofield 1964: 118–120; Vriezen 1966: 121. 20. W. D. Davies 1968b; cf. 1968a. 21. For further discussion of the people of God in the Bible, see above: 3.2.e; also bibliography in the final footnote of that section.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 227

22/12/09 12:35:26

228

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

c. Palestine, the Jews and Judaism It is quite clear that there is historical and theological continuity between Israel (the people of God in the Old Testament) and the Christian church (the people of God in the New Testament). There are also discontinuities. For example, the former was a nation ruled by judges and kings living in a land with geographical boundaries, whereas the latter is an international spiritual community living throughout the world (and even beyond it, if the ‘communion of saints’ is taken to include the departed). The descendants of Abraham are not limited to those who can trace their physical ancestry to him, but consist of all those who share the faith of Abraham in the God who gives life to the dead (Rom. 4:11–25). The major problem for Christians concerns their attitude to those who believe in the same God but disagree about the identity of his Messiah. Are Old Testament promises fulfilled to Christians or Jews or both? Does the establishment of the state of Israel fulfil biblical promises concerning the land, or is it irrelevant to Christian faith? What is the relationship of the Jewish people to the church and to the Old Testament people of God? Are Christianity and Judaism equally valid sequels to the Old Testament, or is one right and the other wrong? Should the church be evangelizing the Jews, or reminding them of their spiritual heritage, or learning from them as elder brothers and sisters in the one faith? These questions remain the subject of intensive study and prolonged debate by both Christian and Jewish scholars.22 I can make only a few brief and tentative comments at this point. Concerning the land of Palestine, some Christians and many Jews see the establishment of Israel as a state in its own homeland (’eres. yiśrā’ēl ) to be a fulfilment of Old Testament promises of land. One major reason for the strong American support for this state is the influence of conservative Christians who assume that the Bible supports Israel rather than the Palestinians in the present conflict. However, the New Testament views the true Israel as spiritual rather than political, so that the land promises are not tied to the boundaries of Palestine nor do they automatically transfer to the state currently known as ‘Israel’. Moreover the ancient allocation of Canaan to the twelve tribes of Israel was conditional on faithfulness to their covenant with God (Lev. 18:24–30; 20:22; Deut. 4:25–27, 40; 8:17–20; 30:15–20), which raises questions about its relevance to a modern secular state. What does this mean in practice? Both Jews and Arabs have historic claims to Palestine, and both long for territory they can call their own. There may be

22. E.g. Tanenbaum et al. 1978; Lutheran World Federation 1982.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 228

22/12/09 12:35:26

continuity and discontinuity

229

more prospect of a way forward if these matters are tackled on the basis of biblical principles such as justice and compassion rather than historic claims to land.23 Concerning the Jewish people, one of the greatest enigmas of history is expressed in the jingle How odd of God to choose the Jews, but not so odd as those who chose the Jewish God then slew the Jews.24

During the first few centuries of the Christian era the Jews were largely ignored by Christians, though Gentile hostility to Jews had existed before Christianity and surfaced from time to time.25 It was the formation of the imperial church under Constantine that resulted in Gentile hostility to Jews becoming Christian hostility to Jews. While it would be an exaggeration to suggest that Christians and Jews have always been in conflict with one another (many have lived and worked together in peace and harmony), it cannot be denied that some who have called themselves Christians have persecuted Jews, particularly in the Middle Ages and in the twentieth century. There is hardly a greater disgrace in the history of Christendom than the pogroms and the holocaust. Nevertheless emotion and guilt should not lead us to confuse the issue. The sufferings of the Jews highlight the appalling behaviour of some who named the name of Christ, but they do not make those who suffered the chosen people. The Jews continue to have a special place in God’s plan of salvation (Rom. 3:1–4; 9:3–5), but that does not alter the Christian conviction that salvation is granted to those, and only those, who acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah of Israel and Saviour of the world (Rom. 9:6–8; 10:1–13; cf. Acts 4:12). Finally, concerning Judaism as a religion, there is the question of the

23. For further discussion of the Promised Land in relation to the contemporary situation, see van Buren 1983: 184–209; LaRondelle 1983: 135–146; Wilken 1992; Walker 1994; Johnston & Walker 2000; Brueggemann 2002: 202–204; C. Chapman 2002; Burge 2003. 24. The first line is attributed to the British journalist William Norman Ewer (1885– 1976), and there have been various supplements apart from that given above. One other worth mentioning is the following: ‘How strange of man to change the plan’. 25. Küng 1967: 132–138.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 229

22/12/09 12:35:26

230

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

church’s ‘mission to the Jews’.26 Should Christians preach the gospel to Jews in the same way as to Hindus and Buddhists, atheists and humanists? Or are the Jews already ‘saved’, and simply to be accepted as brothers and sisters in the same faith, with certain matters on which we agree to differ? I suggest that both these extreme views are to be rejected. Christianity and Judaism acknowledge the same God as Creator of the world and Saviour of his people. Both acknowledge Abraham and Moses as the founding fathers of the people of God, and both accept the Law, Prophets and Writings as a definitive statement concerning creation and sin, God’s gracious way of salvation, and the proper human response to divine grace in obedience and love. Nevertheless it would be dishonest to gloss over the fundamental difference between the answers of the two religions to Jesus’ question ‘Who do you say that I am?’ (Mark 8:29). ‘Mission to the Jews’ may be an inappropriate term, implying a patronizing Christian attitude to those who knew the God of Israel centuries before they did. But those who have been privileged late in time to know the God of Israel as the Father of their Lord Jesus Christ are divinely commissioned to be witnesses of that knowledge to all who do not yet have it, including Jews (Acts 1:8; 9:15). The gospel of Jesus Christ is addressed to both Jews and Gentiles: ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life’ ( John 3:16).

9.3 Unity in diversity a. Theological unity The essential theological unity of the Old and New Testaments, according to Rowley,27 is found in their common divine origin, common teaching about God and humanity, common patterns, and common ethical and liturgical principles. In a similar way, Vriezen (1966) considers both Testaments to have certain common perspectives, among which the concepts of communion, prophecy and kingdom are particularly important. The certainty of immediate communion between God and human beings is ‘the underlying idea of the whole of the Biblical testimony’.28 In contrast to von Rad (1952: 25), for whom the Old Testament is a ‘history book’, Vriezen asserts that prophecy is the basis of the Old Testament witness. Only the vision and testimony of the

26. Küng 1967: 142, 149; cf. van Buren 1983: 320–352. 27. Rowley 1949: 18–25; 1953:10–13, 62–89, 96–97, 118, 121, 139–140, 166. 28. Vriezen 1966: 157; cf. 150–152, 204–205; cf. W. J. Harrington 1973: 73.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 230

22/12/09 12:35:26

continuity and discontinuity

231

prophets can account for Israel’s awareness of God’s activity in history.29 This prophetic message is continued in the New Testament, which preaches the same God, expects the same kingdom, and demands the same life of faith as the Old Testament.30 In particular the eschatological prospect of the kingdom of God is not only ‘the most profound leading motif in the Old Testament’, but also the ‘true heart’ of the message of both Testaments.31 John Bright (1967) affirms that the Bible is a theological book and therefore the unity of the Bible depends on there being unity in biblical theology. The Old Testament records real history, in conjunction with a theological interpretation of that history, which is understood to be moving towards a destination but does not reach it. It follows that the Old Testament is theologically incomplete, describing a salvation history in which salvation is not yet achieved (136–138). Fulfilment and completion occur outside the limits of the Old Testament, in the New Testament. At the centre of the New Testament message stands one central fact – Jesus Christ has come (138–140). God has acted decisively in human history to fulfil his promises and achieve salvation. Thus Bright concludes that the ‘overarching structure of theology, which in one way or another informs each of its texts, constitutes the essential and normative element in the Old Testament, and the one that binds it irrevocably to the New Testament within the canon of Scripture’ (143). So there is not only historical continuity between Old and New Testaments but also a basic theological unity. This does not mean that the two Testaments have identical theologies, but that they agree in their fundamental understanding of God, humanity, the world and the relationships between them. Old Testament theology is assumed as the basis of New Testament theology, and this has two consequences. On the one hand, the Old Testament says more than the New, because a good deal that is already clear in the former is not repeated in the latter but taken for granted as true (e.g. the uniqueness of God, creation, human sin, divine providence, the possibility of change). On the other hand, the New Testament says more than the Old, because it tells of new things that supplement the Old (e.g. the fatherhood of God, the death

29. Vriezen 1966: 51, 101–103, 113–114; cf. J. A. Sanders 1972: 55. But in spite of its obvious importance, it is an exaggeration to make prophecy as central to the Old Testament as Vriezen does. Clements (1970: 136) points out that from a historical and theological point of view the Law has priority over the Prophets in the Old Testament canon. 30. Vriezen 1966: 104–109; cf. Goldingay 1990: 16. 31. Vriezen 1966: 114–115, 123.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 231

22/12/09 12:35:26

232

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

and resurrection of Jesus, the work of the Holy Spirit, the future consummation of history). Nevertheless the Old and New Testaments form one Bible, presenting an essentially consistent record of the theology of God’s people. b. Theological diversity According to Rowley, the theological unity of the Bible is dynamic. It is a unity of development, process and growth, and is therefore manifested in diversity rather than uniformity.32 For example, certain aspects of the Old Testament (such as primitive ideas, sacrifice and much of the old law) are superseded in the New Testament, though this does not mean that the Old Testament as a whole is superseded.33 The Old Testament is an integral part of the Christian Bible, though in itself is not a Christian book but an early stage of growth towards the whole.34 Indeed the very differences between the Testaments are an aspect of their unity: ‘The most significant bond between the two Testaments . . . is to be found . . . in the fundamental differences between the Testaments’ (1953: 89). Prophecy and fulfilment are quite different, yet are intimately linked. From one point of view, both old and new revelations are valid in their own right. From another point of view, the two Testaments are complementary so that neither can be fully understood without the other.35 Thus Rowley expresses the relationship between the Testaments in terms of both unity and diversity.36 Such theological diversity is not only true of the relationship between the Testaments but is also found within the Old and New Testaments themselves. Leenhardt (1962) distinguishes the Abrahamic and Mosaic traditions of spirituality that coexist in the Old (and New) Testament. Paul Hanson (1982) finds two major polarities in the Old Testament: between form and reform

32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

Rowley 1946: 358; 1953: 1–29, 63; 1956: 14. Rowley 1953: 2, 14–16, 102–108, 129–130. Rowley 1945: 9–10; 1956: 14. Rowley 1949: 17; 1953: 94, 98, 112; 1956: 45. Smart (1961: 90) asserts that Rowley does not take the discontinuity seriously enough. This must be rejected in view of Rowley’s clear statement that the differences between the Testaments provide their most important link (see above), his warning of the danger of equating the two Testaments (1953: 90), and his reply to Smart, which reaffirms that he recognizes both continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments (1949: 20n.). For a recent study of Rowley’s biblical theology, see Clements 2003.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 232

22/12/09 12:35:26

continuity and discontinuity

233

(kings and prophets), and between visionary and pragmatic approaches to life. Goldingay (1987) examines three major kinds of diversity in the Old Testament: in meaning (concepts, themes, institutions), in message (different Old Testament books and traditions), and in significance (different interpretations of the same event or motif). Dunn (1977) investigates the major strands and layers within the New Testament material, and discovers a broad diversity in the understanding of the gospel, organization of the community, patterns of worship and spiritual experience. He then identifies four major currents in early Christianity: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, apocalyptic Christianity, early Catholicism. All four have roots within the New Testament, he argues, though none can claim to be the normative form of Christianity in the first century. The unifying focus for all Christians was the person of Jesus Christ, and there was general agreement concerning the unity and continuity between Jesus of Nazareth and the exalted Christ. But within this essential unity was a great deal of scope for diversity in belief and practice.37 The diversities within the Bible tend to be ignored or harmonized in the process of maintaining traditional beliefs. Catholics and Lutherans, Puritans and Pentecostals, conservatives and liberals, all have their favourite parts of the Bible (‘canon within the canon’). Each group is inclined to interpret the rest of the Bible in the light of what is considered to be the heart of the matter.38 However, a more genuinely ‘biblical’ approach is to recognize the diversity in the Bible and to refuse to force it into the mould of an artificial unity.39 We should not be afraid of diversity. It does not contradict the unity of the Bible but is complementary to it. To put it another way, the basic theological unity of the Bible is expressed in and through diverse words and forms. c. A relationship of tension To conclude, there is continuity and also discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, unity and also diversity. The tension between continuity and discontinuity is the essence of the

37. For a critique of Dunn’s work, see Carson 1983. Another approach is offered by Reumann 1991a. 38. Cf. the debates in the 1960s and 1970s about the ‘centre of the Old Testament’ and the ‘centre of the New Testament’: see Baker 1976a: 377–386; Hasel 1978: 140–170; 1991: 139–171; cf. Hayes & Prussner 1985: 257–260; Landmesser 1997; Murphy 2001. On the ‘canon within the canon’, see Goldingay 1987: 122–127; Bruce 1988: 270–175. 39. Cf. Cullmann 1986: 13–33; Bruce 1988: 270–275.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 233

22/12/09 12:35:27

234

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

relationship between the Testaments as presented by Vriezen (1966). As already mentioned, he recognizes that the Old and New Testaments have much in common. At the same time, there is a decisive discontinuity in the conviction of Jesus’ disciples that he was the Messiah (106, 109). In the thought of Jesus (11–13) and Paul (93–95) there is a tension between accepting the Old Testament as word of God and reinterpreting it in the light of Jesus Christ. This tension has continued throughout the history of the church and remains unresolved today (95–99). On the one hand, there are attempts to overcome the tension, by holding together both unity and diversity in the Bible (e.g. Vischer, von Rad) or affirming the independent theological significance of the Old Testament (e.g. van Ruler). On the other hand, some scholars have stressed the tension so strongly that the Old Testament is treated as a non-Christian book (e.g. Bultmann). None of these attempts has provided a satisfactory solution, according to Vriezen. He argues that the tension is not to be overcome, but rather to be recognized as central to the relationship between the Testaments. It follows that for Vriezen there is a double relationship between the Testaments: organic spiritual unity, and historical difference and distance (1966: 100, 120–121). A balanced solution to the problem must take account of the fundamental theological agreement between the Testaments and also the radical inward renovation of Israel’s religion accomplished by Jesus Christ (89, 110). In this the person of Jesus has a double role. Not only is he the decisive difference between the Testaments, but also – paradoxically – the essential unity of the Bible becomes evident in him. ‘Jesus Christ is the end of God’s self-disclosure to Israel and at the same time He is the man through whom God made the world share in his redeeming work in Israel’ (28; cf. 122–124). Likewise John Bright (1967: 184–197) is dissatisfied with the various modern schemes for understanding the relationship between the Testaments, and argues that the only way to a satisfactory solution is to recognize the complexity of the relationship. He sums up his solution in one sentence: ‘The Old Testament is the history of our own heritage of faith – but before Christ; it is the record of the dealings of our God – but before Christ’ (201). This formulation makes clear the dual nature of the relationship, which includes both continuity and discontinuity: The continuity lies in the obvious fact that Christianity is historically a development out of Judaism; the discontinuity in the equally obvious fact that Christianity is not a continuation, or even a radical reform, of Judaism, but an entirely separate religion. The continuity lies in the fact that the theological structure of the two Testaments is fundamentally the same, with the major themes of the theology of the Old carried

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 234

22/12/09 12:35:27

continuity and discontinuity

235

over and resumed in the New; the discontinuity lies in the fact that these themes receive radical reinterpretation in the light of what Christ has done. Above all, continuity lies in the New Testament’s affirmation that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), who has fulfilled the law and the prophets; the discontinuity lies in the fact that this fulfillment, though foreshadowed in the Old Testament, is not necessarily deducible from the plain sense of the Old and was in fact so surprising that the majority of Israelites could not see it as fulfillment. The New Testament, while unbreakably linked with the Old, announces the intrusion of something New and, therewith, the end of the Old. It affirms the fulfillment of Israel’s hope – and pronounces radical judgement on that hope as generally held. It announces the fulfillment of the law – and the abrogation of the way of the law. In a word, the two Testaments are continuous within the unity of God’s redemptive purpose; but their discontinuity is the discontinuity of two aeons. (201)

Hooker (1986) discusses the tension between continuity and discontinuity in the relationship of early Christianity to its Jewish setting. Using Jesus’ analogy of new wine and old wineskins, she points to the ambivalent attitude to what is old that runs through much of the New Testament (21–25). There is a tension between the beliefs and ideas inherited from the past and the new events and insights of the gospel. Christianity was not merely a reform movement in Judaism, but neither was it an entirely separate movement. It is true that in due course Christians came to see the old and new as incompatible and diametrically opposed to each other. But that was largely because Jews had rejected Jesus as the Messiah and effectively forced Christians to choose between doing the same or leaving Judaism. However, it should not be forgotten that Jesus grew up in Judaism and there is an essentially Jewish element in his teaching. An example of the tension between old and new is the contrast in Matthew 5 between ‘the revelation of God’s will given in the past and the new understanding of that will which had come through Jesus’ (31). It is not a question of contrast between two laws (of Moses and of Jesus); rather there is one will of God which is understood partially through the Old Testament law and more fully through the teaching of Jesus. Likewise Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, contrasted the old and the new, but saw both continuity and discontinuity between his past beliefs and present faith (38). So the relationship between the Testaments is marked by tension between continuity and discontinuity, unity and diversity. This tension should not be ignored or suppressed but recognized and welcomed. On the one hand, the sixty-six books of the Christian canon form one Bible, an account of salvation history that presents a unified and consistent picture of the nature of God and his plan for the world he created. On the other hand, the one Bible

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 235

22/12/09 12:35:27

236

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

consists of two Testaments, and there is considerable discontinuity and diversity between and within those Testaments. We understand the Bible properly only if we grasp these two truths simultaneously and refuse to emphasize either at the expense of the other. The motto of Indonesia, a nation of several hundred racial and linguistic groups united by common principles and purposes, could also be applied to the Bible – unity in diversity.40

40. For further discussion of continuity and discontinuity in the relationship between the Testaments, see Feinberg 1988; also Baker 1976a: 358–359.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 236

22/12/09 12:35:27

1 0 . COVENANT

10.1 Old covenant a. Terminology The word ‘covenant’ is rarely used in modern English but its meaning is essentially an ‘agreement’, ‘contract’, ‘treaty’ or ‘commitment’ between two or more parties. Such an agreement may create a new relationship between the parties, or formalize a relationship that already exists. Generally there will be written documentation, and often witnesses, though where the respective parties trust each other a verbal agreement may be sufficient, as in the London Stock Exchange where deals are traditionally made verbally and the dealers hold to their motto ‘My word is my bond’. Individuals, groups and nations usually enter into contracts voluntarily, for mutual advantage, though in some cases one party may impose a contract or treaty on another (e.g. a creditor on a defaulting debtor, or a victorious country on another defeated in war). There are also acts of commitment, such as marriage or confirmation, intended to express mutual love in a way that defines obligations and promises faithfulness, without necessarily conferring specific benefits on either party.1

1. This chapter is an expanded version of an earlier article (Baker 2005), and is used here with permission of the original publisher.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 237

22/12/09 12:35:27

238

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Hebrew terms for ‘covenant’ The most important term in Hebrew for covenant is bĕrît, found 287 times in the Old Testament and generally translated ‘covenant’, though occasionally ‘treaty’, ‘agreement’ or ‘alliance’. It refers to the establishment of a specific relationship between two parties, human and/or divine.2 The word is commonly used with the verb kārat (cut), perhaps because the making of a covenant was often accompanied by sacrifice. Various other verbs are used occasionally, including hēqîm (‘establish’; e.g. Gen. 9:11; 17:7), nātan (‘give’; e.g. Gen. 17:2) and .siwwâ (‘command’; e.g. Ps. 105:8; Jer. 11:4). The term ‘ēdût (46 times in the Old Testament) is translated by some versions as ‘covenant’, especially in relation to the ark, tablets and tabernacle, though others prefer ‘testimony’ or ‘treaty’.3 Greek term for ‘covenant’ There is also a distinctive term for covenant in biblical Greek. The word diathēkē is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word bĕrît (270 times), though it generally refers to ‘last will and testament’ outside the Bible. This word occurs just 33 times in the New Testament, mainly in Paul (9 times) and Hebrews (17 times). However, we should not conclude from these statistics that covenant is less important in the New Testament than the Old. The fundamental concept of a relationship between God and his people underlies the New Testament too, but is not explained at length since it is assumed that readers are familiar with the Old Testament. Particular issues are discussed in detail, such as the identity of the people of God (e.g. Rom. 9 – 11) and the new covenant (e.g. Heb. 8 – 10). The idea of covenant

2. Eichrodt 1933: 36–45; Kalluveettil 1982; Mendenhall & Herion 1992; McConville 1997. Some scholars have argued that the original meaning was ‘obligation’, imposed by one party on themselves and/or others, and that the idea of a mutual agreement that created and defined a relationship was a later development (Kutsch 1973; Weinfeld 1973: 255). For a summary and critique of Kutsch’s view, see Nicholson 1986: 89–99, 104–109; cf. Barr 1977. For comparison with the understanding of covenant in African cultures, see Kisirinya 2001; Muutuki 2001. 3. Several other terms are related in meaning to covenant and occasionally interchangeable (Weinfeld 1973): ’ālâ (‘oath’; Gen. 26:28; Deut. 29:12, 14; Neh. 10:29; Ezek. 16:59; 17:18), dābār (‘word’; Deut. 9:5; cf. 8:18; Hag. 2:5), h.esed (‘steadfast love’; Deut. 7:9, 12; Isa. 54:10; 55:3), šālôm (‘peace’; Num. 25:12; Josh. 9:15), tôrâ (‘law, instruction’; 2 Kgs 23:3 cf. v. 24; Hos. 8:1).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 238

22/12/09 12:35:27

c ovenant

239

also finds expression in new ways, such as Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom of God.4 The ‘covenant formula’ The so-called ‘covenant formula’ has been studied in detail by several scholars.5 Its full form is found first of all (canonically) in Exodus 6:7: ‘I will take you as my people, and I will be your God.’ Leviticus 26:12 is identical in content, but the order is reversed: ‘I . . . will be your God, and you shall be my people.’ With very similar wording the formula is found in Deuteronomy (26:17–19; 29:12–13), 2 Samuel (7:24) and frequently in the prophets ( Jer. 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27; Zech. 8:8). Two brief forms of the covenant formula are common:6 ‘I will be your God’, or something similar, is used in the first four books of the Pentateuch (Gen. 17:7–8; Exod. 29:45; Lev. 11:45; 22:33; 25:38; 26:45; Num. 15:41) and once in Ezekiel 34:24. The other half of the formula ‘You shall be my people’, or its equivalent, is characteristic of Deuteronomy (4:20; 7:6; 14:2; 27:9; 28:9) and occurs in 1 Samuel 12:22; 2 Kings 11:17; and Jeremiah 13:11. There are also allusions to the formula, or at least expressions very similar in content, in Exodus 19:4–6; Deuteronomy 4:7; 27:9; 2 Kings 11:17//2 Chronicles 23:16; Psalms 33:12; 95:7; 100:3; Ezekiel 34:30–31; Hosea 1:9; 2:23; and Zechariah 2:11.7 b. Covenants in the Old Testament Many Old Testament covenants and treaties are between human beings, either individuals or groups, for example:

4. E.g. Luke 22:29 uses covenant terminology in relation to the kingdom of God, since the expression diatithēmi . . . basileian (‘confer a kingdom’, nrsv) exactly parallels diatithēmi . . . diathēkēn, the lxx translation of kārat bĕrît (make/establish a covenant). See Guhrt 1975: 369; Tan 2005: 151–152. 5. Smend II 1963; Lohfink 1969; Rendtorff 1995; van den Eynde 1999. 6. It is commonly assumed that the bilateral form is original, and the others are ‘halves’, though Rendtorff 1995: 12 questions this assumption. 7. The similarity between covenant forms in the Old Testament and treaty forms in the ancient Near East is well known and has been studied by many scholars, but will not be discussed here (see Mendenhall 1954a; 1954b; Muilenburg 1959; Calderone 1966; Hillers 1969: 25–71; Baltzer 1964; Weinfeld 1972; McCarthy 1978; Lucas 1982; Nicholson 1986: 56–82; Mendenhall & Herion 1992).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 239

22/12/09 12:35:27

240

• • • • • • •

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Abraham and Abimelech (Gen. 21:22–32) Isaac and Abimelech (Gen. 26:26–31) Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:43–54) Jonathan and David (1 Sam. 18:1–4; 20:8, 16–17; 23:18) David and Abner (2 Sam. 3:12–13; cf. vv. 17–21) David and Israel (2 Sam. 5:3//1 Chr. 11:3) Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekiah (Ezek. 17:12–19)

The people of Israel are warned not to make covenants or treaties with pagan nations and their gods (Exod. 23:32; Deut. 7:2), though in fact they often do so (e.g. treaties with Gibeon, Josh. 9; Tyre, 1 Kgs 5:1–12; cf. 2 Sam. 5:11; 1 Kgs 16:30–31; Amos 1:9; Aram, 1 Kgs 15:19; 20:34; 2 Chr. 16:3; Assyria, Hos. 12:1). Marriage is occasionally referred to as a covenant (Prov. 2:17; Mal. 2:14; cf. Job 31:1), as is friendship (Ps. 55:20).8 There are several covenants between God and human beings. The first mentioned is God’s covenant with Noah and the whole earth (Gen. 6:18; 9:1–17).9 God also makes covenants with Levi and the priesthood (Num. 18:19; 25:10– 13; Deut. 33:8–9; Neh. 13:29; Jer. 33:20–22; Mal. 2:4–8), and with David and his dynasty (2 Sam. 7;10 23:5; 1 Kgs 8:23–25; 2 Chr. 6:14–16; 7:17–18; 13:5; 21:7; Pss 89; 132:11–12; Jer. 33:17–26). All three covenants are described as ‘everlasting’ or ‘perpetual’ (bĕrît ‘ōlām, Gen. 9:12, 16; Num. 18:19; 25:13; 2 Sam. 23:5; 2 Chr. 13:5; Ps. 89:29). They are unilateral in nature, in the sense that God initiates them and commits himself to keeping them, whereas little is said about human response and obligations (though a positive response is implied). However, by far the most important covenant in the Old Testament is the

8. On secular covenants in the Old Testament and the ancient Near East, see Kalluveettil 1982. 9. For a recent study, see Chalmers 2009. Some scholars suggest an even earlier covenant with Adam (e.g. Robertson 1980: 17–25; Dumbrell 1984: 11–43), and this is the starting point for seventeenth-century federal theology (Visser 1996). The exegetical basis for this is doubtful (P. R. Williamson 2003: 141–143; 2007: 52–58) and the word bĕrît is certainly not used before the flood story. Hos. 6:7 has been translated ‘Like Adam, they have broken the covenant’ (esv; niv), and might be seen as evidence of an Adamic covenant, but most modern versions take ‘Adam’ as a placename and translate the verse ‘At Adam . . .’ (njb; nrsv; rsv; cf. reb; tev; tniv). 10. Even though the word bĕrît is not used, this is clearly the fundamental text (together with its parallel in 1 Chr. 17:1–15) that establishes God’s special relationship (covenant) with David and his descendants.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 240

22/12/09 12:35:27

c ovenant

241

one made by God with Abraham and his descendants, and confirmed to the people of Israel at Sinai, Moab and Shechem. It does not invalidate the prior covenant with Noah, which included all human beings, but is more specific and focuses on the election of the people of God. It is also divinely initiated, but is bilateral in the sense that human response is specifically invited and documented (e.g. Exod. 24:3, 7). This too is an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Chr. 16:15–17//Pss 105:8–10), and God is always faithful to that intention ( Judg. 2:1; Pss 105:8; 111:5, 9) though it is repeatedly broken by Israel.11 It is primarily this covenant that becomes the basis of the prophecies of a new covenant in the future, also to be everlasting (Isa. 59:21; 61:8; Jer. 31:31–34;12 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60; 37:26; cf. Isa. 55:3). Many interpreters distinguish the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, considering them quite separate, but I dispute such a distinction. At least from a canonical perspective, the Mosaic covenant is a confirmation and elaboration of that made with Abraham, not something new or different. There are widely varying views among scholars concerning the origins of the covenant traditions, and whether they can in fact be traced back as far as Abraham and Moses, but I will not discuss issues of dating and historicity here.13 My concern is rather to understand the Old Testament in its present form. From that perspective it is one covenant that God initiates with Abraham, then confirms and elaborates to his promised descendants after they are liberated from Egypt, and before and after they enter the Promised Land (Exod. 6:2–8; Lev. 26:42, 45; Deut. 4:31; 9:27; Judg. 2:1; 1 Chr. 16:15–17; Neh. 9:7–15).14 As Fretheim (1991a: 208–214) demonstrates, Israel does not become the people of God at Sinai, but their election is already assumed as an established fact in

11. See below: 10.2. 12. The term bĕrît ‘ōlām is not actually found in this text, the only one which specifically uses the term ‘new covenant’, but it is very clear from the description that it is intended to be everlasting. 13. Wellhausen believed that the covenant was a late development in Israelite religion, resulting from the preaching of the prophets. This view was largely abandoned in the twentieth century through the research of Gunkel, Weber, Mowinckel, Alt, Noth, Eichrodt, Mendenhall and others, then revived by Perlitt (1969) and Kutsch (1973). Two recent studies have argued that the idea of covenant originated in the kinship bonds of ancient Israelite tribal society (Cross 1998; S. L. McKenzie 2000: 11–39). For a historical survey, see Nicholson 1986: 3–117. 14. It may be significant here that the noun bĕrît (covenant) is never found in the plural in the Old Testament (cf. Barr 1977).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 241

22/12/09 12:35:27

242

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

the early chapters of Exodus (e.g. 3:7–10; 4:22; 5:1; passim). They are inheritors of the promises to the ancestors (Exod. 3:15–17; 32:13) and the covenant that God made with Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 17:7). They believe the word of God spoken by Moses, witness his saving power, and worship him (Exod. 4:31; 12:27; 14:31 – 15:21). Thus ‘the covenant at Sinai is a specific covenant within the context of the Abrahamic covenant’, made with an already existing covenant community.15 c. God’s covenant with Abraham When God first calls Abraham, he establishes a special relationship with him as he promises a new land, many descendants and great blessing (Gen. 12:1–3, 7). This may be seen as the basic biblical promise, which is elaborated and (partially) fulfilled throughout the Pentateuch, and indeed the whole Bible.16 The word ‘covenant’ is first used to express this relationship in Genesis 15:18: ‘On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates . . .”’ (my emphasis). It is in the context of a covenant ceremony involving sacrifices and a theophany (vv. 7–17). In Genesis 17 the covenant becomes the main topic. God takes the initiative by appearing to Abraham, now ninety-nine years old, and telling him about the covenant he is intending to make – that Abraham will be the ‘ancestor of a multitude of nations’ (vv. 2–6). He explains that this will be an everlasting covenant (v. 7) and that the land where they presently reside as immigrants will become theirs for ever (v. 8). As a sign of Abraham’s acceptance of the covenant, he is instructed to perform the rite of circumcision (vv. 9–14; cf. 23–27). God adds that the covenant will be established with Isaac, the child to be conceived by Sarah and born the following year (vv. 15–16, 19, 21), though Ishmael will also be blessed with many descendants (vv. 18, 20). The essence of this covenant is a special relationship with God, stated with a double use of the covenant formula (in short form): I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land

15. Fretheim 1991a: 209. See also Robertson 1980: 27–52 on the unity of the divine covenants. 16. See above: 8.2–8.3.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 242

22/12/09 12:35:27

c ovenant

243

where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God. (Gen. 17:7–8; my emphases)

It is sometimes thought that the covenant with Abraham was unconditional, but the fact that circumcision is the only obligation specified in this text does not mean there were no other conditions. To accept the Lord as God surely implies obligations of worship, obedience and faithfulness, even if the details are not elaborated. Genesis 17 begins with an ethical imperative (‘walk before me, and be blameless’, v. 1) and ethical implications are referred to later in the Abraham story (18:19; 22:18; 26:5). In later days the covenant with Abraham is celebrated in a psalm of David (1 Chr. 16:15–17//Ps. 105:8–10) and a prayer of Ezra (Neh. 9:7–8), and the Deuteronomic historian considers it to be the reason why Israel continued to exist and occupy the land for so long in spite of their repeated disobedience (2 Kgs 13:23; cf. Josh. 24:3–13). d. Confirmation of the covenant The book of Exodus is set several hundred years after the time of Abraham. God has fulfilled his promise that Abraham will have many descendants, but those descendants are slaves in Egypt and feeling far from blessed. Now the narrator tells us that ‘God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ (Exod. 2:24). God declares to Moses: I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name ‘The Lord’ I did not make myself known to them. I also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they resided as aliens. I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites whom the Egyptians are holding as slaves, and I have remembered my covenant. Say therefore to the Israelites, ‘I am the Lord, and I will free you from the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from slavery to them. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgement. I will take you as my people, and I will be your God.’ (Exod. 6:2–7; my emphases)

Once again the essence of the covenant is affirmed – the special relationship between God and his people – and this time the covenant formula appears in its full form. On the basis of his covenant with their ancestors, God intends to set Israel free from Egypt. The first half of Exodus recounts the liberation at length. Then God confirms his covenant with the descendants of Abraham. He does this at three crucial points in their history:

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 243

22/12/09 12:35:27

244

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

• after the exodus (at Mount Sinai) • before entering the Promised Land (on the plains of Moab) • after the settlement in the land (at Shechem) Let us consider these one by one. Sinai After leaving Egypt, the people travel to Mount Sinai, and there the essence of the covenant is restated: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. (Exod. 19:4–6; my emphasis)

The expression ‘you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples’ in verse 5b is very close to the covenant formula,17 and is specifically related to the word ‘covenant’ in the first part of the verse. It indicates God’s love for his chosen people, and this is the motivation for the covenant rather than mutual advantage (cf. Exod. 34:6–7; Deut. 7:6–9). This is followed by an awesome theophany (Exod. 19), the Decalogue (Exod. 20) and the so-called ‘Book of the Covenant’ (Exod. 21 – 23; cf. 24:7). Finally, there is a ceremony to confirm the covenant (Exod. 24), including: • • • • • •

statement of intent between God and the people (v. 3) writing the covenant document (v. 4a) building an altar and twelve pillars (v. 4b) sacrifices (vv. 5–6) reading the covenant document and acceptance by the people (v. 7) sprinkling the people with blood to seal the covenant (v. 8)

Then Moses and the leaders climb the mountain and meet with God (vv. 9–11), and Moses himself stays a further forty days to receive the tablets of stone (vv. 12–18). In Leviticus the covenant formula appears five times (11:45; 22:33; 25:38; 26:12, 45). Two of the occurrences are in chapter 26, together with a sevenfold use of the word ‘covenant’. Thus the conclusion to the Holiness Code

17. Rendtorff 1995: 26–28.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 244

22/12/09 12:35:27

c ovenant

245

reaffirms the covenant with an assurance that God will maintain the covenant (v. 9), promising rewards if the people are obedient (vv. 3–13) and warning of the consequences if they break the covenant (vv. 14–39). However, even if Israel does break the covenant, God will always remember it and be prepared to renew it if they repent (vv. 40–45). Moab Forty years later, on the plains of Moab, Moses and the people of Israel have reached the border of the Promised Land. The two addresses in the first eleven chapters of Deuteronomy review the history of the preceding years, reflecting on the covenant and its implications for the people of God. The next fifteen chapters present the distinctive Deuteronomic Laws, and are followed by confirmation of the covenant in chapters 26:16 – 30:20.18 The word bĕrît is used twenty-seven times in Deuteronomy, more than any other Old Testament book apart from Genesis. The covenant formula is used directly in seven texts (4:20; 7:6; 14:2; 27:9; 26:17–19; 28:9; 29:13) and alluded to elsewhere (e.g. 4:7; 27:9). Clearly the covenant relationship between God and his people is a major theme and focus of the book. The covenant, expressed in the Ten Commandments and inscribed on the two tablets, is declared to the people at Sinai/Horeb (4:13; 5:2) as a confirmation of God’s covenant with their ancestors (4:31; 7:12; cf. 1:8; 26:3–10). They must therefore observe the covenant (4:23, 40; 5:33; 6:3, 17; 7:11; passim), just as God will surely keep his part of the deal (7:9). As the covenant with the ancestors was confirmed to the people at Sinai, so it is confirmed once again to the next generation in Moab: The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today . . .19

18. Olson (1994: 126–158) argues that the next two chapters present parallel versions of the Moab covenant, characterized by word (Deut. 31, on the leadership succession) and song (Deut. 32, the Song of Moses). Against those who consider Deut. 29 – 32 to be appendices largely unrelated to the preceding laws, he argues that they are ‘a climactic extension and reinterpretation of the Horeb commandments’ (152). Cholewiński (1985) considers the covenant with Israel in Moab to be even more significant than that at Sinai, and to prefigure the ‘new covenant’ spoken of by the later prophets. See also Rofé 1985. 19. This is of course not a literal historical statement, but hyperbole intended to actualize the covenant for the hearers of Moses’ sermon, and no doubt also for later readers and hearers of these words (cf. Olson 1994: 41).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 245

22/12/09 12:35:27

246

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today . . . These are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb. (Deut. 5:2–3; 8:18; 29:1; my emphases)

These texts make it clear that the covenant at Sinai is understood to be still operative for the new generation of Israelites, and Deuteronomy intends to confirm and supplement its provisions. The term ‘confirmation of the covenant’ is preferable to ‘covenant renewal’ (because the old one has not been broken) or ‘new covenant’ (because the new one does not replace the old). There is no description of a covenant ceremony like that in Exodus, though many key elements of a ceremony are mentioned or implied: • statement that God and the people have agreed to the covenant (26:16– 19; cf. 27:9–10) • provision for further confirmation of the covenant after entering the Promised Land (27:1–8, 11–26) • blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (28:1–68) • assembly of the whole people to ‘enter into the covenant of the Lord your God’ (29:1–15) • warnings and assurances (29:16 – 30:10) • concluding call to commitment (30:11–20) Shechem When they have occupied the Promised Land, the people of Israel are instructed to set up stones inscribed with the words of the law and to build an altar on Mount Ebal (Deut. 27:1–8), and then to hold a ceremony declaring the blessings and curses of the covenant on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal respectively (27:11–26; cf. 11:29–30). These two mountains overlook Shechem, an ancient city in the heartland of northern Canaan that was significant in the lives of Abraham (Gen. 12:6) and Jacob (33:18–20; 35:4). The book of Joshua records Israel’s assembling at Shechem twice to reconfirm their covenant with God, though some commentators consider both texts to refer to the same event (e.g. Soggin 1970). According to Joshua 8:30–35, after the conquest of Ai (the earliest point in the settlement that it was feasible to access Shechem), Joshua builds an altar and offers sacrifices on Mount Ebal, in conscious fulfilment of Moses’ instructions. He then inscribes a copy of the law of Moses on stones and holds a ceremonial reading in the

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 246

22/12/09 12:35:27

c ovenant

247

presence of all Israel, including the blessings and curses. In Joshua 24, at the end of Joshua’s life and after completion of the settlement, the tribes of Israel are gathered once again in Shechem. In his farewell speech Joshua had warned the people of the danger of breaking the covenant (23:16), and now negotiates their renewed commitment. There is a clear structure to the account of the assembly: • • • • •

opening ceremony (24:1) historical introduction (vv. 2–13) call to decision (vv. 14–15) the people’s response (vv. 16–21) confirmation of the covenant, including oath of allegiance (vv. 22–24), writing of the covenant document (vv. 25–26a) and setting up a stone as witness to the agreement (vv. 26b–27) • closing ceremony (v. 28)

e. Covenant and worship The covenant is also a key theme in the regular worship of Israel, where the relationship between God and his people is remembered and celebrated. Several artefacts and symbols play a particular role in this connection. The most important artefact is the ark of the covenant,20 the making of which is prescribed and recorded in Exodus (25:10–22; 26:33–34; 30:26; 31:7; 37:1–9; 39:35; 40:3, 20–21; cf. Deut. 10:1–5). It functions as a focal point for the people during their wandering in the wilderness (Num. 4:5–6; 7:89; 10:33–36; 14:44; Deut. 10:8), on the plains of Moab (Deut. 31:9, 25–26) and during the settlement of the Promised Land ( Josh. 3 – 4; 6:3–13; 7:6; 8:33). In the historical books the ark is mentioned intermittently, particularly in the stories of Eli (1 Sam. 3:3; 4:1 – 7:2), David (2 Sam. 6; 7:2; 11:11; 15:24–29; 1 Chr. 13; 15 – 16; 22:19) and Solomon (1 Kgs 3:15; 6:19; 8:1–21; 2 Chr. 5 – 6). Presumably it was captured or destroyed in the fall of Jerusalem.21 The primary stipulations of the covenant are written on the tablets of the covenant (Exod. 31:18; 32:15–19; 34:29; Deut. 9:9–17; 1 Kgs 8:9//2 Chr. 5:10), sometimes referred to simply as ‘the covenant’ (Exod. 25:16, 21; 40:20; 1 Kgs

20. Both bĕrît and ‘ēdût are used interchangeably in this term, and it is also often called ‘the ark of the Lord’ or ‘the ark of God’ or simply ‘the ark’. 21. It is also referred to briefly in Judg. 20:27, in the time of Saul (1 Sam. 14:18) and Josiah (2 Chr. 35:3), and in Ps. 132:8 and Jer. 3:16.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 247

22/12/09 12:35:27

248

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

8:21//2 Chr. 6:11), which are kept in the ark. And the ark is kept in the tabernacle, which is occasionally called the tabernacle of the covenant (Exod. 38:21; Num. 1:50–53; 10:11) or tent of the covenant (Num. 9:15; 17:7–8; 18:2; 2 Chr. 24:6) and once associated with the covenant formula (Exod. 29:42–46).22 The covenant is often mentioned in the psalms, reminding worshippers of God’s faithfulness to his covenant (Pss 106:45; 111:5, 9) and encouraging them to keep his covenant (25:10, 14; 103:17–18), unlike those ancestors who broke it (78:10, 37). One psalmist protests that he and his people have been faithful to the covenant, whereas God appears not to be keeping his part of the agreement (44:17). The covenant formula is alluded to in Psalms 33:12,23 95:7 and 100:3.24

10.2 Covenant-breaking and renewal Tragically the covenant between God and Abraham, thrice confirmed to his descendants with great ceremony, is repeatedly broken in the succeeding years ( Judg. 2:2, 11–21). Eventually this leads to expulsion from the Promised Land, first for the ten tribes of northern Israel (2 Kgs 17:7–23; 18:11–12) and later for the remaining people of Judah in the south (2 Kgs 24:20; 2 Chr. 36:15–21; Jer. 22:4–9; 25:8–11).25 However, this does not mean that God has given up on the covenant, and prophets assure the exiles in Babylon of his continued concern for his people and plans for their restoration (Isa. 40:1–11; 41:8–10; Jer. 29:10–14). God is not taken by surprise when Israel breaks the covenant. It is

22. Other artefacts and symbols related to the covenant include the book and blood of the covenant (Exod. 24:7–8), sabbath (31:16), salt that accompanies grain offerings (Lev. 2:13), curtain (24:3), holy bread (Lev. 24:5–9) and fringes on garments (Num. 15:37–41). 23. Lohfink 1994. 24. Other references to ‘covenant’ are found in Pss 50:5, 16; 74:20. Kenik (1976) links Ps. 101 with the covenant tradition. On covenant and worship, see also Harrelson 1958; Ringgren 1962; P. R. Williamson 2007: 100–111. 25. Are there echoes of the expulsion from Eden (Gen. 3:22–24) here? Neither the term nor the concept of covenant is found in the early chapters of Genesis, but there is a parallel in the idea of God giving the land and its produce to human beings and later retracting that gift when they fail to follow the conditions laid out beforehand.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 248

