Continuity and Discontinuity (Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.): Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments

Thank you for downloading this Crossway book.

Sign-up for the Crossway Newsletter for updates on special offers, new resources, and exciting global ministry initiatives:

Crossway Newsletter

Or, if you prefer, we would love to connect with you online:

Facebook

Twitter

Google +

CONTINIUTY AND DISCONTINUITY

Continuity and Discontinuity

Copyright © 1988 by John S. Feinberg

Published by Crossway

1300 Crescent Street

Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided by USA copyright law.

First printing 1988

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Catalog Number 87-71892

ISBN 13: 978-0-89107-468-7

ISBN 10: 0-89107-468-6

Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotations are from The Holy Bible: New International Version, copyright © 1978 by the New York International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.

Crossway is a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

CH             20    19    18    17    16    15    14    13    12    11

25      24      23     22     21     20    19    18      17     16     15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PREFACE     John S. Feinberg

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Preface

S.

Lewis Johnson, Jr. was born on September 13, 1915 in Birmingham, Alabama. In recent years I have had the privilege of serving with Dr. Johnson on the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, but the association of my family and his goes back many years to his student days at Dallas Seminary. He was a student of my father and later served as his colleague on the faculty at Dallas. Needless to say, Dr. Johnson has always been held in the highest esteem by the members of my family.

Though he has had a wide arid varied ministry, he is best-known for his teaching and preaching. It is not unusual for students to appreciate their former teachers, but in talking with former students of Dr. Johnson, there is more than mere appreciation. There is a kind of awe and reverence for his scholarship and teaching methodology as well as his life. I suppose the words that most come to mind when thinking of Dr. Johnson are model and example. In 1 Pet 5:2-3 Peter exhorts pastors to shepherd the flock God has given them, proving to be an example to them. This Dr. Johnson has surely done, whether the flock has been a group of students or a congregation.

Dr. Johnson’s life and ministry have served as models in several ways. First, he is a model scholar and teacher. Students and colleagues alike constantly remark about how well-read he is in the fields of NT, OT and theology and how carefully he has thought through his material. Because of such preparation students find his lectures very thorough and convincing, regardless of whether or not they hold his views. They also remark that his careful preparation makes it impossible to come to his classes and succeed at appearing prepared when they are not. Moreover, it is always clear that his interest is never scholarship solely for the sake of scholarship. Dr. Johnson serves as a prime example of how it is possible to apply sound, rigorous scholarship to practical ministry concerns.

Dr. Johnson secondly is a model theologian. He is thoroughly versed in both Hebrew and Greek as preparation for the task of doing theology. Anyone who has ever read his writings or heard him lecture knows that his theological reflections are not based on shallow proof-texting, but rather on rigorous exegesis of the text of Scripture. Though he brings to bear insights from disciplines such as church history the overarching concern is always to reflect accurately the teaching of Scripture.

In addition, Dr. Johnson is a model preacher. There is never any question about whether the content will be clear or whether it will grow out of careful exposition of the passage. Dr. Johnson is thoroughly convinced that God has only promised to bless the proclamation of his word. Therefore, whether the intent of the sermon is to exhort, warn, or comfort, Dr. Johnson’s underlying concern is to expound the meaning of the text. And those who have heard him preach and have been blessed by it know that while his messages are filled with rich content from God’s word (as are his lectures), he understands well the difference between a message and a lecture. In all of this Dr. Johnson serves as a fine model for young and old preachers alike.

Finally, Dr. Johnson is a winsome model of what it means to live biblical truth. In a day when far too many are preaching or teaching one thing and living another, Dr. Johnson is a refreshing and encouraging model to the contrary. In his life and relationships it is very clear that he deeply loves the Lord and his word. Whereas others with lesser abilities and expertise are unduly impressed with themselves, Dr. Johnson’s gentleness and humility are trademarks. One senses that he lives this way because he is thoroughly convinced that everything any of us is and accomplishes is due to the sovereign grace of God. Moreover, in comparing mankind to the majesty and grandeur of God, he recognizes that there is no comparison. Some Christians utter such sentiments, but do not live them. Dr. Johnson teaches these truths and models them as well. And I believe that this is much of the reason he is so greatly revered by students and colleagues alike. Great erudition in conjunction with great humility and a servant’s heart are not often found. But Dr. Johnson models all of those qualities in his life and ministry.

In view of his long and fruitful ministry and his role as a model in all the areas mentioned, it is fitting to honor him with this volume. As Sam Storms remarks in his personal tribute, Dr. Johnson is probably very much embarrassed by this attention, but nonetheless it is proper to honor him in this way, for in so honoring him we believe we ultimately bring glory to the God he loves and serves so well.

