The relationship of the OT to the NT is highly disputed, even among evangelical believers. One approach is to read the OT on its “own terms” and to exclude any meaning that we gain from the NT. There is much to be said for this approach, because great damage has been done in “finding” things in the OT that were never intended by the original author. To give one example, did the nails in the tabernacle point to Christ or was their purpose to hold the building together?
On the other hand, many passages seem to be speaking of the future and we understand what the authors were referring to when we read the New Testament. For example, in Isaiah 9, the prophet declares that a child will come who will rule with justice forever (Isa 9:6-7). Critical scholars are now joined by some evangelical scholars in declaring that Isaiah was only speaking of his own day (probably of Hezekiah) and had no intention of predicting a future king. Later on, Christians “re-read” this passage and saw something “greater” in it that Isaiah never intended. This is the common way they handle many texts that have traditionally been considered messianic.
Tremper Longman III laments this trend, but I submit that he doesn’t help us out at all. In a section in his Proverbs commentary (2006), he writes:
I also have considerable doubt that the original authors of OT books had a conscious understanding of the future significance of their words. Perhaps they had a sense that what they were saying had eschatological implications, but certainly not to the extent that the NT authors took it. It seems that the appearance of Jesus led to a deeper understanding of the message of the OT. In the light of Jesus’s death and resurrection, his followers read the OT in a new way (64).
Longman rightly recognizes the significance of Luke 24:21-49. To refresh your memory, while walking with two unnamed disciples, Jesus said:
Luke 24:25-27 (ESV) “And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”
Luke 24:44-46 (ESV) “Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,”
Longman, however, says this:
Jesus was angry or at least disappointed that they did not know what to expect. After all, he taught them during his earthly ministry.
He gave them another lesson, a lesson in hermeneutics, which we are to assume convinced them this time in the light of the resurrection. From this point on, the disciples could not read the OT except in the light of the resurrected Jesus (65; emphasis mine).
In other words, the meaning of the OT changed upon Jesus’s resurrection. It meant one thing when the authors wrote it, and it meant something else after Jesus came. Passages like Isaiah 9 were historical descriptions before Jesus came, but after his ministry, they became prophecies of his life.
But that’s not what Jesus said! He rebuked the disciples. He said that they should have understood what was written about him. It’s not that he provided new meaning, but that they didn’t understand the original meaning.
Maybe I can make my point best by re-writing Longman’s paragraph (his words I reject are crossed out; my new words are in italics).
I also have considerable doubt that the original authors of OT books had a conscious understanding of
the future significance of their wordsevery detail about Jesus, especially when he would come (1 Pet 1:11).PerhapsClearly they had a sense that what they were saying had eschatological implications, but certainly not to the extent that the NT authors took it. It seems that the appearance of Jesus led to adeepercorrect understanding of the message of the OT by those who were mistaken. In the light of Jesus’s death and resurrection, his followers read the OT ina newthe way the prophets always intended (64).
I understand why secular scholars who deny the possibility of predictive prophecy read the OT the way they do (they have to find a way out!). But it is absolutely stunning to me that some evangelicals follow in their footsteps. It’s almost as if they ‘ve re-written Jesus’s words:
O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all of the new interpretations that I gave you of what the prophets have spoken!
Thanks for this helpful comment Todd. The re-writing of the paragraph is a good heuristic device.
I’m not sure I entirely agree with your assessment (given that the disciples on the road didn’t even recognize Jesus in the resurrection body), but I think your questioning of Longman’s statements is useful nonetheless.
Hi Todd!
How do you see the mystery texts fitting in?
* Rom 16:25 “the mystery that was kept secret for long ages”
* Eph 3:1-11 “the mystery of Christ”
* Eph 6:19 “the mystery of the gospel”
* Col 1:24-28 “the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints”
* Col 4:3 “mystery of Christ”
Matt
Matt,
The “mystery” described in these passages is the church. The OT predicted many things, but the prophets never described a body of people comprised of Jews and (mostly) Gentiles. In my mind, it is no surprise that they didn’t know this because they expected the Messiah to redeem his people and establish the kingdom. They did know some about his rejection, but they didn’t fill out the picture. I think it’s clear why: the Jewish people could not say that they rejected the Messiah because it was prophesied that God would set them aside to begin a new work. Thus the church was a mystery until revealed after the ascension.
Ephesians 3:6 “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.”
Of course, the prophets do talk about the nations in relation to Israel, but these are best understood not as fulfilled in the church age but in the future kingdom.
Chris – could you elaborate on what you mean by your words in parentheses? I don’t think I understand.
Todd,
This is a difficult subject. I agree with you on Isa 9, but doesn’t it seem like there ARE some passages which take on greater significance after Christ came? There’s nothing in Ps 34:20, for instance, which seems to indicate that the verse is messianic. In John 19:36, however, it is applied to Christ. And we could go to other verses like Ps 69:4, or even Hos 11:1.
Are you saying that there are NO verses which take on a “deeper meaning” (or “fuller sense”) after Christ was resurrected? Isn’t it true that not all OT passages which Christ fulfilled were of the direct “prediction-fulfilment” type? Wouldn’t that mean that Longmann is at least partially correct in saying that “the appearance of Jesus led to a deeper understanding of [at least some of] the message of the OT”?
Enjoyed the post. Thanks.
