If a "faithful Jew" would agree with my OT sermon, have I failed?

by Dan Phillips

It isn't too uncommon to hear in our circles that some preaching on OT passages falls short, because it contains nothing that a Jew might not agree with.

Here's the way Trevin Wax put it. He says a Christian preacher should ask himself: "As I preach from the Old Testament, is there anything in my sermon that a faithful Jew could not affirm?" Trevin then adds this comment:

• This question reminds me to consider whether I am approaching the Old Testament from a distinctly Christian perspective. It increases my desire to show the congregation how the gospel is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises.

The intent clearly is the laudable aim of being true to passages such as Luke 24:27 and 44, among others. Insofar as Trevin's point is that a Christian sermon should not be mistakable for mere travelogue, history lecture, or moral pep-talk, I'd unreservedly agree.

However, the question as phrased was, "Is there anything in my sermon that a faithful Jew could not affirm?"

To that, my own response is, "Goodness, I hope not!"

Trevin said faithful Jew. I take that to mean believing Jew. That being the case, why would I want to break faith with a faithful Jew? Why would I want to imply to a believing Jew that the God's words to Him were not perspicuous, were coy, or perhaps were even borderline deceptive?

Was this Jesus' approach? Hardly. To pick just one very telling interchange, hear our Lord's words to his opponents:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:39–47)

A faithful, believing Jew, Jesus says, would have been led by Moses' writings to faith in Him. In fact, He said that Moses himself would accuse anyone who did not follow that progression. How could Moses accuse his readers for not finding a meaning in the text that was not, in fact, in the text? How could he accuse them for not understanding what he himself would never have understood? (This argument is made, and this hermeneutic developed, more fully by Michael Rydelnik. See also the specific application to Proverbs in Appendix Four of God's Wisdom in Proverbs.)

If Moses' writings did not actually point to Christ, the Lawgiver must instead rise and say "You know, I can't really blame you for not seeing Christ from what I wrote. I didn't see Him, myself!" But this is not what Christ claims, is it?

In my preaching Christ from OT Scriptures, I must be true to the OT Scriptures. I will be able to point to fulfillments which the original authors and readers could not know (because they had not yet happened). But those fulfillments will be in line with the words of the text — or, as we've often said in response to postmodernism, the text is plastic, the text no longer is the control, the text itself has no authority, and the author is dead.

Which, I'd argue, no Christian should want to affirm.

This question can lead (and, in many cases as we all know, has led) to reading in meaning not resident in the text, as well as minimizing the content of the text. The challenge — and it is a challenge — is to remain true to the text as given, in context, and show in what ways it points forward to Christ.

Perhaps what Trevin meant was, "Is there anything in my sermon that an apostate Jew could not affirm?"

That would make for a more useful question to ask myself.

---

How does Proverbs point to Christ?

by Dan Phillips

The Old Testament as a whole — though not each syllable in isolation — points to Christ (cf. Luke 24:25, 27, 44; Acts 10:43). The ways in which it does so are very varied (cf. Hebrews 1:1), including types and of course direct prophecies.

How does Proverbs do so?

One way is in overall impact. This book calls us all to be the perfect Sage, right? If we could embody its ideals, we would be the man who fears Yahweh before, above and through all things (1:7; 9:10; 23:17), and so doesn't sin (16:6), holds his temper in perfect check (16:32), always knows when to answer or not answer (26:4-5), and so forth. The perfectly righteous, godly man.

So one finishes and thinks, "Yeah — except it's already too late. I'll never be that man. Even the guy who wrote the book (1:1) wasn't that man (1 Kings 11)! No son of Adam will ever be that man (1 Kings 8:46)!"

But then one reads Isaiah 11, about the one on whom the Spirit of Yahweh (who is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding and counsel and knowledge and the fear of Yahweh) rests, the perfect Man who lives and rules in perfect righteousness. Ah, so that one will embody the ideal of this book!

Then we ask, Nice for Him, but how does that help me? Then we read Isaiah 53, and we understand.