In the early stages of planning this volume, several topics for a book were considered, but the topic of the continuity and discontinuity of Scripture seemed most appropriate for several reasons. First, there is hardly an issue that is more fundamental to theology and OT and NT studies than this one. In that respect it seemed most fitting as the subject for a book meant to honor one who has given himself so thoroughly to those three fields. Second, the topic itself has throughout Dr. Johnson’s career been a major interest. He has often lectured on the topic and has published major works dealing with it. Thus, it was clear that it would be of interest to him. Then, this topic seemed appropriate because it gave each of the contributors an opportunity to do some theology. As one searches the extant literature on these topics, he quickly realizes that there is not much written which handles the topic in the way treated in this volume. Consequently, in order to produce the various essays it was necessary for the authors to engage in creative theological reflection. Many of the authors commented that their essay was one of the more difficult pieces they have written just because it involved much more than the mere compiling of research. As you read the essays in this volume, I think you will agree that the efforts of the contributors were well worth it. And it is appropriate to produce some creative theology in a book honoring a theologian.

Finally, the topic was chosen because of its crucial importance to biblical and theological studies. Evangelicals agree that God has spoken and that the Bible is his word. But God has not revealed all of his word at once. How are we to relate what he has said through the prophets of old to what has been revealed through his apostles? Without an answer to this question it is difficult to know how to use both Testaments in formulating either doctrine or practice. An example of a doctrinal issue that hinges on this question is one’s understanding of the church. Are Christians to formulate their concept of the church on the basis of both Testaments, claiming so much continuity between the people of God that one may see the church in the OT? Or is there such discontinuity between Israel and the church that one’s understanding of the church must be formed solely on the basis of the NT?

As to matters of practice, how do believers today relate to OT law? Given the continuity of Scripture, are we still under all the injunctions of the Mosaic Law? Few would answer affirmatively. On the other hand, if one affirms discontinuity between OT law and the NT believer, must he slip into antinomianism? Few who hold to discontinuity opt for antinomianism, but then what is the relevance for them of OT law? The issue of the continuity and discontinuity of Scripture becomes intensely practical when one recognizes that contemporary discussions over such ethical issues as capital punishment and abortion appeal heavily to OT Scriptures. For one seeing discontinuity between OT and NT law are such appeals legitimate? For one seeing continuity between OT law and the NT era must the death penalty, for example, be enforced for all sins considered capital offenses in the OT? Such questions cannot be answered adequately without first addressing the more fundamental issue of how the Testaments relate.

The topic under discussion in this book is broader than a discussion between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Those views are the best-known examples of continuity and discontinuity positions respectively, but they are not the only ones. In fact, as the reader will see, there are even varieties of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Theological positions can be placed on a continuum running from views which hold to absolute continuity between the Testaments to views holding to absolute discontinuity between the Testaments. The more one moves in the continuity direction, the more covenantal he becomes; and the more he moves in the discontinuity direction, the more dispensational he becomes. All of the contributors to this volume hold positions well toward the center of the continuum, and all see both continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments. With this basic subject matter in mind, contributors were asked to discuss the relation of the Testaments from the perspective of one of the six issues covered in the book. Spokesmen from each side in the debate have discussed their topic from the perspective of whether they think there is more or less continuity or discontinuity between the Testaments on their topic. Contributors were allowed to approach their chapter as they thought best, and they were not given the opportunity to see the opposing article on their subject. Nonetheless, I think you will be pleased to see how the essays interact with the same issues and, in many cases, with the same passages of Scripture. Not all possible theological positions could be represented in these essays, but the reader can certainly catch the flavor of continuity and discontinuity ap proaches to each of the topics.

In order to put together a volume such as this, the help and cooperation of many people are involved. A word of appreciation to them is in order. Each of the contributors has done yeoman’s work, not only to produce the volume but to meet deadlines amidst busy schedules. Both the quality and the irenic tone of their work is greatly appreciated. I should also add that there were many other people who, because of the topic and especially because of their affection for Lewis Johnson, would have loved to contribute to this volume. Dr. Johnson, they salute you too. Then, a word of appreciation is definitely in order to Crossway Books, and especially to Lane and Jan Dennis and Charles Phelps. They believed in this project and recognized the importance of this subject from the very outset. Their help, encouragement, and enthusiasm have been most appreciated. Finally, there have been those who have helped with some of the nuts and bolts of putting this project together. In particular, a special word of appreciation is due to two student assistants. David Wegener was most helpful in such tasks as proofreading of manuscripts and checking bibliographic references. Robert Thieme III helped in proofreading galleys and making the indices.