Benj – the first point is important, as many disagree (as you well know): there are prophecies in the Old Testament which speak directly of Christ and which he expected (and held responsible) people to know. Just how many is another and less important question. But it will not do to say that the OT was read one way before Christ and another way after Christ. If this is so, the Jewish people who reject Jesus are right to say that Christians have twisted the meaning of the OT.
I agree that there are passages which may have been more difficult to understand as messianic, and I agree that some were not direct “prediction-fulfillment” types.
Your restatement of Longman’s view in adding “at least some of” completely changes the meaning. It is entirely something else to say that there was a deeper understanding of some (but not all) of the passages.
Nevertheless, I think it’s essential that we distinguish between what the author (of the OT prophecies) meant and what people understood. Did Jesus’ explanation of the OT to the disciples in Luke 24 lead to a better understanding of the OT? Of course. Was it a “deeper” meaning? I’m not so sure. Was it a meaning that did not exist in the author’s mind? I have trouble with that.
I think there is help in this analogy: the first time you read through a book (such as a mystery novel) you don’t understand everything. But once you get to the end and see “whodunit,” the next time you read it you catch many things that you didn’t notice (or understand) the first time. It’s not that there’s a deeper meaning, but that you now see what was always there. The authorial intention has not changed. Of course with the Bible, most scholars operate under the assumption that there is not an Author behind it all who knows the future and inspires his prophets. If you make this disconnection, then you have to explain it all by human processes, and what else can you say but that the prophets didn’t understand what they wrote.
I’ll just add here that I’m not writing this as one who has it all figured out. I’m very much on my journey. These are just my “thoughts” as present, and I am still working through many things.
We’re all on a journey and we’re all still working things out, but thanks for reminding us of that. Also, thanks for the analogy, it’s helpful.
However, I’m not sure that you can get around some texts taking on a meaning that did not exist in the author’s mind. Hosea sure wasn’t of Christ in 11:1 (or cf. the other verses I mentioned above).
In contrast to critical scholars, Longman DOES believe that there is “an Author behind it all when knows the future and inspires his prophets.” Note this quote from the article he wrote on the Messiah in the Law and Writings: “I am suggesting that the human authors ‘spoke better than they knew’ (cf. 1 Pet 1:10-12), there is another Author whose intentions come to perfect fulfillment. If one wants to call this sensus plenior, I have no objection” (p. 33). So, he believes that The Author knew that the texts pointed to Christ, he just doesn’t think that the human authors did (in a footnote he criticizes Kaiser and Sailhammer who think that the human authors saw a future messianic figure in their writings). Interestingly enough, 1 Pet 1:10-12 seems to argue against what he wants to say.
So again, maybe Longman is partially correct (and you’re right, adding “partially” or “some of” changes what he means).
I’d want to give more place to the noetic role of the Holy Spirit in epistemology, esp. with respect to info about Jesus. The guys on the road to Emmaus didn’t get it until God revealed it to them. I think this is somewhat normative for how God works, and I wouldn’t expect it to be any different for the prophets. That is to say, I doubt the prophets were in full possession of the Christological import of their prophecies. So I guess I’d fall somewhere between you and Longman.
Chris – so you subscribe to (some form of) the dictation theory? The author becomes a vessel through which God speaks apart from the mind of the author.
The difference with the prophets and the guys on the Emmaus road (who didn’t get it until God revealed it to them) is that the prophets are writing what God has revealed to them.
I’m not saying the prophets understood everything about Jesus, but I think they understood what they wrote.
It’s a tough question, and probably one that will always remain speculative, but I feel compelled to maintain a distinction between the type of knowledge a prophet would have had, and the type of knowledge possible this side of the resurrection. It seems to me that the gospel existed as “promise” in the OT, and as “revealed” in post-resurrection. At least this is what Paul and others seem to gesture toward. 1 Peter 1:10-12 speaks of “grace,” “suffering,” and “glory” as the content of prophetic revelation through the Spirit of Christ. But did they understand everything they were writing as pointing forward to Christ or someone like Christ? I’m not sure.
What’s at stake for you in saying so?
I’m also thinking about my experience preaching….I have a nice idea of what I think God wants me to say, and then people hear all sorts of different things, many of which are valid in and of themselves, apart from my understanding that I might have communicated them…
Never mind my “what’s at stake” question. I just read the comments above. Sorry, should have read the trail. I think I’m trying to say the same thing as BenJ
Chris – your preaching analogy is a good one. One listener may claim that you advocated theft, and another may believe that you encouraged a joyful attitude. But meaning lies in what you said and not in what they think they heard.
In the same way, if the writers of the NT misunderstood the OT (by interpreting them as being fulfilled in Christ when the authors did not intend such), then their authority is in themselves and not in the OT. But clearly the NT writers believed that the OT was the basis of their authority (in cases where they state as much).
I think I want to situate meaning in both the author’s (prophet’s) intention AND the understanding of the reader (apostle) who has the Spirit of God.
I would weight my bias toward the original author’s intention, but I would also leave room for further revelation by the Spirit by later individuals.
A text can “mean” many things, but it can’t mean “everything.” The messiah can be Cyrus and Jesus.
Having said that, I would want to say that prophecy has a determinate range of meaning, not a fixed/static/univocal meaning.
I know this opens pandoras box, but I think this is truer to the way meaning is obtained/created, and truer to the way we see scriptural interpretation happening in the NT.
I don’t think such a position cuts Jews off from their scriptures any more than it would make Christians Marcionites.