Proverbs points to Jesus at least in this: by framing the ideal godly, righteous Sage who is what no mere mortal can be, thus creating a mold that can be filled only by Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God incarnate (cf. Matthew 23:34//Luke 11:49; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; Colossians 2:2-3).

For more, see the Epilogue and Appendix Four of God's Wisdom in Proverbs, available on sale at Logos, at WTS, at Amazon, and 50% off from the publisher.

---

...and that is what Christmas is all about

by Dan Phillips

First:

And then:

The last two Sundays at CBC were given to framing the Christmas history against the larger backdrop of the saga of redemption.

First, we started literally at Genesis 1:1, in Christmas in Genesis.

Then in Christmas in Isaiah, we traced the thread of the Seed, from Genesis 3:15 to Isaiah 53.  (This includes a robust presentation of some of my reasons for insisting that Isaiah 7:14 looks to the birth of Jesus Christ, and no other.)

Merry Christmas!

---

Book impression: The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook

by Dan Phillips

The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook, edited by J. Daniel Hays and J. Scott Duvall

(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011; 1144 pages)

My page-by-page scan of this book Baker sent me for review left me with these impressions.

First: one immediately notes that it is a heavy, weighty book. Literally. It weighs a lot! Just shy of 5 pounds. Hand it to someone without warning, and he'll lurch.

This is because the book is packed with really excellent photos and illustrations of various kinds, about 500 in number (not counting charts and maps). You'll see archeological finds and sites, maps, modern photos of locations and animals and such, tables, coins, ancient manuscripts. For instance, p. 267 has a DSS Psalms ms. showing the interspersal of paleo-Hebrew script when the name Yahweh is written; plus doezens of bas-reliefs, vistas, cups, coins. Visually and graphically, the book is a stunning achievement.

Does the content measure up?

First, a glance at the contributors. In my overview, I'm first impressed by the fact that I don't recognize most of the four pages of contributors, and many of those I do recognize don't excite me. Knowing nothing of the book going in, it isn't a plus to me that Peter Enns, Tremper Longman, and John Walton are contributors. On the other hand, Stephen Dempster, Dan Wallace, and Darrell Bock add articles to the volume. Maybe that's just me being out of touch, maybe not.

Most of the writing is carried by the editors, J's Daniel Hays and Scott Duvall, both professors at Ouachita Baptist University and published authors many times over.

Are the contents good? For the most part, well, I'll say they're not bad, and parts are quite good. The reading-level is very accessible without being at all juvenile, though some might not love every idiomatic turn. For instance, Song of Solomon is "a collection of mushy love songs," and is "a steamy, R-rated book" (303), that teaches marrieds that "when the lights go out, we should...be a little goofy and crazy about each other" (307). Truth, there; but no mention of any allusion to Christ, even sideways. I'll return to that.

Similarly, Jeremiah is "the Dirty Harry of the Old Testament" (335). Almost thirty years ago, I gave a similar distinction to Ezekiel, which I think fits him better; Jeremiah is not nearly Stoic enough.

There are a number of helpful elements, including sometimes sharp observations salted as "extras" at the bottom of the pages.

Joe Sprinkle has a helpful and very readable article on the important similarities between Hittite Treaties and the structure of Deuteronomy (109). I found the table of comparisons and contrasts between Rahab and Achan on 133 thought-provoking. The book does lean in conservative directions, such as affirming the authority of the Psalms' superscriptions (267) and the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes (294). Also, there is an interesting sidebar on the fate of the Ark of the Covenant (339).

Mostly, the discussion of authorship-type issues is reliably conservative. Mostly. The section on Daniel simply doesn't notice the long-burning controversy, though its aside on the four kingdoms gets wobbly and accommodates liberalism or copping out altogether (375). The book's outline of the book of Daniel ignores the two languages, of which Robert D. Culver made very good sense many decades ago.

Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is affirmed, but it's hardly a trumpet blast ("Nevertheless, solid arguments remain in favor of Pauline authorship," 882), nor is the affirmation of Pauline authorship of Ephesians (836). The book is noncommittal on 2 Peter (936), which is disappointing.

A number of elements bother me, however. There is no help in understanding Creation or Flood, as to how to read them or how to relate them to the world we inhabit.

Maybe worse: don't look for help in seeing the OT in any Christ-centered or Gospel-centric way. There is no serious treatment (if any treatment at all) of Messiah in the sections on the Pentateuch. "Favorite verse" in Genesis is neither 3:15 nor 15:6, but 17:1 (55). Balaam's oracles are discussed, without even a sidelong glance at Messiah (100). "Favorite verse" in Leviticus is not 17:11, but 19:18 (89). First mention of Messiah that I noticed does not come until 269. But in summarizing "the Prophets in a Nutshell," Messiah finds no place whatever (312-313).

In fact, here's a perfect illustration. As far as it goes, the section "The Grand Story of the Bible" (19-22) is really quite good, quite descriptive of the flow of events and focii of the Bible as a whole. The outline of highlighted themes does say that Christ is the climax of the story. However, Christ comes in at point #11 in a series of 13, and Christ/Messiah has not been mentioned heretofore. So the grand story of the Bible is mostly tellable without reference to Jesus — though He is the "climax." This suggests that the Bible reads a bit like a mystery where the key character isn't brought out nor even hinted at until the last pages of the last chapter. That is one approach believers take to the Bible, but I think it is... less helpful than it could be. (I worked to develop that theme that at the Ashford Bible Conference last summer.)

Also, Bible quotations neither correct "LORD" to Yahweh nor preserve the capitalization device (e.g. 121), which underscores one of my ongoing objections to the practice. In fact, a text-box article on Yahweh is pretty poor, misstating that Yahweh "doesn't really mean 'Lord'" but saying they will "simply translate Yahweh as Lord" (65). Weak. Yahweh doesn't mean "Lord" in any sense, any more than "Dan" means "husband"; and "Lord" is not in any sense a "translation."

Peter Enns shows up to write on the dating of the Exodus, granting that a "literal reading" favors the early date, but leaning for the late date (59). Hardly a surprise, but not terrific.

Of course it will irk me that the section on "the Heart of Proverbs" completely misses the inclusio signals I discuss in my book, which are (A) really important to understanding the book, and (B) hardly top-secret. Plus (fast-forwarding) the note on 1 Corinthians 11 actually revives the old chestnut — you will think I am kidding, but I'm not — that the word head here "could refer to 'source'" rather than authority (792).

In sum: there is much that is helpful, and almost nothing truly harmful, in this book. It is easy reading, engaging, and graphically very impressive. A new reader to the Bible will find helpful information, and a more advanced student will enjoy the graphics without being too exercized over the shortcomings.

The "harm," if any, comes in terms of omission. One could wish for an equally beautiful and accessible book that takes a Christ-centered, emphatically theologically conservative approach to all of Scripture.

For such lavish illustrations, a price in the $20s is a good buy.

---

Ashford Bible Conference 2011: Christ in the Old Testament

by Dan Phillips

As you know, I had the great joy of bringing two of the four sessions in the 2011 Ashford Bible Conference, of which the topic was Christ in the Old Testament. Brother/pastors Anthony Forsyth (about whom more, later) and Tom Drion (who serves God in His Word in London) brought the Word in the other two sessions.

Pastor Anthony Forsyth invited me and, what's more, hosted my dear wife, two youngest sons and myself. We all absolutely loved the Forsyth family (wife Jenny and children Joseph, Lydia, Phoebe, Timothy and Chloë), and loved our time with them in their stately mansion. Had a terrific time with them, trading accent-teases, as well as meeting first another American house-guest (Jeremy, music-guy), and then an Irish brother (Jonathan, media-guy).

Anthony even graciously encouraged my efforts to speak, you know, English. Nonetheless, I felt it wiser to teach and preach in American, with Anthony standing by to translate as necessary.