As you read the essays in this volume, you will find that the debate over the continuity and discontinuity of Scripture has not been finally resolved. However, I do think you will agree that in many areas there is greater rapprochment than before. At any rate, it is hoped that this volume will, among other things, both give insight into the relation be tween the Testaments and sharpen the issues of debate for future discussion. God has spoken. May he illumine our hearts and minds as we seek to understand what he has said!

John S. Feinberg

July 1987

P A R T    I

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

/ 1 /

Continuity and Discontinuity: The Debate Throughout Church History

Rodney Petersen

T

he first question in the interpretation of Scripture for the Christian after acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ is how to relate the Hebrew Scriptures to the New Testament.¹ Many of the divisions between Christian churches arise from differing ways of understanding this relationship. Such was the case in the early years of the church. It was an issue during the Reformation as well as in later and more recent periods of church renewal.

Our question was Philip’s question to the Ethiopian eunuch: Do you understand what you are reading? (Acts 8:30). It was that of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13.49). We might reformulate it today. For example, is the AIDS health crisis a plague brought upon modem society by a wrathful God? Does the cry for freedom and justice by the black population of South Africa have similarities with that of the Hebrews under Egyptian tyranny? Or, does Israel have a prophetic right to Palestine that excludes full franchise of the Arab population?

Philip’s answer was to point the Ethiopian to Christ. Here is where the enigma of the OT might be understood. In the end that has been the church’s answer to the relation between the Testaments. There is more to it than that, but we do need to begin here. Scripture records Jesus treating the tradition as pointing to himself (John 5:39). He and his mission took up and fulfilled key concepts in the Hebrew Scriptures. Furthermore, not only had something come to completion in him, but a new period of history had begun (Luke 4:16-21). Finally, Jesus drew a distinction between the will of God, for which he appeared to speak directly, and what had been allowed by the tradition (e.g., Mark 10:2-12). Yet, almost paradoxically, Jesus held a rigorous view; all of the law was to be fulfilled. Its force continued (Matt 5:18: Luke 16:17), but it was humanized and deepened through loyalty to him.²

These three themes are found throughout the Gospels. They appear in early Christian preaching in Acts. However, one might argue that the first methodological consideration given them as they touch our question came from the Apostle Paul. The resolution of revelation in two dispensations, each with its own law related to Christ, comes first as a gift from God (2 Cor 4:3-4). This was implied by Jesus (Mark 4:9-12). It is a principle followed by the church, especially in discerning the deeper meanings of the text as they grow out of the interrelation of the Testaments. Secondly, Paul argues pointedly in Galatians and Romans that all Scripture points to Christ. God is its formal author, Christ the material message. Finally, the nature of the relationship between the old dispensation and the new, frequently understood as that of type or allegory, is presented clearly by Paul in reference to the sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, born by Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:21-31 ).³

Paul’s argument in Galatians, extended more freely by the author of the book of Hebrews, does two things of significance in relation to the Testaments. First, it offers a hermeneutic or methodology for the interpretation of Scripture. Secondly, something is said about the movement of history by the way in which one understands the Testaments to interrelate. Both of these issues are of direct interest when we ask how various thinkers in the history of the church sought to understand the relation between the OT and NT.

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND APOLOGISTS

The Testaments began to take their canonical form in the first century Documents arising from the origin of Christianity soon appeared together with and after the church’s founding. The emergence of Christianity as a religion, distinct from Judaism, and the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70 prompted the formulation of the prototype for the Massoretic text. This, together with the Septuagint and other variants, became the Christian Old Testament. The Septuagint, believed to have been the version used by Jesus and the early church, was the standard form of the OT for almost all of the church fathers down to the fourth century Following the completion of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, Christians were provided with a standardized version of the OT for the next thousand years that drew upon both Greek and Hebrew texts.⁴

These are the documents with which the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists worked. Initially, their interpretation offered little sense of historical perspective in the way in which they pursued the question of the Testaments. Recognized as important, the OT tended to become a manual for moral behavior, its imagery a prototype for the Christian church or a repository of prophetic and allegorical images. For some it was a Christian book which the Jews had always misunderstood through excessive literalism or carnality. For example, I Clement uses the OT as a source for Christian behavior (XIX). Its cultus is a prototype for proper ministry and service (XLII-XLIII). The Epistle of Barnabas finds meaning in the OT in a system of images or types (VII-XII) which are background to the gospel. There is little sense of history as such. The Jews, too caught up in historical literalism, failed to see Christ. A satanic influence clouded their vision. According to Barnabas’ polemic, their carnality has something of the Antichrist about it (II-IV). They lost the covenantal promises to the better understanding of the Christians (XIII).

