Commentaries and the Bible

Gentlemen, I wish you would read the Bible more: it sheds such light on the Commentaries.

—Principal John Huxtable

as cited by The Rev Dr Peter C. Jupp, Department of Divinity, University of Edinburgh, on The Proclaimer blog.

HT: Tim Raymond, who recently posted a short list of blogs helpful to pastors on the Creedo blog.

Posted in Reviews, books | Leave a comment

Note on Christological exegesis

Im not planning to revisit this topic at the moment (too busy with other things), but for those who were interested in that topic in my earlier post, heres a link to another discussion of the same basic issue. This discussion is by Dave Doran, pastor and seminary pres. in Detroit.

Posted in hermeneutics | Leave a comment

On Politics and Voting . . . as Christians

In the heat of primary election season, Kevin Bauder’s current essay is a thoughtful look at how Christians should vote.

Let Me Tell You How to Vote
Nick of Time, 1/13/2012

Dr. Bauder’s is what many would consider a “minimalist” view of government. You may not agree with him on that, but the issues he raises are worth your thought. It is not a “single issue” approach, but a multi-facetted, moral approach to the question. It is also a helpful restraint on (or at least “rebuke to”) churches that get involved in politics—whether conservative or liberal.

(If you run across this link later, you’ll have to track back from the url above to the archive copy for the date given since the pdf copy is not yet posted and I can’t link directly to this particular article. The url is the “current issue” link that is used for every week essay.)

Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

Case of participles: Acts 3:26

Acts 3:26, ὁ θεός … ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εὐλογοῦντα ὑμᾶς.

This verse is often cited as an example of an adverbial participle of purpose. It is translated that way in most English versions, e.g., NIV, ESV, NRSV. But if that were so, then why is the participle in accusative case? I think we should instead see this as an adjectival participle in apposition to the immediately preceding αὐτόν: “God sent him who blesses you.”

The full verse says,

ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εὐλογοῦντα ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἀποστρέφειν ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῶν πονηριῶν ὑμῶν.

In a rough, formal equivalent translation this says,

To you first, God, having raised his Servant, sent him who blesses you by turning each [of you] from your evil ways.

The verse does have an expression of means, but it is the infinitive, not the participle. The infinitive phrase, ἐν τῷ ἀποστρέφειν, specifies the means by which Jesus blesses his people: by turning them from their sin.

Posted in grammar, Greek | 9 Comments

Top 5 Technologies that Will Shape the Church

Here’s a thoughtful post that’s worth reading and thinking about. (And the post linked there, though unrelated in content, is also good: The Best Five Toys of All Time.)

The Top 5 Technologies that Will Shape the Church in 2012

Don’t Eat The Fruit (blog)
Technology is Fast, but Redemption is Slow

by John Dyer

It’s another new year, one that is sure to be full of predictions about Mayans, American presidents, and technology. Below are the technologies that I think will be the most powerful shapers of Christian spirituality in the next 360 or so days.

Posted in ministry, tech, theology | Leave a comment

Free copy of Gundry’s shorter commentary Mark

A friend just emailed me about a free book currently being offered for the Kindle and the Kindle Reader which runs on iPad, iPhone, etc. (Thanks, Mike.) I don’t know how long it will be available at this price ($0.00!).

Here’s the Amazon link to the book.

The Amazon info is as follows, though some of it is incorrect:

Commentary on Mark [Kindle Edition]
Robert H. Gundry (Author)
Digital List Price: $5.99 What’s this?
Print List Price: $49.99
Kindle Price: $0.00 includes free wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
You Save: $49.99 (100%)
Length: 1100 pages

First, the print price is not $50! Second, it is not 1,100 pages! Who came up with those figures, I don’t know, but they’ve confused some things. This is the Mark commentary section from Gundry’s one-volume NT commentary. The entire NT commentary is 1,100 pages, or perhaps they are using a rounded figure from Gundry’s massive critical commentary on Mark (Eerdmans, 1993) which is 1,124 pgs–and apparently, and unfortunately, out of print. The same is likely true of the price.

I don’t know what the actual page count would be from the print edition since I don’t own the one-vol. print edition. If someone has one at hand, you could let us know in the comments below.

In any event, though this edition is not an exegetical work, it surely reflects Gundry’s massive exegetical work on Mark and is more than worth the price! Get it while you can.

I see that the entire NT Commentary is available book-by-book in Kindle format, so perhaps this is a loss-leader, attention-getter advertisement for the other volumes.