I'd been very anxious in my preparations over the many months since Anthony invited me to speak, poring over reams of volumes and articles on Messianic prophecy, as well as reviewing the Scriptures themselves. How to approach it? How even to touch such a massive, vital topic, over which my betters have labored for millennia with such varying results and degrees of success?

Through it all, my fundamental driving conviction came from passages such as John 5:39-40, 45-46 —

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, ⁴⁰ yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. ...⁴⁵ Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. ⁴⁶ For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. ⁴⁷ But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

You could say this is a subsection of my overall conviction, based on passages such as Hebrews 1:1-2, that the Bible is not a secret codebook. It is a communication, from God, to His people, commencing (always) with the original authors and hearers.

These and other passages give me the very strong impression that our Lord believed that the OT, in and of itself, bore witness to Him so directly and overwhelmingly that to reject that witness is to damn oneself. Never does He say anything even approaching, "You know, boys, I can't really blame you for not recognizing Me. Nobody could! The OT is a book of impenetrable mystery. In fact, nobody could fairly be expected to see Me in it. But just you wait: after Pentecost, the Spirit will help My guys read Me into it. Then we'll have a whole different ballgame."

Rather, in saying that Moses himself would condemn His rejectors, He is clearly asserting that Moses knowingly wrote of Him. Not wrote-of-something-else-that-later-was-deflected-to-Him, but of Him, Jesus.

So my challenge was multifold:

1. How to read the Scripture as it should be read; which is the same as saying...
2. How to read the Scripture as Jesus read it.
3. How to show that the Scripture in its entirety pointed to Him.
4. How to set this forth intelligibly in two sessions of finite length.
5. How to do all this freshly, persuasively, accessibly, helpfully, and memorably.

Whether or not I succeeded, God is judge, and you can judge for yourself. But trying was a joy and an education.

In the first talk, I introduce the entire subject of Messiah and of Messianic prophecy, and endeavor to show (in one talk!) how the whole OT points to Jesus Christ. My dear wife says I talked too fast, and I'm sure she's right. My excuse is that I had a truckload to say, and leaned on the fact that folks could (if they wished) listen to the recording or watch the video. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

In keeping with my conviction, I approached the session not by expounding NT passages with talked about Messianic prophecy, but by going straight to the OT text itself, literally beginning at the beginning.

Here 'tis:

The second talk was really a continuation of the first, and a specific demonstration of ways in which one particular book (Genesis) points to Christ.

My third message in Ashford was a Sunday morning sermon focusing on Colossians 3:16 and speaking of the church's vital center. Then in the evening service, I returned to Christ in the OT, particularly speaking (surprise!) of Christ and Proverbs — because Pastor Forsyth had asked me to.

An aside: when Anthony and I met at his house, he asked "Have you ever seen this?" — and held up my Proverbs book. I hadn't! It was quite a surprise. Last I heard, the book would not be out in time for the conference. But Anthony had been persistent, publisher Eric Kress had done some magic, and the book had preceded me.

That book does contain material and an appendix that relates to Christ in Proverbs, and how to teach and preach Proverbs. However, this sermon takes a somewhat independent approach from the focus of the book.

Anthony also had ordered a large quantity of The World-Tilting Gospel, which he handed out to each family in attendance. Say, what a great conference idea. He also sees the book as a ministry-tool, extending Gospel preaching and grounding to all of the families under his care, and I believe he'd commend it to others for the same purposes.

Staying with that subject: Anthony is involved in two ministries now, an ongoing ministry Sunday afternoons in Medway, and a new church-plant in Ashford. You can see some more about it here, with more planned in approaching weeks. He would appreciate all of your prayers, and I would commend him to you. England is a land of thrilling history and a dark spiritual present. Any emphatically Gospel-preaching, Bible-teaching ministry will face trials and Satanic opposition, and Anthony's is no exception. Pray for his own walk and ministry, and for his family; and pray for the unity, growth, and evangelistic outreach of his church.

There. That should keep you busy and out of trouble for awhile.