There is some sense of historical perspective in Justin Martyr (c. 100 c. 160). In his First Apology he offers a rather full scheme of prophecy and fulfillment (e.g., XXXI, XLIX). His Dialogue with Trypho presents an incipient covenantalism: Christians are called like Abraham (CXIX). However, the OT still appears as more of a Christian than Jewish book (Trypho, XI-XIV). There is also a sense that all of God’S witnesses have been Christians, whether out of Judaism (VIII) or Greek culture (in the case of Plato, e.g., LIX-LX). Justin has a fairly well defined sense of figures and images which foreshadow fuller Christian truth, an idea pointedly developed by a contemporary Mileto of Sardis. However, it is Irenaeus (e. 130-c. 200) who begins to offer deeper historical reflection on the question of the interrelationship of the Testaments. In Adversus Haeresis Irenaeus argues that God comes to us in two ways, in history and through his Son. Scripture sketches the ways in which the Trinity comes in turn to us (IV, 22). The order and context of events relate to stages in humankind’s development (IV, 13-15). The OT, full of imagery and types, points the way forward to God’s fuller revelation, which is Christ (IV. 10.26). It is also used to give guidance in describing future earthly millennial bliss (V) subsequent to Christ’s second advent (so argued by Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Tertullian). Irenaeus argued against gnostic speculation that it was the same God who came to us in Christ as came in different periods of history (IV, 5, 12), and would come to establish his tangible kingdom. Irenaeus’ arguments will bear upon both issues of hermeneutics and questions of historical development as these arise out of attempts to interrelate the Testaments.⁵

Not everyone in the second century saw the relevance of the OT to the NT. Teachers in opposition to Irenaeus saw little need for the former revelation. Marcion of Pontus (d. e. 160), one of the most famous, developed a scheme of gnostic salvation that argued for a radical dichotomy between the old dispensation and the new. His theological system, built up out of a systematic dualism, posited two gods, the god of the law and former revelation and the god of the gospel, father of Jesus Christ. Generally, these were opposed as evil and good gods. History and materiality were denigrated. Salvation was wholly spiritual—and only for the inherently spiritual. Marcion’s canon consisted of versions of the Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Luke. Its center was found in a spiritual reading of Romans and Galatians. However, even these books were wdited in places (e.g., Romans 9-11). Other qnistic teachers like Valentinus and Ptolemaeus put forth similar, if less radical, system of salvation. One author has argued thee the real tbattle in teh second century centered around the position of the Old Testament.⁶

THE THEOLOGIANS

One way of dealing with problem texts raised by gnostic or philosophical opponents of Christianity was to look for a deeper meaning in Scripture without fully negating the literal text. This is the methodology which we find in the writings of those commonly called the theologians as they work with our question in the third century. They were generally oriented around two schools of theology, one located at Alexandria and the other at Antioch. Both understood the OT as an historical document, ultimately the work of the same divine Spirit as that present in the NT. Both agreed on certain key events and the way in which these foreshadowed Christ and the church (Adam and Moses were types of Christ, the ark a type of the church). Both believed that the new was contained in the old. Differences appeared in the manner by which the new revelation was discerned in the old and in the independent status of the former revelation in light of the new.

The catechetical school located in Alexandria found in allegorical exegesis a way of making the OT a Christian book. The theologian and exegete Origen (c. 185-c. 254) gave it shape. The principles which guided Origen’s work were laid down by the Jewish exegete Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.-A.D. 54). Attempting to accommodate the Jewish Scriptures to Hellenistic canons of knowledge, Philo argued for the importance of a deeper spiritual or allegorical interpretation behind the history or letter of the text. A text which said anything unworthy of God, which presented difficulties or contradictions, or which was patently allegorical in nature was to be given this deepened spiritual understanding.⁷

This method, used by Clement of Alexandria (155-c. 220), was more fully developed by Origen with respect to the Christian Scriptures. The historical or literal interpretation was always foundational. However, the OT in particular was filled with enigma. It was an allegory or spiritual symbol. Meaning-and in a way the new dispensation-was concealed in the old with debatable regard for history It was the work of the spiritual exegete to find the spiritual meaning. Origen’s influence was extensive. It not only deepened theological perspective in his own day, albeit with significant defects, but it also became the basis for much medieval exegesis as that work sought to find different figurative understandings of the text built upon its surface or literal sense. This system held promise for a deepened theological appropriation of Scripture. The OT and NT were shown to present the same teachings; only their mode of knowledge was different. The defects of the method lay in the loss of the reality of history and in an openness to further development by gnostic thinkers who extended it more consistently into the NT to create fanciful spiritual systems of salvation.⁸

