David (or should that be david :-), if Deut 25:4 is obviously about salvation in Christ, and this was in the mind of the author of Deut, then how do you reckon he meant Deut 25:3 or Deut 25:5 to apply to salvation in Christ?
(choose either a. or b., 10 minutes reading time allowed)
Deut. 25:3 Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight.
Deut. 25:4 You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.
Deut. 25:5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
With a text like that, I’d have to say it’s no more or less to do with the gospel then the citation that Paul makes in 1Cor. If you can answer how that is to do with the gospel then you also have your answer to the text in Dt. ;-)
That’s not meant to be a smug answer, that’s what I believe the outworking of what I’m saying is.
. The purpose of the OT is to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Or, to put it another way, to not read the OT Christianly is to not read the OT correctly.
Well, Origen (later condemned as a heretic!) would have agreed with you...which is why he devised his elaborate system of allegorical reading of the OT. How else could you find Christ in every part of the OT? He could see that a plain reading of the text does not give you a christological reading.
Great ones like Augustine followed him in this, too…
The apostles of course (notably Paul) make an extremely diverse and wide-ranging use of the OT, in quite unsystematic fashion at times.
I can’t help thinking that the apostles would have failed Moore College’s Biblical Theology course.... ;-)
Matthew 12:38-42
Galatians 4:21-31
1 Corinthians 9:9
2 Corinthians 3:12-18
1 Peter 3:21
all show quite dissimilar principles of interpreting the OT.
Sorry Matt, I don’t think I have time to do more than these little squibs.
. The purpose of the OT is to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Or, to put it another way, to not read the OT Christianly is to not read the OT correctly.
Well, Origen (later condemned as a heretic!) would have agreed with you...which is why he devised his elaborate system of allegorical reading of the OT. How else could you find Christ in every part of the OT? He could see that a plain reading of the text does not give you a christological reading.
Do you think it’s possible that someone might hold the view that the OT preaches Christ and yet not think it does so allegorically nor have to suggest that such a view is heresy?
Great ones like Augustine followed him in this, too…
The apostles of course (notably Paul) make an extremely diverse and wide-ranging use of the OT, in quite unsystematic fashion at times.
I can’t help thinking that the apostles would have failed Moore College’s Biblical Theology course.... ;-)
Matthew 12:38-42
Galatians 4:21-31
1 Corinthians 9:9
2 Corinthians 3:12-18
1 Peter 3:21
all show quite dissimilar principles of interpreting the OT.
I’m not sure how you think these are dissimilar or, if they are, how it undermines what I’m saying.
Do you think it’s possible that someone might hold the view that the OT preaches Christ and yet not think it does so allegorically nor have to suggest that such a view is heresy?
Of course! But it is worth putting the question this way because how this tension is resolved isn’t easy.
Yeah that was naughty of me, because O wasn’t condemned as a heretic for this anyway.... Apologies. However, the comparison is valid, because it has been a problem for hermeneutics since the beginning. And it took centuries to find convincing answers…
The point is that to read the OT christologically we start with the NT, not the other way around.
The list of references (I think the Matthew one is wrong) include allegorical and typological uses of the OT (Galatians and 2 Corinthians) by Paul. He doesn’t merely give us the direct historical style reading that we would expect from an expository sermon. The way he finds that the OT text speaks of Christ is quite left field.
[quote author="Michael"]The point is that to read the OT christologically we start with the NT, not the other way around.
Really? In what sense do you mean “start”?
If I start with the NT, what does the OT contribute at all, except a validation of how I read the NT? Why would I preach on it, just to marshall it to validate my NT theology? I don’t understand what you’re saying, Michael.
[quote author="michael jensen"]
The list of references (I think the Matthew one is wrong) include allegorical and typological uses of the OT (Galatians and 2 Corinthians) by Paul.
I wonder if half the tension is through the use of these terms.
Allegory and typology are 2 distinct things. If I were to lay out a primary distinction it would be that typology is “picture/shadow” langauge used in scripture which scripture itself explains/endorses.
In which case none of the above are allegory, they are all mostly forms of typology.
Allegory is the more nutty stuff such as seeing the 2 Testaments in the 2 silver coins given by the Samaritan to the innkeeper (or whatever it was - you get my point).
He doesn’t merely give us the direct historical style reading that we would expect from an expository sermon. The way he finds that the OT text speaks of Christ is quite left field.
Well, I’d expect the Apostle to be able to produce more than the direct historical reading style that we expect from an expository sermon (at least, one here in Sydney - they seemed to be a bit less arid back home in the UK ;-) <ducks> ).
But, given than he’s an Apostle, I’d be asking us to redefine left field. Surely the Apostle drives it right over the wicket, not to square leg?
[quote author="michael jensen"]
The list of references (I think the Matthew one is wrong) include allegorical and typological uses of the OT (Galatians and 2 Corinthians) by Paul.
I wonder if half the tension is through the use of these terms.