22/12/09 12:35:27

c ovenant

249

specifically predicted in Deuteronomy (e.g. 29:18–21; 31:16, 20), and their ‘stiff-necked’ nature is noticed immediately after the confirmation of the covenant at Sinai in the incident of the golden calf (Exod. 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9). A major part of the prophetic role is to remind the people of their covenant obligations and call them to repentance. We now look briefly at ten examples of covenant-breaking and renewal in the Old Testament, in order to gain a clearer picture of what is happening and why. a. Early days Moses It is never said that Abraham himself broke the covenant, but ‘the ink is scarcely dry’ on the Mosaic tablets before Israel has broken the covenant by making a golden calf. There is a certain ambivalence in the narrative as to whether or not it is a conscious rejection of Yhwh as God, and it appears that Aaron is attempting a compromise between the demands of the people for visible gods (Exod. 32:1–4) and his own loyalty to Moses and belief in the unseen God (vv. 5, 21–24). However, the narrator clearly understands it as a breaking of the covenant by the people (vv. 7–10), so serious that it would have been cancelled there and then were it not for Moses’ appeal to the promise to the ancestors (vv. 11–14). An extraordinary succession of events is then set in motion. The impetuous breaking of the tablets of the covenant is followed by destruction of the calf, execution of three thousand rebels, a further appeal by Moses to God, a plague, God’s statement that he will no longer accompany his people to the Promised Land, mourning by the people, a third appeal by Moses to God, the cutting and inscribing of two new tablets, a theophany on Mount Sinai, Moses’ confession of sin on behalf of the people and, finally, the renewal of the covenant (34:10, 27–28).26 Various laws are included here, including a prohibition on making treaties (covenants) with the inhabitants of Canaan (vv. 12, 15). Joshua The next time the covenant is broken is not long after its second confirmation on the plains of Moab. Shortly after entry to the Promised Land and the dazzling

26. Fretheim (1991a) describes it as a new covenant, rather than simply a renewal of the Sinai covenant, which is ‘grounded in a new act of God on behalf of Israel’ (308). But most interpreters understand it as a renewal of the original covenant of Sinai (e.g. M. H. Segal 1967). On this passage, see also D. R. Davis 1982.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 249

22/12/09 12:35:27

250

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

victory at Jericho, Achan son of Carmi son of Zabdi son of Zerah of the tribe of Judah helps himself to some of the ‘devoted things’, plunder which according to the principles of holy war should have been destroyed or placed in the sanctuary ( Josh. 7:1). This is a serious transgression of the covenant, involving stealing from God and deception (v. 11), and results in God’s withdrawal from the people so that they are no longer able to stand against their enemies (v. 12). As Moses had done before him, Joshua acts decisively. In accordance with divine instructions, a ceremony of sanctification is held to determine who is responsible for the crime, so that: The one who is taken as having the devoted things shall be burned with fire, together with all that he has, for having transgressed the covenant of the Lord, and for having done an outrageous thing in Israel. ( Josh. 7:15; my emphasis)

The guilty party is found and stoned by ‘all Israel’, and the matter is considered closed (vv. 24–26). No specific covenant renewal ceremony is recorded at this point, but it is hardly coincidental that immediately after the battle of Ai the Israelites travel north to Shechem for confirmation of the covenant (8:30–35).27 b. Monarchy Samuel During the time of the judges the covenant is repeatedly broken, and a pattern appears of apostasy, punishment, God’s provision of a deliverer (‘judge’), temporary improvement, then further relapse ( Judg. 2:11–21). However, no specific covenant renewal ceremonies are described until the time of Samuel. After the proclamation of Saul as first king of Israel, and the defeat of Ammon, Samuel assembles the people at Gilgal to ‘renew the kingship’ (1 Sam. 11:14 – 12:25). The assembly may be understood as a covenant renewal ceremony,28 with several features of the covenant form visible: • • • •

appeal to antecedent history (12:6–12) blessing and curse sanctions (12:14–15, 25) theophanic sign (12:16–18) challenge to allegiance to the Lord (12:20–21, 24)

27. See above: 10.1.d. 28. Vannoy 1978.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 250

22/12/09 12:35:27

c ovenant

251

The word bĕrît is not used in the passage, and it is not actually said that the covenant has been broken. Nevertheless the demand for a king like the other nations is understood as rejection of God as King (12:19; cf. 8:4–8), and the allusion to the covenant formula in verse 22 is a reminder of God’s faithfulness to the covenant, implicitly in contrast to Israel’s unfaithfulness. Asa Solomon breaks the covenant by following other gods (1 Kgs 11:1–11), and his son Rehoboam (14:21–24) and grandson Abijam (15:1–3) do likewise. It is not until the time of King Asa (15:11–14) that there is a change in attitude. The Chronicler records Asa’s reforms in some detail (2 Chr. 15), after his account of an extraordinary victory over an invading Ethiopian army (14:9–15). He tells us that the reforms take place at the instigation of the prophet Azariah, who encourages the king to take action and assures him of God’s favourable response. Throughout Judah and Benjamin, and also in parts of Ephraim that he controls, Asa does away with idols (15:8). In Judah he also destroys sacred pillars and poles, and abolishes pagan places of worship and incense altars (cf. 14:3–5). Then he repairs the altar of the Lord (15:8) and holds a covenant renewal ceremony, consisting of the following: • • • • •

assembly of the people in Jerusalem (vv. 9–10) sacrifice (v. 11) renewal of the covenant with the God of the ancestors (v. 12) penalty for any who refuse to cooperate (v. 13) oath of allegiance to God (vv. 14–15)

Elijah Ahab’s marriage to a foreign princess is probably politically motivated and the religious implications from his perspective are secondary. However, Jezebel turns out to be a fanatical proponent of her religion, persuading her husband to worship Baal and eliminating prophets of the Lord (1 Kgs 16:31–33; 18:4). Elijah’s subsequent confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel is well known (18:20–40); but even after that triumph, Elijah’s assessment of the situation is that Israel has broken their covenant with God, having torn down his altars and killed his prophets (19:10, 14). The situation is the reverse of what we might expect. Often the divine assessment is more negative than the human one, but this time God reassures his prophet that things are not so bad as they seem (19:18), and that he has plans to remove Ahab and Jezebel (v. 16; cf. 21:18–24). There is no covenant

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 251

22/12/09 12:35:28

252

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

renewal ceremony, though certain features in the narrative imply a change of direction in the national religion: • the people’s confession on Carmel (1 Kgs 18:39) • execution of the prophets of Baal (v. 40) • Jehu’s subsequent massacre of Baal worshippers and destruction of their temple (2 Kgs 10:18–28)29 Jehoiada The next recorded renewal of the covenant is in Judah, during the reign of the usurper Queen Athaliah, who takes advantage of Jehu’s murder of her son to take the kingdom for herself. The rightful heir to the throne, Joash, is just a baby and is hidden away by his aunt so that he escapes Athaliah’s massacre of the royal family. After six years the priest Jehoiada makes a covenant (bĕrît) with key military leaders to protect the king’s son (2 Kgs 11:4–8//2 Chr. 23:1), and according to the Chronicler also obtains the support of religious and tribal leaders (2 Chr. 23:2–3). He then arranges a coronation, at which the seven-yearold king is presented with ‘the covenant’ (‘ēdût, 2 Kgs 11:12//2 Chr. 23:11).30 Athaliah’s protest and summary execution is followed by renewal of the covenant with God, including an allusion to the covenant formula: ‘Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and people, that they should be the Lord’s people; also between the king and the people’ (2 Kgs 11:17//2 Chr. 23:16; my emphases). Details of the ceremony are not recorded, but we are told that afterwards the temple of Baal is destroyed and the temple of the Lord repaired. Hezekiah One hundred and twenty years later Hezekiah begins his reign with some major religious reforms, abolishing pagan practices introduced during the sixteen years’ reign of his father, Ahaz (2 Kgs 18:1–4; 2 Chr. 29 – 31). The problem, as he sees it, is that the people have forsaken God by introducing ‘unclean things’ to the holy place, and failing to maintain the regular temple

29. Apart from this, no other renewal of the covenant is recorded among the ten tribes of northern Israel. 30. nrsv and tniv translate ‘ēdût as ‘covenant’, though reb translates it as ‘testimony’ and tev expands it to ‘a copy of the laws governing kingship’. Whichever is preferred, the reference is presumably to the Davidic rather than the Abrahamic/Mosaic covenant (though the Indonesian New Translation translates ‘ēdût as hukum Allah, ‘the law of God’, perhaps thinking of Deut. 17:18).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 252

22/12/09 12:35:28

c ovenant

253

worship (2 Chr. 29:5–7, 16). Thus Hezekiah states his intention ‘to make a covenant with the Lord, the God of Israel, so that his fierce anger may turn away from us’ (v. 10). The destruction of Samaria and end of the northern kingdom just seven years earlier, interpreted as divine punishment for covenant-breaking, will no doubt have been a major stimulus in this. First the offending objects are removed from the temple, and the original altar, table and utensils resanctified (2 Chr. 29:12–19). Next Hezekiah assembles the political and religious leaders of the city for a ceremony to reinstate authentic worship in the temple, involving vast numbers of sacrifices interspersed with choral and instrumental music (vv. 20–36). Then he summons the entire people, including those remaining in northern Israel, to come to Jerusalem for an extraordinary Passover (ch. 30). He appeals to them to remember the covenant with their ancestors and return to the Lord (vv. 6–9) and there is a massive though not unanimous response. The word ‘covenant’ is not used in this text but the concept is implied. This success in Jerusalem is followed by extension of the reforms throughout Judah and parts of northern Israel, reorganization of the priesthood and reinstatement of tithes and offerings (ch. 31). Josiah King Hezekiah dies and is succeeded by his son Manasseh, who promptly reverses his father’s policies. His long reign (55 years) is characterized by idolatry, spiritism and violence. As a result he is considered by both the Deuteronomic historian and the Chronicler to be even more evil than the Canaanites, though the Chronicler also records his repentance. Amon, his son and brief successor, is also categorized as a bad king, and not until the reign of Josiah do things change for the better. The ‘discovery’ of the book of the law in the eighteenth year of his reign is well timed, for Josiah has been seeking the Lord since his youth and has already taken some steps to purify the worship of Israel (2 Kgs 22//2 Chr. 34). (If the book’s existence had been known to Manasseh or Amon, it would very likely have suffered the same fate as Jeremiah’s scroll in the time of Jehoiakim [Jer. 36].) This book becomes the basis for Josiah’s reforms, the essence of which is renewal of the covenant: The king went up to the house of the Lord, and with him went all the people of Judah, all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the prophets, and all the people, both small and great; he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant that had been found in the house of the Lord. The king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to follow the Lord, keeping his commandments, his decrees, and his statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 253

22/12/09 12:35:28

254

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

this covenant that were written in this book. All the people joined in the covenant. (2 Kgs 23:2–3//2 Chr. 34:30–32)

The assembly of the people is followed by a celebration of Passover, ‘as prescribed in this book of the covenant’ (2 Kgs 23:21). Zedekiah Covenant is not mentioned again until the reign of Zedekiah, Judah’s last king. Apparently Zedekiah made a covenant with the people, in the temple, to free their Hebrew slaves in accordance with the law of the seventh year ( Jer. 34:8–10, 14–15; cf. Deut. 15:12–15). However, the people then change their mind and take back their former slaves (vv. 11, 16). God reprimands them through Jeremiah, who reminds them of his covenant with their ancestors at the time of the exodus (v. 13) and declares them to be covenant-breakers (v. 18). There is no indication of repentance as a result of this message, simply an announcement of doom (vv. 17–22). c. After exile After the return from exile, worship of God is reinstated in the Jerusalem temple, implicitly a renewal of the covenant (Ezra 3 – 6). However, God’s people are ambivalent in their devotion, and the issue of mixed marriages is highlighted as a serious breach of the covenant (9:1–4). After prayer, Ezra succeeds in persuading the people to make a covenant with God, whereby they separate themselves from the inhabitants of the land and send away their foreign wives and children (ch. 10). Nehemiah 8 – 10 records the renewal of the covenant, spread over most of the seventh month.31 There is reason to think that chronologically the event actually belongs earlier than its place in the canon suggests, perhaps very soon after Ezra’s return to Jerusalem (Ezra 7 – 8), before the problem of the mixed marriages mentioned above.32 The covenant with Abraham (Neh. 9:7–8), confirmed to Israel at Sinai (vv. 9–15), has been kept by God (vv. 17b, 19–25, 31–32; cf. 1:5) but broken by his people (vv. 16–18, 26–30, 33–37). The key elements of the covenant renewal are as follows: • Day 1: reading of the law by Ezra to the people (8:1–8); response of the people (8:9–12)

31. Duggan 2001. 32. Clines 1984; H. G. M. Williamson 1985.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 254

22/12/09 12:35:28

c ovenant

255

• Days 2–14: study of the law by the leaders (8:13–15); preparation for the festival of Booths (8:16) • Days 15–22: celebration of the festival, with daily reading of the law (8:17–18a); solemn assembly (8:18b) • Day 24: reading of the law and national confession (9:1–37); signing of the covenant document by political and religious leaders (9:38 – 10:27); oath of allegiance by the people (10:28–29); declaration of the covenant obligations (10:30–39) Note the emphasis on reading and studying the book of the law throughout the whole process.

10.3 New covenant One thing is clear from this survey of the making, breaking and remaking of the covenant over fifteen centuries. Israel has an inherent inability to stick with her God for more than a few decades. The prophets are acutely aware of this and begin to point towards a ‘new covenant’. The precise term is used only once in the Old Testament, in Jeremiah 31:31, but the idea is also present in Isaiah, Ezekiel and several other prophets. The idea is later taken up at Qumran and in the New Testament. a. The prophetic message A major question of interpretation is whether the new covenant envisaged by the prophets is to be yet another renewal of the old covenant or a completely new covenant that replaces the old. Some scholars have argued for the former,33 some for the latter,34 while others have looked for a middle way between these two alternatives.35 Let us see what conclusions may be drawn from the texts. Isaiah Very little is said about the covenant in Isaiah 1 – 39. The prophet once mentions the breaking of the everlasting covenant (Isa. 24:5), but this probably

33. Welch 1951: 229–231; Wallis 1969; Lohfink 1989: 45–51; Main 1996; Holmgren 1999: 75–95. 34. Von Rad 1960: 212; Zimmerli 1963: 79–80; W. Gross 1996; B. P. Robinson 2001. 35. Kaiser 1972.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 255

22/12/09 12:35:28

256

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

refers to the covenant with Noah rather than the Abrahamic covenant;36 and several prophecies of judgment imply the breaking of the covenant (e.g. 1:2–4; 5:1–7). In the last few chapters of the book, however, the covenant becomes a major topic. In Isaiah 54 the prophet promises an eternal ‘covenant of peace’ to the exiles who return from Babylon, comparable to that made with Noah (vv. 9–10). And in the following chapter the covenant with David is remembered and becomes the prototype for an ‘everlasting covenant’ (55:3; cf. 61:8). This new covenant will include many who were excluded by the AbrahamicMosaic covenant, such as foreigners and eunuchs (56:3–8; cf. Deut. 23:1, 3). It will be spiritual in nature, though that does not mean that the words of the law will be forgotten: ‘this is my covenant with them, says the Lord: my spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth . . . from now on and for ever’ (Isa. 59:21; my emphasis).37 Jeremiah The word ‘covenant’ and the ‘covenant formula’ are found more often in Jeremiah than in any other Old Testament prophetic book. Jeremiah reminds the people of Judah about God’s covenant with their ancestors when he brought them out of Egypt (11:2–5) and how their ancestors had broken the covenant (vv. 6–8). He then accuses the present generation of doing the same thing (vv. 9–10), which will result in disaster (vv. 11–17; cf. 16:10–13).38 A prayer for mercy is recorded once, pleading with God to remember his covenant and spare his people punishment (14:21), but it is too late (15:1–9). The reason for the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem is clearly stated to be that its inhabitants have ‘abandoned the covenant of the Lord their God, and worshipped other gods and served them’ ( Jer. 22:9; my emphasis). Yet even the devastation of their homeland and desolation of exile do not mean that the people have been abandoned by God. The exiles are reassured in the words of the covenant formula that they will return to God and he will restore them as his people (24:5–7; 30:22; 31:1). How will this happen? Jeremiah explains:

36. See Mason 2007 and most commentaries. The word bĕrît is also used in 28:15, 18 and 33:8, with rather different meanings. 37. Twice it is said that the Servant has been given by God ‘as a covenant to the people’ (42:6; 49:8), though the meaning of this phrase is not entirely clear. 38. The covenant formula is used here (v. 4), and also in a similar prophecy of judgment in Jer. 7:23 (cf. 13:11).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 256

22/12/09 12:35:28

c ovenant

257

The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt – a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. ( Jer. 31:31–34; my emphases)

The prophet gives four characteristics of the ‘new covenant’: • • • •

internalization of the law (v. 33b) personal relationship between God and his people (v. 33c) knowledge of God (v. 34a) forgiveness of sins (v. 34b)

As Fretheim (2002) points out, all of this is expected to happen in the context of a renewed people of Israel. There will be a new historical basis for their faith. The archetypical saving event had been the exodus from Egypt, but now it will become the return from exile ( Jer. 16:14–15//23:7–8). Jeremiah does not promise that they will immediately become perfect, for there will still be sin and death (31:30). But they will no longer follow their ‘evil will’ (3:15–18;39 cf. 7:24; 11:8; 18:12), and forgiveness of sins will be assured (31:34). In the following chapters it is clarified that this new covenant – like the old – is to be everlasting (32:40; 50:5; cf. 33:25–26). The use of the covenant formula makes it clear that the focus is precisely as before, namely the relationship between God and his people (32:38).40

39. On this passage, and its relationship to Jer. 31:31–34, see Gosse 1989. 40. On new covenant in Jeremiah, see also Lofthouse 1925; Gehman 1955; B. W. Anderson 1964b; Weippert 1979; Lemke 1983; Lundbom 1992; Carroll 1993; Rendtorff 1993b; Mulzac 1996; Bogaert 1997; Pinçon 2000; M. D. Williams 2002; Adeye.mi 2006; Schenker 2006; Rata 2007; P. R. Williamson 2007: 146–158.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 257

22/12/09 12:35:28

258

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Other prophets Hosea graphically describes the breaking of the covenant (6:7; 8:1), elaborating the painfully lived-out allegory of his own wayward wife, and her children with their strange names: ‘God sows’, ‘Not Pitied’ and ‘Not my People’ (1:2– 9). However, his message also portrays God’s amazing grace shown to sinners, and promises future restoration for the people of God through the remaking of the covenant (1:10–11; 2:14–23). If an ancient Near Eastern vassal broke his suzerain’s treaty, the suzerain would be likely to act swiftly and ruthlessly to punish the offender, without offering any opportunity for repentance. But God is more like a husband or wife whose spouse is unfaithful, feeling jealous and angry but longing that the relationship might be restored.41 By the time of Ezekiel, judgment is both past history and present experience, and his prophecies are focused on the future. He promises the exiles that God will give them a new heart and spirit, so that they will obey his laws and be remade as his people (11:19–20; 36:26–28; 37:12–14; cf. Jer. 32:39–40). He will establish an everlasting covenant with them (16:59–63; cf. 37:26), on the basis of the earlier covenant (16:60; cf. 20:36–37), whereby they will know that he is the Lord (16:62) and receive forgiveness of their sins (v. 63). It will be a ‘covenant of peace’ (34:25; 37:26; cf. Isa. 54:10), which includes both material and spiritual security. Throughout the book the covenant formula reverberates like a refrain, so that the reader is continually reminded of the goal: ‘They shall be my people, and I will be their God’ (Ezek. 11:20; cf. 14:11; 34:24, 30–31; 36:28; 37:23, 27) After the restoration, it might have seemed that the covenant had been renewed and the people of God reinstated to their former position. Yet Zechariah still looks to the future for the realization of such hopes (8:7–8; cf. 2:11; 9:11); while Malachi reports continuing covenant-breaking in Judah (2:10–11) and envisages no further renewal before the coming of the Messiah (3:1). Until that time, the people should revere God (3:16) and remember the teaching of his servant Moses (4:4), trusting that in this way they will be prepared for the new covenant (3:17) and be able to stand on the day of judgment (4:1–2).42

41. On new covenant in Hosea, see Wyrtzen 1984; Light 1993; P. R. Williamson 2007: 175–178. 42. There are also several references to covenant in Daniel (9:4, 27; 11:22, 28, 30, 32). McConville 1997 adds that the idea of new covenant may ‘loosely be extended to all those OT expectations that, in spite of and beyond the falling of the covenantal curses, picture a future, living relationship between God and his people’ (e.g. Hos.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 258

22/12/09 12:35:28

c ovenant

259

b. The newness of the new covenant What is ‘new’ about the new covenant? Nothing, and yet everything! A great deal which is said about the new covenant is not in fact ‘new’. Its essence is still a personal relationship between God and his people, expressed by the covenant formula ‘I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ ( Jer. 31:33c; cf. 32:38; Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 34:24, 30–31; 36:28; 37:23, 27). It is to be an everlasting covenant (Isa. 61:8; Jer. 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 37:26), based on the earlier covenant with Abraham and Israel (Ezek. 16:59–63; 20:36–37), and comparable to the covenants made with Noah (Isa. 54:9–10) and David (Isa. 55:3), all of which were to be everlasting. It is described as a covenant of peace (Ezek. 34:25–31; 37:26; cf. Isa. 54:10), implying both material and spiritual security and recalling the covenant blessings of Deuteronomy 28:1–14. The new covenant will make possible forgiveness of sins ( Jer. 31:34b; Ezek. 16:63; cf. Isa. 43:25), and the forgiveness of sins is certainly part of the old covenant, at least from Sinai onwards (Exod. 34:6–10; Num. 14:17–20). So where does its newness lie? The scope of the new covenant is wider, including foreigners and eunuchs who were excluded under Mosaic legislation (Isa. 55:3–5; 56:3–8; cf. Deut. 23:1, 3). Egypt and Assyria will become peoples of God, sharing in the Abrahamic blessing alongside Israel (Isa. 19:18–25; cf. 42:6; 49:6; Jer. 12:14–17). But even this is not an unprecedented idea, since the covenant with Abraham was potentially universal in scope (Gen. 12:3). We are told that ‘a mixed crowd’ went up with the Israelites from Egypt (Exod. 12:38), and there are hints of a universal perspective in Exodus 19:5 (‘the whole earth is mine’) and Deuteronomy 4:6 (Israel’s ethical behaviour will amaze other nations). The new covenant will be spiritual in nature, as God gives his people a new heart and spirit (Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:26–27; 37:12–14). The law will be written on their hearts instead of on tablets of stone ( Jer. 31:33b) and God’s words will be continually in their mouths (Isa. 59:21). This internalization of the law is not entirely new, since Moses in Deuteronomy exhorts the people to ‘put these words of mine in your heart and soul’ (Deut. 11:18; cf. 30:14) and twice refers to circumcision of the heart (10:16; 30:6). But it may be true to say that it is emphasized more strongly in the new covenant than in the old.43 One important characteristic of the new covenant, according to Jeremiah

14; Amos 9:11–15; Mic. 4:1–8; cf. Deut. 30:1–10). Dumbrell (1984: 188–189) also includes Ezek. 40 – 48 in his discussion of new covenant. 43. Cf. Swetnam 1974; van den Busch 1980.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 259

22/12/09 12:35:28

260

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

31:34a, is personal knowledge of God.44 This is not stated explicitly in the earlier covenant. Throughout the Old Testament certain individuals are singled out because of their close relationship with God, such as Enoch (Gen. 5:24), Abraham (2 Chr. 20:7; Isa. 41:8) and Moses (Deut. 34:10), perhaps implying that this is an exceptional experience. Although Israel knows intellectually that the Lord is their God (Exod. 6:7; 29:45–46; Deut. 7:9), unlike Pharaoh who does not know the Lord (Exod. 5:2), they do not all know him in a personal way but rely on priests and prophets to teach them and approach God on their behalf.45 Indeed earlier prophecies of Jeremiah refer specifically to the lack of knowledge of God among the people, including the king (5:4–5; 8:7; 22:15–17). The great commandment of Deuteronomy 6:4–9 makes love of God the prime responsibility of his people, and a relationship of love surely presupposes personal knowledge, but this is implicit rather than explicit. So the explicitness in Jeremiah’s prophecy is new. Just as God knows his people intimately (Exod. 33:17; Jer. 1:5) and loves them passionately (Exod. 34:6–7; Deut. 7:6–9; Ps. 103:13; Isa. 43:1–4), the prophets make clear that he longs for them to know and love him ( Jer. 9:24; Hos. 6:4, 6; 11:1–11). In the new covenant, knowledge of God is to be a daily reality for every member of the community.46 So is the new covenant a further renewal of the old one or something completely different? Undoubtedly, the aim and content of the new covenant are substantially the same as the covenant with Abraham, confirmed to Israel at

44. Not just savoir but connaissance (French), not just pengetahuan but pengenalan (Indonesian). Cf. Jer. 24:7; Ezek. 16:62; Dan. 11:32. The phrase ‘loyal to their God’ (nrsv) in the last text is literally ‘know their God’ (so njb, tniv). 45. There may well have been many individuals who had a meaningful relationship with God, as the example of Hannah suggests (1 Sam. 1), though even here the role of sanctuary and priest is significant. Some psalms may have been written by lay people (David himself was neither priest nor prophet). However, we know little of the personal piety of the ordinary ‘Israelite in the street’. 46. Does Jer. 31:34a mean that teachers of the law will be redundant? Perhaps this is hyperbole. Jer. 3:15 suggests that the renewed people will still need to be fed with ‘knowledge and understanding’, though vv. 16–17 indicate that the ark of the covenant, containing the tablets of the law, will be obsolete. Fretheim (2002: 443– 444) interprets Jer. 31:34 in terms of the democratization of the people of God, who will no longer need teaching since there will be no spiritual elite with special access to the knowledge of God or the forgiveness of sins (cf. Swetnam 1974; Potter 1983).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 260

22/12/09 12:35:28

c ovenant

261

the time of the exodus and settlement of the Promised Land, and repeatedly broken and renewed in the succeeding years. The new covenant is therefore a renewal of the one covenant, albeit with certain distinctive emphases. However, there is a crucial difference, not in the covenant itself but in the people. It has become clear that they are incapable of loving God, and never will do so unless they are renewed from within.47 And this is precisely what the prophets promise: their hearts of stone will be turned to hearts of flesh, as the Spirit is poured out on all (Ezek. 36:26; Joel 2:28–29). Knowledge of God will no longer be restricted to a few privileged individuals but will become a reality for all ( Jer. 31:34). And at last God’s passionate love for his people will be reciprocated (Hos. 2:14–23). Two questions remain: ‘How can this be, since all previous attempts to renew the covenant have failed?’ And ‘When will this be?’ No doubt many Israelites hoped that the return from exile would bring the fulfilment of these prophecies, but the reality of post-exilic Judah fell far short of such expectations. The prophets do not give the answers, and to find them we have to turn to that collection of books known as the ‘New Covenant’ (New Testament). c. New covenant in the New Testament As mentioned above, the term ‘covenant’ (diathēkē) occurs thirty-three times in the New Testament, and the concept is implicit in many other texts. Only a brief survey is possible here, covering the most important references.48 Gospels and Acts The Synoptic Gospels begin and end with references to the covenant. In his prophecy concerning the births of John and Jesus, Zechariah affirms that the Lord God of Israel has remembered his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham. (Luke 1:72–73)

This is also implied in the genealogy at the beginning of the first Gospel, which presents Jesus the Messiah as the ‘son of Abraham’ (Matt. 1:1–17). And

47. Cf. K. H. Miskotte 1963: 409–415; B. P. Robinson 2001: 197–198. 48. For further discussion, see Campbell 1984; Childs 1992: 428–440; Dumbrell 2002; M. D. Williams 2002; Wirth 2003; P. R. Williamson 2007: 182–207.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 261

22/12/09 12:35:28

262

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Mark begins his Gospel by emphasizing that John and Jesus came to fulfil Old Testament promises (1:2–4, 14–15). At the Last Supper, Jesus describes the shared wine as the ‘blood of the [new] covenant’ (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24) or ‘new covenant in my blood’ (Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25). It is easy to see an allusion here to the blood associated with the ratification of the Old Testament covenant (Exod. 24:8; cf. Gen. 15:10, 18; 17:9–14; Zech. 9:11). Jesus anticipates that his death will inaugurate the new covenant, bringing forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28; cf. 1:21) in fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy ( Jer. 31:34). In Acts there are two explicit references to the ancestral covenant (3:25; 7:8), assumed as the foundation of the people of God. In addition, Jesus is proclaimed as the fulfilment of the messianic hope of the Old Testament, and the church is understood as the people of God, heirs of the ancestral covenant promises (2:29–36; 7:52; 13:16–29; 15:12–18; 26:6, 23). Paul Paul mentions covenant explicitly in four of his letters. The use of covenant terminology in Galatians is concerned with showing the priority of the Abrahamic covenant and promise over the law given through Moses (3:15–18; 4:22–26). As in Romans 4, Paul emphasizes that the covenant community consists not merely of Abraham’s physical descendants but of those who believe in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:6–14). The ongoing place of Israel in the purpose of God is the subject of Romans 9 – 11, and the discussion opens and closes with the covenant. To the people of Israel ‘belong the adoption, the glory, the covenant,49 the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises . . .’ (9:4), a clear reference to the ancestral covenant that constituted Israel as the people of God (cf. Eph. 2:12). Towards the end of his discussion Paul mentions covenant again and here the new covenant is in view: And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins. (Rom. 11:27; cf. Jer. 31:34)

Its purpose in the context is to explain the statement that ‘all Israel will be saved’ (v. 26); that is, the people of Israel as a whole, consisting of more than the

49. There is strong manuscipt evidence for the singular ‘covenant’ (p46, B D, F, G), and this to be preferred over the plural since Paul is referring to the one ancestral covenant (contra most English translations).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 262

22/12/09 12:35:28

c ovenant

263

remnant at that time (v. 5) but not necessarily every individual Israelite without exception, since God’s offer of salvation is never forced on his people (v. 23).50 In the Corinthian letters there are two main references to covenant, in both cases to the new covenant. The first of these is the account of the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11:25), which has already been mentioned above. The second is Paul’s discussion of the relationship between the new covenant brought about by Christ (2 Cor. 3:6) and the old covenant mediated by Moses (v. 14), in which he contrasts letter and spirit, tablets of stone and tablets of human hearts (vv. 3, 6–8). This new covenant is the gospel of Jesus Christ (4:3–6), and its blessings are experienced by his church (3:3; cf. Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:19). Hebrews Hebrews 8 – 10 presents the most extended treatment of the new covenant in the New Testament, twice quoting Jeremiah’s prophecy at length (8:8–12; 10:16–17) and using the word ‘covenant’ a further nine times (8:6; 9:4, 15–17, 20; 10:29). The author’s main point is the superiority of the new covenant made possible by the death of Jesus. This point has already been mentioned earlier (7:22, 27) and is taken up again towards the end of the letter (12:18–24). However, it does not mean that the new covenant denigrates or contradicts the old, for it is a fulfilment of the promise to Abraham (cf. 6:12–20), and like the old covenant provides for forgiveness of sins, albeit in a much more comprehensive way (9:11 – 10:14). The sum of the matter is laid out in the closing benediction of the book, which links the ‘blood of the eternal covenant’ with the resurrection: Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Heb. 13:20–21)

50. Most interpreters agree that Paul is referring to the physical descendants of Abraham, though a few argue that he includes all Abraham’s descendants, both physical and spiritual (so Calvin; cf. N. T. Wright 1991: 249–251). But does this mean every single member of the nation Israel (so Aquinas; cf. R. Jewett 2007), or only the remnant or elect of Israel (vv. 5, 7; so Bengel), or the nation Israel as a whole but not necessarily including every individual member (cf. Mishnah Sanhedrin 10)? The last interpretation is the most probable, as shown by Cranfield (1979), Fitzmyer (1993), Holwerda (1995: 168–175) and Moo (1996).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 263

22/12/09 12:35:28

264

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

The one God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants, and remade that covenant at the cross and empty tomb. From the beginning he intended the very best for his people (Lev. 19:2; cf. Matt. 5:48; 1 Pet. 1:15–16), and now makes this possible in a new way – ‘through Jesus Christ’.51

51. For further discussion of covenant in the Bible, apart from the works already cited, see Jaubert 1963; Fensham 1967; Jocz 1968; Weinfeld 1970; McCarthy 1972; 1982; Morrice 1975; J. Bright 1976; Buis 1976; E. P. Sanders 1977; Vogels 1979; Dumbrell 1984; McComiskey 1985; Oden 1987; R. Davidson 1989; Rendtorff 1989b; McKane 1993; Zenger 1993; Lohfink & Zenger 1994; Hahn 1995; Miller 1995; Neef 1996; W. Gross 1998; Joosten 1998; Lohfink 1998; Soggin 2000: ch. 8; Holmén 2001; Porter & de Roo 2003; Milgrom 2004; Polak 2004; Grant & Wilson 2005; Goldingay 2006a; 2006b: 182–192; Schönemann 2006; Hafemann 2007. See also the review of recent research by Hahn 2005.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 264

22/12/09 12:35:28

PART 4 : CONC LUSION

.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 265

22/12/09 12:35:28

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 266

22/12/09 12:35:28

1 1 . THE T H EOLOGICAL RELAT I ON S HI P B ET WEEN THE T ESTAMENT S

11.1 Summary of the problem a. Biblical foundations The starting point for understanding the theological problem of the relationship between the Testaments is in the Bible itself (see ch. 1). Future expectation is an important factor in the Old Testament, as is clear from a survey of hopes for the future found in the early strata, along with the prophetic eschatology of much of the Old Testament and the apocalyptic elements of later Old Testament writings. Much of this expectation remains unfulfilled at the end of the Old Testament period, and fundamental tensions in the Old Testament are also unresolved at its conclusion. The Old Testament is therefore an incomplete book. The New Testament, on the other hand, affirms the fulfilment of Old Testament hopes and promises. This affirmation does not imply that the Old Testament is obsolete, but rather that the New Testament is substantially dependent on Old Testament categories for understanding and expressing the events it records. The evidence suggests that this positive attitude to the Old Testament is not an innovation of the early church, but derives from Jesus himself.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 267

22/12/09 12:35:28

268

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

b. Historical survey During the past two millennia of biblical interpretation there have been various views of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments (ch. 2). Marcion is remembered for his rejection of the Old Testament, while others affirmed its vital importance for the church. Most were convinced that the two Testaments belong together as one Bible, though some emphasized the similarities and others the differences. Many considered Jesus Christ to be the key to understanding the Bible and the link between its constituent parts. Allegorical interpretation was often popular, though other interpreters preferred to stress the literal meaning. By the nineteenth century it became almost universally recognized that satisfactory interpretation of the Bible must be based on literal understanding of the texts in their historical contexts. However, the importance of theological understanding – which had been central in other periods – was all but forgotten. By the beginning of the twentieth century biblical studies was dominated by the developmental approach, understanding the relationship between the Testaments in terms of ‘progressive revelation’. The twentieth century saw radical changes in almost every aspect of human life, and theology was no exception. One significant factor was the challenge of neo-Marcionism, with its radical depreciation of the Old Testament that stirred biblical scholars to much fruitful thought and writing. The end result was an overwhelming movement towards a more theological approach to biblical interpretation, though there were still a wide variety of views within this general movement. The many attempts to solve the problem of the relationship between the Testaments fell into four major categories (chs. 3–6). c. ‘New Testament’ solutions The solutions of Bultmann, Baumgärtel and others discussed in chapter 3 agree in recognizing both existential similarity and theological contrast between the Testaments. In other words, the Old Testament has the same basic understanding of existence as the New Testament; but the theology of the Old Testament, with its national and legal concerns, contrasts with the New Testament theology of ‘grace’ or ‘promise in Christ’. Sometimes this contrast is summarized in terms of law and gospel. For Bultmann, the Old Testament is the presupposition of the New Testament, recording a miscarriage of history, which in its very failure becomes a promise. For Baumgärtel, the Old Testament stems from one basic promise (‘I am the Lord your God’), which is also fundamental to the New Testament promise in Christ. For both of them, the Old Testament is a non-Christian book; and the New Testament – at least from the Christian point of view – is the essential Bible. So it is only

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 268

22/12/09 12:35:29

t h e t h e o lo g i c a l r e lat i o n s h i p

269

when understood in the light of the New Testament that the Old Testament has meaning for Christians. The heart of the matter is that these scholars consider the New Testament to be essential, and the Old Testament as only of secondary value. The argument of Bultmann, and to a lesser extent the other scholars mentioned, is presented with considerable force and contains some truth, so that it is possible to overlook its serious inadequacy. Several areas of disagreement have been discussed in the critique above and, although a good deal may be learnt from these ‘New Testament’ solutions, in the end they must be rejected. d. ‘Old Testament’ solutions The views of the relationship between the Testaments considered in chapter 5 regard the Old Testament as having theological priority or independence with respect to the New Testament. Van Ruler’s view may be summarized as follows: the Old Testament is the essential (real, intrinsic, true) Bible and the New Testament is its (Christian) interpretative glossary. Creation and theocracy are key themes. Miskotte and Barr reject the idea that the Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the New, because they consider such a procedure to be based on the false presupposition that Christ is the known and the Old Testament the unknown. They argue that the reverse is the case, that Christian faith must have the Old Testament as its basis from the beginning. Miskotte carries the argument further by pointing to the surplus of the Old Testament over the New, urging that the Old Testament must be allowed to speak for itself. Some sects do much the same thing but tend to apply the principle in a very literal manner, often to relatively trivial matters. At the turn of the millennium, two major Old Testament theologies appeared, with striking similarities to the views already discussed, though breaking much new ground. Both Brueggemann and Goldingay are influenced by postmodernism, and see the New Testament as a plausible continuation of the Old Testament, though not the only possible one. Brueggemann’s approach tends to separation of the two Testaments, with a Christian option to read one in the light of the other. Goldingay, however, emphasizes the unity of the Bible and describes it as a multi-act drama, as he makes clear the priority of the Old Testament as a framework for understanding the New. In contrast to the Jewish view of the Old Testament as the only Bible and the New Testament as its false Christian supplement, these scholars do not depreciate the New Testament in itself. They ascribe theological priority to the Old Testament, while acknowledging the New Testament as its true and necessary supplement without which the Christian Bible would be incomplete. As van Ruler has pointed out, the ultimate goal of God’s activity in the

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 269

22/12/09 12:35:29

270

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Bible is creation rather than salvation. Human beings were not created to be saved, but saved in order to become what they were originally intended to be. Anyone who believes in Christ becomes a ‘new creation’, and the final act of biblical history is the creation of a new heaven and a new earth. So van Ruler’s work is important in countering others that emphasize the New Testament and virtually ignore the Old, but fails to take adequate account of the radical newness of the event that occurred in Jesus Christ. The works of Miskotte, Brueggemann and Goldingay are more balanced and extremely valuable for their insights into Old Testament interpretation. Whereas the ‘New Testament’ solutions tend to disparagement of the Old and should be rejected completely, the ‘Old Testament’ solutions recognize the value of the New as the completion of what has been started in the Old and so have much to teach us. e. The need for a ‘biblical’ solution A recurring feature in both Old and New Testament solutions is the mention of contrasts between the two Testaments. Creation–salvation, theocracy– soteriology, earthly–spiritual, law–gospel, community–individual, wrath–love, glory–suffering, human–divine Messiah and other contrasts are adduced as evidence of incongruity between the Old Testament and the New. However, some of these contrasts are drawn too sharply, and others represent genuine biblical ideas that are important throughout the Bible and not to be divided, so that one half characterizes Old Testament thought and the other half that of the New. Undoubtedly there are contrasts and paradoxes in the Bible, but they are subordinate to its essential theological unity. That unity centres on Jesus Christ, who is both the major difference between the New Testament and the Old, and also brings together the two Testaments into one Bible. Both Old Testament and New Testament solutions have their attractions. It makes things simpler to have a smaller book as the standard expression of one’s faith and then understand other books in the light of that standard. Contrasts such as ‘law and gospel’ and ‘creation and salvation’ are appealing in their formulation of categories for understanding the two Testaments and their relationship to each other. For some, the Old Testament is attractive in its down-to-earth approach to life, and they prefer this to the (supposedly) sophisticated spirituality of the New Testament. For others, the gospel has been declared in all its fullness in the New Testament, so that the Old Testament fades into relative insignificance in comparison with the wonder of the New. These solutions have both the advantages and disadvantages of oversimplification. However, the fact remains that the canon of the Christian Bible

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 270

22/12/09 12:35:29

t h e t h e o lo g i c a l r e lat i o n s h i p

271

contains two Testaments. It is too late to create a new canon, whether with more or fewer books than the present one. The vast majority of Christians during the past two thousand years have recognized the inspiration and authority of both Old and New Testaments.1 The two Testaments form one Bible, and to understand either one of the Testaments properly it is necessary to do so in relation to the other. They are so closely linked that separation is impossible without damage to both. What is needed, therefore, is neither an ‘Old Testament’ nor a ‘New Testament’ solution to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments, but a ‘biblical’ solution.