Allegorism was opposed by theologians associated with the exegetical school found in Syrian Antioch. The shape of this movement is seen in such thinkers as Lucían (d. 312), Diodorus of Tarsus (c. 330-c.390), and especially Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428). Diodorus offers a sharper definition of allegory (Gal 4:24), more properly termed typology, indicating the direction of interest among these commentators toward discerning a stronger relation between the Testaments. This relationship was seen as correspondence, not simply symbolism. It was believed to be found in Scripture itself (Isa 51:9-16; Gal 4:24). Events and persons in an earlier revelation were types of that which would appear later. In this way the spiritual meaning and historical sense of the text were closely bonded. Through insight (theoria) one might discern both the historical reality and proper spiritual intent of a text set within a clearer picture of the development of revelation (fuller truth about Christ is found in the Gospels, not in a spiritual interpretation of the OT). This had the advantage of offering a more integral understanding of the unity of the Bible. Allegory appeared to lose this through unreliable or illegitimate associations.⁹

Theodore of Mopsuestia did much to clarify Antiochean thinking, separating out texts of Scripture which applied only to history from those that contained a predictive element. He went so far as to say that the Song of Solomon, usually understood as an allegory between Christ and the soul or church, was written by Solomon to celebrate his marriage to an Egyptian princess. Although Theodore did not deny the allegorical interpretation, his work clearly bore the implication and raised the question of whether and how one could separate sacred and secular realms of history, an issue of pointed christological concern with Nestorianism.¹⁰

Both Alexandria and Antioch deepened theological perspectives on the interrelationship of the Testaments. However, in the former it came at the expense of history, in the latter at that of mystery or spirituality. Allegorism, as represented in theologians as eminent as Cyril of Alexandria and the Cappadocian fathers in the East and Hiliary of Poitiers and Ambrose of Milan in the West, would affect medieval exegesis in a dominant way. The ideas developed around Antioch provided the perspective for the preaching of John Chrysostom (c. 347-407). They also influenced Jerome and other doctors of the church, who nevertheless in practice owed much to the allegorism of Alexandria. The principles articulated by Antioch would continue to give witness to the importance of history and become influential in a more dominant way in the years of Protestant reform.

THE DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH

According to Tertullian, the theologians of the third century illustrated the harmony that existed between the Testaments. This was stabilized and fixed with authority by four theologians in the next century who gave leadership to the church. Three-Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great-are of interest to us. They are also important in that they completed a process of spiritual redefinition of the millennium, begun with Origen, whereby God’s promises given to Israel will be applied to the church.

We have already encountered the name of Jerome (c. 342-420) for his work in bringing form to the OT. Jerome pushed further than Origen, Athanasius, or Rufinus in championing the Hebrew Bible and dividing the Hebrew and Septuagint literature available to the church into a twofold classification, canonical and apocryphal literature. Jerome suggested the secondary nature of those books which composed the latter, recommending they be placed between the Testaments, to be used not for doctrine but for moral edification. Many of his suggestions, such as the segregation of the canon from the apocrypha, were not carried out until the time of the Reformation. Author of numerous biblical commentaries, Jerome was influenced in these by Origen. He gave a spiritual interpretation to much of the OT, seeking to rectify it with the NT and thereby deal with apparent anthropomorphisms, inconsistencies, and errors. His cornments on Hosea and the book of Revelation reveal a sense of embarrassment with the former and fear of Jewish literalism in the latter. Later in his life, Jerome grew suspicious of Origen and of allegorism in general.¹¹

Augustine (354-430) dominates the period. His understanding of Scripture and perspective on history will shape the medieval church. Several stages marked Augustine’s passage to faith in Christ. Each left its mark upon his interpretation of the text. At first, put off by the archaisms and infelicities of the text, Augustine was driven toward Manichaean dualism with its denigration of the OT This was followed by a period of academic skepticism prior to a Christian awakening (386) that was prompted by the Neo-platonism of Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397). Ambrose’s allegorical interpretation helped Augustine to accept the Scriptures more readily In his own work Augustine would often make free use of allegorism. This accent upon the spiritual value of the text (2 Cor 3:6) emphasized the underlying truth behind the symbols of expression. That truth could be unpacked through multiple meanings in the text given by the Spirit and discerned by the spiritual exegete.

The Neo-platonism apparent in Augustine’s early work would itself be challenged in its philosophical premises by his increasing respect for the Scriptures. The words of Scripture, signs pointing to the only true thing (God), were needed since the fall. They alone gave true knowledge of the way to God and thereby to the fullness of love. The importance of the text of Scripture, together with the church’s growing body of metaphysical conclusions, was given further order by Augustine in his adoption of Tyconius’ rules for interpretation. These sought to relate all of the Bible to Christ, the church, or their opposites. Augustine summarized his mature hermeneutical thinking in the work On Christian Doctrine (427), a text that would become the standard hermeneutical guide for the next thousand years. As he was to write elsewhere, "In the Old Testament the New is concealed, in the New the Old is revealed.¹²