---

Asking a favour of my United Kingdom friends: Ashford Bible Conference

by Dan Phillips

I will bump this post myself later, but you brothers and sisters in the UK are awake and about long ahead of most of my other readers. So I speak unto you.

This September, I am to come to your lovely shores to join with two brothers in opening up the grand subject of...

This conference, the third annual Ashford Bible Conference, is to be held September 17, 2011, in (as you might guess) Ashford, England. My efforts will be joined with those of pastors Tom Drion and Anthony Forsyth.

My own assigned conference talks are an introduction to Messianic prophecy in the OT, and then a focused session on Messiah in Genesis. I'm looking forward to being instructed afterwards by the sessions with brothers Drion and Forsyth. The next day, I plan to preach on Christ and Proverbs. Plus, if I can figure out how to do it and DV, we may have some World-Tilting Gospel and the then-brand-new God's Wisdom in Proverbs for anyone who's interested, and who may want me to scrawl my "X" (tilted or non-tilted) on their copy.

In my first talk I plan a unique approach. I don't want to give it away, but I plan a frontal approach to our Lord's insistence that the OT was sufficient to condemn anyone who did not embrace Him as Messiah. I mean to open up and expound the truth of His convictions, to the best of my ability, and in a manner different than any I've seen to date in one talk. In other words, is Messiah all over the OT, or do we need special NT spectacles to see Him? Or is He not even there until we put Him there?

My session on Genesis will similarly be a bit off-path in that I do not plan to focus on familiar ground, but rather will highlight other significant ways in which Moses points us to Christ.

"You said something about asking us a favor favour," you say, uncomfortably, at this point. Yes, that's right.

Please help me get the word out.

I'm not there, and this is the best I know how to do. Here's what I am asking you: of course, most of all, come if you can. I would love to meet our readers, it is one of the facets I'm personally most looking forward to.

But if you can't come — and please, let's not fill this meta with folks explaining why they can't come — I'm just asking you to tell those who maybe can come if they only knew about it. Put it out there for them. Reach out, if you could, to non-Pyro/BibChr readers. If you don't mind, put up a word on your blog. Tweet it. Google-plus it. "Like" the Facebook page and share it. Email some friends. If you're a pastor and don't mind doing so, maybe put a word in the bulletin.  Or if you can come, better still: bring a group, make it a church activity.

From everything I've heard, the folks who run this conference are very gracious hosts, and a good time of Christian fellowship in the Word is enjoyed by all who come.

And before, during, and after, please also pray for the conference and for all of us involved. Nothing I've heard makes me think that the UK doesn't need more proclamation of the Christ of the entire Bible. You share that in common with us. I gladly come to add my mite to the labors of the faithful sisters and brothers already bearing witness to the best of their abilities, and hopefully to add an item or two to their arsenal.

Plus: I am a great believer in the usefulness of Bible conferences. I think they've done a lot of good here in the Colonies. For the tradition to take hold in the UK, events such as this need support. I'm really not persuaded by the naysayers; it isn't about creating "rock stars," it's about believers enjoying fellowship with each other, confessing their faith, and being built up. In fact, my dear wife and I count our time at Together for the Gospel in 2008 as one of the best things we've ever done, best times we've ever spent, together.

Thanks in advance, for everything you can do. I am grateful, and I do not take the least tiniest bit of it for granted.

---

Relationship of Old and New in Messianic Prophecy: Huh? and Oh!

by Dan Phillips

Building a bit on the previous post about Messiah in the OT, I'd like to add a couple more seed-thoughts.

The relationship of Old and New Testaments is of course a massive topic, subject of thousands of pages by men vastly my superior. Yet I have a thought I'd like to contribute which I haven't seen elsewhere phrased exactly thus. Maybe for good reason. Let's see.

The relationship has been likened to form and fullness; to shadow and substance; to Law and Gospel; to type and antitype.

My suggestion: the relationship is that of "Huh?" to "Oh!"