11.2 Towards a ‘biblical’ solution At least six concepts are fundamental to such a biblical solution. a. Christology First, the Old Testament and the New Testament are equally Christian Scripture (see ch. 4). No doubt there are many differences between the two Testaments in content, but in terms of theology and revelation they are one. Vischer has argued this point especially clearly, and the main features of his approach are that Jesus is the Christ of the Old Testament; the New Testament is to be taken seriously in interpreting the Old Testament, leading to Christological interpretation of the latter; and salvation is essentially the same in both Testaments. It may be summed up in words from the title of Vischer’s major work: the Old Testament is a witness to Christ. Barth follows Vischer closely. Jacob, George Knight, Childs and Seitz agree that the Old and New Testaments are equally Christian Scripture, though their Old Testament interpretations are less influenced by the New Testament than those of Vischer. Vischer’s work provoked considerable disagreement, but this was partly

1. In the earliest years of the church’s existence there was probably no official listing of books, but the books used and valued in practice were essentially the same as those later formally recognized as ‘canon’. The only major dispute about the canon since the early years has been over the role of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books. ‘What is of the utmost importance is that the church has received as providentially provided a sufficiently stable and cohesive body of texts which in its final form constitutes the rule or norm of Christian faith, practice and worship’ (Cummins 2004: 188). On canon and the ‘canonical approach’, see above: 4.3.d.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 271

22/12/09 12:35:29

272

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

due to a misunderstanding of his aims and methods. His main point, at least, is fundamental for a Christian approach to the Old Testament: if the Old Testament is to remain in the Christian Bible – and most Christians agree that it should, in theory if not always in practice – it can only be as Christian Scripture, and thus in some sense as a witness to Christ. The New Testament bases itself explicitly on the Old Testament and claims that the God of Israel, who gave the law through Moses and spoke through the prophets, has sent his Son to be Christ and Lord. It would be a mistake either to ignore the differences between the Old and New Testaments, or to let one dominate the interpretation of the other. However, Vischer and the other scholars mentioned in chapter 4 are concerned to let each Testament speak for itself, though never in isolation from the other, and generally avoid allegorical or fanciful interpretations. It is unnecessary to surrender the historical-critical approach to the Bible to recognize the central truth that the Bible revolves around the person of Jesus Christ, and therefore the relationship between the Testaments inevitably involves the concept of Christology. b. Salvation history The most popular twentieth-century solution centres on the idea of ‘salvation history’ (ch. 6). It takes different forms, but all express the same conviction: that the two Testaments are bound together by divine revelation in human history. Cullmann and Wright show that the Bible tells of a God who reveals himself by his acts in history to save his people, and the coming of Jesus Christ is presented as the climax of this history of salvation. Von Rad uses a tradition-historical method, together with the ideas of typology and ‘promise and fulfilment’, to interpret the relationship between the Testaments in terms of ‘actualization’. For him the relationship is progressive, in the sense that the events of salvation history are continually actualized or re-presented in the Old Testament and above all in the New Testament. Amsler also affirms the centrality of salvation history to the relationship between the Testaments, but is aware of the separation between history and reality in von Rad’s thought, and attempts to find a solution that does justice to both. Several other scholars are discussed in chapter 6 whose approach is related to that of von Rad, though salvation history is not their predominant theme. According to Pannenberg and Moltmann, revelation takes place in history (real history), but apocalyptic eschatology rather than salvation history is central to their thought. Gese and Stuhlmacher see tradition history as the key to understanding the relationship between the Testaments, arguing that the New Testament is the final stage of a single tradition-building process that begins in the Old.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 272

22/12/09 12:35:29

t h e t h e o lo g i c a l r e lat i o n s h i p

273

In general, the ‘salvation history’ solution is consistent with the character of the biblical documents and expresses clearly many of the central issues. Much of the Bible is concerned with recounting the events in which God was at work to make salvation possible for his people Israel and for all who believe in his Son, Jesus Christ. To say that salvation is the dominant theme of the Bible is not to say that it is ultimately more important than creation, but simply that it is the immediate problem that confronts human beings and is dealt with in the Bible. Moreover the problem is not dealt with in an abstract or mystical way, but by words spoken and by events that happen in the history of God’s people. Thus it is justifiable to claim that the Bible presents a history of salvation. c. Typology In the second half of the twentieth century there was a revival of interest in biblical typology (ch. 7). Typology had often been rejected as a fanciful kind of interpretation, along with allegory and other overimaginative approaches to the Bible. However, a number of scholars recognized that typology had a historical basis and was to be taken seriously, though the concept still needed clarification. A new approach to typology is developed here, beginning with an investigation of the meaning of typos in biblical Greek and ‘type’ in modern English. As a result of this, two fundamental principles for interpretation of types in the Bible are established, namely that they must be historical in nature and that a real correspondence between events, persons or institutions is implied, not simply a superficial resemblance or coincidence of detail. A ‘type’ is thus defined as an example or pattern, and ‘typology’ as the study of historical and theological correspondences between types on the basis of God’s consistent activity in history. The implication of typology for the problem of the relationship between the Testaments, hinted at by Wolff in his essay on Old Testament hermeneutics, is that there is a relationship of analogy between the two. There are, for example, analogies between the people of God, salvation and God’s gifts in the Old and New Testaments. In contrast to ancient Near Eastern and rabbinic literature, which illuminate the Old Testament but are essentially different, the New Testament is fundamentally analogous as a witness to God’s covenant. This idea has been developed further in the present book, in conjunction with typology as the study of examples and patterns in God’s historical activity. d. Promise and fulfilment The formula ‘promise and fulfilment’ uses biblical terminology to express the relationship between the Testaments (ch. 8). It is more comprehensive

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 273

22/12/09 12:35:29

274

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

than the old formulae ‘prediction and fulfilment’ and ‘prophecy and fulfilment’, though these are still used by some authors, often with much the same meaning as ‘promise and fulfilment’. The basic biblical promise was given to Abraham – the promise of descendants, land and a special relationship with God. This promise was partially fulfilled in the early history of Israel, but never completely fulfilled within the Old Testament. Another promise was given to David, which repeated and reinterpreted the essence of the basic promise while adding some new elements. The prophets again took up the earlier promises and supplemented them with new ones. Most of them remained unfulfilled or only partially fulfilled by the end of the Old Testament period. The New Testament announces that the promises have been fulfilled, above all in the coming of Jesus as the promised Messiah. All the hopes of the Old Testament find their supreme fulfilment in the one who is both Son of God and Son of Man; who is Judge, Priest, King, Prophet and Teacher; who is the Lamb of God and the Good Shepherd; who is the Servant of the Lord and the Wisdom of God. Those who believe in him become descendants of Abraham and enjoy a renewed relationship with God. More clearly than ever before, the offer of salvation is made to the Gentiles, so the promise that all the nations will be blessed through Abraham becomes a reality. Nevertheless this fulfilment is still incomplete, because the perfecting of God’s relationship with human beings and the final establishment of God’s universal kingdom will take place only at the consummation of history. Thus ‘promise and fulfilment’ are a key aspect of the relationship between the Testaments, though it should be noted that there is more to the Old Testament than promise, and the New Testament fulfilment goes far beyond the expectations of the Old. e. Continuity and discontinuity The fifth concept is continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments (ch. 9). To put it another way, the Bible is characterized by both unity and diversity. One of the best expressions of this is in the first part of Vriezen’s Old Testament theology. He finds a tension between recognition of the Old Testament as Scripture and critical reinterpretation in the light of Jesus Christ, who might be thought to have made the Old Testament obsolete. This approach to the relationship between the Testaments was particularly popular among English-speaking scholars of the mid-twentieth century such as Rowley, Dodd and John Bright. They recognize both continuity and discontinuity in biblical history. Moreover they see theological diversity in both Old and New Testaments, as well as fundamental theological unity that binds the two Testaments into one Bible.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 274

22/12/09 12:35:29

t h e t h e o lo g i c a l r e lat i o n s h i p

275

Thus a ‘biblical’ solution to the problem should recognize the tension between continuity and discontinuity, between unity and diversity. On the one hand, the two Testaments have common perspectives and patterns: • They are concerned with the same basic issues (particularly the relationship between God and human beings, the people of God, and the kingdom of God). • They are continuous in their history and united in their theology. On the other hand, there are differences between the Testaments: • Many Old Testament ideas and practices are superseded in the New Testament. • The Old Testament is characterized by promise and is thus a preparatory revelation, in contrast to the final revelation of the New Testament, which is characterized by fulfilment. • The new covenant is marked by a more personal relationship with God than was experienced by most who lived under the old covenant. Paradoxically, however, the most radical discontinuity lies in the New Testament claim that Jesus is the Messiah. This is because it presents him not only as the Messiah of the Old Testament but also as a Messiah who surpasses expectations, completely renews the religion of Israel and inaugurates the new aeon. Thus in the person of Jesus Christ, who stands at the centre of Christian faith as God and man, the two Testaments are both distinguished and brought together. f. Covenant Perhaps the most fundamental concept of all is covenant (ch. 10). The primary covenant in the Old Testament is that made by God with Abraham and his descendants. Its purpose is to bring about a special relationship with this human family, who are subsequently referred to as the people of God. This relationship is often expressed by the covenant formula ‘I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’ The covenant is initiated by God, but is bilateral because the human partners are invited to respond and their response is documented. It is confirmed to the people of Israel at three key stages in their history: after the exodus (at Mount Sinai), before entering the Promised Land (on the plains of Moab) and after settling in the land (at Shechem). Tragically this covenant is repeatedly broken in the succeeding years, which eventually results in expulsion from the Promised Land. Nevertheless God

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 275

22/12/09 12:35:29

276

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

does not give up on the covenant, but speaks through prophets to assure the exiles of his continued love for them and plans for their restoration. In particular he promises a ‘new covenant’, which will restore their relationship with God. The new covenant is essentially a renewal of the one covenant, with a crucial difference – not in the covenant itself but in the people. History has shown that they are incapable of loving God, so the prophets promise renewal from within to make this possible, as stony hearts are softened and the Spirit is poured out on all. The fulfilment of this promise is recorded several centuries later in the collection of books known as the ‘New Covenant’. Jesus anticipates that his death will inaugurate the new covenant, bringing forgiveness of sins in fulfilment of prophecy. Paul identifies the new covenant as the gospel of Jesus Christ, insisting that membership of the covenant community is not limited to Abraham’s physical descendants but is open to all who confess Jesus as Lord. The most extended treatment of the new covenant is found in Hebrews, emphasizing its superiority without denigrating or contradicting the old. The one God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants, and has remade that covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

11.3 Implications for theology and church These conclusions about the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament have important consequences for Christian theology and the church. The most crucial issues concern the authority of the Old Testament for doctrine and ethics, interpretation of the Old and New Testaments today and the possibility of a ‘biblical theology’. It is beyond the scope of this book to deal with such issues in detail, and I simply give pointers to the implications of the understanding of the relationship between the Testaments proposed here for these issues. A selection of more detailed studies is mentioned in the footnotes. a. The authority of the Old Testament Is the Old Testament God’s word for Christians? If so, does it have the same authority as the New Testament or a lesser status? These are fundamental questions that will be answered differently depending on one’s view of the relationship between the Testaments. Marcion’s answer was simple: the Old Testament is no longer God’s word for those who live within the new covenant. Van Ruler, at the other extreme, considers the Old Testament to be the essential Bible, and the New Testament merely its Christian supplement. I reject both these views. The theological relationship between the Testaments

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 276

22/12/09 12:35:29

t h e t h e o lo g i c a l r e lat i o n s h i p

277

as argued here means that the Old Testament has authority for Christians as part of the Christian Bible. The authority of the Old Testament is not to be measured, in the sense of being more or less than that of the New Testament, but to be understood in terms of function. Its function is not the same as that of the New Testament, any more than the function of the Gospels is the same as that of Paul’s letters, or the function of the Pentateuch the same as that of the wisdom literature. Not all of the Old Testament applies directly to Christians, but then neither does all of the New. Every biblical book has its specific historical and cultural setting, and was originally written for people other than us. But if Christians want to know where they have come from, spiritually speaking, they will want to read the history of their salvation, and that begins in the Old Testament with Abraham. This history contains both promise and fulfilment, and each element has its place in giving meaning to the whole. A great deal in the history is typical of the sort of thing that happens to believers (and unbelievers), and is therefore relevant to our lives today. To those who have become followers of Jesus Christ, the texts that tell about him may be considered especially valuable, but none is valueless. Since the earliest days of the church, Christians have affirmed that the books of both Old and New Testaments are the foundation documents of their faith, and that through them God speaks to his people.2 The authority of the Old Testament, like that of the New, is based on the conviction that it is a definitive human expression of the Word of God.3 Thus both Old and New Testaments are fundamental for theologians in establishing church doctrine,4 and for believers in providing guidance for living.5

2. On the canon, see above: n. 1. On the inspiration of Scripture, see P. J. Achtemeier 1980; S. L. Johnson 1980; Abraham 1981; Marshall 1982; Gnuse 1985; Trembath 1987; Helm & Trueman 2002; Enns 2005. 3. On the authority of the Old Testament, see further Hebert 1947; J. Bright 1967; Barr 1971; McKim 1983; Goldingay 1987; Edwards & Stott 1988: 41–106, 241–243, 260–264; Maier 1990: 165–186; C. J. H. Wright 2004: 441–471. 4. On the use of the Bible in theology, see Kelsey 1975; Nineham 1976; Clements 1978: 179–200; R. E. Brown 1985; R. K. Johnston 1985; Jodock 1990; Marshall 1994; 2004; Scalise 1996; J. B. Green 2002; Hart 2004. 5. On the use of the Bible in ethics, see Marshall 1978; Goldingay 1990: 38–65; Kaiser 1983; Ogletree 1983; Swartley 1983; L. S. Cahill 1986; 1990; Birch 1988; R. R. Wilson 1988; G. L. Green 1990; Brueggemann 1991; Fowl & Jones 1991; Siker 1997; G. J. Wenham 2000; Cosgrove 2002; C. J. H. Wright 2004; Carroll Rodas & Lapsley 2007.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 277

22/12/09 12:35:29

278

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

b. Old and New Testament interpretation A number of misunderstandings about biblical interpretation may be cleared up by a correct understanding of the relationship between the Testaments. Often Old Testament interpretation is considered to be a problem. However, the interpretation of the Old Testament is no more problematic than the interpretation of the New Testament or of any other ancient or modern text. The relationship between the Testaments as presented here means that there is nothing essentially different about interpreting the first part of the Christian Bible from interpreting the second part. Of course, the world of the Old Testament is farther removed from us than that of the New Testament, and the problems of interpretation are correspondingly more numerous and more difficult. But the aim of interpretation in both cases is to understand the text in its original context, in order to be in a better position to consider its relevance in the modern world. And the method of interpretation in both cases is to use the tools of modern scholarship as effectively as possible to achieve that aim. It is sometimes thought that the key to interpreting the Old Testament is in New Testament use of the Old.6 However, we live in a different world from the authors of the New Testament, and our task is not to imitate the way they interpreted the Old Testament but to develop our own way. Their methods of interpretation were suited to the needs of the first century, but cannot simply be repeated at the beginning of the twenty-first century. We can learn a great deal from the way early Christians read and understood the Old Testament, but to truly understand and respond to the Word of God today we should use the methods of modern hermeneutics. Another misunderstanding is that the Old Testament is to be interpreted in the light of Jesus or through the eyes of the New Testament. Although there is some truth in this, it would be more accurate to say that Old Testament texts, as also New Testament texts, should be interpreted in the context of the whole Bible. How then should we interpret texts from the two Testaments of the one Christian Bible? Although interpreters vary in their methods, there are generally four main stages in the interpretation of any biblical text: (1) textual criticism and translation (defining the text), (2) historical and literary criticism (tracing the pre-history of the text), (3) exegesis (clarifying the meaning of the text in its canonical form) and (4) reflection (reception history, contextualization, contemporary relevance). While there are differences in detail because of

6. On which, see above: 1.3.c.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 278

22/12/09 12:35:29

t h e t h e o lo g i c a l r e lat i o n s h i p

279

the different languages and cultures involved, the same basic principles apply to the interpretation of both Old and New Testament texts. So the problem is not how to interpret the Old Testament in particular, but how best to interpret texts from both Old and New Testaments, taking account of the contexts in which they were originally written and their present context in the whole Bible, and explaining them in such a way that twenty-first-century people may understand them clearly and respond appropriately.7 c. Biblical theology The modern understanding of biblical theology is generally traced to Johann Gabler, who in a 1787 lecture defined it as a descriptive discipline in contrast to the constructive discipline of dogmatic theology.8 On this basis, biblical theology is essentially historical and objective, concerned with ascertaining the theology found in the Bible and held by biblical authors, without necessarily linking it with church doctrine or contemporary thought. Gabler himself did not write a biblical theology, and nineteenth-century scholars were mostly concerned with developing (or opposing) the historical-critical approach to the Bible and paid relatively scant attention to its theology. It was not until after the First World War that scholars took up Gabler’s challenge, no doubt partly as a result of the theological revolution sparked by Karl Barth’s commentary on Romans. For many years, most theological approaches to the Bible were concerned with either Old Testament or New Testament, or smaller sections such as the Psalms or Pauline letters. Few scholars attempted to write a theology of the whole Bible.9 On the basis of the conclusions of this book, however, there

7. On biblical interpretation, see further Smart 1961; 1965; J. Bright 1967: chs. 4–5; E. Achtemeier 1973; Marshall 1977; B. W. Anderson 1979; Baker 1980; Gowan 1980; Thiselton 1980; 1992; 2006; Fee & Stuart 1982; Barton 1996; Ferguson 1986; Morgan & Barton 1988; Goldingay 1990; 1995; Maier 1990; Watson 1994; Silva et al. 1996; Janowski & Welker 1997; Alonso Schökel 1998; Vanhoozer 1998; Greidanus 1999; Lundin 1999; Bartholomew et al. (2000; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004; 2006); Goldsworthy 2006; Osborne 2006; Kaiser & Silva 2007. 8. For a translation of Gabler’s lecture, together with commentary, see SandysWunsch & Eldredge 1980. For discussion of the significance of his proposal, see Ollenburger 1985; Knierim 1995: 495–556; Brueggemann 1997: 13–14; Elliott 2007a; Ratheiser 2007: 12–21. 9. The biblical theologies of Burrows (1946) and Vos (1948) were fairly thorough, but neither interacted much with contemporary scholarship. Minear (1946) intended

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 279

22/12/09 12:35:29

280

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

is no reason why one should not write a theology of the Bible as a whole. Indeed, in view of the enormous number of theologies of parts of the Bible, the most urgent need is now for theologies of the whole Bible.10 This is not the place to document the rise and fall of the so-called ‘Biblical Theology Movement’, nor to propose a better way of doing biblical theology.11 Nor is it possible here to discuss Jewish biblical theology, a rare breed

Footnote 9 (cont.) only to provide a preface for a biblical theology. During the next thirty years hardly any book covered the theology of the whole Bible, although a few dealt with particular themes in their biblical context (e.g. J. Bright 1953; Rowley 1953; Bauer 1959; Bruce 1968; Ellul 1970). At the end of the 1970s Brueggemann & Donahue launched a series of monographs with the low-key title ‘Overtures to Biblical Theology’ (e.g. Bailey 1979), and several similar works were published independently (e.g. Simundson 1980; Morris 1981; Dyrness 1983; Dumbrell 1985; P. D. Hanson 1986). More comprehensive but relatively short works were written by Clavier (1976), Terrien (1978), Cronk (1982), Seebass (1982), McCurley & Reumann (1986) and Weber (1989). However, before the last decade of the twentieth century, there was no major work of biblical theology to compare with Old Testament theologies such as those of Eichrodt (1933–9) and von Rad (1957– 60), or New Testament theologies such as those of Bultmann (1948–53) and Goppelt (1975–6). 10. Since the 1990s several scholars have undertaken the task. Major works on the theology of the whole Bible have been published by Childs (1992) and Scobie (2003). Shorter works include Goldsworthy 1991, Bartholomew & Goheen 2004a and Pate et al. 2004. Goldingay’s Old Testament theology (2003; 2006b) contains frequent references to its continuation in the New, while Stuhlmacher’s New Testament theology (1992; 1999) is an explicitly ‘biblical’ theology. Recent studies of specific topics in biblical theology include Hafemann 2001; J. D. Hays 2003; Beale 2004; Leal 2004; Nardoni 2004; Laniak 2006; C. J. H. Wright 2006. 11. On biblical theology, see further Ebeling 1955; Childs 1970; Kraus 1970; W. J. Harrington 1973; Haacker 1977; Westermann 1978: 230–232; Hasel 1979; Smart 1979; Reventlow 1983: Beker 1985; Janowski & Welker 1986; Baldermann et al. 1987; Baker 1988; Barr 1988; 1999; 2005; Rendtorff 1988; Osborne 2006: 347–373; Reumann 1991b; Scobie 1991; 2003: 1–102; Auld 1992; Reventlow 1992; Riches 1992; Perdue 1994: 19–44; 2005: 25–75; Kraftchick et al. 1995; Stuhlmacher 1995; Knierim 1997; Watson 1997; Hübner & Jaspert 1999; Goldsworthy 2000; Murphy 2000; Hossfeld 2001; Martens 2001; Hafemann 2002; Bartholomew et al. 2004; Collins 2005; Hanson et al. 2005; Helmer 2005a; 2005b; Janowski 2005; Sommer

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 280

22/12/09 12:35:29

t h e t h e o lo g i c a l r e lat i o n s h i p

281

whose legitimacy is contested but nevertheless growing.12 Whatever the merits or otherwise of particular approaches to biblical theology, it can scarcely be disputed that the Bible contains a great deal of theology, at least in the general sense of assumptions, thoughts and teachings about God. This theology is of interest to both biblical scholars and systematic theologians, and its study may serve to form a bridge between their respective disciplines. If the view of the relationship between the Testaments presented here is correct, such a theology of the whole Bible would take account of both the unity and the diversity of the biblical witnesses. It would consider the function of typology and of promise and fulfilment in the recounting of salvation history. It would discuss the relationship between God and his people, as seen in the journey from old covenant to new covenant. Above all, it would recognize the centrality of Jesus, the Christ of the Old Testament and of the New, descendant of Abraham and David and firstborn of a new creation, who in his person and coming unites the two Testaments into one Bible.

2005; Olson 2006; Elliott 2007b; Mead 2007; Waltke 2007: 29–169; Helyer 2008: 19–83. 12. See Tsevat 1986; B. W. Anderson 1986; Goshen-Gottstein 1987; Rendtorff 1990; Childs 1992: 25–26; Levenson 1993: 33–61; Kalimi 1997; Murphy 1997; Sweeney 1997; Barr 1999: 286–311; Bellis & Kaminsky 2000; Brawley 2000; Ratheiser 2007: 107–136.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 281

22/12/09 12:35:29

BIBL IOG RAPHY

This bibliography has been substantially updated compared with earlier editions, but is more selective in listing older works. For a fuller bibliography of works up to 1975, see Baker 1976a. Aageson, James W. (1987), ‘Typology, Correspondence, and the Application of Scripture in Romans 9–11’, JSNT 31: 51–72. Abraham, W. J. (1981), The Divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Achtemeier, Elizabeth (1973), The Old Testament and the Proclamation of the Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster). Achtemeier, Paul J. (1980), The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals (Philadelphia: Westminster). Achtemeier, Paul J., & Elizabeth Achtemeier (1962), The Old Testament Roots of Our Faith (New York: Abingdon); repr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Ackroyd, Peter R. (1962), ‘G. A. F. Knight’s “A Christian Theology of the Old Testament”’, ExpTim 73: 164–168. —— (1968), Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC (OTL; London: SCM). —— (1977), ‘Continuity and Discontinuity: Rehabilitation and Authentication’, in D. A. Knight 1977: 215–234.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 282

22/12/09 12:35:29

biblio graphy

283

Adam, A. K. M., et al. (2006), Reading Scripture With the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker). Adeye.mi, Fe.mi (2006), The New Covenant Torah in Jeremiah and the Law of Christ in Paul (Studies in Biblical Literature, 94; New York: Peter Lang). Adeyemo, Tokunboh, ed. (2006), Africa Bible Commentary (Nairobi: Word Alive). Aichele, George, et al. (1995), The Postmodern Bible: The Bible and Culture Collective (New Haven: Yale University Press). Akpunonu, Peter Damian (2004), The Vine, Israel and the Church (Studies in Biblical Literature, 51; New York: Lang). Albl, Martin C. (1999), ‘And Scripture Cannot Be Broken’: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections (NovTSup, 96; Leiden: Brill). Alexander, T. Desmond (1998), The Servant King: The Bible’s Portrait of the Messiah (Leicester: IVP). Alexander, T. Desmond, & Brian S. Rosner, eds. (2000), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Leicester: IVP). Alexeev, Anatoly A. (2004), ‘The Old Testament Lections in Orthodox Worship’, in Dimitrov et al. 2004: 91–117. Allbee, Richard A. (2006), ‘Asymmetrical Continuity of Love and Law between the Old and New Testaments: Explicating the Implicit Side of a Hermeneutical Bridge, Leviticus 19.11–18’, JSOT 31: 147–166. Allen, David M. (2008), Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews (WUNT, 238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Allen, Ronald J., & Clark M. Williamson (2007), Preaching the Old Testament: A Lectionary Commentary (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). Allison, Dale C. (1993), The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Alonso Schökel, Luis (1998), A Manual of Hermeneutics, ed. José María Bravo (BSem, 54; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Alt, Albrecht (1913–56), Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1953–9); collected essays, 1913–56; English translation of selection in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, tr. R. A. Wilson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966). Alter, Robert (1981), The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Allen & Unwin). Althaus, Paul (1963), The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966; tr. from German, 2nd ed., 1963). Amsler, Samuel (1952), ‘Où en est la typologie de l’Ancien Testament?’, ETR 27: 75–81. —— (1953), ‘Prophétie et typologie’, RTP 3: 139–148. —— (1960a), L’Ancien Testament dans l’église (Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé). —— (1960b), ‘Texte et événement’, in maqqél shâqédh: La branche d’amandier, ed. Daniel Lys (Vischer Festschrift; Montpellier: Causse Graille Castelnau), 12–19. Andersen, Francis I. (1975), ‘Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Old Testament’, RTR 34: 33–44.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 283

22/12/09 12:35:29

284

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Anderson, Bernhard W. (1955), ‘The Earth Is the Lord’s: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation’, Int 9: 3–20. —— (1962), ‘Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah’, in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson & Walter J. Harrelson (Muilenburg Festschrift; London: SCM), 177–195. —— (1964a), ‘Introduction: The Old Testament as a Christian Problem’, in Anderson 1964c: 1–7. —— (1964b), ‘The New Covenant and the Old’, in Anderson 1964c: 225–242. —— (1979), The Living Word of the Bible (London: SCM). —— (1986), ‘Response to Matitiahu Tsevat “Theology of the Old Testament – A Jewish View”’, HBT 8.2: 51–59. —— (1993), ‘The Bible as the Shared Story of a People’, in Charlesworth & Weaver 1993: 19–37. —— (1995), ‘Standing on God’s Promises: Covenant and Continuity in Biblical Theology’, in Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives, ed. Steven J. Kraftchick et al. (Beker Festschrift; Nashville: Abingdon), 145–154. —— (1999), Contours of Old Testament Theology, ed. Steven Bishop (Minneapolis: Fortress). ——, ed. (1964c), The Old Testament and Christian Faith: Essays by Rudolf Bultmann and Others (London: SCM). Anderson, Norman (1988), Freedom under Law (Eastbourne: Kingsway). Archer, Gleason L., & Gregory C. Chirichigno (1983), Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (Chicago: Moody). Armerding, Carl E. (1994), ‘Faith and Method in Old Testament Study: Story Exegesis’, in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite & David F. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 31–49. Ateek, Naim S. (1989), Justice, and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis). Auld, A. Graeme (1992), ‘Can a Biblical Theology Also Be Academic or Ecumenical?’, in Text as Pretext, ed. Robert P. Carroll (Davidson Festscrift; JSOTSup, 138; Sheffield: JSOT Press), 13–27. Auwers, Jean-Marie, & Henk Jan de Jonge, eds. (2003), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163; Leuven: Peeters/University Press). Avemarie, Friedrich, & Hermann Lichtenberger, eds. (1996), Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT, 92; Tübingen: Mohr). Baalen, J. K. van (1956), The Chaos of Cults: A Study in Present-Day Isms (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Bach, Alice (1993), ‘Reading Allowed: Feminist Biblical Criticism Approaching the Millennium’, CR:BS 1: 191–215.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 284

22/12/09 12:35:29

biblio graphy

285

Bächli, Otto (1987), Das Alte Testament in der kirchlichen Dogmatik von Karl Barth (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Badenas, Robert (1985), Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective ( JSNTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Bahnsen, Greg L., et al. (1996), Five Views on Law and Gospel (Counterpoints; Grand Rapids: Zondervan); orig. The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian, 1993. Bailey, Lloyd R. (1979), Biblical Perspectives on Death (OBT 5; Philadelphia: Fortress). Bainton, Roland H. (1963), ‘The Bible in the Reformation’, in CHB 3: 1–37. Baird, William (1988), ‘Abraham in the New Testament: Tradition and the New Identity’, Int 42: 367–379. Baker, David L. (1976a), Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of Some Modern Solutions to the Theological Problem of the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments (Leicester: IVP); 1st ed. with fuller bibliographies than the present ed., though only up to 1975. —— (1976b), ‘Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament’, SJT 29: 137–157. —— (1980), ‘Interpreting Texts in the Context of the Whole Bible’, Them 5.2: 21–25. —— (1988), ‘Biblical Theology’, in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson & David F. Wright (Leicester: IVP; Downers Grove: IVP), 96–99. —— (1991), Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship between the Old and New Testaments (2nd ed.; Leicester: Apollos). —— (2005), ‘Covenant: An Old Testament Study’, in Grant & Wilson 2005: 21–53. Baldermann, Ingo, et al., eds. (1987), Der eine Gott der Beiden Testamente ( JBT, 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Baldermann, Ingo, & Günter Stemberger, eds. (1988), Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons ( JBT, 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Balthasar, Hans Urs von (1951), Karl Barth: Darstellung und Deutung seiner Theologie (Cologne: Hegner). Baltzer, Klaus (1964), The Covenant Formulary: In Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971; tr. from German, 2nd ed., 1964). Baron, D. (1915), The History of the Ten Lost Tribes: Anglo-Israelism Examined (London: Morgan). Barr, James (1957), ‘Tradition and Expectation in Ancient Israel’, SJT 10: 24–34. —— (1962), ‘Gerhard von Rad’s Theologie des Alten Testaments’, ExpTim 73: 142–146. —— (1963), ‘Revelation through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology’, Int 17: 193–205. —— (1965), ‘Taking the Cue from Bultmann’, Int 19: 217–220. —— (1966), Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (London: SCM). —— (1968), Judaism – Its Continuity with the Bible (Montefiore Memorial Lecture, 7; Southampton: University of Southampton). —— (1970), ‘Themes from the Old Testament for the Elucidation of the New Creation’, Encounter 31: 25–30.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 285

22/12/09 12:35:29

286

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (1971), ‘The Old Testament and the New Crisis of Biblical Authority’, Int 25: 24–40. —— (1973), The Bible in the Modern World (Croall Lectures, 1970; London: SCM). —— (1976), ‘Story and History in Biblical Theology’, in Explorations in Theology 7: The Scope and Authority of the Bible (London: SCM, 1980), 1–17; repr. from JR 56 (1976): 1–17. —— (1977), ‘Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant’, in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Zimmerli Festschrift; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 23–38. —— (1980), ‘Historical Reading and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture’, in Explorations in Theology 7: The Scope and Authority of the Bible (London: SCM), 30–51. —— (1983), Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Sprunt Lectures, 1982; Oxford: Clarendon). —— (1988), ‘The Theological Case against Biblical Theology’, in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation, ed. Gene M. Tucker et al. (Childs Festschrift; Philadelphia: Fortress), 3–19. —— (1993), ‘Wilhelm Vischer and Allegory’, in Understanding Poets and Prophets, ed. A. Graeme Auld ( JSOTSup, 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 38–60. —— (1999), The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (London: SCM). —— (2000), History and Ideology in the Old Testament: Biblical Studies at the End of a Millennium (Henley Henson Lectures for 1997; Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2005), ‘Some Problems in the Search for a Pan-Biblical Theology’, in Biblische Theologie, ed. Paul D. Hanson et al. (ATM, 14; Münster: LIT), 31–42. Barrera, Julio Trebolle (1993), The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998; tr. from Spanish, 1993). Barstad, Hans M. (1989), A Way in the Wilderness: The ‘Second Exodus’ in the Message of Second Isaiah ( Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph, 12; Manchester: University of Manchester). Barth, Christoph (1963), ‘Grundprobleme einer Theologie des Alten Testaments’, EvT 23: 342–372. Barth, Karl (1918/1921), The Epistle to the Romans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933; tr. from German, 1918; 2nd ed., 1921; 6th ed., 1928). —— (1932), Church Dogmatics, vol. 1.1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd ed., 1975; tr. from German, 1932). —— (1935), ‘Gospel and Law’, in God, Grace and Gospel (SJT Occasional Papers, 8; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1959, 1–27; tr. from German, 1935; 2nd ed., 1956). —— (1938), Church Dogmatics, vol. 1.2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956; tr. from German, 1938; 3rd ed., 1945). —— (1940), Church Dogmatics, vol. 2.1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957; tr. from German, 1940; 2nd ed., 1946). —— (1942), Church Dogmatics, vol. 2.2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957; tr. from German, 1942).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 286

22/12/09 12:35:29

biblio graphy

287

—— (1945), Church Dogmatics, vol. 3.1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958; tr. from German, 1945). —— (1950), Church Dogmatics, vol. 3.3 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961; tr. from German, 1950). —— (1953), Church Dogmatics, vol. 4.1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956; tr. from German, 1953). —— (1955), Church Dogmatics, vol. 4.2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958; tr. from German, 1955). —— (n. d.), Prayer and Preaching (London: SCM, 1964; tr. from French, 1953, 1961); orig. a course of lectures delivered when Barth was comparatively young (p. 64). Barth, Markus (1954), ‘The Christ in Israel’s History’, ThTo 11: 342–353. —— (1983), The People of God ( JSNTSup, 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Bartholomew, Craig G. (1998), ‘Reading the Old Testament in Postmodern Times’, TynBul 49: 91–114. Bartholomew, Craig G., et al., eds. (2000), Renewing Biblical Interpretation (SHS, 1; Carlisle: Paternoster). —— (2001), After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation (SHS, 2; Carlisle: Paternoster). —— (2002), A Royal Priesthood? The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically: A Dialogue with Oliver O’Donovan (SHS, 3; Carlisle: Paternoster). —— (2003), ‘Behind’ the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (SHS, 4; Carlisle: Paternoster). —— (2004), Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation (SHS, 5; Milton Keynes: Paternoster). —— (2006), Canon and Biblical Interpretation (SHS, 7; Milton Keynes: Paternoster). Bartholomew, Craig G., & Michael W. Goheen (2004a), The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker). —— (2004b), ‘Story and Biblical Theology’, in Bartholomew et al. 2004: 144–171. Barton, John (1984), ‘Classifying Biblical Criticism’, JSOT 29: 19–35. —— (1996), Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (London: Darton Longman & Todd). —— (1997), The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon (Hulsean Lectures, 1990; London: SPCK); identical US ed. is entitled Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity (1997). ——, ed. (1998), The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Barton, John, & Michael Wolter, ed. (2003), Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons/ The Unity of Scripture and the Diversity of the Canon (BZNW, 118; Berlin: de Gruyter). Bauckham, Richard J. (1978), ‘The Rise of Apocalyptic’, Them 3.2: 10–23. —— (1987), Moltmann: Messianic Theology in the Making (Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 287

22/12/09 12:35:30

288

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (2003), ‘Reading Scripture as a Coherent Story’, in The Art of Reading Scripture, ed. Ellen F. Davis & Richard B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 38–53. Bauer, J. B., ed. (1959), Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology (3 vols.; London: Sheed & Ward, 1970; tr. from German, 1959). Baumgärtel, Friedrich (1925), Die Bedeutung des Alten Testaments für den Christen (Schwerin i. Mecklb.: publisher unknown). —— (1938), ‘Zur Frage der theologischen Deutung des Alten Testaments’, ZSTh 15: 136–162. —— (1952), Verheissung: Zur Frage des evangelischen Verständnisses des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann). —— (1954a), ‘Der Dissensus im Verständnis des Alten Testaments’, EvT 14: 298–313. —— (1954b), ‘The Hermeneutical Problem of the Old Testament’, in Westermann 1960: 134–159; tr. from German, 1954. —— (1967), ‘Das Offenbarungszeugnis des Alten Testaments im Lichte der religionsgeschichtlich-vergleichenden Forschung’, ZTK 64: 393–422. Bayes, Jonathan F. (2000), The Weakness of the Law: God’s Law and the Christian in New Testament Perspective (PBTM; Carlisle: Paternoster). Beale, G. K. (2004), The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (NSBT, 17; Leicester: Apollos). ——, ed. (1994), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker). Beale, G. K., & Donald A. Carson, eds. (2007), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker). Bear, James E. (1956), ‘The Seventh-Day Adventists’, Int 10: 45–71. Beauchamp, Paul (2000), ‘Lecture christique de l’Ancien Testament’, Bib 81: 105–115. Bebbington, David (1979), Patterns in History (Leicester: IVP). Béchard, Dean P. (2002), The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical). Becker, Joachim (1977), Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980; tr. from German, 1977). Beckett, Michael (2002), Gospel in Esther (Carlisle: Paternoster). Beckwith, Roger T. (1985), The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK). Beker, J. Christiaan (1985), ‘Paul’s Letter to the Romans as Model for a Biblical Theology: Some Preliminary Observations’, in Understanding the Word, ed. James T. Butler et al. (Anderson Festschrift; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press), 359–367. Bellis, Alice Ogden, & Joel S. Kaminsky, eds. (2000), Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSymS, 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature). Bennett, William Henry (1893), ‘Old Testament’, in Faith and Criticism: Essays by Congregationalists (London: Sampson Low), 1–47.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 288

22/12/09 12:35:30

biblio graphy

289

—— (1914), The Value of the Old Testament for the Religion of Today (London: SPCK). Berding, Kenneth, & Jonathan Lunde, eds. (2007), Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Counterpoints; Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Berkhof, Hendrikus (1969), ‘Israel as a Theological Problem in the Christian Church’, JES 6: 329–347. Berkhof, Louis (1950), Principles of Biblical Interpretation: Sacred Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker). Berkouwer, G. C. (1952), The Person of Christ (Studies in Dogmatics; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954; tr. from Dutch, 1952). Berry, Amanda (2007), ‘Clement of Alexandria’, in McKim 2007: 310–315. Betz, Hans Dieter (1969), ‘The Concept of Apocalyptic in the Theology of the Pannenberg Group’, JTC 6: 192–207. Beyerlin, Walter (1961), Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965; tr. from German, 1961). Birch, Bruce C. (1988), ‘Old Testament Narrative and Moral Address’, in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation, ed. Gene M. Tucker et al. (Childs Festschrift; Philadelphia: Fortress), 75–91. Birch, Bruce C., et al. (2005), A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (2nd ed.; Nashville: Abingdon). Blackman, E. C. (1948), Marcion and His Influence (London: SPCK). Blaising, Craig A., & Darrell L. Bock, eds. (1992), Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Bloomquist, Daniel (2005), ‘Law/Gospel: A Lutheran Contribution to the Interpretation of Scripture’, in A Graced Horizon: Essays in Gospel, Culture and Church, ed. Roland Chia & Mark Chan (Choong Festschrift; Singapore: Armour), 87–97. Bock, Darrell L. (1987), Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology ( JSNTSup, 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Bockmuehl, Markus (2000), Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). —— (2005), ‘“Keeping It Holy”: Old Testament Commandment and New Testament Faith’, in I Am the Lord Your God: Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments, ed. Carl E. Braaten & Christopher R. Seitz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 95–124. Boff, Leonardo, & Clodovis Boff (1986), Liberation Theology: From Dialogue to Confrontation (San Francisco: Harper & Row; tr. from Portuguese, 1985, expanded). Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice (1997), ‘Loi(s) et alliance nouvelle dans les deux formes conservées du livre de Jérémie ( Jr 31,31–37 TM; 38,31–37 LXX)’, in La loi dans l’un et l’autre Testament, ed. Camille Focant (LD, 168; Paris: Cerf), 81–92. Bokedal, Tomas (2005), The Scriptures and the Lord: Formation and Significance of the Christian Biblical Canon: A Study in Text, Ritual and Interpretation (Lund: Lund University Press).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 289

22/12/09 12:35:30

290

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1951), Letters and Papers from Prison (London: SCM, 1953; tr. from German, 1951; reset 1959). —— (2002), Reflections on the Bible: Human Word and Word of God, ed. Manfred Weber (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004; tr. from German, 2002). Bonner, Gerald (1970), ‘Augustine as Biblical Scholar’, in CHB 1: 541–563. Bornkamm, Heinrich (1948), Luther and the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969; tr. from German, 1948). Borsch, Frederick Houk (1967), The Son of Man in Myth and History (NTL; London: SCM). Boulton, Wayne G. (1982), Is Legalism a Heresy? (New York: Paulist). Boyd, Robert F. (1956), ‘Mormonism’, Int 10: 430–446. Boyd, Robin H. S. (1975), An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology (2nd ed.; Madras: Christian Literature Society); 1st ed., 1969. Bozzo, E. G. (1974), ‘Jesus as a Paradigm for Personal Life’, JES 11: 45–63. Braaten, Carl E. (1965), ‘The Current Controversy on Revelation: Pannenberg and His Critics’, JR 45: 225–237. Branson, Mark Lau, & C. René Padilla (1983), Conflict and Context: Hermeneutics in the Americas (Report of 1983 Conference; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Braulik, Georg (1984), ‘Law as Gospel: Justification and Pardon According to the Deuteronomic Torah’, Int 38: 5–14; tr. from German, 1982, abbreviated. Brawley, Anna (2000), ‘Grafted In: Why Christians Are Thinking About a Jewish Biblical Theology’, BTB 30: 120–128. Bray, Gerald (1996), Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present (Leicester: Apollos). Brett, Mark G. (1991), Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Bright, John (1953), The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and its Meaning for the Church (Nashville: Abingdon). —— (1956), Early Israel in Recent History Writing: A Study in Method (SBT, 19; London: SCM). —— (1962), ‘Edmond Jacob’s “Theology of the Old Testament”’, ExpTim 73: 304–307. —— (1963), ‘Eschatology’, in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings et al. (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), 265–267. —— (1967), The Authority of the Old Testament (London: SCM). —— (1976), Covenant and Promise: The Prophetic Understanding of the Future in Pre-Exilic Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster); UK ed., London: SCM, 1977. —— (1981), A History of Israel (3rd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster). Bright, Pamela (2006), ‘St. Augustine’, in Holcomb 2006: 39–59. Brown, Colin, ed. (1976), History, Criticism and Faith: Four Exploratory Studies (Leicester: IVP). Brown, Dennis (2003), ‘Jerome and the Vulgate’, in Hauser & Watson 2003: 355–379. Brown, Raymond E. (1953), ‘The History and Development of the Theory of a Sensus Plenior’, CBQ 15: 141–162.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 290

22/12/09 12:35:30

biblio graphy

291

—— (1955), The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture (Baltimore: Pontifical Theological Faculty of St. Mary’s University). —— (1968), ‘Hermeneutics’, in JBC 2: 605–623. —— (1985), Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine (London: Chapman, 1986); USA, 1985. Bruce, F. F. (1955), The Christian Approach to the Old Testament (London: IVP). —— (1963), ‘Promise and Fulfilment in Paul’s Presentation of Jesus’, in Promise and Fulfilment, ed. F. F. Bruce (Hooke Festschrift; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), 36–50. —— (1968), This Is That: The New Testament Development of Some Old Testament Themes (Exeter: Paternoster). —— (1969), New Testament History (London: Nelson). —— (1978), The Time Is Fulfilled: Five Aspects of the Fulfilment of the Old Testament in the New (Exeter: Paternoster). —— (1988), The Canon of Scripture (Glasgow: Chapter House). Brueggemann, Walter (1983–2002), Like Fire in the Bones: Listening for the Prophetic Word in Jeremiah, ed. Patrick D. Miller (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006); collected essays, 1983– 2002. —— (1985), ‘A Shape for Old Testament Theology, I: Structure Legitimation and II: Embrace of Pain’, CBQ 47: 28–46, 395–415; repr. in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text, ed. Patrick D. Miller (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 1–44. —— (1987), Hope Within History (Atlanta: John Knox). —— (1991), Interpretation and Obedience: From Faithful Reading to Faithful Living (Minneapolis: Fortress). —— (1993), Texts Under Negotiation: The Bible and Postmodern Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress). —— (1997), Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress). —— (1998a), A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans); repr. from ITC (1988, 1991) with new preface. —— (1998b), Isaiah 1–39 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). —— (1998c), Isaiah 40–66 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). —— (2000), ‘James Barr on Old Testament Theology’, review of Barr 1999, in HBT 22: 58–74. —— (2002), The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith (2nd ed.; OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress). —— (2003), An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). —— (2007), The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 291