Growing out of Augustine’s personal experience and understanding of the interrelation of the Testaments was a view of history, sketched in The City of God (XV-XXII), that would shape the life of the church. Augustine perceived in Scripture a progressive line of divine history and prophecy moving through a series of ages and culminating in that of Christ, the sixth age of the church. Throughout this time there existed two groups of people constituting two cities-one devoted to the love of this world, the other to God. The last age, that of the church, would continue until the day of judgment. As Augustine wrestled with traditional understandings of the millennium (Rev 20:3), a time in which the promises to Israel would be realized, he rejected what he felt to be the crass literalism of many of his predecessors. Instead, he followed Origen, offering a spiritual interpretation. It was the time symbolized by the present life of the church, experienced by those who, having accepted Christ, live under his general sway. This spiritualized millennium differed in its political implications from ideas put forward earlier by Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340) in the Christian East. There the promises given Israel seemed to be more immediately and directly applied to the existing imperial-ecciesial establishment.¹³

Augustine had argued that Scripture is best understood within the church. The authoritative mood promoted here would offer little room for further exegetical exploration, at least in the immediate future. The cur rent attitude was summarized by Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450) in his Commonitorium: Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediturn est (What has been believed everywhere, always, by everyone). The exegetical work of Jerome, the theology of Augustine, and the moral intent found in the commentaries of Gregory the Great (c. 540-604) now stabilized and gave an authoritative stamp to a generally allegorical view of the OT in relation to the New and a mildly progressive sense of history The OT frequently became a repository of moral instruction and treasury of prophetic and allegorical proof-texts for the truth of Christianity. This style of interpretation is particularly evident in Gregory’s commentaries on Job, Ezekiel, 1 and 2 Kings, and parts of the Gospels.¹⁴

THE MIDDLE AGES

A generally spiritual or allegorical exegesis with moral intent now provided the approved way by which the Testaments were to be related. Four senses of Scripture (literal, allegorical, tropological, anagogical), given primary definition by Origen and Augustine, were abstracted from the letter and spirit of the text and discernible in John Cassian (d. 435). These would dominate medieval exegesis, particularly with regard to the OT in relation to the NT. Such can be seen in the works of such leading medieval commentators as Isidore of Seville (e. 560-636), Bede the Venerable (c. 673-735), and Ambrose of Autpertus (d. 781). Over the course of the Middle Ages this tradition became differentiated and regularized in monastic and scholastic modes of theological reflection. While often intertwined, the former sought in the Bible a text for liturgical and devotional life. The implication of this is that the various spiritual levels of meaning in the Bible were underscored as aids to the moral life. Scholastic theology, driven by curiosity and dialectical questioning, made greater philosophical demands on the text. Such theology would be faced more directly with the problem of other sources of knowledge and the ways in which these would challenge either one or both of the Testaments.¹⁵

The Carolingian period brought an awakening to biblical studies. However, it is only with the eleventh century that we begin to find things of interest to our question. For example, the development of monastic theology in the work of such individuals as Rupert of Deutz (c. 1075-1129/30), Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173), Joachim of Fiore (e. 1132-1202), and Bonaventure (e. 1217-1274) displays a deepening spiritual interpretation of Scripture that draws the Testaments together through elaborate figurae to illustrate the movement of time toward final judgment with concomitant virtues appropriate to each age of history As scholastic theology achieved a certain pinnacle in Thomas Aquinas, so such might be found for monastic theology with reference to history in Joachim of Fiore, and with respect to the soul in Bonaventure. Joachim is of particular interest. His elaborate scheme of types and figures from the OT was compounded with a similar grid discerned in the book of Revelation to create an explosive tripartite vision of history. This fired orthodox and dissident groups with a belief in the imminence of the millennium into and through the years of the Reformation.¹⁶

The development of scholastic theology may be traced from Carolingian legislation whereby cathedrals were charged with providing education for the clergy of their diocese. Its appearance is clearly discernible from the twelfth century. Without tracing its development, it is sufficient to note that from this point the glosses of the text of Scripture become collected into the first sentence commentaries, or theologies, of which the Sentences of Peter Lombard (1100-1160) are prominent. Increasing sources of knowledge other than the Bible occasioned deeper questioning of the text. The dialectical criticism of Peter Abelard (1079-1142) represents this development. A specific interest in the OT, its history and the literal interpretation of Scripture is discernible among the canons of St. Victor in Paris. One author has argued that the period stretching from 1100-1350 is marked by increasing study of original Hebrew texts of Scripture, matched only by Renaissance work with original Greek texts. Such interest is visible in Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141). He emphasized the liberal arts as propaedeutic to literal exegesis, the background to the development of doctrine. The legitimate discovery of allegory and divine truth followed next in order. An historical sense of the text was promoted more radically by Andrew of St. Victor (d. 1175). Guided by contemporary Jewish scholarship, his research led him to challenge such typically messianic prophecies as Isa 7:14-16. Andrew followed Jewish interpretation here, finding not virgin but young woman to be the proper translation. Although soundly criticized on this point by his contemporary Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173), one can begin to discern a marked increase of interest in an historical-grammatical reading of the OT.¹⁷