Posted in Gospel of Mark, Reviews, books | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Christmas Meditation

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matt 1:18–25

In proclaiming the baby soon to be born to be, indeed, God who was incarnated in a human body so as to be physically with us, Matthew quoted an OT text. You probably recognize it as Isaiah 7:14. In the context of Isaiah 7 the son who was born was named Immanuel by his mother. He also received a name with prophetic significance from his father: Mahel-Shalah-Hash-Baz. It was as common in Bible times as it is today for someone to be known by two names: just as Abram/Abraham, Saul/Paul, Simon/Cephas/Peter, and as I have been know over the years both as Rod/Rodney, but also as John—but only by my mother and my sister. You see Rodney was my father’s father’s name; I called him Grandpa, but he was Rodney Carpenter Decker. I suspect it was my father’s idea that I be named for his father. But my mother’s father was named John—John Easton Place, so she got to pick my middle name, and she always called me by that name, unless I was in trouble and then I was Rodney John.

In Isaiah, if we were interested in chapters 7 and 8, we might focus on the name this boy received from his father, Maher-Shalah-Hash-Baz. As interesting as that name is, it’s not the “Christmas name.” At Christmas we focus on the name given to this boy by his mother since that is the one that Matthew quotes in his account of Jesus’ birth. He was named Immanuel, which, Matthew tells us, means “God with us.” In Isaiah there was a boy born who served as a sign of God’s presence to reassure his people that God had not forgotten them and that he would deliver them from their enemies.

But Matthew, when he read and meditated on Isaiah 7, saw something far more than a sign of God’s presence. He recognized that the Immanuel born in his day—Jesus—was actually God himself incarnated and living with his people. Just as God provided for his OT people in Isaiah’s day, he also provided for his people by the birth of his Son.

This NT boy also had two names. He was named Jesus, Matthew tells us, because he would provide the perfect and final sacrifice for sin: “he will save his people from their sins.” As important as his salvation is, there is more than that. He was named not only Jesus, but also Immanuel, “God with us,” not this time just a sign of God’s presence, but God himself present with his people. That Immanuel, shortly after he died to provide for our salvation, rose from the dead. Do you remember what he promised his followers after the resurrection? At the beginning of Matthew we are told that Jesus was Immanuel, “God with us.” At the end of Matthew, Immanuel promises to be with his people forever. The promise of Immanuel at his birth is extended beyond the 30 years of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, to span all of human history until one day we are with him forever. Christmas ought to prompt us to rejoice in Immanuel’s presence.

Posted in Misc | Tagged | Comments Off

Greek Words with Different Roots

This is an update/revision/correction to the post yesterday, “Suppletive forms, verbs with multiple roots.” Some revisions are relative minor, others more substantive. Comments, corrections, additions are welcome.

All the Greek verbs that have different roots in Koine are given below.

• λέγω, “I say”
*λεγ (present) λέγω
*ϝερ/*ϝρη (future, perfect, aorist passive) ἐρῶ, εἴρηκα, ἐρρέθην
*ϝεπ (aorist active) εἶπον

• ἔρχομαι, “I come”
*ἐρχ (present) ἔρχομαι
*ἐλευθ/*ἐλθ (future, aorist, perfect) ἐλεύσομαι, ἦλθον, ἐλήλυθα

• ἐσθίω, “I eat”
*ἐσθι (present) ἐσθίω
*φαγ (future, aorist) φάγομαι, ἔφαγον

• ὁράω, “I see”
*ϝορα (present, perfect) ὁράω, ἑώρακα
*οπ (future, aorist middle, aorist passive) ὄψομαι, ὠψάμην, ὤφθην
*ϝιδ (aorist active, aorist active infinitive) εἶδον, ἰδεῖν

• φέρω, “I carry”
*φερ (present) φέρω
*οι (future) οἴσω
*ενεκ (aorist active, aorist passive, perfect) ἤνεγκα/ἤνεγκον, ἠνέχθην ἐνήνοχα

Less Common Words with Multiple Roots

• αἱρέω, “I choose”
*αιρε (present, future, perfect middle, aorist passive) αἱρέω, αἱρήσομαι, ᾕρημαι, ᾑρέθην
*ϝελ/*ϝαλ (aorist active) εἱλόμην/εἱλάμην

• πάσχω, “I suffer”
*παθ (present, aorist) πάσχω, ἔπαθον
*πενθ (future, perfect) πείσομαι, πέπονθα

• πίνω, “I drink”
*πι (present, future, aorist) πίνω, πίομαι, ἔπιον
*πο (perfect) πέπωκα

• τρέχω, “I run”
*θρεχ (present) τρέχω
*δραμ/*δρομ (future, aorist, perfect) δραμοῦμαι, ἔδραμον, δεδράμηκα

Notes

The convention used here is to identify a root with a prefixed asterisk. You will never see any Greek text that is marked in this way appearing as a separate word; there will always be prefixes or suffixes added and many times there will also be vowel ablaut (sometimes called vowel gradation) as well.