Allegory and typology are 2 distinct things. If I were to lay out a primary distinction it would be that typology is “picture/shadow” langauge used in scripture which scripture itself explains/endorses.
In which case none of the above are allegory, they are all mostly forms of typology.
Allegory is the more nutty stuff such as seeing the 2 Testaments in the 2 silver coins given by the Samaritan to the innkeeper (or whatever it was - you get my point).
He doesn’t merely give us the direct historical style reading that we would expect from an expository sermon. The way he finds that the OT text speaks of Christ is quite left field.
Well, I’d expect the Apostle to be able to produce more than the direct historical reading style that we expect from an expository sermon (at least, one here in Sydney - they seemed to be a bit less arid back home in the UK ;-) <ducks> ).
But, given than he’s an Apostle, I’d be asking us to redefine left field. Surely the Apostle drives it right over the wicket, not to square leg?
I should say rather “start with the gospel of God who raised Jesus from the dead”. By “start”, I mean, that is your presupposition. Otherwise, we wouldn’t read it at all and we would be like Marcion who cut it out of his canon! So we do actually come to the OT text with a piece of theological knowledge already in place… For the early Christians, the resurrection was the event that threw new light on the scriptures as well as working the other way around - ie the scriptures making sense of the resurrection.
Hey, you were the one complaining about Kent’s reading of Genesis 15! ;-)
Deut. 25:3 Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight.
Deut. 25:4 You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.
Deut. 25:5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
With a text like that, I’d have to say it’s no more or less to do with the gospel then the citation that Paul makes in 1Cor. If you can answer how that is to do with the gospel then you also have your answer to the text in Dt. ;-)
Hmm, I’m not sure if this is right. It seems a bit vague. On the other hand, I hesitate to say that it’s wrong as there is an unassailable syllogistic circularity to the way you’ve set up your position here and in this discussion. Something like
a. Paul models correct exposition of the Old Testament.
b. He is expositing Deuteronomy 25:4, which is part of the OT
c. Therefore his exposition of Deut is correct and a model for our exposition.
Which as I say you can’t argue with as a piece of logic, but it assumes under a. what actually needs to be demonstrated.
But as a moore college student you are entitled to special consideration, so you get to sit a supp :-) You can either have a bash at answering the question again, or try this new question:
Following Paul’s model of exposition, how are the following words and phrases fulfilled in Christ and the gospel? (choose any 3)
a. You shall not
b. muzzle
c. an ox
d. when it is treading
e. out
f. the grain
The logic of this question is that we ought not to confine ourselves to the idea of just OT verses being fulfilled in the NT. We should also believe that books, paragraphs, sentences, phrases, clauses and words find their fulfilment in Christ - something I take it we all agree on. The question is how? On this verse at least you have a head start as Paul has already given more than a hint.
Alternatively, the approach Michael J has argued for may be more fruitful? However, suggesting this makes me anxious, as I would hate to be called (scroll down)
Hang on - you have defined allegory as “nutty stuff not in the Bible” and typology as “stuff in the Bible”. No wonder there isn’t any in the Bible!
I think you are right to point to the slipperiness of the terms. However, Paul uses the word “allegoroumena” in Galatians 4:24…
By the “left field” comment I meant that to us it seems left field. Of course, what the apostle does is authoritative. But sometimes he does more what Kent Hughes apparently did than what we would expect (examples already cited) using our “Biblical Theology”.
While I have immediately jumped to argue the “christological” reading of the OT as the only valid one, I am also frustrated by some of the sermons I hear on say, the Psalms, where the immediate setting of the Psalm is almost completely disregarded and the christological grid becomes the only reading possible. So, for example, the personal and individual Psalms are read as the Psalms of the messiah, so therefore it is not valid for us to read them as expressions of our own feelings of joy in God or despair…
Hang on - you have defined allegory as “nutty stuff not in the Bible” and typology as “stuff in the Bible”. No wonder there isn’t any in the Bible!
I think you are right to point to the slipperiness of the terms. However, Paul uses the word “allegoroumena” in Galatians 4:24…
yes, he does. But does he use the word in the same way that we use “allegory”, particularly in the sense that, say, Origen was using it?
By the “left field” comment I meant that to us it seems left field. Of course, what the apostle does is authoritative. But sometimes he does more what Kent Hughes apparently did than what we would expect (examples already cited) using our “Biblical Theology”.
While I have immediately jumped to argue the “christological” reading of the OT as the only valid one, I am also frustrated by some of the sermons I hear on say, the Psalms, where the immediate setting of the Psalm is almost completely disregarded and the christological grid becomes the only reading possible. So, for example, the personal and individual Psalms are read as the Psalms of the messiah, so therefore it is not valid for us to read them as expressions of our own feelings of joy in God or despair…
True, and I do share the same frustration with you. So, for example, how does one preach gen 22 (one of my favourites) both being faithful to the narrative as the conclusion of Abraham’s “journey of faith” but also as the clear typology that it represents of the events of Golgotha?