The key to interpretation was the ability to understand the proper sense of a text. Fluctuating terminology, differences in the genre of literature encountered, and questions of where literal exegesis ended and allegorical began were all part of the hermeneutical debate in the High Middle Ages. Furthermore, as one drew together the two Testaments of Scripture, questions arose about the prophetic passages. What constituted their literal as opposed to spiritual interpretation? If the literal interpretation was basic, at what point could one legitimately read a prophetic or christological message into a text, a question compounded by anti-Jewish rhetoric. Issues like these drove scholastic minds to develop conventional approaches to the text. Here, as elsewhere, the theology of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274) gave summary form. Aquinas stressed the literal sense of the text (ST la.I.10), revealing the natural bent of his philosophy. While not afraid of allegory, he argues that the literal sense bears the full weight of the human author’s intent. A spiritual meaning might exist, but its place was that of edification, not proof. It was known by God and might be discerned in light of later revelation. Aquinas put forward a threefold argument against allegory: (1) it is susceptible to deception; (2) without a clear method it leads to confusion; and (3) it lacks a sense of the proper integration of Scripture.¹⁸

Some, like Peter Auriole and Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270-1340), continued the line of those who offer a sharpened literal reading of the Testaments. Nicholas of Lyra drew widely upon the work of Jewish exegetes, particularly the commentator Rashi (1040-1105). His commentary emphasized a double literal understanding of the text. Both God’s intent and that of the human author might be termed the proper literal sense of the text. It was later to be said of Lyra that no one since Jerome had contributed as much to an understanding of the OT as had he.¹⁹

RENAISSANCE AND REFORMATION

Martin Luther’s (1483-1546) work stood in debt to Lyra, but also to wider currents derivative of the Renaissance. His criticism of Rome began with the sacramental system and scholastic theology, then proceeded to questions of exegesis. Luther insisted upon the authority and sufficiency of Scripture over against church tradition. Understood through faith and the illumination of the Spirit (Weimar, VII, 96-98), both Testaments of Scripture were open to all Christians. Revelation, whether anticipatory or progressive, had a history which the Spirit enabled one to understand. Luther rejected the traditional spiritual meanings or fourfold interpretation of Scripture and moved toward a single literal meaning of the text, except where a spiritual interpretation was clearly intended by the author. His historical appreciation of the OT was a central factor in Reformation Theology. However, the question of its literal sense in relation to the NT remained a legitimate one. Luther followed Lefèvre d’Etaples and argued that the writers of the OT were aware of the coming Christ. The unity of Scripture, found in Christ, meant that the OT tended to be read by Luther through the gospel, its historical sense shaded to foreshadowings of Christ and his church. Finally, the antithesis that Luther drew between law and gospel tended to further the diversity that Luther found in the two Testaments as he feared introducing a new law under the guise of the gospel, a characteristic he found in both Rome and the emerging radical and Reformed movements.²⁰

Two further points should be raised in connection with Luther. First, Luther was also a translator of Scripture. The order he gave to the OT has been followed since his day. Secondly, Luther generally continued the Augustinian sense of history with implications for the relation of the Testaments. However, he was more conscious of living at the edge of time, prior to final judgment. This belief was prevalent among early spiritual and anabaptist radicals, some of whom returned to a form of millenarianism visible in the early church. Others more consciously followed Joachite precedent and sharply divided the final Augustinian age in terms of imagery drawn from the book of Revelation.²¹

The Reformation among the Reformed generally proceeded along lines outlined by Luther. However, there were differences, as can be seen in Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), John Calvin (1509-1564), and Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). When we come to the question of the relation between the Testaments, we can discern at least three differences. First, the tendency to stress the surface or historical sense of the text over against allegorism was stronger among the Reformed than among the Lutherans (Calvin, Institules, I.1.7-8). Nevertheless, in contrast to some anabaptist groups, who tended to see the OT as a Jewish book with little to offer the age of the new dispensation, the Reformed, along with most Protestants, retained some sense of a spiritual sense of the text intended by the Spirit. Secondly, there was a tendency among the Reformed to emphasize the identity of the two dispensations at the expense of their diversity. This was particularly visible in the later editions of Calvin’s Institutes (II.9-11; cf. Bullinger, Concerning the Testament). Thirdly, the implication from this was that the moral laws and precepts of the OT were given added weight as guides to the Christian life.²²