Verbs which use different roots may be called defective verbs (the individual roots do not occur in all tense-forms) or suppletive forms (the various roots supplement each other to enable a full range of tense-forms). Both defective and suppletive are larger category terms that may refer to items other than verbs having multiple roots.

This also happens in other languages, including Latin: fero, tuli, latum, ferre (= φέρω); sum, esse, fui (= εἰμί); and Hebrew: ‏יָטַב and ‏טוֹב, “to be good.” (See GKC, 220, §78.b. for more examples in Hebrew.)

The same thing happens in English. The word go (present tense) and went (past tense) are not etymologically related. English formerly had a past tense of go (eode, Anglo-Saxon; yode in Middle English). It also had a present tense of went, the form wend. This last word still occurs in English, though rarely. You will sometimes read it in poetry where it enables the poet to maintain the rhyme. We now use go and went as if they are present and past tenses of the same word even though they are unrelated etymologically.

οἶδα is sometimes listed as a word having multiple roots, but it is an irregular μι- verb (ἴδοιμι) formed from the root *̈ϝιδ, though it may appear to have other roots due to ablaut.

Although the list above aims to be fairly complete for Koine texts (at least those related to the NT (LXX, pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo), other Greek texts may have other suppletive forms. Although the middle-only form ὠνέομαι, “I buy,” has one first aorist in the NT, ὠνησάμην/ὠνήσατο, formed from *ωνε, in classical Greek there was a suppletive second aorist form, ἐπριάμην (from *πρια).

Also τύπτω (present and imperfect) is supplemented by πατάσσω and sometimes by παίω (for the future and aorist) and πλήσσω (perfect and aorist passives). Likewise σκοπέω (present and imperfect only) is supplemented by σκέπτομαι (cf. NT ἐπισκέπτομαι). The verb θεωρέω (present and imperfect) is supplemented by θεάομαι (aorist and perfect). This last pair (θεωρέω, θεάομαι) also functions suppletively in the NT, though the words are treated separately in NT lexica.

Suppletion can also function at the voice level, e.g., in the LXX the verb ἁλίσκομαι, “to be taken, captured,” occurs only in the passive with the active being supplied by αἱρέω (both from the same root, *ϝελ/*ϝαλ).

Resources

Smyth, Grammar, esp. §§529, 794–99, and the Appendix, “List of Verbs” (pp. 684–722)

BDF, Grammar, §101, “Catalog of Verbs,” pp. 50–55

Mounce, Morphology of Biblical Greek, “Class v-8,” p. 319.

Posted in grammar, Greek | Comments Off

Suppletive forms, verbs with multiple roots

[Now please see the updated post. Comments on this original post are now closed, but you are welcome to comment at the new post.]

First a summary, then a question for you grammarians (and “budding grammarians”!) out there. (Hopefully the diagammas below will display correctly; various systems and fonts are finicky about that character!)

All the Greek verbs that have different roots in the NT are given below.

• λέγω has three roots (i.e., the forms we find in the Koine originally came from three different words):
*λεγ (present) λέγω
*ϝἐρ (future, perfect, aorist passive) ἐρῶ, εἴρηκα, ἐρρέθην
*ϝἰπ (aorist active) εἶπον

• ἔρχομαι:
*ἐρχ (present) ἔρχομαι
*ἐλευθ (future, aorist, perfect) ἐλεύσομαι, ἦλθον, ἐλήλυθα

• ἐσθίω:
*ἐσθι (present) ἐσθίω
*φαγ (future, aorist) φάγομαι, ἔφαγον

• ὁράω
*ϝορα (present, perfect) ὁράω, ἑώρακα
*οπ (future, aorist middle, aorist passive) ὄψομαι, ὠψάμην, ὤφθην
*ϝιδ (aorist active) εἶδον

• οἶδα
*̈οιδ (perfect) οἶδα
*̈ϝιδ (aorist active infinitive, future) ᾔδειν, εἰδησῶ