Here's what I mean: in many forms and in many ways God spoke to the Fathers in the prophets. He meant every word He said. Every word had meaning for the original writers and audience, and that meaning was God's meaning.

At the same time, many of those meanings ultimately led to ambivalence, puzzlement, or even frustration. They led somewhere meaningful, yet incomplete. Followed out, thought through, they still would have to leave the serious and believing thinker trusting, yet baffled and unresolved. He's stuck at "Huh?"

But when the full-day revelation of the NT dawns, then and only then comes the "Oh!" of resolution and understanding.

We could single out a number of examples. I'll take two, and be brief about it.

First: God — monad, or plurality?

God is One. We're clear on that, right? "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4), the central confession of Israel's faith. "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5a). Many Scriptures affirm this truth, beyond all doubt and ambiguity.

And yet....

Plurality in unity? The most common noun for "God" in Hebrew is, beyond debate, plural in form. Most scholars explain this in various ways unrelated to any suggestion of plurality — plural of majesty, potentiality, something. Yet God speaks in the first-person plural (Genesis 1:26), and there are other occurrences of plural verbs associated with the subject "God" (e.g. Genesis 20:13; 35:7;  2 Samuel 7:23). Sometimes plural adjectives modify the noun (e.g. Deuteronomy 5:26).

In fact, back to the verse asserting that Yahweh is "one." The word used there well accommodates the notion of a complex unity (cf. Genesis 2:24; Numbers 13:23), rather than a solitary unit (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16).

Then there's this figure, the Angel of Yahweh, who speaks both of and as Yahweh (Genesis 16:11 and 10, respectively) — that is, as if distinct from, and yet as if identical with, Yahweh. Scholars explain this language away as messenger-talk... but does that explanation really do justice to the language, and to the actions of those in His presence (cf. Joshua 5:13—6:5), and to the figure's appropriation of a title of the Messiah (Judges 13:18; Isaiah 9:6; virtually identical spelling in Hebrew)?

Add to these the baffling back and forths in Zechariah, where Yahweh speaks of Yahweh sending Him (e.g. 2:8-11 NAS). In fact, in Isaiah, Yahweh seems to send both Yahweh and His Spirit (48:16). Plus, Messiah will have God as His Father (Isaiah 7:14), and will bear His name (Isaiah 9:6; cf. Jeremiah 23:6).

So on the one hand, God is one. On the other, there's some kind of plurality going on there.

Huh?

Second: Messiah — glorious ruler, or suffering victim?

Victorious ruler. The first prophecy of Messiah depicts Him as crushing the Serpent's head (Genesis 3:15). He is the ruler from Judah (Genesis 49:10), the son of God from David's line sitting on his throne (2 Samuel 7:14) who will rule the nations and crush them as with a rod of iron (Psalm 2). In His days, peace will reign, Jerusalem will be exalted, and Eden will be restored (Isaiah 2; 11), He will reign as priest-king at Yahweh's right hand forever (Psalm 110).

Suffering victim. Yet often in the psalms we see a very different picture. If we take David's experience as foreshadowing Messiah, we see him not only triumphing and reigning, but being mocked and forsaken and poured out in the dust of death (Psalm 22), and being abandoned by his friends (Psalm 41:9). Or laying aside types in favor of full-on predictive prophecy, we see the crystal-clear portrait of Messiah offering His soul as a sin offering, and dying (Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12). In fact, going back to the root-prophecy of Genesis 3:15, is not the Serpent-crushing Seed also stricken in His heel?

So, on the one hand, Messiah is a glorious, victorious Conqueror. And on the other, He suffers and dies, forsaken by God.

Huh?

The fullness of time

But you see, in both of those cases — and I am only singling out two of a number I have in mind — once the full light of day dawns in the NT, we see (to coin a phrase) the rest of the story.

As to the first conundrum, we now see that there is but one God as to His essence, and that He is three as to His persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. All three appear and act in bold distinctness in the events and teaching surrounding the inauguration of the New Covenant, while confirming every jot of the teaching of the Old. So all of the OT is absolutely true, both in insisting at God's unity, and hinting at a plurality within that unity.

