Author: saxonshane@gmail.com

In one of the more intriguing and dramatic post-resurrection encounters, the gospel of Luke records Jesus meeting two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The disciples don’t recognize Jesus, and so they explain to him the incredible things that have happened in Jerusalem. Jesus, disappointed by their surprise, scolds them for failing to believe, and then beginning with Moses and the prophets, he “interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”

In Five Views of Christ in the Old Testament, in the Counterpoints. Bible and Theology series, five biblical scholars debate what Jesus must have said to Cleopas and his friend that day on the road to Emmaus. Did Jesus scold the disciples for failing to see the significance of OT passages and their relevance to his life and work (First Testament Approach)? Was he disappointed that they failed to see typological, messianic patterns in the OT (Redemption-Historical, Christological Approach)? Or, was he grieved by their failure to submit to the Spirit’s intent in the fuller sense of the OT (Christotelic Approach)?

In other words, how does the Old Testament bear witness to Christ and are certain methods of interpretation more suitable to the task of revealing him? The answers to this question pertain not only to the nature of the biblical text, but also the nature of “reading” itself. So, each contributor articulated their view of the nature of Scripture, the steps interpreters must take to identify Christ’s relationship to the OT, and finally they illustrated their methodology in three test cases.

• First Testament Approach – Goldingay: John Goldingay insists, emphatically, that Christ is not present in the Old Testament. For Goldingay, there is a sharp distinction between meaning and significance. Our priority as interpreters is to understand what the author intended the text to mean to the original audience (whether Goldingay means the original audience of the text as its been received canonically, or at some other stage in development he doesn’t say). What the text means is what we are attempting to discover as interpreters, but as Christians, we take that meaning and apply its significance to our lives. Through theological reflection and studying the meaning of the New Testament, there are ways that the significance of the Old Testament pertains to Christ, but nowhere is Christ present in the meaning of the OT. One of the essential difficulties with Goldingay’s position is the supposed difference between meaning and significance. As Dr. Pennington illustrates in Reading the Gospel Wisely, if two interpreters both read the command “thou shalt not steal,” but one thinks it applies to embezzling and the other to pick-pocketing have they missed the meaning or the significance? Furthermore, does the command to “not steal” mean that the original person that received this command shouldn’t steal? Or does it actually just mean that Moses received this command among nine other commands? Or does it mean that I, today, should not steal? Since words don’t merely mean, but they also do certain things attempting to rigidly distinguish significance from meaning only obscures the complexity of interpretation.
• Christotelic Approach – Longman: Tremper Longman argues that the goal of the Old Testament is to reveal Christ. But, it would be naive to think that every Old Testament author fully understood God’s salvation-historical redemptive program as they were writing. Instead, interpreters should read the Old Testament according to each authors’ intent, and then read the Old Testament a second time in light of what we know about Jesus after the resurrection. The dynamic relationship between these two readings will reveal how Christ is present in the Old Testament, even if Christ is most clearly seen in the sensus plenior (fuller sense), of a particular text. Longman recognizes that biblical interpretation is more of an art than a science (86). But, he prioritize the historical-grammatical method in his view of interpretation. While undoubtedly, historical-grammatical tools of interpretation are necessary for any robust reading of a text, they are still a limited set of tools that will tend toward certain readings that prioritize historical and grammatical conclusions, rather than theological, literary, or anagogic. Also, as DeRouchie points out (113), Longman appears to suggest that a Christian can perform the “first reading” without knowledge of the resurrection and its impact on salvation history which seems just as naive as suggesting that an OT author could have written with the knowledge of the resurrection. So, while I appreciate that Longman recognizes the value of separate readings, his narrow focus on only two readings, and his prioritization of the historical-grammatical reading, limits the power of his methodology.
• Reception-Centered Intertextual Approach – Dharamraj: Havilah Dharamraj advances the idea of a Common Reader, a term borrowed from linguistics, who has access to the public meaning (the corpus of meaning generated by a collection of texts) of the Old Testament and New Testament. From the public meaning, the Common Reader will select a Christocentric “icon” (a dominant theme) in an Old Testament text that relates to an “icon” in a New Testament text. Dharamraj then suggests that by reading these two texts in relationship with each other certain fruitful Christocentric aspects of the meaning of each text will arise. The advantage of Dharamraj’s approach is that it is open and conscious of the way that connections between texts generate meaning. All connections between texts highlight certain aspects of texts and minimize others. And, not all readers are aware of the ways that they are bringing their own preconceived notions about how texts relate to the interpretive process. The downside of Dharamraj’s approach is that it’s not a very good answer to the question of the book. Certainly, bringing disparate Old and New Testament texts together will be a fruitful way to uncover aspects of Christ’s presence in the Old Testament, but what interpretive tools does Dharamraj have to distinguish typology from predictive prophecy? Also, how does theological perspective influence the way the Common Reader groups texts, or should it? Certainly, awareness of the value of reception-centered intertextuality is essential for interpretation, but without theological conviction, it’s incomplete.
• Redemption-historical, Christocentric Approach – Derouchie: – Jason DeRouchie argues that the unity that holds the Scripture together is God’s saving activity in the person of Jesus Christ. According to Derouchie, we should be attempting to read the Old Testament, today, with the same principles of interpretation as New Testament authors, and if we do, then we’ll discover how Old Testament authors intended for us to see Christ’s role in the Old Testament. Derouchie suggests that reading the Old Testament involves consideration of three contexts: the close context, the redemption-historical context, and the canonical content. He also advances seven principles for interpretation that will lead to seeing and celebrating Christ in the OT: predictive prophecy, redemptive-historical trajectories, continuities and discontinuities between covenants, typology, YHWH’s activity, ethical instruction that reflect’s Christ’s character, and the law of love. I appreciate the specificity of DeRouchie’s principles for seeing and celebrating Christ as he’s identified several clearly identifiable patterns in the OT that are literarily sensitive. In general, DeRouchie and interpreters of his ilk, tend to be more literarily sensitive than typical biblical interpreters who emphasize the role of authorial intent. DeRouchie’s principles rely on trajectories, themes, leitmotifs, and other literary qualities that often allude the grasp of more historically oriented scholars. On the other hand, as is typical of biblical scholars that emphasize typology and redemptive-historical trajectories, DeRouchie’s felt need to ground his interpretation in authorial intent leads to specious and motivated exegesis. For instance, DeRouchie argues that because Abraham is told to sacrifice Isaac as a “burnt offering” he must either be a sinner or substitute because of the stipulations of the law, and because Isaac isn’t presented as a sinner then he must be a vicarious substitute for the community. It’s also possible that “burnt offering” is being used here much more broadly, without the theological specificity added by the law code, and that DeRouchie is over-reading.
• Premodern Approach – Craig Carter: Craig Carter summarizes premodern exegesis by identifying five ways that Christ was identified in the Old Testament: predictive prophecy, typology, the fourfold sense, Jesus’ recreation as the people of Israel, and prosopological exegesis. According to Carter, modern readers fundamentally misstep, listening for what human authors are saying in the biblical text rather than God who is the primary author of Scripture. In fact, God’s authorship of Scripture is the theological presupposition that should supplant the modern fixation with method. From this foundation, Carter provides four principles for reading: the Scripture is a unity; the literal meaning is the priority; the spiritual sense is real; and, there is a Christological control on meaning. Carter admits that Dharamraj is right that what he articulates isn’t a method (290): Carter suggest that de-centering method is a feature, not a bug, of premodern interpretation. But, attempting to interpret without method seems just as naive as suggesting that OT authors were aware of how their words would be fulfilled by Christ. Also, it’s hard to imagine that any premodern reader would be able to identify their own reading habits in Carter’s depiction which has been heavily shaped by modern and postmodern categories. On the other hand, he’s rightly suspicious of two modern tendencies: ignoring the role of theology in interpretation and assumed methodological naturalism.