• φέρω (I carry):
*φερ (present) φέρω
*οι (future) οἴσω
*ενεκ (aorist, perfect) ἤνεγκα, ἐνήνοχα

Less Common Words with Multiple Roots

• αἱρέω (I choose):
*αιρε (present, future, perfect middle, aorist passive)
αἱρέω, αἱρήσομαι, ᾕρημαι, ᾑρέθην
*ϝελ (aorist active) εἱλόμην (or εἱλάμην)

• πάσχω (I suffer):
*παθ (present, aorist) πάσχω, ἔπαθον
*πενθ (perfect) πέπονθα

• τρέχω (I run):
*θρεχ (present) τρέχω

*δραμ (future, aorist, perfect) δραμοῦμαι, ἔδραμον, δεδράμηκα

Verbs which use different roots may be called defective verbs (the individual roots do not occur in all tense-forms) or suppletive forms (the various roots supplement each other to enable a full range of tense-forms). Both defective and suppletive are larger category terms that may refer to items other than verbs having multiple roots.

The LXX and other Greek texts will have other suppletive forms such as τύπτω which is supplemented by πατάσσω and sometimes by παίω (for the future and aorist) and πλήσσω (perfect and aorist passive); σκοπέω (present and imperfect only) which is supplemented by σκέπτομαι (cf. NT ἐπισκέπτομαι); or θεωρέω (present and imperfect) which is supplemented by θεάομαι (aorist and perfect). This last pair (θεωρέω, θεάομαι) functions suppletively in the NT, though the words are listed separately in NT lexica. I.e., they are not treated as having separate roots.

QUESTION: Does anyone know of a list or discussion of verbs in the LXX that have different roots? (Or of other non-NT texts?) I would assume that there are probably more words outside the NT that demonstrate this feature, but I’ve not been able to find any such information, though I spent most of the morning in the major grammars looking for such information. The few examples of suppletion in the previous paragraph are the only examples of a similar phenomenon that I could find, but not of them are treated as having separate verbal roots so far as I know.

Posted in grammar, Greek | 4 Comments

Accordance, new user’s guide and new iOS version

I just ran across a very helpful intro guide/handout posted on the Accordance forums. It’s by Dr. Mary Shore from Luther Seminary. 16 nicely done pages that are well worth a look if you’re relatively new to Accordance.

Also worth noting is that the iOS version of Accordance has just been upped to v. 1.4. For less than a year old, this program is maturing nicely. A lot of new features have been added that make it usable for even more of the things that Accordance users are accustomed to doing in the desktop version. I’m still learning (& discovering!) the new features, but I found enough in the first hour the other day to say this is a “must do” upgrade. It may still not be as “pretty” as Olive Tree’s Bible Reader (the most polished of all the iOS Bible tools), but it’s more useful. The YouBible app provides access to more Bibles for free than anyone, but most of them are only accessible when you have an Internet connection. Accordance’s app is free (I think all iOS Bible apps are), but you can load all the texts and tools that you already own in the desktop version. It’s quite nice to have grammatically tagged Greek and Hebrew texts or your iPad or in your pocket on your iPhone, along with BDAG and HALOT, a critical apparatus, lots of translations, etc.

Posted in Reviews, books, tech | Tagged | Comments Off

On titles in ministry

Craig Blomberg has posted a good discussion of the use of “honorific” titles in ministry. Especially in local church ministry I agree wholeheartedly with Craig. In the dozen years I spent in pastoral ministry I was usually known simply as “Rod” (sometimes “Pastor Rod”), but rarely “Pastor Decker”—and never “Reverend Decker”! “Doctor” is an academic title that is suitable for academic settings, but only slightly less appropriate in the church than “Reverend.”

HT: Andy Naselli

Posted in ministry | 2 Comments

Christological Exegesis and Typology

I recently received the following query from someone reading my NIV11 review.

On page 430, you write: “The current rage in some circles of christological exegesis of the OT … is too often (though not always) misleading.”

Would you be able to unpack what you mean here and/or guide me to resources where I can better understand this?

My hunch is that you are referring to the ‘new Reformed’ lingo of ‘finding Christ in all of Scripture’ (from guys like Keller [and] others …).

Why is this wrong and what do you see as the better way?

The typically busy end of a semester and Christmas activities probably means that this isn’t the best time to begin a discussion on the subject here, but I will summarize my thoughts on the matter. And OT prophecies of Messiah are certainly appropriate subject matter for Christmas!