22/12/09 12:35:30

292

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Brunner, Emil (1930), ‘The Significance of the Old Testament for Our Faith’, in Anderson 1964c: 243–264; tr. from German, 1930. —— (1934), Die Unentbehrlichkeit des Alten Testaments für die missionierende Kirche: Vortrag am Basler Missionsfest 1934 (Basler Missionsstudien, New Series 12; Stuttgart: publisher unknown). —— (1941), Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith and Knowledge (London: SCM, 1947; tr. from German, 1941). Buber, Martin (1951), Two Types of Faith (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951; tr. from German, n. d.). Buchanan, George Wesley (1987), Typology and the Gospel (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America). Budic, Sanford (1986), ‘Milton and the Scene of Interpretation: From Typology toward Midrash’, in Midrash and Literature, ed. Geoffrey H. Hartman & Sanford Budick (New Haven: Yale University Press), 195–212. Buis, Pierre (1968), ‘La nouvelle alliance’, VT 18: 1–15. —— (1976), La notion d’alliance dans l’Ancien Testament (LD, 88; Paris: Cerf). Bultmann, Rudolf (1917–57), Existence and Faith, ed. Schubert M. Ogden (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961; tr. from German, collected essays, 1917–57). —— (1917–64), Glauben und Verstehen (4 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1933–65; collected essays, 1917–64). —— (1924–30), Faith and Understanding, ed. Robert W. Funk (Library of Philosophy and Theology; London: SCM, 1969; tr. from German, Glauben und Verstehen, vol. 1, 1933; 6th ed., 1966; collected essays, 1924–30). —— (1930), ‘The Historicity of Man and Faith’, in Existence and Faith, ed. Schubert M. Ogden (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961), 92–110; tr. from German, 1930. —— (1931–51), Essays: Philosophical and Theological (Library of Philosophy and Theology; London: SCM, 1955; tr. from German, Glauben und Verstehen, vol. 2, 1952; collected essays, 1931–51). —— (1933), ‘The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christian Faith’, in Anderson 1964c: 8–35; tr. from German, 1933. —— (1940), ‘Christ the End of the Law’, in Essays: Philosophical and Theological (London: SCM, 1955), 36–66; tr. from German, 1940. —— (1948a), ‘History of Salvation and History’, in Existence and Faith, ed. Schubert M. Ogden (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961), 226–240; tr. from German, 1948. —— (1948b), Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1 (London: SCM, 1952; tr. from German, 1948). —— (1949a), Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting (London: Thames & Hudson, 1956; tr. from German, 1949; 2nd ed., 1954). —— (1949b), ‘Prophecy and Fulfillment’, in Westermann 1960: 50–75; tr. from German, 1949.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 292

22/12/09 12:35:30

biblio graphy

293

—— (1950a), ‘The Significance of the Jewish Old Testament Tradition for the Christian West’, in Essays: Philosophical and Theological (London: SCM, 1955), 262–272; tr. from German, 1950. —— (1950b), ‘Ursprung und Sinn der Typologie als hermeneutischer Methode’, TLZ 75: 205–212. —— (1953), Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2 (London: SCM, 1955; tr. from German, 1953). —— (1957a), History and Eschatology (Gifford Lectures, 1955; Edinburgh: University Press). —— (1957b), ‘Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?’, in Existence and Faith, ed. Schubert M. Ogden (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961), 289–296; tr. from German, 1957. Burdett, David (1974), ‘Wisdom Literature and the Promise Doctrine’, TJ 3: 1–13. Buren, Paul M. van (1980), A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality. Vol. 1: Discerning the Way (San Francisco: Harper & Row). —— (1983), A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality. Vol. 2: A Christian Theology of the People of Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row). —— (1988), A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality. Vol. 3: Christ in Context (San Francisco: Harper & Row). Burge, Gary M. (2003), Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim). Burnett, Richard E. (2001), Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis: The Hermeneutical Principles of the Römerbrief Period (WUNT, 145; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Burney, C. F. (1921), The Gospel in the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Burns, Rita J. (1983), ‘Excursus on Typology’, in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (OTM, 3; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier), 288–296. Burrows, Millar (1946), An Outline of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster). Busch, Roger J. van den (1980), ‘Jeremiah: A Spiritual Metamorphosis’, BTB 10: 17–24. Cahill, Lisa S. (1986), ‘Canon, Authority, Norms? Recent Studies in Biblical Ethics’, Int 40: 414–417. —— (1990), ‘The New Testament and Ethics’, Int 44: 383–395. Cahill, P. Joseph (1982), ‘Hermeneutical Implications of Typology’, CBQ 44: 266–281. Caird, George B. (1965), Jesus and the Jewish Nation (London: Athlone). —— (1966), A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (London: Black). Calderone, Philip J. (1966), Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty: 2 Samuel 7, 8–16 (Manila: Loyola House of Studies). Calmet, Augustin (1837), ‘Type’, in Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible, vol. 2 (6th ed.; London: Holdsworth), 768–769. Calvin, John (1536–59), Institutes of the Christian Religion (LCC, 20–21; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960; tr. from Latin/French eds., 1536–59).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 293

22/12/09 12:35:30

294

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Campbell, Roderick (1954), Israel and the New Covenant (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed). Campbell, William S. (1984), ‘Christianity and Judaism: Continuity and Discontinuity’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 8: 54–58. Campenhausen, Hans von (1968), The Formation of the Christian Bible (London: Black, 1972; tr. from German, 1968). Candler, Peter M., Jr. (2006), ‘St. Thomas Aquinas’, in Holcomb 2006: 60–80. Caragounis, Chrys C. (1986), The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT, 38; Tübingen: Mohr). Carey, John J. (1993), ‘Apocalypticism as a Bridge between the Testaments’, in Charlesworth & Weaver 1993: 89–105. Carpenter, J. Estlin (1903), The Bible in the Nineteenth Century (London: Longmans). Carroll, Robert P. (1993), ‘Inscribing the Covenant: Writing and the Written in Jeremiah’, in Understanding Poets and Prophets, ed. A. Graeme Auld ( JSOTSup, 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 61–76. —— (1998), ‘Poststructuralist Approaches: New Historicism and Postmodernism’, in Barton 1998: 50–66. Carroll Rodas, M. Daniel (2000), Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation ( JSOTSup, 299; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Carroll Rodas, M. Daniel, & Jacqueline E. Lapsley, ed. (2007), Character Ethics and the Old Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). Carson, Donald A. (1983), ‘Unity and Diversity in the New Testament’, in Scripture and Truth, ed. Donald A. Carson & John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 65–95. Carson, Donald A., & H. G. M. Williamson, eds. (1988), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Lindars Festschrift; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Carter, C. Sydney (1928), The Reformers and Holy Scripture: A Historical Investigation (London: Thynne & Jarvis). Cate, Robert L. (1982), Old Testament Roots for New Testament Faith (Nashville: Broadman). Cazelles, Henri (1966a), ‘The Unity of the Bible and the People of God’, Scr 18: 1–10. ——, ed. (1966b), Populus Dei (Ottaviani Festchrift; Communio, 10, 11; Rome). Černý, L. (1948), The Day of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems (Prague: Charles University). Chalmers, Aaron (2009), ‘The Importance of the Noahic Covenant to Biblical Theology’, TynBul 60: 207–216. Chandler, Albert R. (1945), Rosenberg’s Nazi Myth (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Chapman, Colin (2002), Whose Promised Land? The Continuing Crisis over Israel and Palestine (5th ed.; Oxford: Lion).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 294

22/12/09 12:35:30

biblio graphy

295

Chapman, Stephen B. (2000), The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation (FAT, 27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). —— (2008), ‘Saul/Paul: Onomastics, Typology, and Christian Scripture’, in The Word Leaps the Gap, ed. J. Ross Wagner et al. (Hays Festschrift; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 214–243. Charlesworth, James H. (1993), ‘What Has the Old Testament to Do With the New?’, in Charlesworth & Weaver 1993: 39–87. ——, ed. (1983), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday). Charlesworth, James H., & Walter P. Weaver (1993), The Old and New Testaments: Their Relationship and the ‘Intertestamental’ Literature (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International). Childs, Brevard S. (1958), ‘Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study in Contemporary Hermeneutics’, Int 12: 259–271. —— (1962), Memory and Tradition in Israel (SBT, 37; London: SCM). —— (1964), ‘Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an Old Testament Commentary’, Int 18: 432–449. —— (1970), Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster). —— (1974), Exodus: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM). —— (1978), ‘The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature’, Int 32: 46–55. —— (1979), Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress). —— (1984a), The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (London: SCM). —— (1984b), review of Barr 1983, in Int 38: 66–70. —— (1985), Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM). —— (1992), Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (London: SCM). —— (2001), Isaiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). —— (2002), Biblical Theology: A Proposal (Minneapolis: Fortress); adapted from Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. —— (2004), The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Chilton, Bruce (2008), ‘Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven’, in NIDB 3: 512–523. Chiu, A. (1984), ‘The Dialectic between Law and Gospel: Christian Responsibility for the World’, EAJT 2.1: 1–10. Cholewiński, Alfred (1985), ‘Zur theologischen Deutung des Moabbundes’, Bib 66: 96–111. Christ, Felix, ed. (1967), Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie (Cullmann Festschrift; Hamburg-Bergstedt: Reich). Christensen, Duane L. (2003), The Unity of the Bible: Exploring the Beauty and Structure of the Bible (New York: Paulist).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 295

22/12/09 12:35:30

296

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Christian Conference of Asia, ed. (1983), Minjung Theology: People as the Subjects of History (rev. ed.; London: Zed); 1st ed. Singapore, 1981. Ciampa, Roy E. (2007), ‘The History of Redemption’, in Hafemann & House 2007: 254–308. Clark, Kenneth Willis (1972), ‘The Israel of God’, in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature (NovTSup, 33; Wikgren Festschrift; Leiden: Brill), 161–169. Clavier, Henri (1976), Les variétés de la pensée biblique et le problème de son unité: esquisse d’une théologie de la Bible sur les textes originaux et dans leur contexte historique (NovTSup, 43; Leiden: Brill). Clements, Ronald E. (1965), Prophecy and Covenant (SBT, 43; London: SCM). —— (1970), ‘Theodorus C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology’, in Contemporary Old Testament Theologians, ed. Robert B. Laurin (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott), 121–140. —— (1975), Prophecy and Tradition (Growing Points in Theology; Oxford: Blackwell). —— (1978), Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott). —— (1989), ‘The Messianic Hope in the Old Testament’, JSOT 43: 3–19. —— (2003), ‘The Biblical Theology of H. H. Rowley, 1890–1969’, Baptist History and Heritage 38: 36–63. Clines, David J. A. (1973), ‘God in Human Form: A Theme in Biblical Theology’, JCBRF 24: 24–40. —— (1978), The Theme of the Pentateuch ( JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press). —— (1984), Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott). —— (1998), ‘The Postmodern Adventure in Biblical Studies’, in Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies, ed. David J. A. Clines & Stephen D. Moore ( JSOTSup, 269; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 276–291. Clines, David J. A., et al., eds. (1982), Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature ( JSOTSup, 19; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Collins, John J., ed. (1979), ‘Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre’, Semeia 14. —— (1998), The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (2005), Encounters With Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress). Commission Biblique Pontificale (2001), Le peuple juif et ses Saintes Écritures dans la Bible chrétienne (Paris: Cerf). Congar, Yves M. J. (1949), ‘The Old Testament as a Witness to Christ’, in The Revelation of God (London: Herder, 1968), 8–15; tr. from French, La Vie Intellectuelle 17 (1949): 335–343. Cook, Stephen L. (2003), The Apocalyptic Literature (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon). —— (2007), ‘Eschatology of the OT’, in NIDB 2: 299–308.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 296

22/12/09 12:35:30

biblio graphy

297

Coppens, Joseph (1949), Les harmonies des deux Testaments: essais sur les divers sens des Écritures et sur l’unité de la Révélation (2nd ed.; CahNRT, 6; Tournai-Paris: Casterman); 1st ed., 1948. —— (1958), Le problème du sens plénier des Saintes Écritures (Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia, 3.9; Louvain: University Press); repr. from ETL 34: 5–20. —— (1968), Le messianisme royal (LD, 54; Paris: Cerf). —— (1974), Le messianisme et sa relève prophétique: les anticipations vétérotestamentaires; leur accomplissement en Jésus (BETL, 38; Gembloux: Duculot). Cosgrove, Charles H. (2002), Appealing to Scripture in Moral Debate: Five Hermeneutical Rules (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Cranfield, C. E. B. (1979), The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Crehan, F. J. (1963), ‘The Bible in the Roman Catholic Church from Trent to the Present Day’, in CHB 3: 199–237. Crenshaw, James L. (1971), Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion (BZAW, 124; Berlin: de Gruyter). —— (1978), Gerhard von Rad (Makers of the Modern Theological Mind; Waco: Word). —— (2007), ‘Rad, Gerhard von’, in McKim 2007: 843–848. Croatto, José Severino (1966), Historia de la salvación (2nd ed.; Buenos Aires: Paulinas); Indonesian tr., 1975. Cronk, George (1982), The Message of the Bible: An Orthodox Christian Perspective (Crestwood, N. Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press). Cross, Frank Moore (1998), ‘Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel’, in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press), 3–21. Crüsemann, Frank (1992), The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996; tr. from German, 1992). Cullmann, Oscar (1946), Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (London: SCM, 1951; 2nd ed., 1962; tr. from German, 1946; 3rd ed., 1962). —— (1957), The Christology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1959; tr. from German, 1957). —— (1964), ‘The Connection of Primal Events and End Events with the New Testament Redemptive History’, in Anderson 1964c: 115–123. —— (1965), Salvation in History (NTL; London: SCM, 1967; tr. from German, 1965). —— (1986), Unity through Diversity: Its Foundation, and a Contribution to the Discussion Concerning the Possibilities of Its Actualization (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988; tr. from German, 1986). Cummins, S. A. (2004), ‘The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recent Contributions by Stephen E. Fowl, Christopher R. Seitz and Francis Watson’, CBR 2.2: 179–196. Cunningham, Mary Kathleen (2006), ‘Karl Barth’, in Holcomb 2006: 183–201.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 297

22/12/09 12:35:30

298

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Currid, John D. (1994), ‘Recognition and Use of Typology in Preaching’, RTR 53: 115– 129; repr. in ERT 21 (1997): 236–249. Dahl, Nils Astrup (1956), ‘The People of God’, ERev 9: 154–161. Dalferth, Ingolf U. (1997), ‘Die Mitte ist aussen: Anmerkungen zum Wirklichkeitsbezug evangelischer Schriftauslegung’, in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift, ed. Christof Landmesser et al. (Hofius Festschrift; BZNW, 86; Berlin: de Gruyter), 173–198. Daniélou, Jean (1948), Origen (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1955; tr. from French, 1948). —— (1950), From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers (London: Burns & Oates, 1960; tr. from French, 1950). —— (1964–77), A History of Early Christian Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea (3 vols.; London: Darton Longman & Todd; tr. from French, n. d.). Dassmann, Ernst, & Günter Stemberger, eds. (1993), Der Messias ( JBT, 8; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener). Daube, David (1963), The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London: Faber & Faber). Davidson, A. B. (1903), Old Testament Prophecy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). —— (1904), The Theology of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Davidson, Richard M. (1981), Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical τυπος Structures (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation, 2; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press). Davidson, Robert (1989), ‘Covenant Ideology in Ancient Israel’, in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, ed. Ronald E. Clements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 323–347. Davies, G. Henton (1970), ‘Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology’, in Contemporary Old Testament Theologians, ed. Robert B. Laurin (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott), 63–89. Davies, Philip R. (1980), ‘Eschatology in the Book of Daniel’, JSOT 17: 33–53. —— (1992), In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ ( JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: JSOT Press). —— (2007), The Origins of Biblical Israel (LHBOTS, 485; New York: T. & T. Clark). Davies, W. D. (1968a), ‘Reflections on Judaism and Christianity’, in L’évangile, hier et aujourd’hui (Leenhardt Festschrift; Geneva: Labor et Fides), 39–54. —— (1968b), ‘Torah and Dogma: A Comment’, HTR 61: 87–105. —— (1974), The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press). —— (1980), Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (3rd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress); 1st ed., 1948. Davis, Dale Ralph (1982), ‘Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32–34’, WTJ 44: 71–87. Davis, Leroy A. (1965), ‘Typology in Barth’s Doctrine of Scripture’, ATR 47: 33–49. Day, John, ed. (2004), In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar ( JSOTSup, 406; London: T. & T. Clark). Delitzsch, Franz (1881), Old Testament History of Redemption (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 298

22/12/09 12:35:30

biblio graphy

299

Delitzsch, Friedrich (1920–21), Die grosse Täuschung (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche). Dempster, Stephen G. (2003), Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (NSBT, 15; Leicester: IVP; Downers Grove: IVP). —— (2007), ‘The Servant of the Lord’, in Hafemann & House 2007: 128–178. Dever, William G. (2003), Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Dickens, W. T. (2006), ‘Hans Urs von Balthasar’, in Holcomb 2006: 202–219. Diem, Hermann (1955), Dogmatics (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1959; tr. from German, 1955). Diétrich, Suzanne de (1945), God’s Unfolding Purpose: A Guide to the Study of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960; tr. from French, 1945). Dietrich, Walter (2000), ‘Die David-Abraham-Typologie im Alten Testament’, in Verbindungslinien, ed. Axel Graupner et al. (Werner Schmidt Festschrift; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener), 41–55. Dillenberger, John (1964), ‘Revelational Discernment and the Problem of the Two Testaments’, in Anderson 1964c: 159–175. Dimitrov, Ivan Z. (2004), ‘The Relationship between the Old and the New Testament’, in Dimitrov et al. 2004: 145–153. Dimitrov, Ivan Z., et al., eds. (2004), Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in Orthodoxer und Westlicher Sicht: Zweite Europäische Orthodox-Westliche Exegetenkonferenz im Rilakloster vom 8.–15. September 2001 (WUNT, 174; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Dockery, David S. (1992), Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Baker). Dodd, C. H. (1928), The Authority of the Bible (London: Nisbet); rev. and reset, 1960. —— (1935), The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nisbet); rev. and reset, 1961. —— (1936), The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments: Three Lectures with an Appendix on Eschatology and History (London: Hodder & Stoughton); repr. 1944. —— (1938), History and the Gospel (Hewett lectures; London: Nisbet); rev. and reset, 1964. —— (1946a), The Bible Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— (1946b), ‘Natural Law in the Bible’, Theology 49: 130–134, 161–167; repr. in New Testament Studies (Manchester: University Press, 1953), 129–142. —— (1951a), Gospel and Law: The Relation of Faith and Ethics in Early Christianity (Bampton Lectures in America; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— (1951b), ‘The Relevance of the Bible’, in Biblical Authority for Today: A World Council of Churches Symposium, ed. Alan Richardson & W. Schweitzer (Philadelphia: Westminster), 157–162. —— (1952), According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet); reset 1965. —— (1953), The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 299

22/12/09 12:35:30

300

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (1971), The Founder of Christianity (London: Collins). Dohmen, Christoph, & Thomas Söding (1995), Eine Bibel – zwei Testamente: Positionen biblischer Theologie (Paderborn: Schöningh). Dorman, Ted M. (2007), ‘Cullmann, Oscar’, in McKim 2007: 333–338. Doukhan, Jacques B. (2002), Israel and the Church: Two Voices for the Same God (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). Drane, John W. (1978), ‘Typology’, EvQ 50: 195–210. Driver, S. R. (1905), ‘The Permanent Religious Value of the Old Testament’, Interpreter 1: 10–21; 71–88. Duggan, Michael W. (2001), The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40), An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study (SBLDS, 164; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature). Duling, Dennis C. (1992), ‘Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven’, in ABD 4: 49–69. Dumbrell, William J. (1984), Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology (Exeter: Paternoster). —— (1985), The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament (Homebush West, NSW: Lancer). —— (1997), ‘Apocalytic Literature’, in NIDOTTE 4: 394–399. —— (2002), ‘The Newness of the New Covenant: The Logic of the Argument in 2 Corinthians 3’, RTR 61: 61–84. Dunn, James D. G. (1977), Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Enquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM). Durham, John I. (1970), ‘George A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament’, in Contemporary Old Testament Theologians, ed. Robert B. Laurin (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott), 171–190. Dussel, E. (1979), ‘The Kingdom of God and the Poor’, International Review of Mission 68: 115–130. Dyrness, William A. (1983), Let the Earth Rejoice! A Biblical Theology of Holistic Mission (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway). Ebeling, Gerhard (1955), ‘The Meaning of “Biblical Theology”’, JTS 6: 210–225; repr. in On the Authority of the Bible, ed. L. Hodgson et al. (London: SPCK, 1960), 49–67. Edwards, David L., & John R. W. Stott (1988), Essentials: A Liberal–Evangelical Dialogue (London: Hodder & Stoughton). Ehrhardt, A. (1968), ‘A Biblical View of the People of God’, AER 159: 126–138. Eichrodt, Walther (1933), Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (OTL; London: SCM, 1961; tr. from German, 1933; 6th ed., 1959). —— (1935–9), Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (OTL; London: SCM, 1967; tr. from German, 1935–9; 5th ed., 1964). —— (1938), ‘Zur Frage der theologischen Exegese des Alten Testamentes’, TBl 17: 73–87.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 300

22/12/09 12:35:30

biblio graphy

301

—— (1957), ‘Is Typological Exegesis an Appropriate Method?’, in Westermann 1960: 224–245; tr. from German, 1957. —— (1961), ‘The Problem of Old Testament Theology’, in Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (OTL; London: SCM), 512–520; excursus added to English translation. Elliott, Mark W. (2007a), ‘Gabler, Johann Philipp’, in McKim 2007: 452–456. —— (2007b), The Reality of Biblical Theology (Religions and Discourse, 39; Oxford: Lang). Ellis, E. Earle (1957), Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd). —— (1991), The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research (WUNT, 54; Tübingen: Mohr). Ellison, H. L. (1953a), The Centrality of the Messianic Idea for the Old Testament (Tyndale Old Testament Lecture; London: Tyndale). —— (1953b), ‘Typology’, EvQ 25: 158–166. —— (1976), From Babylon to Bethlehem: The People of God between the Testaments (Exeter: Paternoster). Ellul, Jacques (1970), The Meaning of the City (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; tr. from French, n. d.). Elmslie, W. A. L. (1948), How Came Our Faith: A Study of the Religion of Israel and its Significance for the Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Englezakis, Benedict C. (1982), New and Old in God’s Revelation: Studies in Relations between Spirit and Tradition in the Bible (Cambridge: Clarke). Enns, Peter (2005), Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker). Escobar, Samuel (1983), ‘Our Hermeneutic Task Today’, in Conflict and Context: Hermeneutics in the Americas, ed. Mark Lau Branson & C. René Padilla (Report of 1983 Conference; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 3–10. Estep, W. R. (1975), The Anabaptist Story (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Evans, Craig A. (2002), ‘The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers’, in McDonald & Sanders 2002: 185–195. ——, ed. (2004), From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). Evans, Craig A., & James A. Sanders, eds. (1993a), Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress). —— (1993b), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel ( JSNTSup, 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). —— (1997), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals ( JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Evans, Craig A., & W. Richard Stegner, eds. (1994), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel ( JSNTSup, 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Evans, Ernest, ed. (1972), Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem (Oxford: Clarendon).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 301

22/12/09 12:35:30

302

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Everson, A. Joseph (1974), ‘The Days of Yahweh’, JBL 93: 329–337. Eynde, Sabine van den (1999), ‘Covenant Formula and bryt: The Links between a Hebrew Lexeme and a Biblical Concept’, OTE 12: 122–148. Fabiny, Tibor (1992), The Lion and the Lamb: Figuralism and Fulfilment in the Bible, Art and Literature (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Fairbairn, Patrick (1870), The Typology of Scripture: Viewed in Connection with the Whole Series of the Divine Dispensations (2 vols.; 5th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Fee, Gordon D., & Douglas Stuart (1982), How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Feinberg, John S., ed. (1988), Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway). Feiner, Johannes, & Magnus Löhrer, eds. (1965–76), Mysterium Salutis: Grundriss Heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik (5 vols.; Einsiedeln: Benziger). Felber, Stefan (1999), Wilhelm Vischer als Ausleger der Heiligen Schrift: Eine Untersuchung zum Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments (Forschungen zur Systematischen und Ökumenischen Theologie, 89; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —— (2007), ‘Vischer, Wilhelm’, in McKim 2007: 1011–1016. Fensham, F. Charles (1967), ‘Covenant, Promise and Expectation in the Bible’, TZ 23: 305–322. Ferch, Arthur J. (1979), The Son of Man in Daniel Seven (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, 6; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press). Ferguson, Duncan S. (1986), Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Atlanta: John Knox). Fernández, A. (1927), ‘Hermeneutica’, in Institutiones Biblicae Scholis Accommodata (2nd ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute); not available to me; cited by Berding & Lunde 2007: 47. Festorazzi, F. (1967), ‘The Faith of Both Testaments as Salvific Experience: “We Are Safe.” Jeremiah 7.10’, Concilium 3.1: 24–31. Fiedler, Peter (2005), Studien zur biblischen Grundlegung des christlich-jüdischen Verhältnisses (SBA, 35a; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk). Fierro, Alfredo (1977), ‘Exodus Event and Interpretation in Political Theologies’, in Gottwald 1983: 473–481; orig. pub. 1977. Filson, Floyd V. (1951), ‘The Unity of the Old and the New Testaments: A Bibliographical Survey’, Int 5: 134–152. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler, ed. (1993–4), Searching the Scriptures (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad). Firth, David G., & Jamie A. Grant, eds. (2008), Words and the Word: Explorations in Biblical Interpretation and Literary Theory (Nottingham: Apollos). Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (1961), ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, NTS 7: 297–333. —— (1993), Romans: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary (AB, 33; New York: Doubleday).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 302

22/12/09 12:35:30

biblio graphy

303

Flannery, Austin, ed. (1975), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents (Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources). Florovsky, Georges (1951), ‘Revelation and Interpretation’, in Biblical Authority for Today: A World Council of Churches Symposium, ed. Alan Richardson & W. Schweitzer (Philadelphia: Westminster), 163–180. Focant, Camille, ed. (1997), La Loi dans l’un et l’autre Testament (LD, 168; Paris: Cerf). Fohrer, Georg (1970), ‘Das Alte Testament and das Thema “Christologie”’, EvT 30: 281–298. Ford, David F. (1979), ‘Barth’s Interpretation of the Bible’, in Karl Barth: Studies of his Theological Method, ed. S. W. Sykes (Oxford: Clarendon), 55–87. Forde, G. O. (1983), ‘Law and Gospel in Luther’s Hermeneutic’, Int 37: 240–252. Förster, W. (1959), Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1964; tr. from German, 3rd ed., 1959). Forstman, H. Jackson (1962), Word and Spirit: Calvin’s Doctrine of Biblical Authority (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press). Foulkes, Francis (1958), The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament (Tyndale Old Testament Lecture, 1955; London: Tyndale). Fowl, Stephen E. (1998), Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation (Challenges in Contemporary Theology; Oxford: Blackwell). ——, ed. (1997), The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings (Blackwell Readings in Modern Theology; Oxford: Blackwell). Fowl, Stephen E., & L. Gregory Jones (1991), Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life (London: SPCK). France, Richard T. (1971), Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and his Mission (London: Tyndale). Freed, E. D. (1965), Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovTSup, 11; Leiden: Brill). Frei, Hans W. (1974), The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press). Fretheim, Terence E. (1991a), Exodus (Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox). —— (1991b), ‘The Reclamation of Creation: Redemption and Law in Exodus’, Int 45: 354–365. —— (2002), Jeremiah (SHBC; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2003). —— (2003), ‘Law in the Service of Life: A Dynamic Understanding of Law in Deuteronomy’, in A God So Near: Essays in Old Testament Theology, ed. Brent A. Strawn & Nancy R. Bowen (Patrick Miller Festschrift; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 183–200. —— (2005), God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 303

22/12/09 12:35:31

304

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Frisque, J. (1960), Oscar Cullmann: une théologie de l’histoire du salut (Cahiers de l’actualité religieuse, 11; Tournai: Casterman). Fritsch, C. T. (1946–7), ‘Biblical Typology’, BSac 103: 293–305, 418–430; 104: 87–100, 214–222. —— (1951), ‘The Interpreter at Work: V. Bengel, the Student of Scripture’, Int 5: 203– 215. —— (1966), ‘To Antitypon’, in Studia Biblica et Semitica, ed. W. C. van Unnik & A. S. van der Woude (Vriezen Festschrift; Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen), 100–107. Froehlich, K. (1984), Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (SECT; Philadelphia: Fortress); translations of patristic texts. Frye, Northrop (1982), The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (London: Routledge). Fuliga, J. B. (1986), ‘A Critique of Latin American Liberation Theology’, EAJT 4.2: 52–61. Fuller, Daniel P. (1966), ‘A New German Theological Movement’, SJT 19: 160–175. —— (1980), Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1992), The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God’s Plan for Humanity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). —— (2002), ‘Progressive Dispensationalism and the Law/Gospel Contrast: A Case Study in Biblical Theology’, in Hafemann 2002: 237–249. Funk, Robert W., ed. (1969), ‘Apocalypticism’, JTC 6: entire issue. Galloway, A. D. (1973), Wolfhart Pannenberg (London: Allen & Unwin). Gamble, Harry Y. (2003), ‘The Formation of the New Testament Canon and Its Significance for the History of Biblical Interpretation’, in Hauser & Watson 2003: 409–429. Gehman, Henry S. (1955), ‘An Insight and a Realization: A Study of the New Covenant’, Int 9: 279–293. Gese, Hartmut (1970), ‘Erwägungen zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie’, ZTK 67: 417–436; repr. in Vom Sinai zum Zion (BEvT, 64; Munich: Kaiser, 1974), 11–30. —— (1977a), Essays on Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981; tr. from German, 1977). —— (1977b), ‘Tradition and Biblical Theology’, in D. A. Knight 1977: 301–326. —— (1979), ‘Wisdom, Son of Man, and the Origins of Christology: The Consistent Development of Biblical Theology’, HBT 3 (1981): 23–57; tr. from German, SEÅ 44 (1979): 77–114. —— (1986), ‘Hermeneutische Grundsätze der Exegese biblischer Texte’, in Standort und Bedeutung der Hermeneutik in der gegenwärtigen Theologie, ed. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg & H. Schröer (Bonn: Bouvier-Grundmann), 43–62; repr. in Alttestamentliche Studien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), 249–265. —— (1987a), ‘Der auszulengende Text’, ThQ 167: 252–265; repr. in Alttestamentliche Studien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), 266–282. —— (1987b), ‘Die dreifache Gestaltwerdung des Alten Testaments’, in Mitte der Schrift?

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 304

22/12/09 12:35:31

biblio graphy

305

Ein jüdische-christliches Gespräch, ed. Martin A. Klopfenstein & Ulrich Luz (Bern: Lang), 299–328; repr. in Alttestamentliche Studien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), 1–28. Getui, Mary N., et al. (2001), Interpreting the Old Testament in Africa: Papers from the International Symposium on Africa and the Old Testament in Nairobi, October 1999 (Bible and Theology in Africa, 2; New York: Peter Lang). Gilkey, L. B. (1961), ‘Cosmology, Ontology and the Travail of Biblical Language’, JR 41: 194–205. Glen, J. S. (1951), ‘Jesus Christ and the Unity of the Bible’, Int 5: 259–267. Glenny, W. Edward (1997), ‘Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion’, JETS 40: 627–638. Glover, Willis B. (1954), Evangelical Nonconformists and Higher Criticism in the Nineteenth Century (London: Independent). Gnuse, Robert (1985), The Authority of the Bible: Theories of Inspiration, Revelation and the Canon of Scripture (New York: Paulist). —— (2001), ‘The Critic of Biblical Theologians’, review of Barr 1999, in BTB 31: 44–52. Goba, Bonganjalo (1987), ‘The Kairos Document and Its Implications for Liberation in South Africa’, Journal of Law and Religion 5: 313–325. Goldingay, John (1972), ‘“That You May Know That Yahweh Is God”: A Study in the Relationship between Theology and Historical Truth in the Old Testament’, TynBul 23: 58–93. —— (1987), Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1989), Daniel (WBC, 30; Dallas: Word). —— (1990), Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation (updated ed.; Leicester: IVP). —— (1994), Models for Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1995), Models for Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster). —— (2001), ‘What Are the Characteristics of Evangelical Study of the Old Testament?’, EvQ 73: 99–117. —— (2003), Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove: IVP). —— (2005), The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary (London: T. & T. Clark). —— (2006a), ‘Covenant, OT and NT’, in NIDB 1: 767–778. —— (2006b), Old Testament Theology. Vol. 2: Israel’s Faith (Downers Grove: IVP). —— (2006–8), Psalms (3 vols.; BCOTWP; Grand Rapids: Baker). —— (2008), ‘Old Testament Theology and the Canon’, TynBul 59: 1–26. Goldsworthy, Graeme L. (1981), Gospel and Kingdom: A Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament (Exeter: Paternoster). —— (1987), Gospel and Wisdom: Israel’s Wisdom Literature in the Christian Life (Exeter: Paternoster).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 305

22/12/09 12:35:31

306

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (1991), According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Leicester: IVP). —— (2000), Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching (Leicester: IVP). —— (2006), Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics (Nottingham: IVP). Goppelt, Leonhard (1939), Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982; tr. from German, 1939). —— (1969), ‘Typos’, in TDNT, vol. 8: 246–259. —— (1975), Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981; tr. from German, 1975). —— (1976), Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982; tr. from German, 1976). Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. (1987), ‘Tanakh Theology: The Religion of the Old Testament and the Place of Jewish Biblical Theology’, in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Patrick D. Miller et al. (Cross Festschrift; Philadelphia: Fortress), 617–644. Gosse, Bernard (1989), ‘L’ouverture de la nouvelle alliance aux nations en Jérémie iii 14–18’, VT 39: 385–392. Gottwald, Norman K. (1979), The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel: 1250–1050 B.C.E. (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis). ——, ed. (1983), The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis). Goulder, Michael D. (1964), Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK). Gowan, Donald E. (1976), Bridge Between the Testaments: A Reappraisal of Judaism from the Exile to the Birth of Christianity (Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series, 14; Pittsburgh, Pa.: Pickwick). —— (1980), Reclaiming the Old Testament for the Christian Pulpit (Atlanta: John Knox). —— (1986), Eschatology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress). Grabbe, Lester L. (2007), Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (London: T. & T. Clark). Grant, Frederick C. (1960), Ancient Judaism and the New Testament (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd). Grant, Jamie A., & Alistair I. Wilson, eds. (2005), The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives (Leicester: Apollos). Grant, Robert M. (1957), The Letter and the Spirit (London: SPCK). Grant, Robert M., & David Tracy (1984), A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (2nd ed.; London: SCM); 1st ed. 1963 by Grant; 2nd ed. rev. and suppl. by Tracy. Grässer, Erich (1980), ‘Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Biblischen Theologie’, ZTK 77: 200–221. Gray, John (1974), ‘The Day of Yahweh in Cultic Experience and Eschatological Prospect’, SEÅ 39: 5–37. —— (1979), The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 306

22/12/09 12:35:31

biblio graphy

307

Grech, Prosper (2004), ‘Problems of O. T. Interpretation in the First Centuries’, in Dimitrov et al. 2004: 3–19. Green, Garrett, ed. (1987), Scriptural Authority and Narrative Interpretation (Frei Festschrift; Philadelphia: Fortress). Green, Gene L. (1990), ‘The Use of the Old Testament for Christian Ethics in 1 Peter’, TynBul 41: 276–289. Green, Joel B. (2002), ‘Scripture and Theology: Failed Experiments, Fresh Perspectives’, Int 56: 5–20. Greenspoon, Leonard (2003), ‘Hebrew into Greek: Interpretation in, by, and of the Septuagint’, in Hauser & Watson 2003: 80–113. Greer, Rowan A. (1961), Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian (London: Faith). Greidanus, Sidney (1999), Preaching Christ through the Old Testament: A Contemporary Hermeneutical Method (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Greig, A. J. (1974), ‘Geschichte and Heilsgeschichte in Old Testament Interpretation with Particular Reference to the Work of Gerhard von Rad’ (diss., University of Edinburgh). Grelot, Pierre (1962), Sens chrétien de l’Ancien Testament: esquisse d’un traité dogmatique (Tournai: Desclée). Gressmann, Hugo (1905), Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie (FRLANT, 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —— (1929), Der Messias (FRLANT, 26; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht); rewritten form of 1905. Gribomont, J. (1946), ‘Le lien des deux Testaments, selon la théologie de saint Thomas: Notes sur le sens spirituel et implicite des Saintes Écritures’, ETL 22: 70–89. Grin, E. (1961), ‘L’unité des deux Testaments selon Calvin’, TZ 17: 175–186. Groenen, C. (1989), Soteriologi Alkitabiah: Keselamatan yang Diberitakan Alkitab [Biblical Soteriology: Salvation in the Message of the Bible] (Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Kanisius). Grogan, Geoffrey W. (1967), ‘The Experience of Salvation in the Old and New Testaments’, VE 5: 4–26. —— (1986), ‘The Relationship between Prophecy and Typology’, SBET 4: 5–16. Groningen, Gerard van (1990), Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker). Gross, Heinrich (1956), Die Idee des ewigen und allgemeinen Weltfriedens im alten Orient und im Alten Testament (TTS, 7; Trier: Paulinus). —— (1959), ‘Zum Problem Verheissung and Erfüllung’, BZ 3: 3–17. Gross, Walter (1996), ‘Erneuerter oder Neuer Bund? Wortlaut und Aussageintention in Jer 31,31–34’, in Avemarie & Lichtenberger 1996: 41–66. —— (1998), Zukunft für Israel: Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund (SBS, 176; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk). Groves, Joseph W. (1987), Actualization and Interpretation in the Old Testament (SBLDS, 86; Atlanta: Scholars).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 307

22/12/09 12:35:31

308

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Gudorf, Christine E. (1987), ‘Liberation Theology’s Use of Scripture: A Response to First World Critics’, Int 41: 5–18. Guhrt, Joachim, et al. (1975), ‘Covenant, Guarantee, Mediator’, in NIDNTT 1: 365–376. Gundry, Robert H. (1967), The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (NovTSup, 18; Leiden: Brill). Gundry, S. N. (1969), ‘Typology as a Means of Interpretation: Past and Present’, BETS 12: 233–240. Gunkel, Hermann (1895), Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Gunn, David M. (1978), The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation ( JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press). —— (1987), ‘New Directions in the Study of Biblical Hebrew Narrative’, JSOT 39: 65–75. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. (1977), Understanding the Old Testament (OTL; London: SCM, 1978; tr. from German, 1977). —— (1979), ‘“Theologie” des Alten Testaments oder “Biblische Theologie”?’, in Textgemäss, ed. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg & Otto Kaiser (Würthwein Festschrift; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 39–46. —— (1993), Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments: Eine Religionsgeschichte Israels in biblischtheologischer Sicht (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Guthrie, Donald (1981), New Testament Theology (Leicester: IVP). Gutiérrez, Gustavo (1971), A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation (London: SCM, 1974; tr. from Spanish, 1971). Haacker, Klaus, et al. (1977), Biblische Theologie heute: Einführung – Beispiele – Kontroversen (BTS, 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Hafemann, Scott J. (1995), ‘The “Righteousness of God”: An Introduction to the Theological and Historical Foundation of Peter Stuhlmacher’s Biblical Theology of the New Testament’, in How to Do Biblical Theology, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (Princeton Theological Monograph Series, 38; Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick), xv–xli. —— (2001), The God of Promise and the Life of Faith: Understanding the Heart of the Bible (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway). —— (2007), ‘The Covenant Relationship’, in Hafemann & House 2007: 20–65. ——, ed. (2002), Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove: IVP; Leicester: IVP). Hafemann, Scott J., & Paul R. House, eds. (2007), Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity (Nottingham: Apollos). Hagen, Kenneth (2007), ‘Luther, Martin’, in McKim 2007: 687–694. Hagner, Donald A. (1973), The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome (NovTSup, 34; Leiden: Brill). Hahn, Scott Walker (1995), ‘Kinship by Covenant: A Biblical Theological Study of

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 308

22/12/09 12:35:31

biblio graphy

309

Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments’ (PhD thesis, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisc.). —— (2005), ‘Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994–2004)’, CBR 3: 263–292. Hals, Ronald M. (1980), Grace and Faith in the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg). Hamm, Berndt, & Rudolph Weth, eds. (1992), Volk Gottes, Gemeinde und Gesellschaft ( JBT, 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Hanks, Thomas D. (1983), God So Loved the Third World: The Biblical Vocabulary of Oppression (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis; tr. from Spanish, 1982, rev.). Hanson, Anthony T. (1965), Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London: SPCK). —— (1974), Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (London: SPCK). —— (1980), The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture (London: SPCK). —— (1983), The Living Utterances of God: The New Testament Exegesis of the Old (London: Darton Longman & Todd). Hanson, Paul D. (1975), The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress). —— (1978), Dynamic Transcendence: The Correlation of Confessional Heritage and Contemporary Experience in a Biblical Model of Divine Activity (Philadelphia: Fortress). —— (1982), The Diversity of Scripture: A Theological Interpretation (OBT 11; Philadelphia: Fortress). —— (1986), The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible (new introduction in 2001 ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). —— (1987), Old Testament Apocalyptic (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon). ——, ed. (1983), Visionaries and their Apocalypses (IRT, 2; Philadelphia: Fortress); collected essays, 1971–83. Hanson, Paul D., et al. (1992), ‘Apocalypses and Apocalyticism’, in ABD 1: 279–292. ——, ed. (2005), Biblische Theologie: Beiträge des Symposiums ‘Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne’ Anlässlich des 100. Geburtstag Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971) Heidelberg, 18.–21. Oktober 2001 (ATM, 14; Münster: LIT). Hanson, R. P. C. (1959), Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM). —— (1970), ‘Biblical Exegesis in the Early Church’, in CHB 1: 412–453. Harder, J. G., & W. T. Stevenson (1971), ‘The Continuity of History and Faith in the Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg: Toward an Erotics of History’, JR 51: 34–56. Harnack, Adolf von (1921), Marcion: Das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott (TUGAL, 45; Leipzig: Hinrichs); 2nd ed., 1924; repr. Darmstadt, 1960. Harrelson, Walter J. (1958), ‘Worship in Early Israel’, BR 3: 1–14. Harrington, Daniel J. (1980), God’s People in Christ: New Testament Perspectives on the Church and Judaism (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress). Harrington, Wilfrid J. (1973), The Path of Biblical Theology (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 309

22/12/09 12:35:31

310

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Harris, J. Rendel (1916–20), Testimonies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Harrisville, Roy A. (1999), ‘What I Believe My Old Schoolmate Is Up To’, in Theological Exegesis, ed. Christopher R. Seitz & Kathryn Greene-McCreight (Childs Festschrift; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 7–25. Harrisville, Roy A., & Walter Sundberg (2002), The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans); 1st ed., 1995. Hart, Trevor (2004), ‘Systematic – in What Sense?’, in Bartholomew et al. 2004: 342–351. Hartley, John E. (1982), ‘The Use of Typology Illustrated in a Study of Isaiah 9:1–7’, in Interpreting God’s Word for Today, ed. W. McCown & J. E. Massey (Wesleyan Theological Perspectives, 2; Anderson, Ind.: Warner), 195–220. Harvey, Julien (1971), ‘The New Diachronic Biblical Theology of the Old Testament 1960–1970’, BTB 1: 5–29. Hasel, Gerhard F. (1970), ‘The Problem of History in Old Testament Theology’, AUSS 8: 23–50. —— (1972), The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Andrews University Monographs, 5; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press). —— (1978), New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1979), ‘The Future of Biblical Theology’, in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker), 179–194. —— (1991), Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Hauser, Alan J., & Duane F. Watson, eds. (2003), A History of Biblical Interpretation. Vol. 1: The Ancient Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (2009), A History of Biblical Interpretation. Vol. 2: The Medieval Through the Reformation Periods (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Hay, David M. (1973), Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS, 18; Nashville: Abingdon). —— (1990), ‘Moses through New Testament Spectacles’, Int 44: 240–252. Hayes, John H., & Frederick C. Prussner (1985), Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (London: SCM). Hays, J. Daniel (2003), From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race (NSBT, 14; Leicester: Apollos). Hays, Richard B. (1989), Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press). Hebert, Arthur Gabriel (1941), The Throne of David: A Study of the Fulfilment of the Old Testament in Jesus Christ and His Church (London: Faber & Faber). —— (1947), The Authority of the Old Testament (London: Faber & Faber). Heinisch, Paul (1949–50), History of the Old Testament (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1952; tr. from German, 1949–50).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 310