Oh!

And in the case of Messiah — victim, or victor? — we see Him born to the royal family in fulfillment of prophecy, living a holy and righteous life marked by Messianic miracles and words. And we see Him die as an offering for sin, stricken for the iniquity of His people, that by His wounds we might have peace. But after dying, He rises from the dead, ascends to the Father's right hand, and will return one day to begin His kingdom reign on earth. So all of the OT is absolutely true, both in insisting on Messiah's royal reign, and in foretelling His sacrificial suffering and death.

Oh!

As I said, this is true in a wide variety of ways. Many mysteries are stirred and tales half-told, left unresolved and unsatisfied by the time Malachi (or 2 Chronicles, in the Hebrew Bible) is finally penned. But all those central mysteries are resolved with the complex of revelation unfolded in the coming of Christ.

The NT takes the OT's "Huh?" of penultimate bafflement, and transforms it into the "Oh!" of ultimate fulfillment.

---

Christ in the Old Testament: introductory challenges, parameters, cautions

by Dan Phillips

---

In yesterday's meta, beloved bro Phil mentioned a dispensationalist writer who

says Christ is not the theme of the OT at all.


...It would be nice to have a refutation of some of Snoeberger's old-Dallas-style-dispensational arguments from your more Talbot-style dispensationalist perspective.

I haven't read the essay in question yet. So let me just weigh in with what amounts to a howdy-do to mine own perspective on the subject. For Phil. To aid his recovery.

But note: this is only a very brief introduction. And I continue to be instructed in this vast topic. But this is where years of study and thought have brought me.

---

You who've heard this story will be patient for the sakes of those who haven't.

It was Sunday School teacher Beulah Landogoshen's first sick day in 48 years, and her young students found themselves looking at an unfamiliar face. Annie Neophyte was bright, eager, and 48 years Beulah's junior.

As the manuals suggested, Annie came up with an activity to break the ice with her class, all of whom were still in their single digits. After a warm greeting and self introduction to the silent faces, with the air of a magician producing a rabbit, Annie drew out a stack of glossy wildlife pictures. "Start with something easy," the manual said.

"I have a piece of candy for the first person to tell me what this is," Annie bubbled, holding up a picture of a lion.

Silence. Expressionless, vast, unmoving silence. Annie was puzzled. Did these rustics never see Animal Planet? Or an MGM movie? She put away the lion, and drew out the picture of a camel.

Same response. In the corner, a cricket scraped its lonely melody.

This was going badly.

Her hand now becoming unsteady, she brought out a picture of a fluffy little squirrel.

"Surely one of you can tell me what this is?" Annie pleaded. "Anyone?"

Reluctantly, little Tommy held up a lone index finger. Annie gratefully nodded to him. "Yes, young man. What is this a picture of?" she asked.

"Well," Tommy drawled. "It sure looks like a squirrel to me. But I do want that candy, so I'm going to say, 'Jesus.'"

This sometimes feels like the dilemma of "finding" Christ in the Old Testament. We're given the impression that He's in there, all over the place; but when we look, we see dead animals, dead Canaanites, long lists of names, tales of mostly mediocre-to-nasty monarchs, plus excruciating details seemingly meant for contractors, engineers, and/or butchers. Sure looks like that to us... but should we say it looks like "Jesus," anyway? For the candy?

The imperative. Jesus sure makes it sound as if we should find Him all over the place. We read that Jesus told the Jews who were trying to kill Him,

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:45-47)

Then after the Jews did succeed in killing him with the Romans' gormless and gutless collusion, and after He rose from the dead, Jesus returned to the same theme, this time even more broadly. First He speaks to the two on the Emmaus road:

And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

Then to the apostles:

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.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:44-47)

This is echoed in later words from the apostles, but I want to stop right there and make some important observations. Don't skip them, please. I'm pretty sure some good folks who are nodding right along may be about to stop nodding.