Let me begin by saying that I most certainly do not object to valid, predictive prophecy of Messiah in the OT which was later fulfilled in and by Jesus. There certainly is quite a bit of prophecy (Messianic and otherwise) scattered throughout much of the OT. There is not only prophecy, but also a fair bit of typology. The prophecy should be identified by careful exegesis of the *OT* text in its context. (By contrast, the typology, which I’m not discussing in this paragraph, is *not* identified by OT exegesis, but by *NT* exegesis—more on that below.) Unless it can be demonstrated exegetically that a passage refers to Messiah, then I do not think it legitimate to claim such a text as Christological. To qualify as “exegetical” I do not allow the NT to be read “backwards” into the OT. To do so is not exegesis, but isogesis—even if it is later biblical revelation that is being used to “discover” new meaning in older texts. Just because the NT is the culmination of biblical revelation and most clearly reveals Jesus and his role as Messiah and Savior does not legitimate changing the grammatical, historical meaning of OT texts. I do not read the OT with “Christological glasses.”

What I object to is the current fad of claiming that “OT text x” refers to/means/prophecies concerning Jesus/Messiah when the OT author would never have suspected that to be the case. Nor do I consider some form of sensus plenior in which the Author had a hidden meaning to be legitimate. Any such approach becomes very subjective, limited only by the creativity of the interpreter with no textual basis. I do not consider “creativity” to be a commendable quality in exegesis. Exegesis is not tasked with creating meaning, but in discovering the textual meaning intended by the author. Oh, it may “preach” well; I’ve listened to some amazing sermons that find Jesus everywhere. Rhetorically (and even poetically!) they are quite impressive productions that will stir an audience. But are they legitimate? As a preacher I am tasked with proclaiming “thus says the Lord.” Unless a preacher can demonstrate from a text that it does refer to Jesus, then one had best not blame that interpretation of God!

Now there is another angle to consider, though it violates none of what I’ve summarized above. That is the matter of typology. This is a subject that has been horribly abused (and in both directions: excess and avoidance). I have no time for the vivid imagination of “interpreters” who can find in excess of 20,000 “types” in the OT tabernacle (I’m not making that up!). But neither do I want to so limit typology that I miss legitimate, intentional types, though I’m more inclined to err toward the second than be guilty of the first! (I think it less dangerous to miss a few bits of God’s revelation that to attribute to it matters never intended.) The fanciful approach to typology is nothing more than crass allegory. To classify something as a type I insist on some substantive NT textual basis to authorize it. And note that by textual basis I do not refer to the interpreter’s creativity in making a connection; the NT text itself must make the connection.

Let me extract a few paragraphs (not all contiguous) from my notes on the subject.

I would propose the following definitions of typology, type, and antitype. Typology is the study of divinely ordained, repeated patterns in God’s sovereign working in human history to accomplish his purposes. In the course of the progress of revelation, the earlier historical situation (person, event, institution) comes to be seen as a pattern (type) that closely corresponds to a later historical situation in the life and ministry of Jesus that repeats (fulfills) the pattern (antitype) in a clearly identifiable, escalated/intensified way. A type is thus the initial instance of a repeated pattern of God’s activity that he intends to use in later revelation as an illustration of his work. An antitype is the escalated repetition in the person and work of Jesus of an earlier pattern of activity which demonstrates God’s glory, filling that antecedent type with additional significance for the purpose of enabling God’s people to better understand his sovereign purposes in history.

I think we should follow France at this point, who argues that, “a type is not a prediction; in itself it is simply a person, event, etc. recorded as a historical fact, with no intrinsic reference to the future…. There is no indication in a type, as such, of any forward reference; it is complete and intelligible in itself” (Jesus and the Old Testament, 39–40, 42). This is the key difference between prophecy and type: prophecy is known, understood, and intended as prophetic by the human writer; typology is a NT perspective that is not known by the OT writer. The NT does not change the meaning of the OT text (since typology is not intended as an exegetical treatment of the OT text). The parallel of the type/antitype is always in harmony with the meaning of the OT text and never denies the historical nature of it. France is emphatic on this point:

Typology may, indeed must, go beyond mere exegesis. But it may never introduce into the Old Testament text a principle which was not already present and intelligible to its Old Testament readers. Sound exegesis, and a respect for the sense of the Old Testament text thus discovered, will prevent typology from degenerating into allegory…

Thus the decision on whether a given use of the Old Testament in the New is typological or an appeal to prediction will reduce itself to a question of Old Testament exegesis. If a forward reference was intended in the Old Testament…, we are not concerned with typology, but with the appeal to prediction.
(Jesus and the Old Testament, 41–42 [I would prefer to replace the first sentence cited from France with a simple statement that “typology is not OT exegesis,” omitting any idea of “going beyond mere exegesis”] ).