22/12/09 12:35:31

biblio graphy

311

Heintze, Gerhard (1958), Luthers Predigt von Gesetz and Evangelium (Forschung zur Geschichte und Lehre des Protestantismus, 10.11; Munich: Kaiser). Hellbardt, Hans (1937), ‘Die Auslegung des Alten Testaments als theologische Disziplin’, TBl 16: 129–143. Hellholm, David, ed. (1983), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, 1979; Tübingen: Mohr). Helm, Paul, & Carl R. Trueman, eds. (2002), The Trustworthiness of God: Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture (Leicester: Apollos). Helmer, Christine (2005a), ‘Biblical Theology: Bridge over Many Waters’, CBR 3: 169– 196. —— (2005b), ‘Biblical Theology: Reality and Interpretation across Disciplines’, in Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality, ed. Christine Helmer (SBLSymS, 26; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 1–13. Helmer, Christine, & Christof Landmesser, eds. (2004), One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Helyer, Larry R. (2008), The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP). Hengel, Martin (2002), The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). —— (2003), ‘“Salvation History”: The Truth of Scripture and Modern Theology’, in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology, ed. Graham Stanton & David F. Ford (London: SCM), 229–244. Hengstenberg, E. W. (1829–35), Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions of the Prophets (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd ed., 1854–58; tr. from German, 1829–35; 2nd ed., 1854–57). Hensley, Jeffrey (2006), ‘Friedrich Schleiermacher’, in Holcomb 2006: 165–182. Hermisson, Hans Jürgen (1997), ‘Jesus Christus als externe Mitte des Alten Testaments: Ein unzeitgemässes Votum zur Theologie des Alten Testaments’, in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift, ed. Christof Landmesser et al. (Hofius Festschrift; BZNW, 86; Berlin: de Gruyter), 199–233. Herntrich, Volkmar (1936), Theologische Auslegung des Alten Testaments? Zum Gespräch mit Wilhelm Vischer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm (1936), review of Vischer 1934, in TLZ 61: 435–439. Hess, Richard S., & M. Daniel Carroll Rodas, eds. (2003), Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Baker). Hesse, Franz (1958), ‘Die Erforschung der Geschichte Israels als theologische Aufgabe’, KD 4: 1–19. —— (1959), ‘The Evaluation and Authority of Old Testament Texts’, in Westermann 1960: 285–313; tr. from German, 1959.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 311

22/12/09 12:35:31

312

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (1960), ‘Kerygma oder Geschichtliche Wirklichkeit? Kritische Fragen zu Gerhard von Rads “Theologie des Alten Testaments, I.Teil”’, ZTK 57: 17–26. —— (1966), Das Alte Testament als Buch der Kirch (Gütersloh: Mohn). —— (1969), ‘Bewährt sich eine “Theologie der Heilstatsachen” am Alten Testament? Zum Verhältnis von Faktum und Deutung’, ZAW 81: 1–18. —— (1971), Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte (ThSt, 108; Zurich: Theologischer). Hesselink, I. John (1967), ‘Calvin and Heilsgeschichte’, in Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie, ed. Felix Christ (Cullman Festschrift; Hamburg-Bergstedt: Reich), 163–170. —— (1992), Calvin’s Concept of the Law (Princeton Theological Monograph Series, 30; Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick). Hicks, R. Lansing (2007), ‘Wright, George Ernest’, in McKim 2007: 1060–1065. Higgins, A. J. B. (1949), The Christian Significance of the Old Testament (London: Independent). Hill, David (1967), Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (SNTSMS, 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hillers, Delbert R. (1969), Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Hirsch, Emanuel (1935), ‘Gottes Offenbarung in Gesetz and Evangelium: 20 Thesen’, in Die Bekenntnisse und Grundsätzlichen Äusserungen zur Kirchenfrage. Vol. 3: Das Jahr 1935, ed. K. D. Schmidt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 37–40. —— (1936), Das Alte Testament und die Predigt des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr). Hoekema, Anthony A. (1963), The Four Major Cults: Christian Science; Jehovah’s Witnesses; Mormonism; Seventh-Day Adventism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans); repr. Exeter: Paternoster, 1969. —— (1979), The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Hoesl, M. (1982), ‘The Kingdom: Preferential Option for the Poor’, Missiology 10: 57–68. Hofius, Otfried, & Peter Stuhlmacher, eds. (1989), ‘Gesetz’ als Thema Biblischer Theologie ( JBT, 4; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Hofmann, J. Chr. K. von (1841–4), Weissagung und Erfüllung im Alten und im Neuen Testamente: Ein theologischer Versuch (2 vols.; Nördlingen: Beck). Holcomb, Justin S., ed. (2006), Christian Theologies of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction (New York: University Press). Holmén, Tom (2001), Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (BIS, 55; Leiden: Brill). Holmgren, Fredrick C. (1999), The Old Testament and the Significance of Jesus: Embracing Change – Maintaining Christian Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Holter, Knut (2000), Yahweh in Africa: Essays on Africa and the Old Testament, ed. Knut Holter (Bible and Theology in Africa, 1; New York: Peter Lang). —— (2002), Old Testament Research for Africa: A Critical Analysis and Annotated Bibliography of African Old Testament Dissertations, 1967–2000 (Bible and Theology in Africa, 3; New York: Peter Lang).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 312

22/12/09 12:35:31

biblio graphy

313

—— (2006), Let my People Stay! Researching the Old Testament in Africa (Nairobi: Action). Holwerda, David E. (1995), Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Leicester: Apollos; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Hommes, Tjaard G. (1967), ‘Sovereignty and Saeculum: Arnold A. van Ruler’s Theocratic Theology’ (diss., Harvard University); unavailable to me; summary in HTR 60: 489– 490. Honecker, M. (1963), ‘Zum Verständnis der Geschichte in Gerhard von Rads Theologie des Alten Testaments’, EvT 23: 143–168. Hooke, S. H. (1961), Alpha and Omega: A Study in the Pattern of Revelation (Welwyn, Hertfordshire: Nisbet). Hooker, Morna D. (1986), Continuity and Discontinuity: Early Christianity in its Jewish Setting (London: Epworth). Horbury, William (1988), ‘Old Testament Interpretation in the Writings of the Church Fathers’, in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder & Harry Sysling (CRINT, 2.1; Assen: van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress), 727–787; repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. —— (1998), Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM). Horst, F. (1932), ‘Das Alte Testament als Heilige Schrift and als Kanon’, TBl 11: 161–173. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, ed. (2001), Wieviel Systematik erlaubt die Schrift? Auf der Suche nach einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie (QD, 185; Freiburg: Herder). Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, et al. (2004), ‘Messianische Texte und ihre christliche Interpretation’, in Dimitrov et al. 2004: 305–362. House, Paul R. (2007), ‘The Day of the Lord’, in Hafemann & House 2007: 179–224. Hubbard, David A. (1983), ‘Hope in the Old Testament’, TynBul 34: 33–59. Hübner, Hans, & Bernd Jaspert, eds. (1999), Biblische Theologie: Entwürfe der Gegenwart (Biblisch-theologische Studien, 38; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Huffmon, Herbert B. (1965), ‘The Exodus, Sinai and the Credo’, CBQ 27: 101–113. —— (1969), ‘The Israel of God’, Int 23: 66–77. Hugenberger, G. P. (1994), ‘Introductory Notes on Typology’, in Beale 1994: 331–341. Hummel, Horace D. (1964), ‘The Old Testament Basis of Typological Interpretation’, BR 9: 38–50. Hyatt, J. Philip (1970), ‘Was There an Ancient Historical Credo in Israel and an Independent Sinai Tradition?’, in Translating & Understanding the Old Testament, ed. Harry Thomas Frank & William L. Reed (Herbert May Festchrift; Nashville: Abingdon), 152–170. Jacob, Edmond (1945), ‘A propos de l’interpretation de l’Ancien Testament: Méthode christologique ou méthode historique?’, ETR 20: 76–82. —— (1950), ‘L’Ancien Testament et la prédication chrétienne’, Verbum Caro 4: 151–164.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 313

22/12/09 12:35:31

314

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (1955a), ‘Considérations sur l’autorité canonique de l’Ancien Testament’, in Le problème biblique dans le protestantisme, ed. Jean Boisset (Les problèmes de la pensée chrétienne, 7; Paris: Presses universitaires de France), 71–85. —— (1955b), Theology of the Old Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1958; tr. from French, 1955). —— (1965), Grundfragen alttestamentlicher Theologie (Franz Delitzsch-Vorlesungen, 1965; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970). —— (1966a), ‘Possibilités et limites d’une théologie biblique’, RHPR 46: 116–130. —— (1966b), review of Miskotte 1963, in RHPR 46: 392–394. —— (1968a), ‘New Preface’, in Théologie de l’Ancien Testament (2nd ed.; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé), v–xiii; the rest of the book is cited as 1955a. —— (1968b), ‘La théologie de l’Ancien Testament: État présent et perspectives d’avenir’, ETL 44: 420–432. Janowski, Bernd (2005), ‘Biblische Theologie heute: Formale und materiale Aspekte’, in Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality, ed. Christine Helmer (SBLSymS, 26; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 17–32. Janowski, Bernd, & Michael Welker, eds. (1986), Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie ( JBT, 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). —— (1991), Altes Testament und christlicher Glaube ( JBT, 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). —— (1997), Biblischer Hermeneutik ( JBT, 12; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Janzen, Waldemar (1990), ‘A Canonical Rethinking of the Anabaptist-Mennonite New Testament Orientation’, in Reclaiming the Old Testament, ed. Gordon Zerbe ( Janzen Festschrift; Winnipeg: Canadian Mennonite Bible College, 2001), 3–21; repr. from The Church as Theological Community, ed. Harry Huebner (Winnipeg: CMBC, 1990), 90–112. —— (1994), Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). Jaubert, Annie (1963), La notion d´alliance dans le judaïsme: Aux abords de l’ère chrétienne (Patristica Sorbonensia, 6; Paris: Éditions du Seuil). Jenni, Ernst (1962), ‘Eschatology of the Old Testament; Jewish Messiah’, in IDB 1: 126–133; 3: 360–365. Jensen, Joseph (1988), ‘Prediction-Fulfilment in Bible and Liturgy’, CBQ 50: 646–662. Jeremias, Joachim (1956), Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (Franz Delitzsch Lectures; London: SCM, 1958; tr. from German, 1956). —— (1962), The Parables of Jesus (rev. ed.; NTL; London: SCM, 1963; tr. from German, 6th ed., 1962). —— (1971), New Testament Theology. Vol. 1: The Proclamation of Jesus (NTL; London: SCM; tr. from German, n. d.). Jewett, Paul K. (1954), ‘Concerning the Allegorical Interpretation of Scripture’, WTJ 17: 1–20.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 314

22/12/09 12:35:31

biblio graphy

315

Jewett, Robert (2007), Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress). Jobes, Karen H., & Moisés Silva (2000), Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker). Jobling, David, et al., eds. (2001), The Postmodern Bible Reader (Oxford: Blackwell). Jocz, Jakób (1949), The Jewish People and Jesus Christ: A Study in the Relationship between the Jewish People and Jesus Christ (London: SPCK). —— (1958), A Theology of Election: Israel and the Church (London: SPCK). —— (1961), The Spiritual History of Israel (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode). —— (1968), The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Jodock, Darrell (1990), ‘The Reciprocity between Scripture and Theology: The Role of Scripture in Contemporary Theological Reflection’, Int 44: 369–382. John, E. C. (2004), ‘The Reception of the Old Testament in India’ (unpublished paper, Society for Old Testament Study, Summer Meeting). Johnson, R. Frank (1993), ‘Christ the Servant of the Lord’, in Charlesworth & Weaver 1993: 107–136. Johnson, S. Lewis (1980), The Old Testament in the New: An Argument for Biblical Inspiration (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Johnson, William Stacy (2007), ‘Barth, Karl’, in McKim 2007: 161–167. Johnston, O. R. (1951), ‘The Puritan Use of the Old Testament’, EvQ 23: 183–209. Johnston, Philip S., & Peter W. L. Walker, eds. (2000), The Land of Promise: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives (Leicester: Apollos). Johnston, Robert K., ed. (1985), The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options (Atlanta: John Knox). Jonge, Marinus de (1992), ‘Messiah’, in ABD 4: 777–788. Joosten, Jan (1998), ‘Covenant Theology in the Holiness Code’, ZABR 4: 145–164. Juel, Donald H. (1988), Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress). —— (2003), ‘Interpreting Israel’s Scriptures in the New Testament’, in Hauser & Watson 2003: 283–303. Kaestli, Jean-Daniel, & Otto Wermelinger, eds. (1984), Le canon de l’Ancien Testament: Sa formation et son histoire (MdB; Geneva: Labor et Fides). Kairos Theologians (1985), The Kairos Document: Challenge to the Church (London: Catholic Institute for International Relations / British Council of Churches). Kaiser, Walter C. (1972), ‘The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34’, JETS 15: 11–23. —— (1983), Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). —— (1985), The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody). —— (1995), The Messiah in the Old Testament (SOTBT; Carlisle: Paternoster). —— (1998), The Christian and the ‘Old’ Testament (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library). —— (2008), The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan); based on Toward an Old Testament Theology (1978).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 315

22/12/09 12:35:31

316

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Kaiser, Walter C., & Moisés Silva (2007), Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Kalimi, Isaac (1997), ‘History of Israelite Religion or Old Testament Theology? Jewish Interest in Biblical Theology’, SJOT 11: 100–123. Kalluveettil, Paul (1982), Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (AnBib, 88; Rome: Biblical Institute). Kannengiesser, Charles (2007a), ‘Augustine of Hippo’, in McKim 2007: 133–140. —— (2007b), ‘Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church’, in McKim 2007: 1–13. Karakolis, Christos (2004), ‘Erwägungen zur Exegese des Alten Testaments bei den griechischen Kirchenvätern: Eine orthodoxe Sicht’, in Dimitrov et al. 2004: 21–38. Karlberg, Mark W. (1988), ‘The Significance of Israel in Biblical Typology’, JETS 31: 257–269. Karman, Yonky (2004), Bunga Rampai Teologi Perjanjian Lama [Anthology of Old Testament Theology] ( Jakarta: BPK Gunung Mulia). Käsemann, Ernst (1960), ‘The Beginnings of Christian Theology’, in New Testament Questions of Today (NTL; London: SCM, 1969), 82–107; tr. from German, 1960; repr. in JTC 6 (1969): 17–46. Kearsley, Roy (2007), ‘Tertullian’, in McKim 2007: 963–968. Keeney, William E. (1968), The Development of Dutch Anabaptist Thought and Practice from 1539–1564 (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf). Kegley, Charles W., ed. (1966), The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann (London: SCM); includes comprehensive bibliography of Bultmann’s writings to 1965. Kelly, J. N. D. (1958), Early Christian Doctrines (London: A. & C. Black). —— (1963), A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London: A. & C. Black). Kelsey, David H. (1975), The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress). Kenik, Helen Ann (1976), ‘Code of Conduct for a King: Psalm 101’, JBL 95: 391–403. Kent, Charles Foster (1906), The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton). Kerrigan, Alexander (1952), St. Cyril of Alexandria: Interpreter of the Old Testament (AnBib, 2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). Kidd, B. J. (1933), The Counter-Reformation 1550–1600 (London: SPCK). Kim, Wonil (2004), ‘Minjung Theology’s Biblical Hermeneutics: An Examination of Minjung Theology’s Appropriation of the Exodus Account’, in God’s Word for Our World, vol. 2, ed. J. Harold Ellens et al. (Devries Festschrift; JSOTSup, 389; London: T. & T. Clark), 159–176. Kinzig, Wolfram (1994), ‘Kαινη ∆ιαθηκη: The Title of the New Testament in the Second and Third Centuries’, JTS 45: 519–544. Kirk, J. Andrew (1979), Liberation Theology: An Evangelical View from the Third World (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 316

22/12/09 12:35:31

biblio graphy

317

Kirkpatrick, A. F. (1891), ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the Christian Church’, in The Divine Library of the Old Testament: Its Origin, Preservation, Inspiration and Permanent Value (London: Macmillan), 112–143. Kisirinya, Serapio Kabazzi (2001), ‘Interpreting the Old “Testament” in Africa: Last Will, Contract or Covenant?’, in Getui et al. 2001: 189–192. Kittel, Bonnie, et al. (1980), ‘Reviews of Brevard S. Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture with a Response by Childs’, JSOT 16: 2–60. Klausner, Joseph (1950), The Messianic Idea in Israel from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah (London: Allen & Unwin, 1956; tr. from Hebrew, 3rd ed., 1950). Klein, Günter (1970), ‘The Biblical Understanding of the “Kingdom of God”’, Int 26 (1972): 387–418; tr. from German, 1970. Knierim, Rolf P. (1995), The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1997), ‘On Biblical Theology’, in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium, vol. 1, ed. Wonil Kim et al. (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2000), 11–20; repr. from James Sanders Festschrift (1997). Knight, Douglas A. (1973), Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, With Special Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions (SBLDS, 9; Missoula, Montana: SBL). ——, ed. (1977), Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress). Knight, George A. F. (1949), From Moses to Paul: A Christological Study in the Light of Our Hebraic Heritage (London: Lutterworth). —— (1950), Ruth and Jonah: The Gospel in the Old Testament (London: SCM); 2nd ed., 1966. —— (1953), A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity (SJT Occasional Papers, 1; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd). —— (1955), Esther, Song of Songs, Lamentations: Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM). —— (1959), A Christian Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM); 2nd ed., 1964. —— (1960), ‘New Perspectives in Old Testament Interpretation’, BT 19 (1968): 50–58. —— (1961), Prophets of Israel 1: Isaiah (London: Lutterworth). —— (1962), Law and Grace: Must a Christian Keep the Law of Moses? (SCM Book Club, 146; London: SCM). —— (1976), Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Edinburgh: Handsel). —— (1984), Servant Theology: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 40–55 (ITC; Edinburgh: Handsel). —— (1985), The New Israel: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 56–66 (ITC; Edinburgh: Handsel; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Koch, Klaus (1970), The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic: A Polemical Work on a Neglected Area of Biblical Studies and its Damaging Effects on Theology and Philosophy (SBT, Second Series, 22; London: SCM, 1972; tr. from German, 1970).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 317

22/12/09 12:35:31

318

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Koester, Craig R. (1989), The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the Old Testament (CBQMS, 22; Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America). Köhler, Ludwig (1953), ‘Christus im Alten und im Neuen Testament’, TZ 9: 241–259. Kort, Wesley A. (1988), Story, Text, and Scripture: Literary Interests in Biblical Narrative (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press). Kowalski, Beate (2005), ‘The Relationship between the OT and the NT according to Dei Verbum – Response to Jan Lambrecht’, PIBA 28: 21–27. Kraeling, Emil G. (1955), The Old Testament since the Reformation (London: Lutterworth). Kraftchick, Steven J., et al., eds. (1995), Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives (Beker Festschrift; Nashville: Abingdon). Kraus, Hans-Joachim (1952), ‘Gespräch mit Martin Buber: Zur jüdischen und christlichen Auslegung des Alten Testaments’, EvT 12: 59–77. —— (1956), Klagelieder (Threni) (BKAT, 20; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener); 2nd ed., 1960. —— (1960–78), Psalms: A Commentary (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988–9; tr. from German, 1960–78; BKAT, 15). —— (1968), ‘Calvin’s Exegetical Principles’, Int 31 (1977): 8–18; tr. from German, 1968. —— (1970), Die Biblische Theologie: Ihre Geschichte und Problematik (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). —— (1976), ‘Theologie als Traditionsbildung? Zu Hartmut Gese, “Vom Sinai zum Zion”’, EvT 36: 498–507. —— (1982), Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Krentz, Edgar (1975), The Historical-Critical Method (London: SPCK). Kreuzer, Siegfried, & Kurt Lüthi, eds. (1992), Zur Aktualität des Alten Testaments (Sauer Festschrift; Frankfurt: Peter Lang). Kugel, James L., & R. A. Greer (1986), Early Biblical Interpretation (LEC, 3; Philadelphia: Westminster). Kümmel, Werner Georg (1945), Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus (SBT, 23; London: SCM, 1957; tr. from German, 1st ed., 1945; 3rd ed., 1956). Küng, Hans (1967), The Church (London: Search, 1968; tr. from German, 1967). Kuske, Martin (1970), The Old Testament as the Book of Christ: An Appraisal of Bonhoeffer’s Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976; tr. from German, 1970). Kutsch, Ernst (1973), Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten ‘Bund’ im Alten Testament (BZAW, 131; Berlin: de Gruyter). Ladd, George Eldon (1966), ‘History and Theology in Biblical Exegesis’, Int 20: 54–64. —— (1968), The Pattern of New Testament Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1974), The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans); rev. ed. of Jesus and the Kingdom (1966).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 318

22/12/09 12:35:31

biblio graphy

319

Lambrecht, Jan (2005), ‘Dei Verbum Forty Years Later’, PIBA 28: 1–20. Lampe, G. W. H. (1953), ‘Typological Exegesis’, Theology 56: 201–208. —— (1957), ‘The Reasonableness of Typology’, in Essays on Typology, ed. G. W. H. Lampe & K. J. Woollcombe (SBT, 22; London: SCM), 9–38. Landmesser, Christof, et al., eds. (1997), Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift (Hofius Festschrift; BZNW, 86; Berlin: de Gruyter). Langley, Myrtle (1978), ‘Jesus and Revolution’, in NIDNTT 3: 967–982. Laniak, Timothy S. (2006), Shepherds after my own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible (NSBT, 20; Leicester: Apollos). Larcher, Chrysostome (1962), L’actualité chrétienne de l’Ancien Testament, d’après le Nouveau Testament (LD, 34; Paris: Cerf). LaRondelle, Hans K. (1983), The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation (Andrews University Monographs, 13; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press). LaSor, William S. (1978), ‘Prophecy, Inspiration, and Sensus Plenior’, TynBul 29: 49–60. Laurin, Robert B. (1970), ‘Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament’, in Contemporary Old Testament Theologians, ed. Robert B. Laurin (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott), 141–169. Lawson, John (1948), The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London: Epworth). Leal, Robert Barry (2004), Wilderness in the Bible: Toward a Theology of Wilderness (Studies in Biblical Literature, 72; New York: Lang). Leclercq, Jean (1969), ‘The Exposition and Exegesis of Scripture: From Gregory the Great to St Bernard’, in CHB 2: 183–197. Leenhardt, Franz J. (1962), Two Biblical Faiths: Protestant and Catholic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964; tr. from French, 1962). Leeuwen, Cornelis van (1974), ‘The Prophecy of the Yom Yhwh in Amos v 18–20’, in Language and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis (OtSt, 19; Leiden), 113–134. Leffler, S. (1935), Christus im Dritten Reich der Deutschen: Wesen, Weg und Ziel der Kirchenbewegung ‘Deutsche Christen’ (Weimar: Deutsche Christen). Legarth, Peter V. (1996), ‘Typology and its Theological Basis’, EuroJTh 5: 143–155. Leiman, Sid Z. (1976), The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden, Conn.: Archon). Leishmann, Thomas Linton (1968), The Interrelation of the Old and New Testaments (New York: Vantage). Leith, John H. (1971), ‘John Calvin – Theologian of the Bible’, Int 25: 329–344. Lemche, Niels Peter (1996), Prelude to Israel’s Past: Background and Beginnings of Israelite History and Identity (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998; tr. from German, 1996). Lemke, Werner E. (1982), ‘Revelation through History in Recent Biblical Theology: A Critical Appraisal’, Int 36: 34–46. —— (1983), ‘Jeremiah 31:31–34’, Int 37: 183–187.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 319

22/12/09 12:35:31

320

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Levenson, Jon D. (1993), The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). Levinson, Bernard M., & Douglas Dance (2004), ‘The Metamorphosis of Law into Gospel: Gerhard von Rad’s Attempt to Reclaim the Old Testament for the Church’, in Recht und Ethik im Alten Testament, ed. Eckart Otto et al. (ATM, 13; Münster: LIT), 83–110. Lewis, Jack P. (1964), ‘What Do We Mean by Jabneh?’, JBR 32: 125–132. Lierman, John (2004), The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion (WUNT, 173; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Light, Gary W. (1993), ‘The New Covenant in the Book of Hosea’, RevExp 90: 219–238. Limbeck, Meinrad (1997), Das Gesetz im Alten und Neuen Testament (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Lincoln, Andrew T., & Angus Paddison, eds. (2007), Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (LNTS, 348; London: T. & T. Clark). Lindars, Barnabas (1961), New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM). Lindbeck, George A. (1999), ‘Postcritical Canonical Interpretation: Three Modes of Retrieval’, in Theological Exegesis, ed. Christopher R. Seitz & Kathryn GreeneMcCreight (Childs Festschrift; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 26–51. Lischer, Richard (1984), ‘The Limits of Story’, Int 38: 26–38. Litwak, Kenneth D. (1998), ‘Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works on Paul’s Use of the Old Testament’, CR:BS 6: 260–288. Loades, Ann (1998), ‘Feminist Interpretation’, in Barton 1998: 81–94. Loccum Report (1977), ‘The Significance of the Old Testament in Its Relation to the New’, in The Bible: Its Authority and Interpretation in the Ecumenical Movement, ed. E. F. van Leer (Report of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, Loccum, Germany, 1977; Geneva: 1980), 58–76. Lochman, Jan Milič (1979), Signposts to Freedom: The Ten Commandments and Christian Ethics (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982; tr. from German, 1979). Lofthouse, William F. (1925), Jeremiah and the New Covenant (London: SCM). Lohfink, Norbert L. (1969), ‘Dt 26,17–19 und die “Bundesformel”’, ZKTh 91: 517–553; repr. in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), 211–261. —— (1987), Option for the Poor: The Basic Principle of Liberation Theology in the Light of the Bible (Berkeley: BIBAL). —— (1989), The Covenant Never Revoked: Biblical Reflections on Christian–Jewish Dialogue (New York: Paulist, 1991; tr. from German, 1989). —— (1994), ‘The Covenant Formula in Psalm 33’, in Lohfink & Zenger 1994: 85–122. —— (1998), ‘Der Neue Bund im Buch Deuteronomium?’, ZABR 4: 100–125; repr. in

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 320

22/12/09 12:35:32

biblio graphy

321

Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur V (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 9–36. Lohfink, Norbert L., & Erich Zenger (1994), The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2000; tr. from German, 1994). Long, Burke O. (1988), ‘A Figure at the Gate: Readers, Reading, and Biblical Theologians’, in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation, ed. Gene M. Tucker et al. (Childs Festschrift; Philadelphia: Fortress), 166–186. Long, V. Philips, et al., eds. (2002), Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of ‘Biblical Israel’ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Longenecker, Richard N. (1970), ‘Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament?’, TynBul 21: 3–38. —— (1975), Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1987), ‘“Who Is the Prophet Talking About?” Some Reflections on the New Testament’s Use of the Old’, Them 13: 4–8. Longman, Tremper, III (2001), Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship (Gospel According to the Old Testament; Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian & Reformed). Loretz, Oswald (1964), The Truth of the Bible (London: Burns & Oates/Herder, 1968; tr. from German, 1964). Loughlin, Gerard (2006), ‘Postmodern Scripture’, in Holcomb 2006: 300–322. Lubac, Henri de (1950), Histoire et esprit: l’intelligence de l’ecriture d’après Origène (Théologie, 16; Paris: Aubier). —— (1959), Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998–2000; tr. from French, 1959). Lucas, Ernest C. (1982), ‘Covenant, Treaty, and Prophecy’, Them 8.1: 19–23. Lundbom, Jack R. (1992), ‘New Covenant’, in ABD 4: 1088–1094. Lundin, Roger, et al. (1999), The Promise of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Luther, Martin (1523–34), ‘Prefaces to the Old Testament’, in Luther’s Works (American Edition), vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960), 233–333. —— (1525), ‘How Christians Should Regard Moses’, in Luther’s Works (American Edition), vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960), 155–174; orig. sermon preached on 27 August 1525; repr. in The Ten Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, ed. William P. Brown (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox), 68–77. Lutheran World Federation (1982), The Significance of Judaism for the Life and Mission of the Church (Report of a Consultation, August 1982; Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1983). Lys, Daniel (1967), The Meaning of the Old Testament: An Essay on Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon). McCarthy, Dennis J. (1972), Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Growing Points in Theology; Oxford: Blackwell). —— (1978), Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 321

22/12/09 12:35:32

322

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Old Testament (new ed.; AnBib, 21a; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute); 1st ed. 1963. —— (1982), ‘Covenant and Law in Chronicles–Nehemiah’, CBQ 44: 25–44. McComiskey, Thomas Edward (1985), The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker). McConville, J. Gordon (1997), ‘b erît, Treaty, Agreement, Alliance, Covenant’, in NIDOTTE 1: 747–755. McCurley, Foster R. (1970), ‘The Christian and the Old Testament Promise’, LQ 22: 401–410. McCurley, Foster R., & John Reumann (1986), Witness of the Word: A Biblical Theology of the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress). McDonald, Bruce A. (2007), ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia’, in McKim 2007: 968–972. McDonald, Lee Martin (2007), The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson); rev. and expanded edition of The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (1995). McDonald, Lee Martin, & James A. Sanders, eds. (2002), The Canon Debate (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). McEvenue, Sean E. (1981), ‘The Old Testament, Scripture or Theology?’, Int 35: 229– 242. McFadyen, John Edgar (1903), Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church (London: Hodder & Stoughton). McGlasson, Paul C. (1999), ‘The Significance of Context in Theology: A Canonical Approach’, in Theological Exegesis, ed. Christopher R. Seitz & Kathryn GreeneMcCreight (Childs Festschrift; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 52–72. McKane, William (1965), Prophets and Wise Men (SBT, 44; London: SCM). —— (1993), ‘Old and New Covenant (Testament), A Terminological Enquiry’, in Understanding Poets and Prophets, ed. A. Graeme Auld ( JSOTSup, 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 227–235. McKenzie, John L. (1964), ‘The Significance of the Old Testament for Christian Faith in Roman Catholicism’, in Anderson 1964c: 102–114. —— (1967), ‘The Values of the Old Testament’, Concilium 3.1: 4–17. —— (1968), ‘Aspects of Old Testament Thought’, in JBC 2: 736–767. —— (1974), A Theology of the Old Testament (London: Chapman). McKenzie, Steven L. (2000), Covenant (Understanding Biblical Themes; St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice). McKim, Donald K., ed. (1983), The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (2007), Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (Downers Grove: IVP). McKnight, Edgar V. (1988), Postmodern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism (Nashville: Abingdon).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 322

22/12/09 12:35:32

biblio graphy

323

McLay, R. Timothy (2003), The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). McNally, Robert E. (1959), The Bible in the Early Middle Ages (Woodstock Papers, 4; Westminster, Maryland: Newman); repr. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986. McNamara, Martin (1983), Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (GNS, 4; Dublin: Veritas; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier). Macquarrie, John (1955), An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann (London: SCM); repr. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973. Maier, Gerhard (1974), The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1977; tr. from German, 1974). —— (1990), Biblical Hermeneutics (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994; tr. from German, 1990). Main, Emmanelle (1996), ‘Ancienne et nouvelle alliances dans le dessein de Dieu’, NRTh 118: 34–58. Malamat, Abraham (2001), History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 7; Leiden: Brill). Marcus, R. A. (1957), ‘Presuppositions of the Typological Approach to Scripture’, CQR 158: 442–451. Marlé, René (1956), ‘Bultmann et l’Ancien Testament’, NRTh 78: 473–486; English translation in Rudolf Bultmann in Catholic Thought, ed. Thomas F. O’Meara & Donald M. Weisser (New York: Herder & Herder, 1968), 110–124. Marquardt, Friedrich Wilhelm (1968), ‘Christentum and Zionismus’, EvT 28: 629–660. Marshall, I. Howard (1978), ‘Using the Bible in Ethics’, in Essays in Evangelical Social Ethics, ed. David F. Wright (Exeter: Paternoster), 39–55. —— (1982), Biblical Inspiration (London: Hodder & Stoughton). —— (1994), ‘Climbing Ropes, Ellipses and Symphonies: The Relation Between Biblical and Systematic Theology’, in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite & David F. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 199–219. ——, ed. (1977), New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Exeter: Paternoster). Marshall, I. Howard, et al. (2004), Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker; Milton Keynes: Paternoster). Martens, Elmer A. (1994), God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker; Leicester: IVP); 1st British ed. entitled Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament. —— (2001), ‘Reaching for a Biblical Theology of the Whole Bible’, in Reclaiming the Old Testament, ed. Gordon Zerbe ( Janzen Festschrift; Winnipeg: Canadian Mennonite Bible College), 83–101. —— (2007), ‘The People of God’, in Hafemann & House 2007: 225–253. Martin-Achard, Robert (1959), A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 323

22/12/09 12:35:32

324

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Conception of Israel’s Mission to the World (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962; tr. from French, 1959). —— (1972), ‘La théologie de l’Ancien Testament après les travaux de G. von Rad’, ETR 47: 219–226. Martin, Brice L. (1989), Christ and the Law in Paul (NovTSup, 62; Leiden: Brill). Martin, Francis (2004), ‘Some Directions in Catholic Biblical Theology’, in Bartholomew et al. 2004: 65–87. Mason, Steven D. (2007), ‘Another Flood? Genesis 9 and Isaiah’s Broken Eternal Covenant’, JSOT 32: 177–198. Matthews, Isaac G. (1947), The Religious Pilgrimage of Israel (New York: Harper). Matthews, Victor H. (2002), A Brief History of Ancient Israel (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). Mattox, Mickey L. (2006), ‘Martin Luther’, in Holcomb 2006: 94–113. Mauser, Ulrich (1970), ‘Image of God and Incarnation’, Int 24: 336–356. Mayes, Andrew D. H. (1989), The Old Testament in Sociological Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering). Mays, James Luther, ed. (1971), ‘Apocalyptic’, Int 25: 419–501. —— (1979), ‘The Old Testament as Christian Canon’, review of Gunneweg 1977, in Int 33: 406–410. Mbiti, John S. (1969), African Religions and Philosophy (London: Heinemann). —— (1986), Bible and Theology in African Christianity (Nairobi: Oxford University Press). Mead, James K. (2007), Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). Megivern, James J., ed. (1978), Bible Interpretation: Official Catholic Teachings (Wilmington, N. C.: Consortium); collected documents from ad 170 to 1976. Melugin, Roy F. (1988), ‘Canon and Exegetical Method’, in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation, ed. Gene M. Tucker et al. (Childs Festschrift; Philadelphia: Fortress), 48–61. Mendenhall, George E. (1954a), ‘Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law’, BA 17: 26–46. —— (1954b), ‘Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition’, BA 17: 50–76. Mendenhall, George E., & Gary A. Herion (1992), ‘Covenant’, in ABD: 1179–1202. Menken, Maarten J. J., & Steve Moyise, eds. (2007), Deuteronomy in the New Testament (LNTS, 358; London: T. & T. Clark). Menninger, Richard E. (1994), Israel and the Church in the Gospel of Matthew (AmUS, 7.162; New York: Lang). Michalson, Carl (1964), ‘Bultmann against Marcion’, in Anderson 1964c: 49–63. Mihoc, Vasile (2004), ‘The Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament: An Orthodox Perspective’, in Dimitrov et al. 2004: 119–136. Mildenberger, Friedrich (1964), Gottes Tat im Wort: Erwägungen zur alttestamentlichen Hermeneutik als Frage nach der Einheit der Testamente (Gütersloh: Mohn).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 324

22/12/09 12:35:32

biblio graphy

325

—— (1975), ‘The Unity, Truth, and Validity of the Bible: Theological Problems in the Doctrine of Holy Scripture’, Int 29: 391–405. Milgrom, Jacob (2004), ‘Covenants: The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27)’, in Sefer Moshe, ed. Chaim Cohen et al. (Weinfeld Festschrift; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 91–101. Millard, Alan R. (1994), ‘Story, History, and Theology’, in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context, ed. Alan R. Millard et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 37–64. Millard, Alan R., et al., eds. (1994), Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns). Miller, Patrick D. (1995), ‘Creation and Covenant’, in Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives, ed. Steven J. Kraftchick et al. (Beker Festschrift; Nashville: Abingdon), 155–168. Minear, Paul S. (1946), Eyes of Faith: A Study in the Biblical Point of View (Philadelphia: Westminster). Miskotte, Hermannus H. (1966), Sensus spiritualis: De verhouding tussen het Oude Testament en het Nieuwe Testament in de rooms-katholieke hermeneutiek sinds het verschijnen van de encycliek ‘Divino afflante Spiritu’, in 1943 (Nijkerk: Callenbach). Miskotte, Kornelis H. (1932), Het wezen der joodsche religie (Amsterdam: Paris). —— (1948), Om het levende woord: Opstellen over de praktijk der exegese (The Hague: Daamen). —— (1959), Zur biblischen Hermeneutik (ThSt, 55; Zollikon: Evangelischer). —— (1963), When the Gods Are Silent (London: Collins, 1967; tr. from Dutch, 1956; inc. revisions for German ed., 1963). —— (1966), Geloof en kennis: Theologische voordrachten (Haarlem, Netherlands: publisher unknown). Moberly, R. W. L. (1986), ‘Story in the Old Testament’, Them 11: 77–82. —— (1992), The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (Minneapolis: Fortress). —— (2000), The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Moberly, R. W. L., et al. (2004), ‘Der Kanon des Alten Testaments’, in Dimitrov et al. 2004: 237–303. Moltmann, Jürgen (1964), Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology (London: SCM, 1967; tr. from German, 1964; 5th ed., 1965). —— (1973), The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (London: SCM, 1974; tr. from German, 2nd ed., 1973). Moo, Douglas J. (1986), ‘The Problem of Sensus Plenior’, in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. Donald A. Carson & John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 175–211. —— (1996), The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Moon, Byung-Ho (2006), Christ the Mediator of the Law: Calvin’s Christological Understanding

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 325

22/12/09 12:35:32

326

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

of the Law as the Rule of Living and Life-Giving (Studies in Christian History and Thought; Milton Keynes: Paternoster). Moorehead, W. G. (1939), ‘Type’, in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, rev. ed. James Orr et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 3029–3030. Morgan, Robert (1995), ‘On the Unity of Scripture’, in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed, ed. Jon Davies et al. (Sawyer Festschrift, JSOTSup, 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 395–413. Morgan, Robert, & John Barton (1988), Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Morrice, William G. (1975), ‘New Wine in Old Wine-Skins: XI. Covenant’, ExpTim 86: 132–136. Morris, Leon (1973), Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1981), Testaments of Love: A Study of Love in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1987), The Book of Revelation (rev. ed.; TNTC; Leicester: IVP). Mosala, Itumeleng (1989), Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Motyer, J. Alec (1996), Look to the Rock: An Old Testament Background to our Understanding of Christ (Leicester: IVP). Motyer, Steve (1989), Israel in the Plan of God: Light on Today’s Debate (Leicester: IVP); an interpretation of Rom. 9 – 11. Moule, C. F. D. (1968), ‘Fulfilment-Words in the New Testament: Use and Abuse’, NTS 14: 293–320. Mouw, Richard J. (1992), ‘Israel and the Church in the World’, in Studies in Old Testament Theology, ed. Robert L. Hubbard et al. (David Hubbard Festschrift; Dallas: Word), 243–261. Mowinckel, Sigmund (1922), Psalmenstudien II. Das Thronbesteigungsfest Jahwäs and der Ursprung der Eschatologie (Christiana: Dybwad). —— (1951), He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956; tr. from Norwegian, 1951). Moyise, Steve (2001), The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction (London: Continuum). —— (2008), Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New (London: T. & T. Clark). ——, ed. (2000), The Old Testament in the New Testament ( J. L. North Festschrift; JSNTSup, 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Muilenburg, James (1959), ‘The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations’, VT 9: 347–365. —— (1969), ‘Form Criticism and Beyond’, JBL 88: 1–18. Mulzac, Kenneth (1996), ‘The Remnant and the New Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah’, AUSS 34: 239–248. Murphy, Roland E. (1964), ‘The Relationship Between the Testaments’, CBQ 26: 349– 359. —— (1996), ‘Reflections on “Actualization” of the Bible’, BTB 26: 79–81.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 326

22/12/09 12:35:32

biblio graphy

327

—— (1997), ‘Reflections on a Critical Biblical Theology’, in Problems in Biblical Theology, ed. Henry T. C. Sun et al. (Knierim Festschrift; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 265–274. —— (2000), ‘Questions Concerning Biblical Theology’, BTB 30: 81–89. —— (2001), ‘Once Again – “The Center” of the Old Testament’, BTB 31: 85–89. Murray, Stuart (2004), ‘The Two Testaments in the Anabaptist Tradition’, in The Ten Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, ed. William P. Brown (Library of Theological Ethics; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox), 106–115. Muutuki, Joseph (2001), ‘Using the Kamba Culture to Interpret Old Testament Covenants’, in Getui et al. 2001: 125–129. Muzorewa, Gwinyai H. (1985), The Origins and Development of African Theology (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis). Nardoni, Enrique (2004), Rise up, O Judge: A Study of Justice in the Biblical World (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson; tr. from Spanish, 1997, rev. for translation). Nash, Ronald H. (1984), Christian Faith and Historical Understanding (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Nassif, Bradley (2007), ‘Origen’, in McKim 2007: 787–795. Neef, Heinz-Dieter (1996), ‘Aspekte alttestamentlicher Bundestheologie’, in Avemarie & Lichtenberger 1996: 1–23. Neil, W. (1963), ‘The Criticism and Theological Use of the Bible, 1700–1950’, in CHB 3: 238–293. Neusner, Jacob (1989), ‘The Absoluteness of Christianity and the Uniqueness of Judaism: Why Salvation Is Not of the Jews’, Int 43: 18–31. Nicholson, Ernest W. (1973), Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell). —— (1986), God and his People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon). —— (1994), ‘Story and History in the Old Testament’, in Language, Theology, and the Bible, ed. Samuel E. Balentine & John Barton (Barr Festschrift; Oxford: Clarendon), 135–150. Nickelsburg, George W. E. (1992), ‘Son of Man’, in ABD 6: 137–150. Nicolaisen, C. (1966), ‘Die Auseinandersetzung um das Alte Testament im Kirchenkampf 1933–1945’ (diss., University of Hamburg). —— (1971), ‘Die Stellung der “Deutschen Christen” zum Alten Testament’, in Zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes: Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 2, ed. Heinz Brunotte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 197–220. Nielsen, J. T. (1968), Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons: An Examination of the Function of the Adam–Christ Typology in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus, against the Background of the Gnosticism of his Time (Assen: Van Gorcum). Niemöller, Wilhelm (1956), Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich: Handbuch des Kirchenkampfes (Bielefeld: Bechauf). Niles, D. Preman (1985a), ‘Story and Theology – A Proposal’, EAJT 3: 112–126.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 327

22/12/09 12:35:32

328

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (1985b), ‘The Word of God and the People of Asia’, in Understanding the Word, ed. James T. Butler et al. (Anderson Festschrift; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press), 281–313. Nineham, Dennis E. (1976), The Use and Abuse of the Bible: A Study of the Bible in an Age of Rapid Cultural Change (London: Macmillan). ——, ed. (1963), The Church’s Use of the Bible: Past and Present (London: SPCK). Ninow, Friedbert (2001), Indicators of Typology within the Old Testament: The Exodus Motif (Friedensauer Schriftenreihe: Reihe A Theologie, 4; Frankfurt: Peter Lang). Nixon, R. E. (1963), The Exodus in the New Testament (Tyndale New Testament Lecture, 1962; London: Tyndale). Noble, Paul R. (1995), The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs (BIS, 16; Leiden: Brill). Norris, Richard A., Jr (2003), ‘Augustine and the Close of the Ancient Period of Interpretation’, in Hauser & Watson 2003: 380–408. —— (2007), ‘Irenaeus’, in McKim 2007: 558–560. North, R. (1973), ‘Bibliography of Works in Theology and History’, HT 12: 55–140. Noth, Martin (1948), A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: PrenticeHall, 1972; tr. from German, 1948). —— (1952), ‘The “Re-Presentation” of the Old Testament in Proclamation’, Int 15 (1961): 50–60; tr. from German, 1952; also in Westermann 1960: 76–88. —— (1954), The History of Israel (2nd ed.; London: Black, 1960; tr. from German, 1954, 2nd ed.). O’Collins, G. G. (1966), ‘Revelation as History’, HeyJ 7: 394–406. O’Keefe, John J., & R. R. Reno (2005), Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). O’Malley, Thomas P. (1967), Tertullian and the Bible: Language, Imagery, Exegesis (Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva, 21; Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt). Obbink, H. W. ([1937]), Theologische bezinning op het Oude Testament (Nijkerk: Callenbach). Ocker, Christopher (2007), ‘Biblical Interpretation in the Middle Ages’, in McKim 2007: 14–21. Oden, Robert A. (1987), ‘The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel’, in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Patrick D. Miller et al. (Cross Festschrift; Philadelphia: Fortress), 429–447. Oeming, Manfred (1987), Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart: Das Verhältnis von AT und NT in der hermeneutischen Diskussion seit Gerhard von Rad (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer); 1st ed. 1985. Oeming, Manfred, et al. (2008), ‘Gerhard von Rad: Theologian of the Church’, Int 62: 227–292. Ogletree, Thomas W. (1983), The Use of the Bible in Christian Ethics: A Constructive Essay (Philadelphia: Fortress).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 328

