In my reading of the Reformers and the Puritans I am yet to find them explain that in the NT we find a New Israel being formed in Christ and a New Exodus etc, or that Israel recapitulated the sin of Adam etc, and that baptism casts us back to the Exodus and the Waters in Genesis 1 etc as "Biblical theologians" do today. Is this a fault of the Puritans or is there a new hermeneutic in use today which is a little novel?
A new hermeneutic?
- Thread starter AV1611
- Start date
-
- Tags
- covenant theology
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
All of the above. The historical grammatical was new at one point. The recapitulation thing can be found in Irenaues. Justin Martyr identifies Christ as the New Israel.
You certainly will not find this hermeneutic, especailly among the later Puritans, as they let their "new system" of covenant theology dictate their hermeneutic. In short, classic covenant theology (as well as all forms of dispensationalism) violate the apostolic hermeneutic first taught in Lk 24 and demonstrated throughout the entire NT (i.e., Christ or the gospel promises is to interpret the OT).
Jim
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
The more I study the Gospel of Mark (and I have been preaching through it for the greater part of a year) the more I am convinced that Mark was employing Exodus imagery in the life and work of Christ, even as he was simultaneously simplifying much of the OT content that would be found in the other Gospel accounts for the apprehension of his gentile readership.
Whether or not another generation of exegetes had ever picked up on this may well be irrelevant depending on historical circumstances, such as what distractions the Church was forced to focus her efforts upon at the time or which influences were shaping and structuring their hermeneutic. It should also be added that there have been genuinely good advances in numerous areas of Biblical studies (not just a BT hermeneutic) which have not always been available to earlier exegetes. Both the PNTC commentary by James Edwards, and the NIGTC by France, have some keen insights into these connections within Mark's Gospel.
Yes of course this is true and Owen cannot be lumped under this. However I was using my term "Puritans" in a general sense as many of the later generation Puritans and Post Reformers were influenced by covenant theology.
Jim
turmeric
Megerator
Rev, Winzer,
Are you saying that Covenant theologians are making the same mistake as Dispensationalists by letting the OT interpret the NT?
I'm asking, not opining. If it's true, how much of Covenant theology is still useful? My personal experience has been that focusing on the covenants has given me a way to make sense of the Scripture, rather than having a lot of separate bits that one can apply randomly in almost any way the speaker chooses. Where did the Covenant theologians get off-track?
Thanks!
Are you saying that Covenant theologians are making the same mistake as Dispensationalists by letting the OT interpret the NT?
I'm asking, not opining. If it's true, how much of Covenant theology is still useful? My personal experience has been that focusing on the covenants has given me a way to make sense of the Scripture, rather than having a lot of separate bits that one can apply randomly in almost any way the speaker chooses. Where did the Covenant theologians get off-track?
Thanks!
No, this is what I am denying; this is the misapprehension for which I recommended the reading of Manton and Owen. Traditional covenant theology fundamentally relies on the NT interpretation of the OT. It simply is not the case that the Puritans ignored the concepts of the new Israel and new Exodus, contrary to the suggestion of the OP. While the terminology is not the same as modern BT, the themes themselves are both explored and explained. Larger Catechism, answer 101, clearly speaks of the redeemed church in terms of OT Israel, and redemption from sin as represented by the exodus.
Just to clarify; I was not saying they did not speak in that way, it is just I have not read them do so explicitly, especially in the way modern BT does. May I ask your thoughts on this.
I have been preaching through Mark as well and you clearly see the Exodus imagery. Mark defines Jesus as the suffering servant that was foretold in Isaiah. Many Reformed scholars in recent years have started teaching the New Exodus, New Jerusalem, and the New temple imagery.
Thanks to both of you; do you know of any simple books (i.e. Greek not a prerequisite) that go through this?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Read Beale's book _The Temple and the Church's Mission_ with regard to the biblical theology of the temple/New Temple.
That is already on my list, got any more suggestions? Especially linking the Isaianic prophesies and the New Exodus and the gospels.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I imagine that Ricki Watts's book entitled _Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark_ would be about perfect for what you are looking for.
Have you read it?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I have not, and I know nothing about Rikki Watts, except that his book is quoted rather extensively in the commentary literature written since his book came out. France is impressed by Watts's arguments.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter C.,
In my copy of volume 1 of the Ante-Nicene fathers it is on pages 248-249.
Justin's whole method is heavily typological. Makes Jim Jordan look reserved!
On Irenaeus, give me a little while. Recapitulation is a common theme in him and I will have to search it out.
As to resources, Beale's book is a great place to start. Funny thing, he uses N.T. Wright to clinch a number of key arguments.
I recommend Beale's book that Lane referred to in this thread. Rikki Watts wrote an excellent book entitled, Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark. David Pao has a great book entitled, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus.
Sorry, I did not see Lane's recommendation of Watt's book. I am currently using it in my sermon preparation through Mark. This is an excellent book, but takes alot of study and concentration. It is well worth it.
Regrettably this is what alot of modern BT looks like. A would-be exegete takes a word like "heavens," gathers together certain thematic links from various contexts, draws a few speculative conclusions which no one can either really deny or affirm, and calls it biblical theology. Sometimes it helps to point out the obvious -- there is no actual exegesis taking place in this process.
It is precisely that method of interpretation that has going
There just does not seem to be any hermeneutical control over the (as you say, non-existent) exegesis and it really puts me off BT hence the OP as I don't find this type of interpretation in the Reformers and Puritans.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Spurgeon kind of used it. He mentioned David's five stones against Goliath as the Five Points of Calvinism!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Against Heresies 5.14.2
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
That doesn't do justice to his thought, but there is more you could find. Whereas we would say something like "Creation Fall Redemption," he would say "Creation-Incarnation-Recreation." Christ in the womb of Mary unites human nature, humanity, to himself in order to redeem heal it.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Did he identiy which of the five felled the giant?
I vote for Limited Atonement. Judging from the impact on people today, that could suffocate and take down a horse.
This is why Geerhardus Vos is so valuable for reformed biblical theology; he was honest about the dogmatic commitments which he had derived exegetically from the Scriptures, and which he brought to the subject of tracing the progress of divine revelation. Revelation was not for him a nebulous concept which changed with each new epoch, but a structured and unified organism which declared the unchanging will of God. Any process which does not adhere firmly to this conviction is not worthy the name of biblical theology, in my humble opinion.
- Status