Some recoil from such a suggestion, assuming that the alternative is eisegesis. The response is that the exegesis comes at the NT level, not at the level of OT text. Apart from the NT, the OT type could not be identified on the basis of OT exegesis.

“If every type were originally intended [by the human author] explicitly to point forward to an antitype, it might be correct to class typology as a style of exegesis. But this is not the case. There is no indication in a type, as such, of any forward reference.” In other words, “the fact that the NT sees an OT event as a type does not throw light on its interpretation in its OT context” (Jesus and the Old Testament, 41–42).

The Author, of course, knew and intended that the OT text would one day be used typologically, but neither the author or his subsequent readers would have any way to know that this was the case until the fulfillment in Jesus and the NT text makes the identification explicit because none of the typical significance is grammaticalized in the text. There can be no such thing as a type without an antitype. This is a point at which the aAuthors’ knowledge regarding the written text diverge. Although leaving open the question as to the possibility that a type may have been recognized before its fulfillment, Carson clearly agrees that God intended the type.

That means that when Paul (or, for that matter, some other New Testament writer) claims that something or other connected with the gospel is the (typological) fulfillment of some old covenant pattern, he may not necessarily be claiming that everyone connected with the old covenant type understood the pattern to be pointing forward, but he is certainly claiming that God himself designed it to be pointing forward. In other words, when the type was discovered to be a type (at some point along the trajectory of its repeated pattern? only after its culmination?)—i.e. when it was discovered to be a pattern that pointed to the future—is not determinative for its classification as a type (“Mystery and Fulfillment,” 406).

Typology is actually a specialized form of what Hirsch/Kaiser call implication. Typology is not an OT exegetical tool used to determine the meaning of the OT text. When the NT “creates” the type by depicting its relationship to the fulfilling antitype, this does not change the meaning of the OT text—though a new implication of that text emerges in the progress of revelation. It is the NT author, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, who draws an explicit connection between an OT situation and a NT one that parallels it in a unique, escalated way. It is, indeed, a form of analogy or illustration, yet one that is more formalized than these categories. The escalated relationship is such that the NT authors could describe it in terms of fulfillment (πληρόω). An OT situation is “filled up” in the NT situation as Jesus or some aspect of his work is seen to follow the same pattern, but due to the character of the person involved (Jesus) or the magnitude of his work which is described—both of which go far beyond the OT referents—is said to fulfill what is now called the type.

Now to return to my original subject, if the current fad of “Christological exegesis” were concerned with the sort of typology that I have just described, I’d have no objection, but that is not the way it’s presented. It is portrayed as a means of interpreting the OT text, and that, I am persuaded, it most emphatically is not. Nor do many such proposals limit themselves to instances which are textually warranted by the NT text. The identification proffered is grounded only in the creativity of the interpreter/preacher.

‘Nuff said.


BTW, I’ve commented on this briefly before: http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=1078
There’s also a post or two on Marc Snoeberger’s blog on the subject.

Posted in hermeneutics, theology | 14 Comments

How to post comments on this blog

It’s not hard to comment here, but it appears that WordPress has changed the sign up procedure since I last checked (some time ago). I’ve added links with brief explanations to the sidebar on the right to make it easier or at least more obvious. You’ll find these under the heading, “Login in (or Register) to Comment.”

Register

Login

(If you click a different link under the “Meta” section, you could end up going to the WordPress site. Registering there will work, but the links I’ve added are quicker.)

Posted in Misc | 1 Comment

Brothers?

No, our seminary doesn’t have uniforms! But this morning when one of my OT colleagues poked his head in my study to say good morning, we both chuckled.

Twin Profs pix

If you can’t tell us apart, Dr. Alan Ingalls has the bushier mustache! (Second clue is that I have a beard. :) ) Alan blogs at Sword Skills. And yes, we are ἀδελφοί ἐν κυρίῳ.

My physical brother (who is also ἀδελφός ἐν κυρίῳ) looks more like me:

RodCecil

(Yep, same vest!)

Posted in Misc | Comments Off

Why seminary?

Just read a good post by Mark Snoeberger on why seminary training is so important for ministry preparation.

Seminary: Learning to Fly in “Alternate Law”

Posted in seminary | Tagged | Comments Off