22/12/09 12:35:32

biblio graphy

329

Ohler, Annemarie (1972–3), Studying the Old Testament from Tradition to Canon (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985). Öhler, Markus (1997), Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten in Frühen Christentum (BZNW, 88; Berlin: de Gruyter). Ollenburger, Ben C. (1985), ‘Biblical Theology: Situating the Discipline’, in Understanding the Word, ed. James T. Butler et al. (Anderson Festschrift; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press), 37–62. ——, ed. (2004), Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future (SBTS, 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns); rev. ed. of The Flowering of Old Testament Theology (1992). Olson, Dennis T. (1994), Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress). —— (2006), ‘Biblical Theology’, in NIDB 1: 461–465. Orr, James (1906), The Problem of the Old Testament: Considered with Reference to Recent Criticism (London: Nisbet). Osborne, Grant R. (2006), The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (2nd ed.; Downers Grove: IVP); 1st ed., 1991. Ottley, Robert L. (1897), Aspects of the Old Testament (Bampton Lectures; London: Longmans, Green). Otto, Eckart, & J. LeRoux, eds. (2005), A Critical Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter between Europe and Africa (ATM, 20; Münster: LIT). Pannenberg, Wolfhart (1953), ‘Zur Bedeutung des Analogiegedankens bei Karl Barth: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Urs von Balthasar’, TLZ 78: 17–24. —— (1959), ‘Redemptive Event and History’, in Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 1 (London: SCM, 1970), 15–80; tr. from German, 1959; first part also tr. in Westermann 1960: 314–335. —— (1961a), ‘Dogmatic Theses on the Doctrine of Revelation’, in Revelation as History, ed. Wolfhart Pannenberg (New York: Macmillan, 1968), ch. 4; tr. from German, 1961. —— (1961b), ‘Kerygma and History’, in Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 1 (London: SCM, 1970), 81–95; tr. from German, 1961. —— (1965), ‘The God of Hope’, in Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 2 (London: SCM, 1971), 234–249; tr. from German, 1965. —— (1967), ‘On Historical and Theological Hermeneutic’, in Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 1 (London: SCM, 1970), 137–181; tr. from German, 1967. —— (1973), ‘Glaube und Wirklichkeit im Denken Gerhard von Rads’, in Gerhard von Rad: Seine Bedeutung für die Theologie, ed. Hans Walter Wolff (Munich: Kaiser), 37–54. —— (1997a), ‘Die Bedeutung des Alten Testaments für den christlichen Glauben’, in Janowski & Welker 1997: 181–192. —— (1997b), ‘Problems in a Theology of (Only) the Old Testament’, in Problems

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 329

22/12/09 12:35:32

330

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

in Biblical Theology, ed. Henry T. C. Sun et al. (Knierim Festschrift; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 275–280. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, & Theodor Schneider, eds. (1992), Verbindliches Zeugnis I: Kanon – Schrift – Tradition (Dialog der Kirchen, 7; Freiburg: Herder). Parker, T. H. L. (1986), Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Parrish, V. Steven (2007), ‘Brueggemann, Walter’, in McKim 2007: 242–247. Pate, C. Marvin, et al. (2004), The Story of Israel: A Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP: Leicester: IVP). Patton, Francis L. (1926), Fundamental Christianity (New York: Macmillan). Pelikan, Jaroslav (1959), Luther the Expositor: Introduction to the Reformer’s Exegetical Writings (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia); companion volume to Luther’s Works. Penchansky, David (2007), ‘Barr, James’, in McKim 2007: 150–155. Peppard, Michael (2005), ‘Do We Share a Book? The Sunday Lectionary and Jewish– Christian Relations’, Studies in Christian–Jewish Relations 1: 89–102. Perdue, Leo G. (1994), The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress). —— (2005), Reconstructing Old Testament Theology: After the Collapse of History (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress). Perlitt, Lothar (1969), Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT, 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). —— (1990), ‘“Evangelium” und Gesetz im Deuteronomium’, in The Law in the Bible and in its Environment, ed. Timo Veijola (PFES, 51; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 23–38. Perrin, Norman (1963), The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (NTL; London: SCM). Peter, James (1970), ‘Salvation History as a Model for Theological Thought’, SJT 23: 1–12. Petersen, David L. (1992), ‘Eschatology (OT)’, in ABD 2: 575–579. Phillips, Godfrey E. (1942), The Old Testament in the World Church: With Special Reference to the Younger Churches (Lutterworth Library, 13; London: Lutterworth); repr. Cambridge: Clarke, 2002. Phythian-Adams, W. J. T. (1934), The Call of Israel: An Introduction to the Study of Divine Election (London: Oxford University Press). —— (1938), The Fulness of Israel: A Study of the Meaning of Sacred History (Warburton Lectures, 1935–7; London: Oxford University Press). —— (1944), The Way of At-one-ment: Studies in Biblical Theology (London: SCM). Pierson, Arthur T. (1906), The Bible and Spiritual Criticism (London: Nisbet). Pinçon, Bertrand (2000), Du nouveau dans l’ancien: essai sur la notion d’alliance nouvelle dans le livre de Jérémie et dans quelques relectures au cours d’exil (Lyons: Profac); unavailable to me, abstract in Old Testament Abstracts 23 (2000): 2084.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 330

22/12/09 12:35:32

biblio graphy

331

Pixley, Jorge V. (1983), On Exodus: A Liberation Perspective (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1987; tr. from Spanish, 1983). Plöger, Otto (1959), Theocracy and Eschatology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968; tr. from German, 1959). Pöhlmann, Horst Georg (1965), Analogia Entis oder Analogia Fidei? Die Frage der Analogie bei Karl Barth (Forschungen zur Systematischen und Ökumenischen Theologie, 16; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Polak, Frank H. (2004), ‘The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari’, in Sefer Moshe, ed. Chaim Cohen et al. (Weinfeld Festschrift; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 119–134. Polman, A. D. R. (1955), The Word of God according to St. Augustine (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961; tr. from Dutch, 1955). Poorthuis, Marcel, & Joshua Schwartz, eds. (2006), A Holy People: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity ( JCPS, 12; Leiden: Brill). Porteous, Norman W. (1951), ‘Old Testament Theology’, in The Old Testament and Modern Study: A Generation of Discovery and Research, ed. H. H. Rowley (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 311–345. —— (1954), ‘The Old Testament and Some Theological Thought-Forms’, SJT 7: 153– 169. —— (1961), ‘Jerusalem-Zion: The Growth of a Symbol’, in Living the Mystery (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967), 93–111. Porter, Stanley E., ed. (2006), Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). ——, ed. (2007), The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Porter, Stanley E., & Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, eds. (2003), The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 71; Leiden: Brill). Porter, Stanley E., & Christopher D. Stanley, eds. (2008), As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (Symposium Series, 50; Atlanta: SBL). Potter, Harry D. (1983), ‘The New Covenant in Jeremiah xxxi 31–34’, VT 33: 347–357. Powery, Emerson B. (2003), Jesus Reads Scripture: The Function of Jesus’ Use of Scripture in the Synoptic Gospels (BIS, 63; Leiden: Brill). Poythress, Vern S. (1991), The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian & Reformed). Premsagar, P. V. (1974), ‘Theology of Promise in the Patriarchal Narratives’, IJT 23: 112–122. Preus, Christian (1950), ‘The Contemporary Relevance of Von Hofmann’s Hermeneutical Principles’, Int 4: 311–321. Preus, James S. (1969), From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 331

22/12/09 12:35:32

332

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Preuss, Horst Dietrich (1968), Jahweglaube und Zukunftserwartung (BWANT, 87; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). —— (1984), Das Alte Testament in christlicher Predigt (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). —— (1992), Old Testament Theology, vol. 2 (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996; tr. from German, 1992). Procksch, Otto (1933), ‘Christus im Alten Testament’, NKZ 44: 57–83. —— (1950), Theologie des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann). Provan, Iain, et al. (2003), A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). Prudlo, Donald S. (2006), ‘Scripture and Theology in Early Modern Catholicism’, in Holcomb 2006: 134–153. Puckett, David L. (1995), John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament (Columbia Series in Reformed Theology; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). —— (2007), ‘Calvin, John’, in McKim 2007: 287–294. Rad, Gerhard von (1933), ‘There Still Remains a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception’, in von Rad 1966: 94–102; tr. from German, 1933. —— (1935), ‘Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Wilhelm Vischers gleichnamigen Buch’, TBl 14: 249–254. —— (1936), ‘The Theological Problem of the Old Testament Doctrine of Creation’, in von Rad 1966: 131–143; tr. from German, 1936. —— (1937), ‘Gesetz und Evangelium im Alten Testament: Gedanken zu dem Buch von E. Hirsch: Das Alte Testament und die Predigt des Evangeliums’, TBl 16: 41–47. —— (1938), ‘The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch’, in von Rad 1966: 1–78; tr. from German, 1938. —— (1947), Studies in Deuteronomy (SBT, 9; London: SCM, 1953; tr. from German, 1947; 2nd ed., 1948). —— (1952), ‘Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament’, Int 15 (1961): 174–192; tr. from German, 1952; also in Westermann 1960: 17–39. —— (1953), ‘Verheissung: Zum gleichnamigen Buch Fr. Baumgärtels’, EvT 13: 406–413. —— (1957), Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962; tr. from German, 1957). —— (1959), ‘The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh’, JSS 4: 97–108; much of this is also incorporated into von Rad 1960. —— (1960), Old Testament Theology. Vol. 2: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965; tr. from German, 1960). —— (1961a), ‘Ancient Word and Living Word: The Preaching of Deuteronomy and Our Preaching’, Int 15: 3–13. —— (1961b), ‘History and the Patriarchs’, ExpTim 72: 213–216.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 332

22/12/09 12:35:32

biblio graphy

333

—— (1963), ‘Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Theologie des Alten Testaments’, TLZ 88: 401–416; slightly abridged English translation in 1960: 410–429. —— (1966), The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966; tr. from German, 1931–64). —— (1970), Wisdom in Israel (London: SCM, 1972; tr. from German, 1970). Rata, Tiberius (2007), The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort: Textual and Intertextual Studies of Jeremiah 30–33 (Studies in Biblical Literature, 105; New York: Lang). Ratheiser, Gershom M. H. (2007), Mitzvoth Ethics and the Jewish Bible: The End of Old Testament Theology (LHBOTS, 460; New York: T. & T. Clark). Rehm, Martin (1968), Der königliche Messias im Licht der Immanuel-Weissagungen des Buches Jesaja (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker). Rendtorff, Rolf (1981), ‘Revelation and History: Particularism and Universalism in Israel’s View of Revelation’, in Rendtorff 1993a: 114–124; tr. from German, 1981. —— (1983), ‘The Importance of the Canon for a Theology of the Old Testament’, in Rendtorff 1993a: 46–56; tr. from German, 1983. —— (1987), ‘“Where Were You When I Laid the Foundation of the Earth?” Creation and Salvation History’, in Rendtorff 1993a: 92–113; tr. from German, 1987. —— (1988), ‘Must “Biblical Theology” be Christian Theology?’, BRev 4.3: 40–43. —— (1989a), ‘Christological Interpretation as a Way of “Salvaging” the Old Testament? Wilhelm Vischer and Gerhard von Rad’, in Rendtorff 1993a: 76–91; tr. from German, 1989. —— (1989b), ‘“Covenant” as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus’, in Rendtorff 1993a: 125–134; repr. from JBL 108 (1989): 385–393. —— (1990), ‘Toward a Common Jewish-Christian Reading of the Hebrew Bible’, in Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying the Bible in Judaism and Christianity, ed. Roger Brooks & John J. Collins (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, 5; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press), 89–108. —— (1993a), Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology, ed. Margaret Kohl (OBT; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress). —— (1993b), ‘What Is New in the New Covenant?’, in Rendtorff 1993a: 196–206. —— (1995), The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (OTS; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998; tr. from German, 1995). Reno, R. R. (2006), ‘Origen’, in Holcomb 2006: 21–38. Reumann, John (1991a), Variety and Unity in New Testament Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press). ——, ed. (1991b), The Promise and Practice of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress). Reventlow, Henning Graf (1979), ‘Der Konflikt zwischen Exegese und Dogmatik: Wilhelm Vischers Ringen um den “Christus im Alten Testament”’, in Textgemäss,

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 333

22/12/09 12:35:32

334

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

ed. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg & Otto Kaiser (Würthwein Festschrift; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 110–122. —— (1983), Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century (London: SCM, 1986; tr. from German, 1983). —— (1984), The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (London: SCM, 1984; tr. from German, 1980; rev. for translation). —— (1992), ‘Theology (Biblical), History of ’, in ABD 6: 483–505; tr. from German manuscript. Rhodes, A. B. (1959), review of Jacob 1955a, in Int 13: 468–470. Richardson, Alan (1963), ‘The Rise of Modern Biblical Scholarship and Recent Discussion of the Authority of the Bible’, in CHB 3: 294–338. —— (1964a), History Sacred and Profane (Bampton Lectures, 1962; London: SCM). —— (1964b), ‘Is the Old Testament the Propaedeutic to Christian Faith?’, in Anderson 1964c: 36–48. Richardson, Peter (1969), Israel in the Apostolic Church (SNTSMS, 10; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Riches, John K. (1980), Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism (London: Darton Longman & Todd). —— (1992), ‘Towards a Biblical Theology: von Balthasar’s The Glory of the Lord’, in Text as Pretext, ed. Robert P. Carroll (Davidson Festscrift; JSOTSup, 138; Sheffield: JSOT Press), 256–272. —— (1998), ‘Text, Church and World: In Search of a Theological Hermeneutic’, BibInt 6: 205–234. Ricoeur, Paul (1969), ‘Preface to Bultmann’, in The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics, ed. Don Ihde (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1974), 381–401; tr. from French, 1969. Ringgren, Helmer (1956), The Messiah in the Old Testament (SBT, 18; London: SCM). —— (1962), ‘Enthronement Festival or Covenant Renewal?’, BR 7: 45–48. Robertson, O. Palmer (1980), The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker). —— (2000), The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian & Reformed). —— (2004), The Christ of the Prophets (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian & Reformed). Robinson, Bernard P. (2001), ‘Jeremiah’s New Covenant: Jer 31,31–34’, SJOT 15: 181–204. Robinson, James M. (1964), ‘The Historicality of Biblical Language’, in Anderson 1964c: 124–158; essentially the same as an essay in German published in EvT. —— (1965), ‘Scripture and Theological Method: A Protestant Study in Sensus Plenior’, CBQ 27: 6–27. Robinson, James M., & John B. Cobb, eds. (1967), Theology as History (NFT, 3; New York: Harper & Row).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 334

22/12/09 12:35:32

biblio graphy

335

Robinson, John A. T. (1957), Jesus and his Coming: The Emergence of a Doctrine (London: SCM). Rofé, Alexander (1985), ‘The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Dt 28,69–30,20)’, in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (Deuteronomy: Origin, Form and Message), ed. Norbert L. Lohfink (BETL, 68; Leuven: Leuven University Press), 310–320. Rogers, Jack B., & Donald K. McKim (1979), The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row). Rogerson, John W. (1984), Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (London: SPCK). Rogerson, John W., et al., eds. (1988), The Study and Use of the Bible (History of Christian Theology, 2; Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering). Röhr, Heinz (1973), ‘Buddhismus and Christentum: Untersuchung zur Typologie Zweier Weltreligionen’, ZRG 25: 289–303. Roo, William A. van (1986), Telling About God: 1. Promise and Fulfillment (Analecta Gregoriana, 242; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). Rose, Martin (2003), Une herméneutique de l’Ancien Testament: comprendre – se comprendre – faire comprendre (Monde de la Bible, 46; Geneva: Labor et Fides). Rosenberg, Alfred (1930), Der Mythus des 20 Jahrhunderts: Eine Wertung der seelisch-geistigen Gestaltkämpfe unserer Zeit (Munich: Hoheneichen); 30th ed., 1934. Rosner, Brian S. (1994), ‘“Written for Us”: Paul’s View of Scripture’, in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite & David F. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 81–105. Rost, Leonhard (1947), ‘Sinaibund and Davidsbund’, TLZ 72: 129–134. Rottenberg, Isaac C. (1964), Redemption and Historical Reality (Philadelphia: Westminster). Routledge, Robin, ed. (2008), Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (Nottingham: Apollos). Rowland, Christopher (1982), The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK). —— (1995), ‘An Open Letter to Francis Watson on Text, Church and World’, SJT 48: 507–517. —— (2002), Christian Origins: An Account of the Setting and Character of the Most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism (2nd ed.; London: SPCK). —— (2006), ‘Apocalypticism’, in NIDB 1: 190–195. Rowley, H. H. (1939), Israel’s Mission to the World (London: SCM). —— (1944), The Missionary Message of the Old Testament (London: Carey). —— (1945), The Re-Discovery of the Old Testament (London: Clarke). —— (1946), ‘The Unity of the Old Testament’, BJRL 29: 326–358. —— (1949), ‘The Authority of the Bible’, in From Moses to Qumran (London: Lutterworth, 1963), 3–31; rev. form of Joseph Smith Memorial Lecture, Birmingham, 1949.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 335

22/12/09 12:35:32

336

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (1952a), ‘The Servant of the Lord in the Light of Three Decades of Criticism’, in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth), 1–57. —— (1952b), ‘The Suffering Servant and the Davidic Messiah’, in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth), 59–88; rev. version of article orig. pub. in Oudtestamentische Studiën 8 (1950): 110–136. —— (1953), The Unity of the Bible (London: Carey Kingsgate); repr. Lutterworth, 1968. —— (1956), The Faith of Israel (London: SCM). Ruler, Arnold A. van (1945), Religie en Politiek (Nijkerk: Callenbach). —— (1947), De vervulling van de wet: Een dogmatische studie over de verhouding van openbaring en existentie (Nijkerk: Callenbach). —— (1955), The Christian Church and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966, 1971, two identical eds.; tr. from German, 1955); page numbers are cited here from both the German and English eds. thus: German/English. —— (1960), God’s Son and God’s World: Sixteen Meditations on the Person of Christ and the Psalm of Nature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; tr. from Dutch, n. d.). —— (1962), Zechariah Speaks Today: Studies in Zechariah, Chapters 1–8 (London: Lutterworth; tr. from Dutch, n. d.). Rupp, E. Gordon (1945), Martin Luther: Hitler’s Cause – or Cure? (London: Lutterworth). Russell, David S. (1960), Between the Testaments (London: SCM). —— (1964), The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC–AD 100 (OTL; London: SCM). —— (1994), Prophecy and the Apocalyptic Dream: Protest and Promise (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). Russell, S. H. (1968), ‘Calvin and the Messianic Interpretation of the Psalms’, SJT 21: 37–47. Sabourin, Leopold (1980), The Bible and Christ: The Unity of the Two Testaments (New York: Alba House). Sailhamer, John H. (2001), ‘The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible’, JETS 44: 5–23. Sanders, E. P. (1977), Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (NTL; London: SCM). —— (1985), Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM). Sanders, James A. (1972), Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress). —— (1974), ‘Reopening Old Questions About Scripture’, Int 28: 321–330. —— (1975), ‘Torah and Christ’, Int 29: 372–390. —— (1983), ‘Canon and Calendar: An Alternative Lectionary Proposal’, in Social Themes of the Christian Year: A Commentary on the Lectionary, ed. Dieter T. Hessel (Philadelphia: Geneva), 257–263. —— (1987), From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm (Philadelphia: Fortress); includes essays written from 1975 onwards. —— (2002), ‘The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process’, in McDonald & Sanders 2002: 252–263.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 336

22/12/09 12:35:32

biblio graphy

337

—— (2003), ‘The Stabilization of the Tanak’, in Hauser & Watson 2003: 225–252. Sanders, James A., & Harry Y. Gamble (1992), ‘Canon’, in ABD 1: 837–861. Sandmel, Samuel (1978), Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford University Press). Sandy, D. Brent, & Daniel M. O’Hare (2007), Prophecy and Apocalyptic: An Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies, 4; Grand Rapids: Baker). Sandys-Wunsch, John, & Laurence Eldredge (1980), ‘J. P. Gabler and the Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of his Originality’, SJT 33: 133–158. Satterthwaite, Philip E., et al., eds. (1995), The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Carlisle: Paternoster). Sauter, Gerhard (1965), Zukunft und Verheissung: Das Problem der Zukunft in der gegenwärtigen theologischen und philosophischen Diskussion (Zurich: Zwingli). Scalise, Charles J. (1996), From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: IVP). Scharleman, M. H. (1972), ‘Roman Catholic Biblical Interpretation’, in Festschrift to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich, ed. Eugene Howard Barth & Ronald Edwin Cocroft (Leiden: Brill), 209–222. Schenker, Adrian (2006), Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten: Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel, von der Textgeschichte zu Theologie, Synagoge und Kirche (FRLANT, 212; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1830), The Christian Faith (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928; tr. from German, 2nd ed., 1830). Schmid, Hans Heinrich (1973), ‘Creation, Righteousness and Salvation: “Creation Theology” as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology’, in Creation in the Old Testament, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson (IRT, 6; London: SPCK, 1984), 102–117; tr. from German, ZTK 70 (1973): 1–19. —— (1977), ‘Unterwegs zu einer neuen Biblischen Theologie? Anfragen an die von H. Gese und P. Stuhlmacher vorgetragenen Entwürfe Biblischer Theologie’, in Haacker et al. 1977: 75–95. Schmid, Johannes H. (1986), Biblische Theologie in der Sicht heutiger Alttestamentler: Hartmut Gese, Claus Westermann, Walther Zimmerli, Antonius Gunneweg (Giessen: Brunnen). Schmidt, Ludwig (1975), ‘Die Einheit zwischen Altem und Neuem Testament im Streit zwischen Friedrich Baumgärtel und Gerhard von Rad’, EvT 35: 119–139. Schniewind, Julius (1966), ‘Die Beziehung des Neuen Testaments zum Alten Testament’, Zeichen der Zeit 20: 3–10. Schofield, John Noel (1964), Introducing Old Testament Theology (Religious Book Club, 160; London: SCM). Schönemann, Eva (2006), Bund und Tora: Kategorien einer im christlich–jüdischen Dialog verantworteten Christologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 337

22/12/09 12:35:33

338

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Schreiner, Thomas R. (2007), ‘The Commands of God’, in Hafemann & House 2007: 66–101. Schröger, Friedrich (1968), Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (BU, 4; Regensburg: Pustet). Schütte, Hans W. (1970), ‘Christlicher Glaube und Altes Testament bei Friedrich Schleiermacher’, in Fides et Communicatio, ed. Dietrich Rössler et al. (Doerne Festschrift; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 291–310. Schwarzwäller, Klaus (1966), Das Alte Testament in Christus (ThSt, 84; Zurich: EVZ). —— (1969), ‘Das Verhältnis Alte Testament – Neue Testament im Lichte der gegenwärtigen Bestimmungen’, EvT 29: 281–307. Scobie, Charles H. H. (1991), ‘The Challenge of Biblical Theology’; ‘The Structure of Biblical Theology’, TynBul 42: 31–61; 163–194. —— (2003), The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Seebass, Horst (1982), Der Gott der ganzen Bibel: Biblische Theologie zur Orientierung im Glauben (Freiburg: Herder). Seeligmann, I. L. (1963), ‘Menschliches Heldentum und göttliche Hilfe: Die doppelte Kausalität im alttestamentlichen Geschichtsdenken’, TZ 19: 385–411. Segal, Alan F. (1986), Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). Segal, Moses H. (1967), ‘Renewal of the Covenant at Sinai: An Essay in Exegesis’, in The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of The Jewish Quarterly Review (Philadelphia: Jewish Quarterly Review), 490–497. Segundo, Juan Luis (1976), ‘Faith and Ideologies in Biblical Revelation’, in Gottwald 1983: 482–496; orig. pub. 1976. Seitz, Christopher R. (1998), Word Without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). —— (1999), ‘Christological Interpretation of Texts and Trinitarian Claims to Truth: An Engagement with Francis Watson’s Text and Truth’, SJT 52: 209–226. —— (2001), Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). —— (2006), ‘The Canonical Approach and Theological Interpretation’, in Canon and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al. (SHS, 7; Milton Keynes: Paternoster), 58–110. —— (2007), Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Studies in Theological Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Baker). —— (2008), ‘Canon, Narrative, and the Old Testament’s Literal Sense: A Response to John Goldingay, “Canon and Old Testament Theology”’, TynBul 59: 27–34. Sellin, Ernst (1921), Das Alte Testament und die evangelische Kirche der Gegenwart (Leipzig: publisher unknown).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 338

22/12/09 12:35:33

biblio graphy

339

Sharp, J. R. (1986), ‘Typology and the Message of Hebrews’, EAJT 4.2: 95–103. Sheppard, Gerald T. (2007), ‘Childs, Brevard’, in McKim 2007: 301–310. Shih, D. P. (1971), ‘The Unity of the Testaments as a Hermeneutical Problem’ (diss., Boston University). Shires, Henry M. (1974), Finding the Old Testament in the New (Philadelphia: Westminster). Shorter, Aylward, ed. (1978), African Christian Spirituality (London: Chapman). Shotwell, Willis A. (1965), The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London: SPCK). —— (2007), ‘Justin Martyr’, in McKim 2007: 589–593. Sick, Hansjörg (1959), Melanchthon als Ausleger des Alten Testaments (BGBH, 2; Tübingen: Mohr). Sider, Ronald J. (1974), Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of his Thought, 1517– 1525 (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, 11; Leiden: Brill). Siegwalt, Gérard (1971), La loi, chemin du salut: étude sur la signification de la loi de l’Ancien Testament (Neuchâtel: Bibliothèque Théologique). Siker, Jeffrey S. (1991), Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox). —— (1997), Scripture and Ethics: Twentieth-Century Portraits (New York: Oxford University Press). Silva, Moisés, et al. (1996), Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Simundson, D. J. (1980), Faith Under Fire: Biblical Interpretations of Suffering (Minneapolis: Augsburg). Sloyan, Gerard S. (1978), Is Christ the End of the Law? (Biblical Perspectives on Current Issues; Philadelphia: Westminster). Smalley, Beryl (1952), The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell). Smart, James D. (1961), The Interpretation of Scripture (Preacher’s Library; London: SCM). —— (1965), The Old Testament in Dialogue with Modern Man (London: Epworth). —— (1979), The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster). Smend, Rudolf, I (1893), Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte (Freiburg: Mohr); 2nd ed., 1899. Smend, Rudolf, II (1963), Die Bundesformel (ThSt, 68; Zurich: EVZ). —— (1970), Die Mitte des Alten Testaments (ThSt, 101; Zurich: EVZ); repr. in Gesammelte Studien 1: Die Mitte des Alten Testaments (BEvT, 99; Munich: Kaiser, 1986), 40–84. —— (2007), From Astruc to Zimmerli: Old Testament Scholarship in Three Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; tr. from German, 1989, rev.). Smith, George Adam (1899), Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (lectures at Yale, 1899; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1902). Smith, James E. (1993), What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah (Nashville: Nelson).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 339

22/12/09 12:35:33

340

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Smith, Jerome (1969), A Priest Forever: A Study of Typology and Eschatology in Hebrews (London: Sheed & Ward). Smith, Timothy L. (1985), ‘John Wesley and the Wholeness of Scripture’, Int 39: 246–262. Smith, W. Robertson (1881), The Old Testament in the Jewish Church: A Course of Lectures on Biblical Criticism (London: Black); 2nd ed., 1892. Soggin, J. Alberto (1964), ‘Geschichte, Historie und Heilsgeschichte im Alten Testament: Ein Beitrag zur heutigen theologisch-hermeneutischen Diskussion’, TLZ 89: 721–736. —— (1970), Joshua: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1972; tr. from French, 1970). —— (2000), Israel in the Biblical Period: Institutions, Festivals, Ceremonies, Rituals (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2001; tr. from Italian, 2000). Sommer, Benjamin D. (2005), ‘Ein neues Modell für Biblische Theologie’, in Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments/der Hebräischen Bibel: Zwischenbilanz und Zukunftsperspektiven, ed. Bernd Janowski (SBS, 200; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk), 187–211. Song, C. S. (1984), Tell Us Our Names: Story Theology from an Asian Perspective (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis). Sovik, Arne (1982), ‘The Old Testament and Other “Old Testaments”’, in The Significance of Judaism for the Life and Mission of the Church (Report of a Consultation, August 1982; Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1983), 55–61. Sparks, H. F. D. (1970), ‘Jerome as Biblical Scholar’, in CHB 1: 510–541. Spriggs, David G. (1974), Two Old Testament Theologies: A Comparative Evaluation of the Contributions of Eichrodt and von Rad to our Understanding of the Nature of Old Testament Theology (SBT, 2.30; London: SCM). Stamm, Johann Jakob (1956), ‘Jesus Christ and the Old Testament’, review of van Ruler 1955, in Westermann 1960: 200–210; tr. from German, 1956. Stanley, Christopher D. (1992), Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— (2004), Arguing With Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T. & T. Clark). Stauffer, Ethelbert (1941), New Testament Theology (London: SCM, 1955; tr. from German, 1941; 5th ed., 1948). Steck, Karl Gerhard (1959), Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte: Hofmann-Schlatter-Cullmann (ThSt, 56; Zollikon: Evangelischer). Steck, Odil Hannes (1967), Israel und das Gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT, 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Stek, John H. (1970), ‘Biblical Typology Yesterday and Today’, CTJ 5: 133–162. Stendahl, Krister (1954), The School of St. Matthew, and its Use of the Old Testament (ASNU, 20; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell); repr. with new preface, Lund: Gleerup, 1968.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 340

22/12/09 12:35:33

biblio graphy

341

Sternberg, Meir (1985), The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press). Stiewe, Martin (1994), ‘Das Alte Testament im theologischen Denken Schleiermachers’, in Altes Testament: Forschung und Wirkung, ed. Peter Mommer & Winfried Thiel (Reventlow Festschrift; Frankfurt: Lang), 329–336. Strecker, Georg (1980), ‘“Biblische Theologie”? Kritische Bemerkungen zu den Entwürfen von Hartmut Gese und Peter Stuhlmacher’, in Kirche, ed. Dieter Lührmann & Georg Strecker (Bornkamm Festschrift; Tübingen: Mohr), 425–445. Strickland, Wayne G., ed. (1993), The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Stroup, George W. (1981), The Promise of Narrative Theology (Atlanta: John Knox). Struppe, Ursula, ed. (1989), Studien zum Messiasbild im Alten Testament (SBA, 6; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk); collected essays, 1961–86, with introduction by Struppe. Stuermann, Walter E. (1956), ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, Int 10: 323–346. Stuhlhofer, Franz (1988), Der Gebrauch der Bibel von Jesus bis Euseb: Eine statistische Untersuchung zur Kanonsgeschichte (Wuppertal: Brockhaus). Stuhlmacher, Peter (1975), Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Toward a Hermeneutics of Consent (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977; tr. from German, 1975). —— (1980), ‘“. . . in verrosteten Angeln”’, ZTK 77: 222–238. —— (1986), Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986; tr. from German, 1981, with new foreword). —— (1992), Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —— (1995), How to Do Biblical Theology (Princeton Theological Monograph Series, 38; Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick). —— (1997), ‘Der Kanon und seine Auslegung’, in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift, ed. Christof Landmesser et al. (Hofius Festschrift; BZNW, 86; Berlin: de Gruyter), 263–290. —— (1999), Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —— (2002), ‘My Experience With Biblical Theology’, in Hafemann 2002: 174–191; tr. from German, 2002. Sugirtharajah, R. S. (1991), Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis). Suhl, Alfred (1965), Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate and Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh: Mohn). Sundberg, Albert C. (1964), The Old Testament of the Early Church (HTS, 20; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). —— (1966), ‘The Protestant Old Testament Canon: Should It Be Re-Examined?’, CBQ 28: 194–203.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 341

22/12/09 12:35:33

342

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (1968), ‘The “Old Testament”: A Christian Canon’, CBQ 30: 143–155. Surburg, Raymond F. (1974), ‘The New Hermeneutic Versus the Old Hermeneutics in New Testament Interpretation’, Springfielder 38: 13–21; unavailable to me; abstract in New Testament Abstracts 19.27. Sutcliffe, Edmund F. (1953), ‘The Plenary Sense as a Principle of Interpretation’, Bib 34: 333–343. Swartley, Willard M. (1983), Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald). ——, ed. (1984), Essays on Biblical Interpretation: Anabaptist-Mennonite Perspectives (Elkhart, Ind.: Institute of Mennonite Studies). Sweeney, Marvin A. (1997), ‘Tanak Versus Old Testament: Concerning the Foundation for a Jewish Theology of the Bible’, in Problems in Biblical Theology, ed. Henry T. C. Sun et al. (Knierim Festschrift; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 353–372. Swetnam, James (1974), ‘Why Was Jeremiah’s New Covenant New?’, in Studies on Prophecy, ed. George W. Anderson et al. (VTSup, 26; Leiden: Brill), 111–115. Tanenbaum, Marc H., et al., eds. (1978), Evangelicals and Jews in Conversation on Scripture, Theology, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker). Tan Kim Huat (2005), ‘Community, Kingdom and Cross: Jesus’ View of Covenant’, in Grant & Wilson 2005: 122–155. Tanner, Eugene S. (1942), The Nazi Christ (Tulsa, Oklahoma: publisher unknown). Taylor, Howard (1985), ‘The Continuity of the People of God in Old and New Testaments’, SBET 3.2: 13–26. Tcherikover, Victor (1959), Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Magnes; Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society of America; tr. from Hebrew manucript). Terrien, Samuel (1978), The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology, ed. Ruth Anshen (Religious Perspectives, 26; New York: Harper & Row). Theissen, Gerd (1974–5), The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982; tr. from German, 1974–5). —— (1977), Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978; tr. from German, 1977). Thielicke, Helmut (1948), ‘Law and Gospel as Constant Partners’, in Theological Ethics, vol. 1 (London: Black, 1968), ch. 7; tr. from German, 1948. Thielman, Frank S. (1999), The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity (Companions to the New Testament; New York: Herder). Thiselton, Anthony C. (1980), The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein (Exeter: Paternoster). —— (1992), New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). —— (2006), Thiselton on Hermeneutics: Collected Works With New Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 342

22/12/09 12:35:33

biblio graphy

343

Thomas, T. Glyn (1966), ‘The Unity of the Bible and the Uniqueness of Christ’, London Quarterly and Holborn Review 191: 219–227. Thompson, Thomas L. (1992), Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE, 4; Leiden: Brill). Toombs, Lawrence E. (1969), ‘The Problematic of Preaching from the Old Testament’, Int 23: 302–314. Torrance, Thomas F. (1962), ‘Scientific Hermeneutics According to St. Thomas Aquinas’, JTS 13: 259–289. Travis, Stephen (1980), Christian Hope and the Future of Man (Issues in Contemporary Theology; Leicester: IVP). Trebolle, Julio (2006), ‘Canon of the Old Testament’, in NIDB 1: 548–563. Treier, Daniel J. (2008a), ‘Biblical Theology and/or Theological Interpretation of Scripture?’, SJT 61: 16–31. —— (2008b), Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Nottingham: Apollos). Trembath, Kern Robert (1987), Evangelical Theories of Biblical Inspiration: A Review and Proposal (New York: Oxford University Press). Trench, Richard Chenevix (1870), Notes on the Parables of our Lord (11th ed.; London: Macmillan). Trible, Phyllis (1993), ‘Treasures Old and New: Biblical Theology and the Challenge of Feminism’, in The Open Text: New Directions for Biblical Studies?, ed. Francis Watson (London: SCM), 32–56. Trigg, Joseph (2003), ‘The Apostolic Fathers and Apologists’, in Hauser & Watson 2003: 304–333. Tsevat, Matitiahu (1986), ‘Theology of the Old Testament – A Jewish View’, HBT 8.2: 33–50. Tupper, E. Frank (1974), The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (London: SCM). Ukpong, Justin S., et al. (2002), Reading the Bible in the Global Village: Cape Town (GPBS, 3; Atlanta: SBL). Valerio, Karolina de (1994), Altes Testament und Judentum im Frühwerk Rudolf Bultmanns (BZNW, 71; Berlin: de Gruyter). Vanhoozer, Kevin J. (1998), Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). ——, ed. (2005), Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker). Vannoy, J. Robert (1978), Covenant Renewal at Gilgal: A Study of I Samuel 11:14–12:25 (Cherry Hill, N. J.: Mack). Vaux, Roland de (1950), review of Vischer 1934, in RB 57: 284–285. —— (1952), review of Vischer 1942, in RB 59: 282–283. —— (1963), review of von Rad 1957–60, in RB 70: 291–293. Vawter, Bruce (1964), ‘The Fuller Sense: Some Considerations’, CBQ 26: 85–96.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 343

22/12/09 12:35:33

344

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Verhoef, Pieter A. (1962), ‘Some Notes on Typological Exegesis’, in New Light on Some Old Testament Problems: Papers Read at 5th Meeting of Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (Pretoria: Pro Rege), 58–63. —— (1970), ‘The Relationship between the Old and the New Testaments’, in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco: Word), 280–303. Vermes, Geza (1973), Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins). Vidler, Alec R. (1934), The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church: Its Origins and Outcome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Vischer, Wilhelm (1934), The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ I: The Pentateuch (London: Lutterworth, 1949; tr. from German, 1934; 7th ed., 1946). —— (1938), ‘The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christian Life’, in Proceedings of the Fourth Calvinistic Congress (Edinburgh: publisher unknown), 237–260. —— (1942), Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testamentes 2.1: Die Früheren Propheten (ZollikonZurich: Evangelischer); 2nd ed., 1946. —— (1944), Psalmen: Ausgelegt für die Gemeinde (Basel: publisher unknown). —— (1949), ‘Words and the Word: The Anthropomorphisms of the Biblical Revelation’, Int 3: 3–18. —— (1954a), Die Immanuel-Botschaft im Rahmen des königlichen Zionsfestes (ThSt, 45; Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer, 1955; tr. from French, ETR 29 (1954): 55–97). —— (1954b), ‘Return, Rebel Sons! A Sermon on Jeremiah 3:1,19 – 4:4’, Int 8: 43–47. —— (1955), ‘The Vocation of the Prophet to the Nations: An Exegesis of Jeremiah 1: 4–10’, Int 9: 310–317. —— (1958), Valeur de l’Ancien Testament: Commentaires des livres de Job, Esther, l’Ecclésiaste, le second Esaïe, précédés d’une introduction (Geneva: Labor et Fides). —— (1959), ‘Perhaps the Lord Will Be Gracious: A Sermon’, Int 13: 286–295. —— (1960), ‘La méthode de l’exégèse biblique’, RTP 10: 109–123. —— (1961a), ‘God’s Truth and Man’s Lie: A Study of the Message of the Book of Job’, Int 15: 131–146. —— (1961b), ‘The Love Story of God: A Sermon’, Int 15: 304–309. —— (1964), ‘Everywhere the Scripture Is About Christ Alone’, in Anderson 1964c: 90–101. —— (1971), ‘Nehemia, der Sonderbeauftragte und Statthalter des Königs: Die Bedeutung der Befestigung Jerusalems für die biblische Geschichte und Theologie’, in Probleme biblischer Theologie, ed. Hans Walter Wolff (von Rad Festschrift; Munich: Kaiser), 603–610. Visser, Derk (1996), ‘Covenant’, in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, vol. 1, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand (New York: Oxford University Press), 442–445. Voegelin, Eric (1964), ‘History and Gnosis’, in Anderson 1964c: 64–89. Vogels, Walter (1979), God’s Universal Covenant: A Biblical Study (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 344

22/12/09 12:35:33

biblio graphy

345

Volz, Paul (1897), Die vorexilische Jahweprophetie und der Messias: In ihrem Verhältnis dargestellt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Vos, Geerhardus (1948), Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Vriezen, Th. C. (1953), ‘Prophecy and Eschatology’, in Congress Volume: Copenhagen 1953 (VTSup, 1; Leiden: Brill), 199–229. —— (1956), ‘Theocracy and Soteriology: Comments on A. A. van Ruler’s Book: Die christliche Kirche und das Alte Testament’, in Westermann 1960: 211–223; tr. from German, 1956. —— (1963), ‘The Credo in the Old Testament’, in Studies on the Psalms: Papers Read at 6th Meeting of Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (Potschefstroom: Pro Rege), 5–17. —— (1966), An Outline of Old Testament Theology (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1970; tr. from Dutch, 3rd ed., 1966). Wainwright, Arthur (1982), Beyond Biblical Criticism: Encountering Jesus in Scripture (London: SPCK). Walker, Peter W. L., ed. (1994), Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God (rev. ed.; Carlisle: Paternoster). Wallis, Wilber B. (1969), ‘Irony in Jeremiah’s Prophecy of a New Covenant’, BETS 12: 107–110. Waltke, Bruce K. (2007), An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Watson, Francis (1994), Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). —— (1995), ‘A Response to Professor Rowland’, SJT 48: 518–522. —— (1997), Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). —— (1998), ‘A Response to John Riches’, BibInt 6: 235–242. —— (1999), ‘The Old Testament as Christian Scripture: A Response to Professor Seitz’, SJT 52: 227–232. —— (2001), ‘Gospel and Scripture: Rethinking Canonical Unity’, TynBul 52: 161–182. Weber, Hans-Ruedi (1989), Power: Focus for a Biblical Theology (Geneva: WCC). Weinandy, Thomas G., et al., eds. (2005), Aquinas on Scripture: An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries (London: T. & T. Clark). Weinfeld, Moshe (1970), ‘The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East’, JAOS 90: 184–203. —— (1972), Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon). —— (1973), ‘b erîth’, in TDOT 2 (1977): 253–279; tr. from German, 1973. —— (1976), ‘Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel’, ZAW 88: 17–56. Weippert, Helga (1979), ‘Das Wort vom neuen Bund in Jeremia xxxi 31–34’, VT 29: 336–351.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 345