An Augustinian historical perspective was generally prevalent among the leading Reformed theologians for various exegetical and social reasons. However, we can note a certain eschatological tension in Calvin and Bullinger, an expectation of the visible glory of God among Christians and in Christian communities and states. Such hope became the context for a growing milenarian spirit seen among some later Continental (e.g., Brocardo) and other Anglo-American (e.g., Brightman) theologians. Here debate will grow with respect to the identity of the true Israel, long assumed to be the church. Whether church or old Israel, expectation will increase for the visible and historical reality of all that was promised Israel in this age or in the one subsequent to the imminent return of Christ.²³

AN AGE OF CONFLICT

Growing historical awareness affected the way in which the sources of Christian faith were perceived and used. The philological and historiographical advances of the Renaissance, as represented by Lorenzo Valla, by Johannes Reuchiin in Hebraic studies, the insights of Thomas More, John Colet, and Erasmus (1469-1536), furthered these perceptions. Other tendencies of the Renaissance, partly derivative of Neo-platonism, would be picked up in the exegesis of Erasmus, accenting spiritual interpretations of the text. Such would be used to add further nuances to the way in which the Testaments were interpreted and interrelated, highlighting non-corpo-real, even a rationalist understanding of Scripture. As the different Christian communities sought to defend their theological perspectives, marshalling history defensively, these themes contributed to a deepening of historical perspective.²⁴

The age was first of all one of theological conflict. This was frequently related to our question of the Testaments. Many orthodox Lutheran theologians like Johann Gerhard (1582-1637), J. B. Carpzov (1607-1657), and Abraham Calovius (1612-1686) used the OT primarily as a collection of proof-texts, a methodology reflective of Luther’s own tendencies. Among the Reformed, the OT figured together with the New in part of an increasingly elaborate attempt to fix the nature of scriptural authority seen most clearly in the Helvetic Consensus (1675).²⁵

Other features of the Reformed faith brought the OT forward for the present life of the Christian. The Reformed tended to be politically sensitive toward perceived religious and national idolatry John Knox (c. 1513-1572) preached of the need to remove the brazen serpents from life and worship, drawing on 2 Kgs 18:3-4. Calvin’s institutes crescendoed toward an attack upon governments that might counsel idolatry (IV.20. 1-32). In doing this, Calvin drew heavily from the history of Israel. Such iconoclasm joined political interests in almost every one of the emerging European nations. The Puritan movement in England, forged out of this relationship, would carry it to all of the lands touched by British interests. Furthermore, this political sensitivity to the Testaments was frequently bonded together with Reformed eschatology Such can be seen in various schemes of progressive revelation, notably that of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669), where questions are raised of the normative nature of older revelation, except as it may serve some symbolic significance. It is patently clear in the Anglo-American apocalyptic theologians from John Foxe through Jonathan Edwards.²⁶

Two movements emerged in the seventeenth century seeking peace, but both, in terms of our question, actually introduced further dimensions of debate. The first, Rationalism, can be discerned among certain reformers in the sixteenth century who tended to question more radically the entirety of traditional theology. It became explicit in Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) who sought theological unity among warring groups in the person of Christ and natural theology. His criticism of biblical inspiration anticipated more radical moves by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677). Through increasing historicism, the movement as a whole began to question the previously assumed use of the OT by the NT. The OT, previously drawn into the NT by means of a spiritual sense of the text, was now on its own as an historical document.

Hobbes rejected the inspiration of Scripture. His book Leviathan, concerned with questions of power and politics, argued that the Bible was not to be taken as God’s revelation. Spinoza extended this criticism in Tractalus Theologico-Pohiicus, arguing that not only is the Bible mere history, but the idiom of ascribing all to God reflected an Hebraic attitude, not to be trusted in matters of truth. Reason was to guide the mind in philosophical affairs, while theology dealt with questions of piety and obedience. Arguing thus, it appeared that what Jerome had done in dividing canonical from apocryphal literature, Spinoza was now doing with reason and revelation. Only now all of Scripture was apocryphal. Richard Simon (1638-1712), Jean Astruc (1648-1766), and others continued this criticism with respect to the OT, laying the foundation for modem higher criticism, a term later employed by J. G. Eichhorn (1752-1827).

This criticism was given poetic nuance by G. E. Lessing (1729-1781), such that the essence of religion was not properly found in historical revelation but in morality. Influenced by H. S. Reimarus (1694-1769), Lessing undercut the authority of the OT by implying that God had educated other peoples more than he had the Jews. His play Nathan the Wise (1779) implied that the OT might be redeemed in a poetic fashion, informing a kind of humanitarian morality With Lessing, J. G. Herder (1744-1803) continued to posit this poetic value in the text as part of a progressive view of the history of