I found helpful aspects in almost all of the approaches. But, I was also frustrated while I read the book. Why should we assume that one particular approach to the Old Testament will be more or less correct than any other methodology? Especially, as Longman says, if biblical interpretation is more of an art than a science, than should we be articulating principles of interpretation? Or would it be better to develop dispositions, attitudes, techniques, perspectives, and habits of interpretation? Did the travelers on the road to Emmaus need lessons on biblical interpretation or did they need to have the eyes of their hearts opened to Jesus (Matthew 13)?

For these reasons, my response to this book is that it helped me to think more critically about the methods and methodologies that I appreciate and use, and it motivates me to continue thinking harder about how to talk about the instincts and intuitions that drive my use of the Biblical text. Below are a list of principles, in no particular order, that I’d offer to answer the question: how do I find Christ in the OT?

• The Old Testament is Christian Scripture meaning it’s God’s authoritative and binding words to me, and meaning that it does things that no other book can do like revealing the almighty God in Christ.
• No interpreter can or should read the Old Testament Scripture without theological convictions so they must be examined and utilized while reading.
• Meaning is generated by context, so interpreters must consider context as broadly and deeply as possible.
• Close and careful reading honors the text because these are the primary disciplines that prevent a reader from exerting himself arbitrarily onto a text.
• Biblical texts reward re-reading, especially re-reading in light of new and helpful questions.
• Reading well requires mentorship, and mentors, because the aptitudes and attitudes of a good reader usually cannot be acquired in a depersonalized manner.
• There is no virtue in rejecting methodology just as there is no virtue in privileging one methodology over another. The best readings arise from multiple, densely overlapping, and rich methodologies.