22/12/09 12:35:33

346

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Welch, Adam C. (1933), The Preparation for Christ in the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Church of Scotland). —— (1951), Jeremiah: His Time and his Work (Oxford: Blackwell). Wellhausen, Julius (1883), Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885; tr. from German, 2nd ed., 1883). Wells, Jo Bailey (2000), God’s Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology ( JSOTSup, 305; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Wells, Paul Ronald (1980), James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a New Liberalism (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian & Reformed). Wenger, John C. (1957), ‘The Biblicism of the Anabaptists’, in The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision, ed. Guy Franklin Hershberger (Bender Festschrift; Scottdale, Pa.: Herald), 167–179. Wenham, Gordon J. (1976), ‘History & the Old Testament’, in C. Brown 1976: 13–75. —— (1978), ‘Grace and Law in the Old Testament’, in Law, Morality and the Bible, ed. Bruce N. Kaye & Gordon J. Wenham (Leicester: IVP), 3–23. —— (1987), Genesis 1–15 (WBC, 1; Waco: Word). —— (2000), Story as Torah: Reading the Old Testament Ethically (OTS; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Wenham, John W. (1972), Christ and the Bible (London: Tyndale). West, Gerald O. (1991), Biblical Hermeneutics of Liberation: Modes of Reading the Bible in the South African Context (Pietermaritzburg: Cluster). West, Gerald O., & Musa W. Dube, eds. (2000), The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories, and Trends (Leiden: Brill). Westcott, B. F. (1889), ‘On the Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle’, in The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan), 469–495; 2nd ed., 1892. Westerholm, Stephen (1988), Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Westermann, Claus (1955), ‘The Interpretation of the Old Testament – A Historical Introduction; Remarks on the Theses of Bultmann and Baumgärtel’, in Westermann 1960: 40–49, 123–133; tr. from German, 1955, abridged. —— (1964), ‘The Way of the Promise through the Old Testament’, in Anderson 1964c: 200–224. —— (1968a), Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978; tr. from German, 1968). —— (1968b), The Old Testament and Jesus Christ (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1970; tr. from German, 1968). —— (1971), Creation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974; tr. from German, 1971). —— (1974–82), Genesis (3 vols.; London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984–6; tr. from German, 3 vols., 1974–82; BKAT, 1).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 346

22/12/09 12:35:33

biblio graphy

347

—— (1976), The Promises to the Fathers: Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980; tr. from German, 1976). —— (1978), Elements of Old Testament Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982; tr. from German, 1978). —— (1985), ‘The Old Testament’s Understanding of History in Relation to that of the Enlightenment’, in Understanding the Word, ed. James T. Butler et al. (Anderson Festschrift; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press), 207–219. ——, ed. (1960), Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (London: SCM, 1963; tr. from German, 1960; collected essays, 1949–60). Wharton, James A. (1975), ‘Splendid Failure or Flawed Success?’, Int 29: 266–276. Whitelam, Keith W. (1996), The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (London: Routledge). —— (1998), ‘The Social World of the Bible’, in Barton 1998: 35–49. Whitley, Charles Francis (1963), The Prophetic Achievement (London: Mowbray). Wiener, Peter F. (1945), Martin Luther: Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor (London: Hutchinson). Wiesemann, Heinrich (1965), Das Heil für Israel: Was Sagt Darüber das Neue Testament? (Stuttgart: Calwer). Wifall, Walter (1974), ‘David – Prototype of Israel’s Future?’, BTB 4: 94–107. Wijk-Bos, Johanna W. H. van (2005), Making Wise the Simple: The Torah in Christian Faith and Practice (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Wilder, Amos N. (1955), Otherworldliness and the New Testament (Religious Book Club, 110; London: SCM). Wiles, M. F. (1970a), ‘Origen as Biblical Scholar’, in CHB 1: 454–489. —— (1970b), ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the Antiochene School’, in CHB 1: 489–510. Wilken, Robert L. (1992), The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press). Willi, Thomas (1971), Herders Beitrag zum Verstehen des Alten Testaments (BGBH, 8; Tübingen: Mohr). Williams, George Huntston (1962), The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster). Williams, Michael D. (2002), ‘A New and More Glorious Covenant’, Presb 28.2: 77–103. Williamson, H. G. M. (1985), Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC, 16; Waco: Word). —— (1998), Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Didsbury Lectures 1997; Carlisle: Paternoster). Williamson, Paul R. (2000), ‘Abraham, Israel and the Church’, EvQ 72: 99–118. —— (2003), ‘Covenant’, in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander & David W. Baker (Downers Grove: IVP; Leicester: IVP), 139–155. —— (2007), Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (NSBT, 23; Nottingham: Apollos).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 347

22/12/09 12:35:33

348

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Williamson, Peter S. (2003), ‘The Place of History in Catholic Exegesis: An Examination of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church’, in Bartholomew et al. 2003:, 196–226. Willis, Wendell, ed. (1987), The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). Wilson, Robert R. (1984), Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress). —— (1988), ‘Approaches to Old Testament Ethics’, in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation, ed. Gene M. Tucker et al. (Childs Festschrift; Philadelphia: Fortress), 62–74. Wilson, Todd A. (2006), ‘The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses: Reflections on a Recent Trend in Interpretation’, CBR 5: 123–144. Wingren, Gustaf (1958), Creation and Law (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1961; tr. from Swedish, 1958). Wirth, Gabriela (2003), ‘Spirit, New Heart and the New Covenant: Intertextuality of 2 Corinthians 3 ( Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 36)’ (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary). Wolf, Hans Heinrich (1958), Die Einheit des Bundes: Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin (BGLRK, 10; Neukirchen: Kreis Moers). Wolff, Hans Walter (1952), ‘Der grosse Jesreeltag Hosea 2,1–3: Methodologische Erwägungen zur Auslegung einer alttestamentlichen Perikope’, EvT 12: 78–104. —— (1956a), ‘The Hermeneutics of the Old Testament’, Int 15 (1961): 439–472; tr. from German, 1956; also in Westermann 1960: 160–199. —— (1956b), ‘The Old Testament in Controversy: Interpretive Principles and Illustration’, Int 12 (1958): 281–291; tr. from German, 1956. —— (1960), ‘The Understanding of History in the Old Testament Prophets’, in Westermann 1960: 336–355; tr. from German, 1960. —— (1961–86), Dodekapropheton (5 vols.; BKAT, 14; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). ——, ed. (1971), Probleme biblischer Theologie (von Rad Festschrift; Munich: Kaiser). Wolff, Hans Walter, & et al. (1973), Gerhard von Rad: Seine Bedeutung für die Theologie (Munich: Kaiser). Wolfzorn, Eugene E. (1962), ‘Realized Eschatology: An Exposition of Charles H. Dodd’s Thesis’, ETL 38: 44–70. Wood, A. Skevington (1960), Luther’s Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Tyndale Historical Theology Lecture, 1959; London: Tyndale). Wood, J. Edwin (1968), ‘Isaac Typology in the New Testament’, NTS 14: 583–589. Woodbridge, John D. (1982), Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Woollcombe, K. J. (1957), ‘The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology’, in Essays on Typology, ed. G. W. H. Lampe & K. J. Woollcombe (SBT, 22; London: SCM), 39–75.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 348

22/12/09 12:35:33

biblio graphy

349

Wright, Christopher J. H. (1984), ‘The Use of the Bible in Social Ethics: Paradigms, Types and Eschatology’, Transformation 1.1: 11–20. —— (1992), Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament: Rediscovering the Roots of our Faith (London: Marshall Pickering; Downers Grove: IVP). —— (2004), Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Leicester: IVP); rev. and integrated ed. of Living as the People of God (1983) and Walking in the Ways of the Lord (1995). —— (2006), The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Nottingham: IVP). Wright, George Ernest (1951), ‘The Unity of the Bible’, Int 5: 131–133, 304–317. —— (1952), God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (SBT, 8; London: SCM). —— (1955), ‘The Unity of the Bible’, SJT 8: 337–352. —— (1960), ‘Modern Issues in Biblical Studies: History and the Patriarchs’, ExpTim 71: 292–296. —— (1964), ‘History and Reality: The Importance of Israel’s “Historical” Symbols for the Christian Faith’, in Anderson 1964c: 176–199. —— (1969), The Old Testament and Theology (New York: Harper & Row). —— (1970), ‘Historical Knowledge and Revelation’, in Translating & Understanding the Old Testament, ed. Harry Thomas Frank & William L. Reed (May Festschrift; Nashville: Abingdon), 279–303. Wright, N. T. (1991), The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Wyrtzen, David B. (1984), ‘The Theological Center of the Book of Hosea’, BSac 141: 315–329. Yarchin, William (2004), History of Biblical Interpretation: A Reader (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). Yewangoe, A. A. (1987), Theologia Crucis in Asia: Asian Christian Views on Suffering in the Face of Overwhelming Poverty and Multifaceted Religiosity in Asia (Amsterdam Studies in Theology, 6; Amsterdam: Rodopi). Young, Frances M. (2003), ‘Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegesis’, in Hauser & Watson 2003: 334–354. Young, Norman J. (1966), ‘Bultmann’s View of the Old Testament’, SJT 19: 269–279. —— (1969), History and Existential Theology: The Role of History in the Thought of Rudolf Bultmann (London: Epworth). Zachman, Randall C. (2006), ‘John Calvin’, in Holcomb 2006: 114–133. Zaman, Luc (2008), Bible and Canon: A Modern Historical Inquiry (SSN, 50; Leiden: Brill). Zenger, Erich, ed. (1993), Der neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD, 146; Freiburg: Herder). Zimmerli, Walther (1940), ‘Auslegung des Alten Testamentes’, TBl 19: 145–157. —— (1952), ‘Promise and Fulfillment’, Int 15 (1961): 310–338; tr. from German, 1952; also in Westermann 1960: 89–122.

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 349

22/12/09 12:35:33

350

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

—— (1960), ‘Le nouvel “exode” dans le message des deux grands prophètes de l’exil’, in maqqél shâqédh: La branche d’amandier, ed. Daniel Lys (Vischer Festschrift; Montpellier: Causse Graille Castelnau), 216–227. —— (1963), The Law and the Prophets: A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament ( James Sprunt Lectures, 1963; Oxford: Blackwell, 1965; tr. from German, 1963). —— (1968), Man and his Hope in the Old Testament (SBT, 2.20; London: SCM, 1971; tr. from German, 1968). —— (1969), Ezekiel (2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–83; tr. from German, 2 vols., 1969; BKAT, 13). —— (1971), ‘Alttestamentliche Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie’, in Probleme biblischer Theologie, ed. Hans Walter Wolff (von Rad Festschrift; Munich: Kaiser), 632–647. —— (1975), Old Testament Theology in Outline (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978; tr. from German, 2nd ed., 1975). —— (1979), ‘Von der Gültigkeit der “Schrift” Alten Testamentes in der christlichen Predigt’, in Textgemäss, ed. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg & Otto Kaiser (Würthwein Festschrift; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 184–202. Zimmerli, Walther, & Joachim Jeremias (1952), The Servant of God (SBT, 20; London: SCM, 1957; tr. from German, 1952).

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 350

22/12/09 12:35:33

IN D E X OF S CRI PT URE RE FERENCES

Genesis 1 213 1:1 72 1:26 26 2:17 26 3:14–20 26 3:22–24 248 4:11–15 26 5:24 260 6:5–8 26 6:8 122 6:18 208, 240 8:21–22 26 9:1–17 240 9:11 238 9:12 240 9:16 240 11:4 26 11:30 203 12 204 12:1–3 26, 120, 203, 242 12:1–9 171 12:3 204, 259 12:4 203, 205 12:6 246

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 351

12:7 203, 242 13:10–13 171 13:14–17 203 14 90 14:18–20 213 15 203, 204 15:6 122, 171, 205 15:7–17 242 15:10 262 15:18 242, 262 16:1 203 17 203, 204, 242–243 17:1 203, 243 17:2 238 17:2–6 242 17:7 238, 241, 242 17:7–8 239, 243 17:8 242 17:9–14 242, 262 17:13 241 17:15–16 242 17:18 242 17:19 241, 242 17:20 242 17:21 242

17:23–27 242 18:11 203 18:19 243 20 204 21:1–2 203 21:22–32 240 22 203 22:3 205 22:16–18 171 22:17 204 22:18 243 25:1–18 203 25:5 203 25:11 203 25:19 203 25:20–21 203 25:24 208 26 204 26:2–5 203 26:3 204, 209 26:5 243 26:24 203 26:26–31 240 26:28 238 28:13–15 203

22/12/09 12:35:33

352 28:15 204 29:31 203 30:1 203 30:22–24 203 31:5 204 31:43–54 240 37–50 183 46:27 204 47:27 204 49 26 Exodus 1:7 204 1:9 204 1:12 204 1:20 204 2:24 243 3:7 204 3:7–8 198 3:7–10 242 3:8 26, 204 3:10 204 3:13–14 90 3:15–17 242 4:22 242 4:31 242 5:1 242 5:2 260 6:2–7 243 6:2–8 241 6:6–7 225 6:7 204, 239, 260 7:4 204 7:16 204 8:1 204 8:20 204 10:6 208 10:24–26 204 12:1–27 212 12:11 154 12:25 204 12:27 242 12:38 259 12:43–46 212 13:17–18 204 13:21 204 14 174 14:13–14 204 14:31 – 15:21 242

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 352

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e 15:1–2 204 15:18 207 16:9–27 171 19 244 19:4–6 239, 244 19:5 204, 259 19:5–6 204, 225 19:8 204 20 244 20:1 213 20:2–3 75, 204 21 – 23 244 23:32 240 24:3 204, 241, 244 24:4 244 24:5–6 244 24:7 241, 244 24:7–8 248 24:8 244, 262 24:9–11 244 24:12–18 244 25:9 175 25:10–22 247 25:16 247 25:21 247 25:40 176, 178 26:33–34 247 29:42–46 248 29:45 239 29:45–46 204, 260 30:26 247 31:7 247 31:16 248 31:18 247 32:1–4 249 32:1–10 204 32:5 249 32:7–10 249 32:9 249 32:11–14 204, 249 32:13 242 32:15–19 247 32:15–35 204 32:21–24 249 33:1–3 204 33:3 249 33:5 249 33:12–16 204 33:17 260

34:6–7 244, 260 34:6–10 259 34:9 249 34:10 249 34:12 249 34:15 249 34:27–28 249 34:29 247 37:1–9 247 38:21 248 39:35 247 40:3 247 40:20 247 40:20–21 247 Leviticus 2:13 248 11:45 239, 244 18:24–30 228 19:2 264 20:22 228 22:33 239, 244 24:3 248 24:5–9 248 25:38 239, 244 26:3–13 245 26:9 245 26:9–12 225 26:12 204, 239, 244 26:14–39 245 26:40–45 245 26:42 241 26:45 239, 241, 244 Numbers 1 205 1:50–53 248 4:5–6 247 7:89 247 9:15 248 10:11 248 10:29 204 10:33–36 247 11:5 171 13:2 204 13:25–30 205 14:1–12 205 14:2–4 171 14:13–19 205

22/12/09 12:35:33

index of scripture references 14:16 205 14:17–20 259 14:20–35 205 14:40 204 14:44 247 15:2 204 15:37–41 248 15:41 239 16:30 122 17:7–8 248 18:2 248 18:19 240 20:24 204 23:19 208, 209 24 26 25:10–13 240 25:12 238 25:13 240 26 205 27:17 212 32:7 204 32:9 204 33:50–66 205 Deuteronomy 1:8 245 1:8–11 205 4:1 205 4:6 259 4:7 239, 245 4:13 245 4:20 239, 245 4:23 245 4:25–27 228 4:31 241, 245 4:40 205, 228, 245 5:2 245 5:2–3 154, 246 5:3 150 5:33 245 6:3 205, 245 6:4–9 260 6:17 245 6:18–19 205 6:20–24 149 7:2 240 7:6 239, 245 7:6–9 244, 260 7:9 238, 245, 260

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 353

7:11 245 7:12 238, 245 8:17–20 228 8:18 238, 246 8:18–19 209 9:4–24 205 9:5 208, 238 9:9–17 247 9:27 241 10:1–5 247 10:8 247 10:14–11:7 205 10:16 259 11:18 259 11:29–30 246 14:2 239, 245 15:12–15 254 17:18 252 18:15 171, 172, 213 18:18 171 23:1 256, 259 23:3 256, 259 26:3–10 245 26:5–9 149, 151 26:5–10 146 26:16–19 246 26:16 – 30:20 245 26:17–19 205, 239, 245 27:1–8 246 27:9 239, 245 27:9–10 246 27:11–26 246 28:1–14 259 28:1–68 246 28:9 239, 245 29 – 32 245 29:1 246 29:1–15 246 29:12 238 29:12–13 239 29:13 205, 245 29:14 238 29:14–15 154 29:16–30:10 246 29:18–19 122 29:18–21 249 30:1–10 259 30:6 259 30:11–20 246

353 30:14 259 30:15–20 77, 228 31:9 247 31:16 249 31:20 249 31:25–26 247 31 245 32 245 32:48–52 205 33 26 33:5 207 33:8–9 240 33:18–20 246 34:10 260 35:4 246 Joshua 3 – 4 247 6:3–13 247 7:1 250 7:6 247 7:11 250 7:12 250 7:15 250 7:24–26 250 8:30–35 246, 250 8:33 247 9 240 9:15 238 21:45 205, 208, 209 23:14 205, 209 23:15 208 23:15–16 209 23:16 247 24:1 247 24:2–3 205 24:2–13 149, 247 24:3–13 243 24:14–15 247 24:16–21 247 24:22–24 247 24:25–26 247 24:26–27 247 24:28 247 Judges 2:1–3 205 2:1 241

22/12/09 12:35:33

354 2:2 248 2:11–21 248, 250 8:23 70, 207 20:27 247 1 Samuel 1 260, 262 2:26 122 3:3 247 3:12 208 4:1 – 7:2 247 8:4–7 207 8:4–8 251 11:14 – 12:25 250 12:6–12 250 12:14–15 250 12:16–18 250 12:19 251 12:20–21 250 12:22 239, 251 12:24 250 12:25 250 14:18 247 17 91 18:1–4 240 20:8 240 20:16–17 240 23:18 240 2 Samuel 3:12–13 240 3:17–21 240 5:3 240 5:11 240 6 247 7 26, 28, 198, 212, 240 7:2 247 7:8–16 205 7:9 206 7:10 206 7:10–11 206 7:11–12 206 7:13 206 7:14 212 7:14–15 206 7:16 206 7:18–29 205 7:23–24 206

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 354

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e 7:24 239 11:11 247 15:24–29 247 23:3–5 26 23:5 240 1 Kings 2:4 208, 209 2:27 208, 209 3:3–12 171 3:14 188 3:15 247 3:28 171 4:29–34 171 5:1–12 240 6:12 209 6:19 247 8:1–21 247 8:9 247 8:15 206, 208, 209 8:20 206, 208, 209 8:21 248 8:23–25 240 8:24 208, 209 8:25–26 206 8:56 206 9:3–9 206 9:4 171, 210 10:1–3 171 10:23–24 171 11:1–11 251 11:4 171, 210 11:6 171, 210 11:9 206 11:9–13 210 11:11–13 206 12:15 209 12:16–24 210 14:8 171 14:21–24 251 15:1–3 251 15:3 188, 210 15:5 210 15:8 251 15:11 171, 188 15:11–14 251 15:19 240 15:26 188 16:2–3 188

16:19 188 16:26 188 16:30–31 240 16:31 188 16:31–33 251 18:4 251 18:20–40 251 18:39 252 18:40 252 19:10 251 19:14 251 19:16 251 19:18 251 20:34 240 21:18–24 251 2 Kings 8:19 206 10:10 209 10:18–28 252 11:4–8 252 11:12 252 11:17 239, 252 13:23 205, 243 14:3 210 15:12 209 16:2 210 17:7–23 248 18:1–4 252 18:3 210 18:11–12 248 19:15 207 21:1–9 210 22 253 22:2 210 23:2–3 254 23:3 238 23:21 254 23:24 238 24:9 210 24:19 210 24:20 248 24:20 – 25:7 210 1 Chronicles 11:3 240 13 247 15 – 16 247 16:15–17 241, 243

22/12/09 12:35:34

index of scripture references 16:15–18 205 17 205 22:19 247 27:23 205 28:11–12 176 28:18–19 176

3:12–13 210 4:4–5 210 7 – 8 254 9:1–4 254 9:8–9 210 10 254

2 Chronicles 5 – 6 247 5:10 247 6:11 248 6:14–16 240 7:17–18 240 13:5 240 14:3–5 251 14:9–15 251 15:8 251 15:9–10 251 15:11 251 15:12 251 15:13 251 15:14–15 251 16:3 240 16:15–17 241 20:7 205, 260 21:7 206, 240 23:1 252 23:2–3 252 23:11 252 23:16 239, 252 24:6 248 29:5–7 253 29:10 253 29:12–19 253 29:16 253 29:20–36 253 29 – 31 252 30 253 30:6–9 253 31 253 34:30–32 254 34 253 35:3 247 36:15–21 248 36:21 208, 209 36:22–23 210

Nehemiah 1:3 210 1:5 254 5:1–5 210 8 – 10 254 8:1–8 254 8:9–12 254 8:13–15 255 8:16 255 8:17–18 255 9:1–37 255 9:7–8 205, 243, 254 9:7–15 241 9:8 209 9:9–15 254 9:16–18 254 9:17 254 9:19–25 254 9:26–30 254 9:31–32 254 9:33–37 254 9:36–37 210 9:38 – 10:27 255 10:28–29 255 10:29 238 10:30–39 255 13:29 240

Ezra 3 – 6 254

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 355

Job 19:25–27 122 31:1 240 Psalms 2 26, 208 2:7 212 8:4–6 212 15 172 16:9–11 122 20:4–5 208 22:1 198 23 212 24 172

355 25:10 248 25:14 248 33:12 239, 248 37:11 215 44:17 248 45 26 46 – 48 208 50:5 248 50:16 248 51 66 55:20 240 68 26 74:20 248 77:8 206 78:10 248 78:37 248 89 28, 208, 240 89:3–4 205 89:19–37 205 89:29 240 90:7–8 66 93–99 208 95:7 239, 248 100:3 239, 248 101 248 103:13 260 103:14–16 66 103:17–18 248 104 123 105:8 238, 241 105:8–10 241, 243 106:45 248 110 26, 208 110:1 212 110:4 213 111:5 241, 248 111:9 241, 248 118:22 213 130 66 132 28 132:1–4 171 132:11–12 240 132:18 247 137:1–6 206 138:8 209 145:11–13 207 147:10–11 66

22/12/09 12:35:34

356 Proverbs 2:17 240 8:22–31 213 Song of Solomon 7:13 137 Isaiah 1:2–4 256 1 – 39 255 2:2–4 207 2:11–12 27 4:5 28 5:1–7 256 6:5 207 6:9–10 120 7:3 28 7:9 66 7:14 212 8:1–4 198 9 28 9:2 171 9:2–7 210 9:4 171 9:7 125, 212 10:20–22 28 10:24–27 28 10:26 171 11 28 11:1 171, 212 11:1–10 198, 210 11:2 28 11:6–9 28, 171 11:10 212 11:15–16 171 13:6 27 13:9 27 19:16–25 207 19:18–25 259 24 – 27 29 24:5 255 24:23 207 25:8 28 26:19 29 28:15 256 28:16 66 28:18 256 30:15 66 32:1 207

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 356

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e 32:15 207, 211 33:8 256 33:17–22 207 34:8 27 35 28 40:1–11 248 40:4 193 41:8 260 41:8–10 248 42 28 42:1–3 207 42:1–4 208 42:1–6 212 42:6 256, 259 43:1 198 43:1–4 260 43:1–7 122 43:2 198 43:15 207 43:16–21 171 43:25 259 45:20–24 198 45:22–23 207, 212 45:23–25 66 48:20–21 171 49 28 49:1–6 208 49:6 259 49:8 256 50 28 50:4–9 208 51:3 28 51:9–11 28, 171 52:7 135, 207 52:11–12 171 52:12 28 52:13–53:12 208, 212 53 28, 120 53:3–4 171 53:7 212 54:9–10 256, 259 54:10 238, 258, 259 55:3 28, 238, 241, 256, 259 55:3–5 259 55:10–11 213 56 – 66 29 56:3–8 77, 256, 259 59:21 207, 241, 256, 259 60 – 66 28

61:8 241, 256, 259 61:2 27 62:4 28 65:17 28 65:17–25 208 66:18–23 207 Jeremiah 1:4–10 91 1:5 91, 260 1:18–19 198 3:15 260 3:15–18 257 3:16 247 3:16–17 260 3:16–18 27 4:2 207 4:23–28 193 5:4–5 260 7:23 239, 256 7:24 257 8:7 260 9:23–24 66 9:24 260 10:3–4 138 11:2–5 256 11:4 238, 239, 256 11:6–8 256 11:8 257 11:9–10 256 11:11–17 256 11:19 120, 212 12:14–17 259 13:11 239, 256 14:21 256 15:1–9 256 16:10–13 256 16:14–15 171, 207, 257 18:12 257 22:4–9 248 22:9 256 22:15–17 260 23:1–4 212 23:3 28 23:5 171 23:5–6 207 23:7–8 188, 257 23:16–23 213

22/12/09 12:35:34

index of scripture references 24:5–7 256 24:7 207, 239, 260 25:8–11 248 29:10 207 29:10–14 248 29:14 27 30 – 33 28 30:3 27, 28 30:22 239, 256 31:1 239, 256 31:2 171 31:10–14 207 31:30 257 31:31 25, 255 31:31–34 69, 122, 207, 223, 241, 257 31:33 239, 259, 263 31:33–34 66, 198, 257 31:34 257, 259, 260, 261, 262 32:6–15 28 32:38 239, 257, 259 32:39–40 258 32:40 241, 257, 259 32:42–44 207 33:14–15 210 33:14–26 207 33:17–26 240 33:20–22 240 33:25–26 257 34:8–10 254 34:11 254 34:13 254 34:14–15 254 34:16 254 34:17–22 254 34:18 254 36 253 46:10 27 50:5 241, 257, 259 51:28–29 193 Lamentations 1 – 2 206 2:17 209 Ezekiel 3:7 120 11:19 28, 263 11:19–20 258, 259

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 357

357

11:20 239, 258, 259 13:5 27 14:11 239, 258, 259 14:14 188 14:20 188 16:53 27 16:59 238 16:59–63 258, 259 16:60 28, 241, 258 16:62 258, 260 16:62–63 207 16:63 258, 259 17:12–19 240 17:18 238 18:31 28 20:33 125 20:36–37 258, 259 20:40–42 28 20:42 158, 207 21:7 209 29:21 27 34:23–24 171, 207 34:24 239, 258, 259 34:25 258 34:25–31 28, 207, 259 34:30–31 239, 258, 259 34 91, 212 36 207 36:22–27 66 36:25–27 207 36:26 28, 261 36:26–27 259 36:26–28 258 36:28 239, 258, 259 37 122, 174, 198 37:1–14 28, 66 37:12–14 258, 259 37:23 239, 258, 259 37:24 212 37:24–28 125 37:26 241, 258, 259 37:26–28 69, 207 37:27 239, 258, 259 39:29 207, 211 40 – 48 28, 259

7:9–14 208 7:13–14 29, 212 7:23 158 9:4 258 9:27 258 11:22 258 11:28 258 11:30 258 11:32 258, 260 12 29 12:1–3 208 12:2 216 12:2–3 122

Daniel 4:33 209 7 – 12 29

Amos 1:9 240 3:2 91

Hosea 1:2–9 258 1:9 239 1:10–11 258 2:14–15 171 2:14–23 258, 261 2:16–23 207 2:19 207 2:23 239 3:5 125 6:1–3 28 6:4 260 6:6 260 6:7 258 8:1 238, 258 11:1–11 260 11:10–11 28 12:1 240 12:9 171 14 259 Joel 1:15 27 2:1 27 2:11 27 2:28 28 2:28–29 261 2:28–32 211 2:31 27 2:32 212 3:14 27

22/12/09 12:35:34

358 3:14 27 5 91 5:2 158 5:6 91 5:15 91 5:18 26 5:18–20 27 5:26 176, 178 7:12–13 120 9:11 171 9:11–15 207, 259 Obadiah 21 125, 207 15 27 Jonah 3 193 4:1–2 120 Micah 2:12 28 4:1–2 28 4:1–8 259 4:3 28 5:2–4 207 Zephaniah 1:7 27 1:14 27 3:9–10 207 3:30 27 Haggai 2:4–5 207 2:5 238 Zechariah 2 28 2:11 239, 258 8 28 8:7–8 258 8:8 239 8:13 207 8:20–23 207 9 – 14 29 9:9 208, 213 9:11 258, 262 10:2 212

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 358

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e 10:8–11 28 13:7 212 14:1 27 14:9 125 14:9–21 207 14:16–17 125 Malachi 2:4–8 240 2:10–11 258 2:14 240 3:1 119, 258 3:1–2 216 3:16 258 3:17 258 4:1–2 258 4:4 258 Matthew 1:1 172, 212 1:1–17 261 1:21 262 1:22 208 1:22–23 211 1:23 212 2:1–2 121 2:5–6 211 2:15 211 2:17–18 211 2:23 211 3:15 209 4:14–16 211 4:19 216 5:5 215 5:14 194 5:17 44, 75, 198, 208, 210 5:17–20 31 5:21–48 31, 224 5:48 264 6:10 217 8:10–11 216 8:17 211, 212 8:20 212 9:6 212 9:27 172 10:1–4 172 11:10 209 11:25–27 212

11:28–30 213 11:29 189 12:1–8 172 12:8 212 12:15–21 211 12:17–21 212 12:23 172 12:42 172 13 122 13:35 211 13:48 208 13:52 137 14:33 212 16:16 212 16:18 172, 216, 224 16:27–28 212 21:5 213 21:9 212 21:15 212 21:33–46 116 22:34–40 31 22:41–45 172 23:15 121 24 – 25 216 24:14 216 25:31–33 212 26:24 211 26:28 262 26:31 209 26:54 211 26:56 211 26:63 212 27:46 198 28:18–20 215, 216, 224 28:20 215 Mark 1:1 212 1:2–4 262 1:11 212 1:14–15 262 1:15 120, 135, 198, 208, 210, 216, 224 3:14 173 6:4 172 6:15 172 6:34 212 7:14–23 31 8:28 172

22/12/09 12:35:34

index of scripture references 8:29 212, 222, 230 8:31 120, 172, 212 9:2–7 172 9:7 212 10:45 212 10:47 212 12:1–11 172 12:10 213 13:7 217 14:24 262 14:36 212 14:49 211 14:61–62 212 14:62 212 15:34 198 15:39 212 Luke 1:20 209 1:30–35 212 1:32 212 1:53 122 1:69 212 2:4 212 2:11 212 2:26 212 2:32 212 4:21 198, 208, 210 5:36–39 137 7:16 172 7:39 172 9:58 215 11:32 172 12:13–14 215 12:15–21 215 12:48 91 17:2–73 261 18:31 120, 209, 211 22:15–20 172 22:20 215, 262 22:29 239 22:37 209 24:25–27 211 24:44 33, 208, 211 24:45–47 211 24:49 211 John 1:1–18 122, 172, 213

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 359

1:2–3 213 1:14 119, 212 1:18 94 1:29 212 1:34 212 1:36 212 1:41 212 1:45 211 1:49 212 3 215, 224 3:1–8 172 3:13–14 212 3:16 216, 230 5:39 211 5:39–40 91 6:14 213 6:27 212 6:39–40 216 7:42 212 8:12 194 8:58 90 10 91 10:1–18 212 10:10 122, 215 10:27–29 215 12:37–38 211 12:38 212 13:13 212 13:15 176, 189 13:18 211 14:2 124 14:3 216 14:6 227 14:28 216 15:26 211 17:4 209 18:9 209 19:14–16 212 19:28 209 19:36 212 20:22 172 20:25 176 20:30–31 179 20:31 212 21:24 107 Acts 1:8 215, 230 2 215, 224

359 2:5–11 121 2:10 121 2:16 209 2:17 224 2:23 120 2:23–32 211 2:29–31 212 2:29–36 262 2:33 211 2:34–36 212 2:37–47 77 2:44–46 122 3:13 212 3:18 120, 211 3:22 200 3:22–26 213 3:25 262 4:11 213 4:12 229 4:28 120 6:5 121 7:8 262 7:43 176, 178 7:44 176, 178 7:52 262 7:56 212 8:32–35 212 9:15 230 9:22 212 10:42 200 12:25 209 13:5 227 13:14 227 13:16–29 262 13:22–23 211 13:27–29 209 13:27–33 211 13:29 120 13:32–33 209 13:33 212 13:43 121 13:46 227 15 130 15:12–18 262 17:2–3 212 23:25 176 26:6 262 26:23 262

22/12/09 12:35:34

360 Romans 1:1–2 212 1:3 212 1:32 65 3:1–11 229 4 172, 262 4:11–25 228 4:13–25 215 5 – 6 215 5:12–21 172 5:14 175, 176, 178, 183 6:10 212 6:17 176 8:4 209 8:32 212 9 – 11 238, 262 9:3–5 229 9:4 262 9:5 119 9:6–8 229 10:1–13 229 10:4 71, 75, 212 10:9–13 212 11:5 263 11:7 263 11:12–18 227 11:17–32 173 11:23 263 11:26 262 11:27 262 11:32 71 12 – 13 122 12:1 188 14 130 15:4 44 15:8 211 15:12 211, 212 16:25–26 216 1 Corinthians 1:7–8 216 1:24 200, 213 1:30 213 3:16 188 3:21–23 215 5:7 212 7:16 122 8:6 212 10 188

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 360

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e 10:6 175, 176, 178 10:11 44, 175, 176, 178 11:25 215, 262, 263 11:26 216 12:3 212 15:3–4 209, 211 15:12–57 216 15:24–28 120 15:25 212 15:27 212 15:28 72, 122 15:45–49 172 16:22 212, 217 2 Corinthians 1:20 199, 211 3:3 263 3:6 263 3:6–8 263 3:14 25, 263 4:3–6 263 5:17 124, 172, 223 6:2 224 6:10 215 7:1 217 10:3 70 Galatians 3:6–14 262 3:15–18 262 4:22–26 262 1:15–16 91 3 – 4 74 3:14 211 3:16 211 3:22 211 3:22–24 71 3:29 211 4 183 6:16 172, 173, 223, 225 Ephesians 1:13 215 2:11–22 77 2:12 225, 262 3:6 79, 216 6:13 91

Philippians 2:5 189 2:5–8 212 2:9–11 212 3:12–14 217 3:17 176, 178 4 122 Colossians 1:15–18 213 1:15–20 122 1:19 212 2:9 212 2:15 176 3:18–25 122 1 Thessalonians 1:7 176 2:19 216 4:13–18 216 5:23 216 2 Thessalonians 2:1–8 216 3:9 176 1 Timothy 1:16 176, 178 3:16 146 4:12 176 2 Timothy 1:1 216 1:13 176 2:8 212 3:14–17 44 Titus 1:2 216 2:7 176 Hebrews 1:1–2 224 1:2 212 1:2–3 213 1:5 212 3 – 4 216 3:1–6 172 3:2 188

22/12/09 12:35:34

index of scripture references 4:9 192 4:11 176 4:14–16 200 5:5 – 7:28 213 6:6 176 6:11 209 6:11–12 217 6:12–20 263 7:22 263 7:23–28 224 7:27 212, 263 7:28 90, 212 8 – 9 215 8 – 10 238, 263 8:5 176, 178 8:6 224, 263 8:8–12 263 8:13 224 9:4 263 9:11 – 10:14 263 9:12–14 212 9:15–17 263 9:20 263 9:23 176 9:24 176 10:11–14 212 10:16–17 263 10:19–22 215 10:29 263 10:36 217 11 188

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 361

11:8–16 216 11:39–40 210 12:2 212 12:18–24 263 12:26 216 13:5 215 13:20 212 13:20–21 263 James 1:1 173 2:8 209 5:10 176 5:17 178 1 Peter 1:15–16 264 1:19 212 1:19–20 120 2:7 213 2:21 189 2:22–25 212 2:25 212 3:20–21 188 3:21 176, 178 5:3 176, 178 2 Peter 2:6 176 2:15 188

361 3:3–10 216 3:11–13 216 1 John 2:7 137 2:25 216 3:2 124 4:15 212 Jude 7 175 11 188 Revelation 1:13 212 2:14 188 3:14 213 5:6–14 212 6:16–17 216 7:9–17 212 10:7 209 13:8 120 19 216 19:13 213 19:16 200 21 122 21 – 22 216 21:12–14 172, 173 22:16 212 22:20 217

22/12/09 12:35:34

I NDE X O F AU T H O R S

Aageson, J. W., 189 Abraham, W. J., 277 Achtemeier, E., 199, 212, 226, 279 Achtemeier, P. J., 199, 277 Ackroyd, P. R., 28, 99, 223 Adam, A. K. M., 59 Adeyemi, F., 257 ˙ Adeyemo, T., 59 Aichele, G., 58 Akpunonu, P. D., 224 Albl, M. C., 31 Alexander, T. D., 28 Alexeev, A. A, 52 Allbee, R. A., 219 Allen, D. M., 33 Allen, R. J., 52 Allison, D. C., 189 Alonso Schökel, L., 279 Alt, A., 146, 241 Alter, R., 56, 147 Althaus, P., 40 Amsler, S., 24, 33, 54, 156– 160, 179, 182, 183, 185, 199, 213, 272

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 362

Andersen, F. I., 51 Anderson, B. W., 23, 24, 25, 28, 55, 71, 128, 153, 156, 185, 216, 223, 257, 279, 281 Anderson, N., 219 Aquinas, Thomas, 38, 263 Archer, G. L., 32 Armerding, C. E., 147 Ateek, N. S., 57 Augustine of Hippo, 37, 38, 90 Auld, A. G., 280 Auwers, J.-M., 106 Baalen, J. K. van, 137 Bach, A., 57 Bächli, O., 98 Badenas, R., 75 Bahnsen, G. L., 75 Bailey, L. R., 280 Bainton, R. H., 39 Baird, W., 223 Baker, D. L., 33, 145, 169, 233, 236, 237, 279, 280

Baldermann, I., 106, 280 Balthasar, H. Urs von, 170 Baltzer, K., 239 Baron, D., 137 Barr, J., 24, 55, 58, 71, 93, 103, 104, 105, 122, 124, 128, 131–132, 134, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 160, 164, 170, 181, 199, 238, 241, 269, 277, 280, 281 Barrera, J. T., 32, 35 Barstad, H. M., 28 Barth, C., 151, 152 Barth, K., 51, 74, 87, 97–98, 100, 130, 131, 170, 271, 279 Barth, M., 95, 227 Bartholomew, C. G., 58, 73, 106, 134, 146, 147, 279, 280 Barton, J., 36, 37, 42, 55, 56, 57, 104, 106, 279 Bauckham, R. J., 29, 162

22/12/09 12:35:35

index of authors Bauer, J. B., 280 Baumgärtel, F. B., 53, 54, 79–83, 85, 93, 94, 95, 170, 195–196, 197, 268 Bayes, J. F., 75 Beale, G. K., 32, 280 Bear, J. E., 137 Beauchamp, P., 95 Bebbington, D., 73 Béchard, D. P., 184 Beck, J. T., 142 Becker, J., 28 Beckett, M., 189 Beckwith, R. T., 106, 164 Beker, J. C., 280 Bellis, A. O., 281 Bengel, J. A., 43, 142, 263 Bennett, W. H., 47 Berding, K., 32 Berkhof, H., 227 Berkhof, L., 179, 183 Berkouwer, G. C., 199 Bernard of Clairvaux, 38 Berry, A., 37 Betz, H. D., 161 Beyerlin, W., 149 Birch, B. C., 277 Blackman, E. C., 36 Blaising, C. A., 224 Bloomquist, D., 75 Bock, D. L., 32, 224 Bockmuehl, M., 75 Boff, L., & C., 56 Bogaert, P.-M., 257 Bokedal, T., 106 Bonhoeffer, D., 51, 123, 124, 128 Bonner, G., 38 Bornkamm, H., 40 Borsch, F. H., 29 Boulton, W. G., 219 Boyd, R. F., 137 Boyd, R. H. S., 52, 95 Bozzo, E. G., 179 Braaten, C. E., 160 Branson, M. L., 57, 154, 186 Braulik, G., 74 Brawley, A., 281 Bray, G., 36, 38, 39, 42

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 363

363 Brett, M. G., 104 Bright, J., 24, 26, 27, 30, 49, 50, 54, 93, 96, 99, 120, 121, 125, 129, 146, 181, 222, 231, 234–235, 264, 274, 277, 279, 280 Bright, P., 38 Brown, D., 37 Brown, R. E., 184, 185, 277 Bruce, F. F., 24, 31, 78, 106, 125, 199, 212, 213, 233, 280 Brueggemann, W., 25, 56, 57, 58, 98, 104, 107, 132, 133– 134, 136, 145, 153, 202, 216, 223, 229, 268, 270, 277, 279, 280 Brunner, E., 51, 94, 194 Buber, M., 76 Buchanan, G. W., 189 Budic, S., 189 Buis, P., 28, 264 Bultmann, R., 25, 27, 48, 53, 55, 63–78, 82, 85, 92, 109, 133, 144, 145, 156, 177, 196, 197, 234, 268, 269, 280 Burdett, D., 151 Buren, P. M. van, 229, 230 Burge, G. M., 229 Burnett, R. E., 98 Burney, C. F., 53 Burns, R. J., 189 Burrows, M., 279 Busch, R. J. van den, 259 Cahill, L. S., 277 Cahill, P. J., 189 Caird, G. B., 120 Calderone, P. J., 239 Calmet, A., 182 Calvin, J., 39, 40, 43, 263 Campbell, R., 225 Campbell, W. S., 222, 261 Campenhausen, H. von, 36, 37, 106 Candler, P. M., Jr., 38 Caragounis, C. C., 29

Carey, J. J., 29 Carpenter, J. E., 42 Carroll, R. P., 58, 257 Carroll Rodas, M. D., 28, 57, 277 Carson, D. A., 32, 33, 233 Carter, C. S., 39 Cazelles, H., 78 Černý, L., 27 Chalmers, A., 240 Chandler, A. R., 51 Chapman, C., 189, 229 Chapman, S. B., 106 Charlesworth, J. H., 29 Chenchiah, P., 52 Childs, B. S., 24, 33, 37, 38, 40, 42, 49, 55, 58, 75, 100– 106, 106, 107, 133, 134, 135, 150, 152, 163, 164, 227, 261, 271, 280, 281 Chilton, B., 125 Chirichigno, G. C., 32 Chiu, A., 75 Cholewiński, A., 245 Christ, F., 151 Christensen, D. L., 165 Christian Conference of Asia, 56 Chrysostom, 37 Ciampa, R. E., 151 Clark, K. W., 226 Clavier, H., 280 Clement of Alexandria, 37 Clements, R. E., 26, 27, 28, 30, 97, 105, 150, 231, 232, 277 Clines, D. J. A., 56, 58, 129, 201, 202, 254 Cobb, J. B., 160 Cocceius, J., 43 Collins, J. J., 29, 280 Commission Biblique Pontificale, 224 Congar, Y. M. J., 93 Cook, S. L., 26, 29 Coppens, J., 28, 97, 185 Cosgrove, C. H., 277 Cranfield, C. E. B., 263

22/12/09 12:35:35

364 Crehan, F. J., 41, 42, 49 Crenshaw, J. L., 120, 145 Croatto, J. S., 151 Cronk, G., 280 Cross, F. M., 241 Crüsemann, F., 74 Cullmann, O., 71, 94, 127, 139, 156, 214, 233 Cummins, S. A., 59, 271 Cunningham, M. K., 98 Currid, J. D., 189 Cyril of Alexandria, 37 Dahl, N. A., 78 Dalferth, I. U., 95 Dance, D., 75, 145 Daniélou, J., 35, 37, 189 Dassmann, E., 28 Daube, D., 185 Davidson, A. B., 47, 182, 183 Davidson, R., 264 Davidson, R. M., 174, 177, 180 Davies, G. H., 146, 149 Davies, P. R., 26, 153 Davies, W. D., 202, 216, 222, 227 Davis, D. R., 249 Davis, L. A., 98 Day, J., 153 Delitzsch, Franz, 42, 44 Delitzsch, Friedrich, 49, 50 Dempster, S. G., 28, 147 Dever, W. G., 153 Dickens, W. T., 184 Diem, H., 97 Diétrich, S. de, 97 Dietrich, W., 189 Dillenberger, J., 71 Dimitrov, I. Z., 24, 95 Dockery, D. S., 35 Dodd, C. H., 31, 32, 74, 156, 192–193, 213, 214, 215, 220, 223, 274 Dohmen, C., 24 Donahue, J. R., 280 Dorman, T. M., 156 Doukhan, J. B., 224 Drane, J. W., 189