[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]
Hmm, I’m not sure if this is right. It seems a bit vague. On the other hand, I hesitate to say that it’s wrong as there is an unassailable syllogistic circularity to the way you’ve set up your position here and in this discussion. Something like
a. Paul models correct exposition of the Old Testament.
b. He is expositing Deuteronomy 25:4, which is part of the OT
c. Therefore his exposition of Deut is correct and a model for our exposition.
Which as I say you can’t argue with as a piece of logic, but it assumes under a. what actually needs to be demonstrated.
Right, but ultimately a. is the focus of our discussion. Does the NT provide the authoritative exposition/explanation or is it just one with an alternate for the original OT readers? I’m going for the first.
But as a moore college student you are entitled to special consideration, so you get to sit a supp :-) You can either have a bash at answering the question again, or try this new question:
Following Paul’s model of exposition, how are the following words and phrases fulfilled in Christ and the gospel? (choose any 3)
a. You shall not
b. muzzle
c. an ox
d. when it is treading
e. out
f. the grain
The logic of this question is that we ought not to confine ourselves to the idea of just OT verses being fulfilled in the NT. We should also believe that books, paragraphs, sentences, phrases, clauses and words find their fulfilment in Christ - something I take it we all agree on. The question is how? On this verse at least you have a head start as Paul has already given more than a hint.
It means the same in the OT as Paul says it does!! The ox, working towards the harvest, deserves a share in the grain. On a more general principle those working towards the harvest/inheritance of the land etc (and here the issue is whether the Israelites would have known what those things represented - and Hebrews says that Abraham did).
Alternatively, the approach Michael J has argued for may be more fruitful? However, suggesting this makes me anxious, as I would hate to be called (scroll down)
To be fair, I’m still not sure what Michael is arguing for…
No disrespect intended, all I’ve worked out so far is that he’s not overly comfortable with my approach and is itching to call me the “21st Century Origen” ;-)
To be fair, I’m still not sure what Michael is arguing for…
Hey just remember I mark the exams!!! ;-)
All I am doing is pointing out that this process is not as neat as I hear you arguing for. If we took Paul’s method of interpreting the law in 1 Cor 9 as a guide for us, we (speaking for myself) might be suprised at the readings we would have to admit as legitimate…
And also, that the OT authors sometimes wrote what they did not know - ie they had no idea how their words would ultimately find fulfillment in Jesus Christ ... (Some of the OT authors were even pagan: parts of Proverbs have been lifted directly from Egyptian collections of wisdom...)
To be fairer, I think I came close to actually stating a position on OT hermeneutics here:
I should say rather “start with the gospel of God who raised Jesus from the dead”. By “start”, I mean, that is your presupposition. Otherwise, we wouldn’t read it at all and we would be like Marcion who cut it out of his canon! So we do actually come to the OT text with a piece of theological knowledge already in place… For the early Christians, the resurrection was the event that threw new light on the scriptures as well as working the other way around - ie the scriptures making sense of the resurrection.
To be fair, I’m still not sure what Michael is arguing for…
Hey just remember I mark the exams!!! ;-)
talk about shooting myself in the foot....
All I am doing is pointing out that this process is not as neat as I hear you arguing for. If we took Paul’s method of interpreting the law in 1 Cor 9 as a guide for us, we (speaking for myself) might be suprised at the readings we would have to admit as legitimate…
but I’m not sure why that brings the tension that you think that it brings. If we have to change our reading then so be it. Could it be that we’re overly invested in a particular reading?
And also, that the OT authors sometimes wrote what they did not know - ie they had no idea how their words would ultimately find fulfillment in Jesus Christ ... (Some of the OT authors were even pagan: parts of Proverbs have been lifted directly from Egyptian collections of wisdom...)
See, that’s the bit where I don’t agree. ISTM that the NT reflection on the OT is that they did know what they were writing (eg David “seeing what was ahead") and, if they didn’t, then they had some pretty lucid thoughts for blind men.
As for them being pagan, Paul is also able to quote pagan sources in order to make his decidedly Christocentric point.
To be fairer, I think I came close to actually stating a position on OT hermeneutics here:
I should say rather “start with the gospel of God who raised Jesus from the dead”. By “start”, I mean, that is your presupposition. Otherwise, we wouldn’t read it at all and we would be like Marcion who cut it out of his canon! So we do actually come to the OT text with a piece of theological knowledge already in place… For the early Christians, the resurrection was the event that threw new light on the scriptures as well as working the other way around - ie the scriptures making sense of the resurrection.
very true, you did. But now I’ve got you back for the heresy slur ;-)
More seriously, I think Marcion’s mistake is that he didn’t read the OT correctly, either. That he missed the plurality of YHWH’s, the malak YHWH who was also YHWH, the clear promises of a messiah and so on.
now, given that you’re marking Biblical Theology, perhaps you would let Rod and I know who’s setting the paper.....
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