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 364

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e Driver, S. R., 45 Dube, M. W., 59 Duggan, M. W., 254 Duling, D. C., 125 Dumbrell, W. J., 29, 240, 259, 261, 264, 280 Dunn, J. D. G., 233 Durham, J. I., 99 Dussel, E., 125 Dyrness, W. A., 280 Ebeling, G., 280 Edwards, D. L., 277 Ehrhardt, A., 78 Eichrodt, W., 26, 30, 51, 96, 120, 122, 145, 146, 153, 155, 181, 194–195, 201, 238, 241, 280 Eldredge, L., 279 Elliott, M. W., 104, 279, 281 Ellis, E. E., 32, 33, 189 Ellison, H. L., 28, 189, 220 Ellul, J., 106, 280 Elmslie, W. A. L., 53 Enns, P., 277 Escobar, S., 95 Estep, W. R., 41 Eusebius, 37 Evans, C. A., 32, 164 Evans, E., 37 Everson, A. J., 27 Ewer, W. N., 229 Eynde, S. van den, 239 Fabiny, Tibor, 189 Fairbairn, P., 171 Fee, G. D., 279 Feinberg, J. S., 236 Feiner, J., 151 Felber, S., 97 Fensham, F. C., 264 Ferch, A. J., 29 Ferguson, D. S., 279 Fernández, A., 184 Festorazzi, F., 124 Fiedler, P., 224 Fierro, A., 121, 186 Filson, F. V., 52, 93 Fiorenza, E. S., 57

Firth, D. G., 56 Fitzmyer, J. A., 32, 263 Flannery, A., 184 Florovsky, G., 96, 181, 214 Focant, C., 75 Fohrer, G., 95 Ford, D. F., 98 Forde, G. O., 40 Förster, W., 220 Forstman, H. J., 40 Foulkes, F., 123, 171 Fowl, S. E., 58, 104, 106– 108, 277 France, R. T., 31, 181, 199, 211, 214 Freed, E. D., 33 Frei, H. W., 42, 147 Fretheim, T. E., 75, 124, 241, 242, 249, 257, 260 Frisque, J., 156 Fritsch, C. T., 42, 170, 178, 183 Froehlich, K., 35 Frye, N., 189 Fuliga, J. B., 57 Fuller, D. P., 75, 155, 160 Funk, R. W., 29 Gabler, J., 279 Galloway, A. D., 160 Gamble, H. Y., 106 Gehman, H. S., 257 Gese, H., 104, 107, 163–164, 165 Getui, M. N., 59 Gilkey, L. B., 156 Glen, J. S., 95 Glenny, W. E., 189 Glover, W. B., 42 Gnuse, R., 132, 277 Goba, B., 56 Goheen, M. W., 147, 280 Goldingay, J., 73, 74, 78, 95, 106, 124, 134–137, 149, 150, 151, 163, 164, 181, 224, 231, 233, 260, 269, 270, 277, 279, 280 Goldsworthy, G. L., 125, 151, 279, 280

22/12/09 12:35:35

index of authors Goppelt, L., 31, 155, 172–173, 175, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 280 Goshen-Gottstein, M. H., 281 Gosse, B., 257 Gottwald, N. K., 57 Goulder, M. D., 189 Gowan, D. E., 27, 220, 279 Grabbe, L. L., 153 Grant, F. C., 221 Grant, J. A., 56, 260 Grant, R. M., 35, 38, 39, 42, 172, 184 Grässer, E., 165 Gray, J., 27, 125 Grech, P., 36 Green, G., 56 Green, G. L., 277 Green, J. B., 277 Greenspoon, L., 31 Greer, R. A., 35, 37 Greidanus, S., 279 Greig, A. J., 145, 151 Grelot, P., 49 Gressmann, H., 26, 28 Gribomont, J., 38 Grin, E., 40 Groenen, C., 151 Grogan, G. W., 124, 189 Groningen, G. van, 28 Gross, H., 28, 199, 255 Gross, W., 264 Groves, J. W., 154 Gudorf, C. E., 57 Guhrt, J., 239 Gundry, R. H., 32 Gundry, S. N., 179 Gunkel, H., 26, 241 Gunn, D. M., 56 Gunneweg, A. H. J., 24, 84–85, 124, 125, 151, 163, 164 Guthrie, D., 164, 212 Gutiérrez, G., 56, 124, 151, 161, 162, 185, 215 Haacker, K., 280 Haenchen, E., 214

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 365

365 Hafemann, S. J., 165, 260, 280 Hagen, K., 40 Hagner, D. A., 36 Hahn, S. W., 260, 264 Hals, R. M., 74 Hamm, B., 78 Hanks, T. D., 56, 121, 224 Hanson, A. T., 32, 33, 95, 170 Hanson, P. D., 29, 78, 156, 186, 232, 280 Hanson, R. P. C., 35, 37 Harder, J. G., 160 Harnack, A. von, 36, 49, 50 Harrelson, W. J., 248 Harrington, D. J., 93, 99, 156, 185, 224, 226 Harrington, W. J., 230, 280 Harris, J. R., 31 Harrisville, R. A., 42, 44, 71, 104 Hart, T., 277 Hartley, J. E., 189 Harvey, J., 145 Hasel, G. F., 28, 147, 153, 156, 165, 235, 280 Hauser, A. J., 38, 39 Hay, D. M., 35, 223 Hayes, J. H., 42, 99, 145, 156, 233 Hays, J. D., 280 Hays, R. B., 33 Hebert, A. G., 28, 54, 170, 277 Heinisch, P., 49 Heintze, G., 40 Hellbardt, H., 51, 97 Hellholm, D., 29 Helm, P., 277 Helmer, C., 106, 280 Helyer, L. R., 281 Hengel, M., 31, 151 Hengstenberg, E. W., 44 Hensley, J., 42 Herion, G. A., 238, 239 Hermisson, H. J., 95 Herntrich, V., 97 Hertzberg, H. W., 93

Hess, R. S., 28 Hesse, F., 83–84, 85, 151, 153 Hesselink, I. J., 40, 75 Hicks, R. L., 156 Higgins, A. J. B., 53 Hill, D., 124 Hillers, D. R., 239 Hirsch, E., 75, 79 Hobbes, T., 43, 138 Hoekema, A. A., 137, 214 Hoesl, M., 125 Hofius, O., 75 Hofmann, J. C. K. von, 44, 68, 142, 151, 196 Holmén, T., 264 Holmgren, F. C., 255 Holter, K., 59 Holwerda, D. E., 75, 216, 224, 263 Hommes, T. G., 125 Honecker, M., 145 Hooke, S. H., 170 Hooker, M. D., 235 Horbury, W., 28, 35 Horst, F., 227 Hossfeld, F.-L., 28, 280 House, P. R., 27 Hubbard, D. A., 27 Hübner, H., 280 Huffmon, H. B., 149, 225 Hugenberger, G. P., 189 Hugh of St. Victor, 38 Hummel, H. D., 172, 178 Hyatt, J. P., 149 Irenaeus, 36, 37 Jacob, E., 26, 27, 54, 93, 98–99, 129, 131, 271 Janowski, B., 279, 280 Janzen, W., 41, 186 Jaspert, B., 280 Jaubert, A., 264 Jenni, E., 26 Jensen, J., 199 Jeremias, J., 28, 31, 120, 214 Jerome, 37 Jewett, P. K., 181, 189, 263 Jewett, R., 263

22/12/09 12:35:35

366 Jobes, K. H., 31 Jobling, D., 58 Jocz, J., 222, 226, 264 Jodock, D., 277 John, E. C., 52 Johnson, R. F., 28 Johnson, S. L., 189, 277 Johnson, W. S., 98 Johnston, O. R., 42 Johnston, P., 202, 229 Johnston, R. K., 277 Jones, L. G., 277 Jonge, H. J. de, 106 Jonge, M. de, 28 Joosten, J., 264 Juel, D. H., 32, 95 Justin Martyr, 36, 37, 225 Kaestli, J.-D., 106 Kairos Theologians, 56 Kaiser, W. C., 28, 32, 199, 255, 277, 279 Kalimi, I., 281 Kalluveettil, P., 238, 240 Kaminsky, J. S., 281 Kannengiesser, C., 36, 38 Kant, I., 43 Karakolis, C., 36 Karlberg, M. W., 189 Karlstadt, A. B. von, 39 Karman, Y., 224 Käsemann, E. Kearsley, R., 37 Keeney, W. E., 41 Kegley, C. W., 71 Kelly, J. N. D., 35, 216 Kelsey, D. H., 98, 156, 277 Kenik, H. A., 248 Kent, C. F., 47 Kerrigan, A., 37 Kidd, B. J., 41 Kim, W., 56 Kinzig, W., 25 Kirk, J. A., 56, 125, 154, 161, 185, 224 Kirkpatrick, A. F., 44–45, 48 Kisirinya, S. K., 238 Kittel, B., 102 Klausner, J., 28

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 366

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e Klein, G., 125 Knierim, R. P., 26, 279, 280 Knight, D. A., 150, 164, 271 Knight, G. A. F., 54, 75, 99 Koch, K., 29, 161 Koester, C. R., 33 Köhler, L., 79, 93 Kort, W. A., 147 Kowalski, B., 184 Kraeling, E. G., 39, 42, 49, 50, 51, 93, 96 Kraftchick, S. J., 280 Kraus, H.-J., 39, 40, 42, 54, 164, 280 Krentz, E., 42 Kugel, J. L., 35 Kümmel, W. G., 214, 216 Küng, H., 224, 225, 229, 230 Kuske, M., 51 Kutsch, E., 238, 241 Ladd, G. E., 125, 153, 155, 214, 216 Lambrecht, J., 184 Lampe, G. W. H., 170, 178, 181 Landmesser, C., 106, 233 Langley, M., 162 Laniak, T. S., 280 Lapsley, J. E., 277 Larcher, C., 97, 199 LaRondelle, H. K., 225, 229 LaSor, W. S., 185 Laurin, R. B., 99 Lawson, J., 37 Leal, R. B., 280 Leclercq, J., 38 Leenhardt, F. J., 232 Leeuwen, C. van, 27 Leffler, S., 50 Legarth, P. V., 189 Leiman, S. Z., 164 Leith, J. H., 40 Lemche, N. P., 153 Lemke, W. E., 156, 257 Leo XIII, Pope, 49 LeRoux, J., 59 Lessing, G. E., 43 Levenson, J. D., 281

Lewis, J. P., 164 Lierman, J., 33 Light, G. W., 258 Limbeck, M., 75 Lincoln, A. T., 59 Lindars, B., 32 Lindbeck, G. A., 104 Lischer, R., 147 Litwak, K. D., 33 Loades, A., 57 Loccum Report, 138 Lochman, J. M., 75 Lofthouse, W. F., 257 Lohfink, N. L., 57, 239, 248, 255, 264 Löhrer, M., 151 Long, B. O., 56 Long, V. P., 153 Longenecker, R. N., 32 Loretz, O., 160 Loughlin, G., 58 Lubac, H. de, 38, 185 Lucas, E. C., 239 Lundbom, J. R., 257 Lunde, J., 32 Lundin, R., 279 Luther, M., 39–40, 50, 73 Lutheran World Federation, 228 Lys, D., 181 McCarthy, D. J., 239, 264 McComiskey, T. E., 203, 264 McConville, J. G., 238, 258 McCurley, F. R., 199, 280 McDonald, B. A., 37 McDonald, L. M., 25, 106 McEvenue, S. E., 101, 105 McFadyen, J. E., 48, 75, 219–220 McGlasson, P. C., 104 McKane, W., 25, 30, 264 McKenzie, J. L., 49, 71, 184, 199 McKenzie, S. L., 241 McKim, D. K., 35, 39, 42, 48, 277 McKnight, E. V., 58 McLay, R. T., 31

22/12/09 12:35:35

index of authors McNally, R. E., 38 McNamara, M., 222 Macquarrie, J., 72 Maier, G., 42, 73, 277, 279 Main, E., 255 Malamat, A., 153 Marcion, 36–37, 43, 49, 50, 52, 53, 63, 78, 84, 87, 96, 268, 276 Marcus, R. A., 189 Marlé, R., 78 Marquardt, F. W., 76 Marshall, I. H., 277, 279 Martens, E. A., 78, 155, 202, 280 Martin, B. L., 219 Martin, F., 184 Martin-Achard, R., 120, 145 Mason, S. D., 256 Matthews, I. G., 51 Matthews, V. H., 153 Mattox, M. L., 40 Mauser, U., 129 Mayes, A. D. H., 57 Mays, J. L., 29, 65 Mbiti, J. S., 52, 138 Mead, J. K., 281 Megivern, J. J., 41, 49, 184 Melanchthon, P., 39 Melugin, R. F., 105 Mendenhall, G. E., 238, 239, 241 Menken, M. J. J., 33 Menninger, R. E., 224 Michalson, C., 71, 74, 78 Mihoc, V., 28 Mildenberger, F., 95, 178 Milgrom, J., 260 Millard, A. R., 153 Miller, P. D., 264 Minear, P. S., 279 Miskotte, K. H., 54, 76, 122, 127–131, 132, 133, 135, 178, 227, 261, 269, 270 Miskotte, H. H., 184 Moberly, R. W. L., 106, 147, 223 Moltmann, J., 47, 48, 122,

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 367

367 124, 148, 160, 162, 199, 201, 272 Moo, D. J., 185, 263 Moon, B., 40 Moorehead, W. G., 182, 183 Morgan, R., 42, 56, 57, 279 Morrice, W. G., 264 Morris, L., 29, 120, 280 Mosala, I., 56 Motyer, J. A., 95 Motyer, S., 224 Moule, C. F. D., 209 Mouw, R. J., 224 Mowinckel, S., 26, 28, 241 Moyise, S., 32, 33 Muilenburg, J., 56, 239 Mulzac, K., 257 Murphy, R. E., 154, 199, 233, 280, 281 Murray, S., 41 Muutuki, J., 238 Muzorewa, G. H., 138 Nardoni, E., 280 Nash, R. H., 73 Nassif, B., 37 Neef, H.-D., 264 Neil, W., 42 Neusner, J., 222 Nicholas of Lyra, 38 Nicholson, E. W., 78, 149, 238, 239, 241 Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 29 Nicolaisen, C., 49, 51 Nielsen, J. T., 37 Niemöller, W., 51 Niles, D. P., 56, 147 Nineham, D. E., 277 Ninow, F., 189 Nixon, R. E., 128, 185 Noble, P. R., 104 Norris, R. A., Jr, 37, 38 North, R., 73 Noth, M., 24, 54, 146, 150, 154, 222, 241 Obbink, H. W., 97 Ocker, C., 38 O’Collins, G. G., 160

Oden, R. A., 264 Oeming, M., 24, 85, 104, 122, 145, 161, 165 Ogletree, T. W., 277 O’Hare, D. M., 29 Öhler, M., 33 O’Keefe, J. J., 36 Ollenburger, B. C., 279 Olson, D. T., 245, 281 O’Malley, T. P., 37 Origen, 37 Orr, J., 48 Osborne, G. R., 32, 57, 279, 280 Ottley, R. L., 45–46, 48 Otto, E., 59 Paddison, A., 59 Padilla, C. R., 57, 154, 186 Pannenberg, W., 106, 145, 146, 151, 152, 153, 160–162, 170, 199, 272 Parker, T. H. L., 40 Parrish, V. S., 134 Pate, C. M., 147, 280 Patton, F. L., 48 Pelikan, J., 40 Penchansky, D., 132 Peppard, M., 52 Perdue, L. G., 57, 58, 59, 104, 124, 134, 150, 156, 280 Perlitt, L., 75, 241 Perrin, N., 214 Peter, J., 151 Petersen, D. L., 26 Phillips, G. E., 52 Phythian-Adams, W. J. T., 75, 155, 170 Pierson, A. T., 48 Pinçon, B., 257 Pius XII, Pope, 184 Pixley, J. V., 57 Plöger, O., 124 Pöhlmann, Horst G., 170 Polak, F. H., 260 Polman, A. D. R., 38 Poorthuis, M., 78

22/12/09 12:35:35

368 Porteous, N. W., 28, 93, 94, 95, 199 Porter, S. E., 28, 32, 33, 264 Potter, H. D., 260 Powery, E. B., 31 Premsagar, P. V., 202 Preus, C., 42 Preus, J. S., 38, 40 Preuss, H. D., 25, 26 Procksch, O., 51, 97 Provan, I., 153 Prudlo, D. S., 41 Prussner, F. C., 42, 99, 145, 156, 233 Puckett, D. L., 40 Rad, G. von, 25, 27, 29, 30, 48, 51, 53, 54, 79, 97, 107, 122, 128, 129, 139–145, 156, 159, 160, 161, 162, 169, 170, 171, 177, 187, 197, 216, 230, 234, 255, 272, 280 Rashi, 39 Rata, T., 257 Ratheiser, G. M. H., 42, 97, 99, 104, 134, 145, 279, 281 Rehm, M., 28 Rendtorff, R., 95, 104, 124, 160, 161, 239, 244, 257, 264, 280, 281 Rendtorff, T., 160 Reno, R. R., 36, 37 Reumann, J., 233, 280 Reventlow, H. G., 42, 97, 165, 185, 189, 199, 224, 280 Rhodes, A. B., 99 Richardson, A., 42, 49, 71, 73, 151 Richardson, P., 120, 225 Riches, J. K., 106, 222, 280 Ricoeur, P., 71 Ringgren, H., 28, 248 Robertson, O. P., 199, 224, 240, 242 Robinson, B. P., 255, 261 Robinson, H. W., 127

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 368

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e Robinson, J. A. T., 214 Robinson, J. M., 71, 73, 160, 161, 185 Rofé, Alexander, 245 Rogers, J. B., 35, 39, 42, 48 Rogerson, J. W., 42 Röhr, H., 179 Roo, J. C. R. de, 264 Roo, W. A. van, 202, 212 Rosenberg, A., 50 Rosenzweig, F., 227 Rosner, B. S., 33 Rost, L., 150 Rottenberg, I. C., 73 Rowland, C., 29, 106, 222 Rowley, H. H., 27, 28, 54, 120, 170, 193–194, 230, 232, 274, 280 Ruler, A. A. van, 54, 94, 109–127, 128, 129, 132, 135, 136, 137, 143, 170, 226, 234, 269, 270, 276 Rupp, E. G., 50 Russell, D. S., 29, 220 Russell, S. H., 40 Sabourin, L., 97 Sailhamer, J. H., 28 Sanders, E. P., 222, 264 Sanders, J. A., 32, 52, 75, 106, 164, 189, 231 Sandmel, S., 221–222 Sandy, D. B., 29 Sandys-Wunsch, J., 279 Satterthwaite, P. E., 28 Sauter, G., 161, 178, 199 Scalise, C. J., 277 Scharleman, M. H., 184 Schenker, A., 257 Schleiermacher, F., 43, 44, 49 Schmid, H. H., 124, 164 Schmid, J. H., 85, 165 Schmidt, L., 79, 145 Schneider, T., 106 Schniewind, J., 199 Schofield, J. N., 227 Schönemann, E., 260 Schreiner, T. R., 75 Schröger, F., 33

Schütte, H. W., 42 Schwartz, J., 78 Schwarzwäller, K., 155 Schweitzer, A., 214, 215 Scobie, C. H. H., 28, 78, 97, 280 Seebass, H., 280 Seeligmann, I. L., 30 Segal, A. F., 222 Segal, M. H., 249 Segundo, J. L., 24, 121, 224 Seitz, C. R., 25, 58, 59, 95, 104, 106–108, 145, 164, 174, 271 Sellin, E., 50 Sharp, J. R., 189 Sheppard, G. T., 104 Shires, H. M., 32 Shorter, A., 52 Shotwell, W. A., 37 Sick, H. J., 39 Sider, R. J., 39 Siegwalt, G., 74 Siker, J. S., 33 Silva, M., 31, 279 Simundson, D. J., 280 Sloyan, G. S., 75 Smalley, B., 38 Smart, J. D., 170, 198, 199, 232, 279, 280 Smend, R., I, 26 Smend, R., II, 42, 124, 145, 239 Smith, G. A., 47 Smith, J., 189 Smith, J. E., 28 Smith, T. L., 42 Smith, W. R., 42 Söding, T., 24 Soggin, J. A., 153, 246, 264 Sommer, B. D., 280 Song, C. S., 147 Sovik, A., 52 Sparks, H. F. D., 37 Spinoza, B., 43 Spriggs, D. G., 145, 151, 153 Stamm, J. J., 120, 121

22/12/09 12:35:35

index of authors Stanley, C. D., 33 Stauffer, E., 155 Steck, K. G., 151, 171 Steck, O. H., 120 Stek, J. H., 171 Stemberger, G., 28, 106 Stendahl, K., 32 Sternberg, M., 56 Stevenson, W. T., 160 Stiewe, M., 42 Stott, J. R. W., 277 Strecker, G., 165 Strickland, W. G., 75 Stroup, G. W., 147 Struppe, U., 28 Stuart, D., 279 Stuermann, W. E., 138 Stuhlhofer, F., 106 Stuhlmacher, P., 42, 75, 106, 107, 163–164, 165, 280 Sugirtharajah, R. S., 57 Suhl, A., 32 Sundberg, A. C., 35, 106, 163 Sundberg, W., 42, 44, 71, 104 Surburg, R. F., 78 Sutcliffe, E. F., 185 Swartley, W. M., 41, 277 Sweeney, M. A., 281 Swetnam, J., 259, 260 Tan Kim Huat, 239 Tanenbaum, M. H., 228 Tanner, E. S., 50 Taylor, H., 226 Tcherikover, V., 220 Terrien, S., 280 Tertullian, 37 Theissen, G., 57 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 37 Theodoret, 37 Thielicke, H., 75, 93, 95, 96, 98 Thielman, F. S., 75, 219 Thiselton, A. C., 73, 279 Thomas, T. G., 122 Thompson, T. L., 153

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 369

369 Toombs, L. E., 124 Torrance, T. F., 38 Tracy, D., 35, 38, 39, 42, 172, 184 Travis, S., 214 Trebolle, J., 106, 164 Treier, D. J., 59 Trembath, K. R., 277 Trench, R. C., 177 Trible, P., 57 Trigg, J., 25, 36, 37 Troeltsch, E., 152 Trueman, C. R., 277 Tsevat, M., 281 Tupper, E. F., 160 Ukpong, J. S., 59 Valerio, K. de, 71 Vanhoozer, K. J., 59, 279 Vannoy, J. R., 250 Vaux, R. de, 95, 97, 146 Vawter, B., 185 Verhoef, P. A., 189 Vermes, G., 221 Vidler, A. R., 49 Vischer, W., 51, 53, 71, 87–97, 98, 99, 100, 109, 129, 130, 131, 175, 212, 234, 271, 272 Visser, D., 240 Voegelin, E., 71, 73 Vogels, W., 264 Volz, P., 26 Vos, G., 279 Vriezen, T. C., 26, 27, 48, 54, 76, 122, 123, 124, 125, 129, 130, 149, 227, 230, 231, 234, 274 Wainwright, A., 95 Walker, P. W. L., 202, 229 Wallis, W. B., 255 Waltke, B. K., 281 Watson, D. F., 38, 39 Watson, F., 37, 42, 50, 57, 58, 71, 75, 104, 106, 107, 108, 145, 279, 280

Weber, H.-R., 165, 241, 280 Weinandy, T. G., 38 Weinfeld, M., 28, 238, 239, 264 Weippert, H., 257 Welch, A. C., 53, 255 Welker, M., 279, 280 Wellhausen, J., 124, 241 Wells, J. B., 78 Wells, P. R., 132 Wenger, J. C., 41 Wenham, G. J., 75, 145, 152, 178, 203, 277 Wenham, J. W., 31 Wermelinger, O., 106 Wesley, J., 43 West, G. O., 57, 59 Westcott, B. F., 47, 48, 191– 192, 193, 201 Westerholm, S., 219 Westermann, C., 24, 54, 71, 72, 77, 79, 124, 145, 195, 197–198, 198, 202, 280 Weth, R., 78 Wharton, J. A., 102 Whitelam, K. W., 57, 153 Whitley, C. F., 30 Wiener, P. F., 50 Wiesemann, H., 225 Wifall, W., 189 Wijk-Bos, J. W. H. van, 52, 147 Wilckens, U., 160 Wilder, A. N., 122 Wiles, M. F., 37 Wilken, R. L., 229 Willi, T., 42 Williams, G. H., 41 Williams, M. D., 257, 261 Williamson, C. M., 52 Williamson, H. G. M., 28, 32, 33, 254 Williamson, P. R., 224, 240, 248, 257, 258, 261 Williamson, P. S., 184 Willis, W., 125 Wilson, A. I., 260 Wilson, R. R., 57, 277

22/12/09 12:35:35

370 Wilson, T. A., 75 Wingren, G., 75 Wirth, G., 261 Wolf, H. H., 40 Wolff, H. W., 51, 54, 122, 126, 139, 145, 170, 173–174, 189, 273 Wolfzorn, E. E. Wolter, M., 106 Wood, A. S., 40 Wood, J. E., 189, 273

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 370

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e Woodbridge, J. D., 35, 42 Woollcombe, K. J., 179, 183 Wright, C. J. H., 31, 36, 40, 41, 186, 189, 219, 277, 280 Wright, G. E., 54, 71, 73, 146, 152, 156, 182 Wright, N. T., 263 Wyrtzen, D. B., 258 Yarchin, W., 36, 38 Yewangoe, A. A., 186

Young, F. M., 37 Young, N. J., 71, 73 Zachman, R. C., 40, 73 Zaman, L., 106–108 Zenger, E., 264 Zimmerli, W., 25, 26, 27, 28, 54, 65, 74, 76, 97, 150, 152, 165, 196, 197, 202, 209, 255

22/12/09 12:35:35

I N D E X O F S U B JE C T S

Abijam, 251 Abimelech, 240 Abner, 240 Abraham, 33, 90, 120, 146, 171, 172, 178, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 209, 211, 215, 217, 223, 226, 228, 230, 240, 241, 242‒243, 248, 254, 275, 276 Achan, 250 Acts, 33, 211, 213, 262 actualization, 54, 140‒141, 154‒155, 272 Adam first, 183, 240 second, 172, 183 Africa, 52, 138 Ahab, 251 Ahaz, 253 allegory, allegorical interpretation, 37‒38, 84, 93, 115, 170, 180, 181, 183, 268, 272, 273 Amon, 253 Amos, 91 Anabaptists, 41 analogy, 94, 143, 148, 152, 170, 173‒174, 187‒188, 273 ancient Near East, 173, 177, 239, 240 anthropomorphism, 129 anti-Semitism, 50, 53, 79

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 371

antithesis, 79 apocalyptic, 29, 152, 161‒162, 195, 207, 208, 267, 272 Apostolic Fathers, 36 Asa, 251 atavism, 108 Athaliah, 252 atonement, 114, 119, 120, 123 authority of Old Testament, 31, 82, 234, 276‒277 Barnabas, letter of, 172, 173 Bathsheba, 179 beginning and completion, 194 Bible, use of, 277 biblical theology, see theology ‘Biblical Theology Movement’, 280 Biblischer Kommentar, 54, 102, 109, 196‒198 blessing, 26, 80, 83, 96, 120, 192, 202, 203, 207 British-Israelism, 137 canon, 84‒85, 89, 119, 163, 233, 235, 270‒271 canonical approach, 55, 100‒106 canonical form, see text

22/12/09 12:35:35

372

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

centre of Bible, 95, 98, 130, 272, 273, 281 of history, 113, 116, 126, 157, 193 of New Testament, 140, 156, 231 of Old Testament, 233 Christ, see Jesus Christ, Messiah Christianity, see Judaism and Christianity Christological interpretation, 82, 94‒95, 122, 124, 185, 213, 271 Christology, 82, 95, 98, 227, 271 church Fathers, 36‒38, 96, 181, 182, 185 climax, 46, 112, 156, 159, 198, 225, 272 concepts, 44, 46, 47, 69, 83, 118, 125, 233 Confessing Church, 50 conservatism, 44, 48‒49 consummation, 45, 113, 173, 194, 197, 208, 213‒217, 232, 274 continuation, 51, 163, 220, 234 continuity, 37, 101‒102, 104, 141, 147, 163, 170, 173 and discontinuity, 142‒143, 219‒236, 274‒275 contrast, 39‒40, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 141, 270 convergence, 165 correspondence, 141, 143, 170‒171, 172, 173, 179, 181, 183, 199, 273 covenant, 40, 69, 74, 77, 125, 174, 204, 237‒264, 275‒276 breaking and renewal, 248‒255 confirmation, 243‒247 and prophecy, 255‒268 and worship, 247‒248 ‘covenant formula’, 239 covenants, in Old Testament, 239‒242 creation and salvation, 116, 123‒124, 128, 161, 183, 270, 273 creeds, 149, 151

devaluation of Old Testament, 49 developmental approach, 44‒49, 53, 64‒65, 107, 268 discontinuity, see continuity and discontinuity diversity, 39, 219, 230‒236, 274‒275 dualism, 29, 36, 37

D-Day, 214 Daniel, 29 David, 91, 150, 171, 172, 179, 182, 188, 198, 205‒206, 208, 209‒210, 211, 213, 217, 240 Day of the Lord, 27‒28, 31, 125, 140, 211, 213 descendants, promise of, 204, 206, 207, 215 design, God’s, 182 Deuteronomic history, 171, 197, 245 Deuteronomy, 154, 204, 205

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 372

early church, 35‒38, 133 earthly and spiritual, 122 Ecclesiastes, 152 ‘economy’ of salvation, 142 Elijah, 178, 251‒252 Elisha, 178 emergency measure, 116, 122 end, 140, 150, 155, 160, 161, 163, 192, 220, 234 of law, 65, 74, 113, 212 of Old Testament, 93, 197, 235 of salvation history, 69, 83 of time, 72, 90, 142, 156, 157, 158, 217 eschatologization, 118 eschatology, 26‒29, 64, 67‒71, 83, 118, 125, 162, 195, 267 consistent, 214 inaugurated, 214 realized, 193, 214 essential Bible, 63‒85, 109‒138, 268 eternal life, 96, 215, 216 ethics, 219, 277 example, 93, 175‒176, 183, 184, 185‒188, 273 exegesis, 93, 154, 181, 187 existence, existential approach, 65‒67, 72, 73, 80, 96, 151, 153, 268 Exodus, book of, 102, 204, 243 exodus, the, 56, 121, 128, 149, 154, 162, 165, 172, 184, 185‒186, 188, 204, 257; see also new exodus expectation, 26‒30, 129, 197, 199, 210, 267 Ezekiel, 144, 174, 183, 268 Ezra, 254 facticity, 80, 83 failure, 48, 144, 210, 268 faith, 66, 67, 71, 76, 80, 92, 110, 111, 135, 171, 205, 210, 217, 230, 234 fanciful interpretation, 93, 170, 171, 181, 183, 272, 273 final form, see text First Testament, 25, 137

22/12/09 12:35:35

index of subjects focus, 123, 195, 233 foundation, 117 fulfilment 33‒34, 66, 93, 116, 120, 140, 143, 144, 155, 157, 158‒159, 208‒217, 220, 267; see also promise and fulfilment, prophecy and fulfilment without consummation, 213‒217 ‘fuller meaning’, 183‒184 Fundamentalism, 48 future, 24‒30, 140, 150, 158, 183, 197, 199, 214, 217, 267 futurity, 80 Genesis, 203–205, 245 ‘genuinely historical’, 65, 73 globalization, 59 glossary, 117, 126, 127, 269 Gnosticism, 36, 73 goal, 68, 88, 93, 116, 143, 156, 159, 163, 192‒193, 214 God, same in both Testaments?, 36, 50, 110, 128, 132, 133, 188, 223, 230, 235, 272 good shepherd, 212 gospel and law, see law and gospel Gospels, 33, 150, 210‒211, 261‒262, 277 grace, 66, 74, 80, 82, 92, 144, 149, 223, 268 guilt, 119 harmonization, 101, 114 harmony, 117, 177 Hebrews, 33, 90, 172, 191‒192, 210, 213, 215, 226, 238, 263‒264, 276 Heilsgeschichte, see salvation history Hexateuch, 149, 197 Hezekiah, 252‒253 historical criticism, 44, 47, 77, 83, 93, 96, 105, 108 historical relationship, 24, 37, 39, 44, 72, 73, 158, 170‒171, 222 historicism, 107‒108 historicity, 88, 93, 145‒146 historicization, 118 history, 44, 67, 68, 71, 73, 75‒76, 77, 83, 111, 118, 141, 145‒149, 178, 179, 197, 199, 209‒210, 214, 220‒224, 234 of Israel, 112, 115, 117, 118, 122, 127, 139, 146, 153, 160, 192‒193, 200, 207 see also salvation history, tradition history,

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 373

373 revelation and history homology, 170 hope, 26‒27, 66, 123, 162, 191, 192, 193‒194, 195, 199, 201, 217, 222, 235, 267 Hosea, 268 identity, 96, 98, 100, 130‒131 illustration, 118, 177 Immanuel, 95, 193, 213 incongruity, 114, 119‒121, 270 independent value of Old Testament, 132, 269 India, 52 Indonesia, 236 inferiority, 52 intertestamental period, 220‒221 interdependence, 217 interpretation, 32‒33, 39, 41, 55, 57, 90‒92, 100, 103, 107, 108, 118, 141‒145, 159, 162, 163, 187‒188, 192, 278‒279 intrinsic Bible, see essential Bible Isaac, 202, 240 Isaiah, 31, 171, 255‒256 Israel and the church, 70‒71, 78, 91, 99, 112, 118, 124, 126, 141, 174, 178, 213, 219, 223, 224, 225‒230; see also history of Israel, Jesus and Israel Jacob, 202, 240 James, 122 Jehoiada, 252 Jehovah’s Witnesses, 131 Jeremiah, 91, 144, 254, 256‒257 Jesus Christ, 30, 39, 66, 68, 72, 74, 80, 91, 93, 107, 125‒126, 141, 163, 165, 172, 179, 183, 185, 188‒189, 193, 197, 199, 200, 215, 220, 222, 230, 233, 234‒235, 268, 270‒272, 274, 275, 281 and Israel, 192, 194, 213 and Old Testament, 31, 82‒83, 88‒106, 112‒117, 129, 130, 131, 141, 143, 157, 159, 210‒213, 267 Jews, see Judaism Jezebel, 251 Joash, 252 Job, 91–92, 146, 152, 179, 188 John, 33, 174, 179, 211 Jonah, 77, 120, 146, 172, 178, 179, 207 Jonathan, 240

22/12/09 12:35:35

374

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

Joseph, 184 Joshua, 217, 249‒250 Judaism, 51, 65, 103, 120, 131, 174, 192 and Christianity, 79, 90, 221‒222, 225‒230, 234‒235 Judges, 205 judgment, 27, 66, 88, 93, 207, 236

Mormonism, 137 Moses, 33, 90, 146, 171, 172, 178, 188, 204, 205, 211, 213, 217, 223, 230, 241, 243‒244, 246, 249, 272 myth, mythology, 64, 142, 147

kingdom, kingship (of God), 56, 70, 77, 92, 112‒117, 120, 122, 124‒126, 141, 159, 165, 174, 195, 199, 200, 207‒208, 210, 214, 215, 216, 217, 230, 231; see also theocracy Laban, 240 Lamb of God, 212 land, 28, 121, 202, 204‒205, 206, 207, 215, 228 law, laws 71, 80, 144‒145, 154, 158, 172, 174, 186, 192, 195, 200, 204, 219; see also Torah and gospel, 36, 39, 40, 65‒67, 73‒75, 79, 270 legitimation, 117 Levi, 240 Leviticus, 204 liberation theology, 56‒57, 121, 161, 162, 185‒186, 224 literal meaning, 37‒38, 67, 181, 268 literalism, 137, 269 literary approaches, 55‒56, 147‒148 Lord, 212 Luke, 32, 88, 174 Malachi, 268 Manasseh, 253 Marcionism, 51‒53, 78, 84‒85; see also neoMarcionism Mark, 32 materialistic hope, 28 Matthew, 32, 211 Melchizedek, 90, 213 Messiah, 28, 31, 37, 94, 114, 117‒122, 124, 192, 208, 212, 228; see also Jesus Christ Middle Ages, 38 midrash pesher, 32 miscarriage, 71, 75‒76, 196, 268 mission, 120, 225, 228, 230 Moab, 245

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 374

‘Name, the’, 128, 130 Nazi Bible, 50 Nebuchadnezzar, 240 Nehemiah, 92 neo-Marcionism, 49‒52, 268 new covenant, 25, 28, 81, 150, 171, 174, 193, 198, 199, 215, 223, 276 in New Testament, 261‒264 newness of, 259‒261 in Old Testament, 255‒261 new creation, 124, 171, 199, 208, 216, 223, 270 new exodus, 28, 150, 171 new Israel, see Israel and the church new paradise, 28, 171 new spirit, 28, 207 new temple, 171 New Testament, 25, 156, 268 New Testament view of Old Testament, 30‒34, 130, 141, 157, 172‒173, 188, 194, 196, 198, 199, 267, 278 newness, 122, 132, 141, 197, 223, 225, 259‒261, 270 Noah, 240, 241 Numbers, 204‒205 old covenant, 25, 81, 158‒159, 193, 196, 213, 223, 237‒255 Old Testament, 25, 98, 107, 134, 139‒140, 144, 150, 151, 194, 234, 268 Old Testament view of New Testament, 24‒30, 188, 194 orthodoxy, 37, 42‒43 Palestine, 228‒229 paradigms, 56, 185‒187 parallels, 99, 116, 141, 170, 173, 180, 187 pattern, patterns, 93, 170, 175, 178, 185‒188, 197, 230, 273 Paul, 32, 33, 35, 90, 120, 172, 173, 211, 227, 234, 235, 262‒263, 276 Pentateuch, 171, 196, 203, 205, 277 people of God, 28, 31, 70‒71, 75, 76‒78, 93,

22/12/09 12:35:35

index of subjects 121, 125, 150, 162, 172, 174, 198, 204‒205, 207, 217, 220, 223, 225‒230, 272 perspectives, 230, 275 Peter, 33, 35, 211 postmodernism, 58, 133, 136, 269 power, 165 praxis, 56 preaching, 112, 119 prediction, 31, 68, 82, 83, 191‒201, 213 prefiguration, 159, 170, 183 preparation, 49, 52, 192, 220 presupposition, 65, 72, 73, 78, 79, 85, 268 priority, 43, 109, 123, 126‒127, 127‒128, 131, 132, 135, 269 progression, 64, 183, 272 progressive revelation, 44‒49, 87, 111, 268 promise, 71, 75‒76, 79‒83, 159, 191‒208, 268 and fulfilment, 42, 48, 54, 89, 94, 113, 114, 117, 128, 134, 141, 155, 159, 161, 162, 208‒217, 223, 228, 231, 267, 272‒273, 273‒274, 275 proof, see ‘scriptural proof ’ prophecy, prophets, 75, 129, 140, 141, 144, 150, 158, 171, 181, 191‒201, 206‒208, 214, 217, 230, 231, 232, 255‒268, 272 and fulfilment, 48, 68‒71, 97, 181, 193, 232 prophetic eschatology, 27‒28, 207, 267 Psalms, psalms, 31, 151, 152, 158, 188, 200, 213 quintessence of Old Testament, 111 Rahab, 184 re-presentation, 54, 154, 272 reader-response criticism, 56 reality, 73, 100, 129, 146, 152‒153, 161, 198, 213, 272 recital, 156 reconciliation, see atonement Reformation, 39‒42, 96 Rehoboam, 251 reinterpretation, 141‒145, 150 relationship, promise of, 203‒206, 208, 215 remnant, 28, 121, 225 repetition, 103, 171, 177, 226 restoration, 27, 210 resurrection of the dead, 29, 208, 216 revelation, 92, 95‒96, 110‒112, 127, 143, 159, 194, 271

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 375

375 and history, 122, 142, 156, 160‒161, 220, 272 Old Testament as, 66‒67, 99, 141‒143 and scholarship, 110‒111, 115 Revelation, book of, 183 Roman Catholicism, 41‒42, 48‒49, 56, 125, 184 rule of faith, 106 Ruth, 77 sacred history, see salvation history salvation, 27, 74, 76‒77, 80, 89, 96, 115, 120, 126, 130, 144, 174, 188, 198‒199, 207, 229, 271, 273, 274; see also creation and salvation, people of God salvation history, 44, 54, 83‒84, 99, 111, 125, 139‒168, 169, 187, 198, 213, 220‒221, 225, 231, 272‒273 Samuel, 250 sanctification, 112, 116, 118, 123, 126 Sarah, 178 ‘scriptural proof ’, 67, 141 Scripture, 41, 43, 56, 87‒108, 221, 271‒272 ‘secret affinity’, 177 ‘sectarian impatience’, 137‒138 sensus plenior, 184 sensus spiritualis, 185 separation, 269 sequel, 130, 227, 228 Servant of the Lord, 28, 120, 193, 194, 198, 208, 212, 216 Seventh-Day Adventism, 137 Shechem, 246‒247 Sinai, 244, 246, 254 social-scientific approaches, 57 Solomon, 171, 206, 217, 251 Son of David, 28, 172, 212 Son of God, 212 Son of man, 29, 31, 172, 193, 212 ‘speak for itself ’, Old Testament allowed to, 129‒130, 131, 269 ‘spiritual meaning’, 185 spiritual renewal, 27 story, 147‒148, 178 substructure of Christian theology, 31‒32 superiority, 83, 105, 126 surplus, 118, 121‒122, 128‒129, 269 symbolism, 170, 183, 184

22/12/09 12:35:35

376

two t e s ta m e n t s , o n e b i b l e

temple, 88, 172, 188, 206, 221, 226 tension, 30, 34, 102, 214, 233‒236, 267, 274‒275 text, canonical/final form of, 55, 58, 104‒106, 107, 108, 135, 147 themes, biblical, 56, 129, 137‒138, 233, 234 theocracy, 44, 70, 112, 121, 124, 128, 269; see also kingdom, kingship (of God) theological interpretation, 54, 58–59, 94, 142, 231 theology, biblical, 100, 104, 125, 142, 156, 163, 231, 279‒281 New Testament, 156, 163, 268 Old Testament, 98, 139‒140, 145, 150, 151, 194, 197, 234 timeless revelation, 96 Torah, 129, 223, 227; see also law tradition, 41, 54, 112, 165, 223 tradition history, 140, 149‒150, 163, 272 trajectories of faith, 165 transcendentalism, 29 transposition, 43 Trent, Council of, 41 Trinity, 106 truth, 105

types, typology, 31, 37, 48, 54, 82, 93, 99, 113, 115‒117, 143, 159, 169‒189, 213, 226, 272, 273

M1970 - BAKER PRINT.indd 376

unity, 39, 42, 47, 89, 96, 99, 106, 128, 132, 143, 161, 163, 173, 185, 199, 219, 220, 227, 231, 232, 233, 234, 269, 270, 274‒275, 281 universality, 80, 82 Utopia, 28 wisdom (of God), 165, 173, 213 wisdom literature, 151, 158, 200 witness/testimony, 31, 33, 38, 47, 51, 82‒83, 84, 85, 88‒91, 95, 97, 100‒101, 107, 108, 117, 128, 130, 136, 143, 145, 159, 174, 187, 196, 213, 272 Word/word of God, 66‒67, 77, 78, 81, 89, 92, 110‒113, 116, 126, 213, 234, 276, 277 world and humanity, 141‒142 world renewal, 28, 31 ‘worldly Christianity’, 123, 128 Zechariah, 124, 268 Zedekiah, 240, 254

22/12/09 12:35:35