The guidelines. Here's what I think are some imperatives:

1. Jesus leads us to expect to find signposts pointing to Him all over the Old Testament.
2. If we believe in Jesus, we should expect to find them, too.
3. What is more, Jesus did not instruct His followers as to how to insert, impose, or overlay such points of attestation. In fact...
4. Jesus did not think that such points would only become compelling in light of His career, which we know because...
5. Jesus held saved and unsaved men alike morally accountable for not already seeing what He clearly believed were the evident signposts throughout. He told the unbelieving Jews that they would be damned if they did not come to heed them, and He told the disciples that they were slow-witted fools for not already believing them. Therefore...
6. There is some way in which the plain sense of Old Testament Scripture points to Jesus, from all of its parts.
7. Yet this must be uncovered and expounded in such a way that still allows a city-name to be a city-name (Matthew 2:5-6), a kingdom-name to be a kingdom-name (Matthew 2:13-14), and a donkey to be a donkey (Matthew 21:1-5).

The musing. Leaving aside non-players (i.e. liberals, unbelievers, nutcases), it seems to me that the ways in which we pursue Jesus' imperative can be mapped as somewhere between two poles:

At the one pole, the virtual Docetics approach the text as if it only seems to be talking about Noah, Abram, Moses, Israel, marriage, work, morality and all that — but what it's really talking about is Jesus. We're back with little Tommy in Mrs. Landogoshen's class. It only looks like a squirrel. But really, it's Jesus. Everything means something other than what it seems.

A newly-baptized acolyte of this school, highly wrought-up over what he perceived to be my hermeneutic, scoffed to someone, "Dan probably doesn't think the book of Job is about Jesus!" Ah, yes. Silly me, allowing myself to be misled by... oh, I don't know... the title of the book? The text? Those word-thingies that God uses as units of revelation?

This school is commendable for its desire to find Christ everywhere. The fatal error in this approach, however, is that they effectively rob the OT text of authority. It no longer speaks, no matter what the NT repeatedly says about it. The authority is no longer in Scripture, but in some canon-within-the-Canon. We cannot really affirm that God spoke to the fathers in the prophets (Hebrews 1:1), if we think He was really speaking to us over their heads and winking and gesturing behind their backs the whole time.

Further, it runs to grief against Jesus' reproaches. He really should have said something more to the effect of "I can't possibly blame you for not seeing Me in all those Scriptures; here, take this decoder-ring, and I'll show you how to work it right." But He didn't. He insisted they full well should have recognized in Him the fulfillment of OT anticipation.

But at the other pole would be the virtual Ebionites, the school that says that the OT is only about Noah, Abram, Moses, Israel, marriage, work, morality and all that. There is no greater referent than the first one, ever... except maybe in a relatively tiny handful of types and direct prophecies. If I may go back to Tommy once more, this would be the "it's a squirrel, period" school.

This approach is to be commended insofar as it is born of a desire to be true to the text. But its fatal flaw is that it really doesn't end up doing honor to all of Scripture, particularly Scriptures such as those cited above and Acts 3:18, 24; 10:43, among others. These passages clearly lead us to expect that we should be able to find Christ all over Scripture while at the same time doing full justice to the text as given. There is no hint that the apostles were rewriting or overdubbing Scripture when they saw Christ in it. They were convinced that they were simply bringing out its actual meaning.

My position. So to call Tommy to the stand one last time, my position would be "It's a squirrel, and the squirrel points me to Christ." It's an imperfect analogy, but work with me here. I don't view the squirrel as a thing-in-itself and nothing more. The squirrel is not its own purpose and end. I know that the squirrel was created by Christ (John 1:3), that it was created for Christ (Colossians 1:16), that Christ is holding the very atoms of the squirrel together (Colossians 1:17), and that Christ is carrying the squirrel towards the accomplishment of His purposes in history (Hebrews 1:3). The squirrel glorifies Christ, and when I look at it in the light of what I know about it by revelation it points me to Him.

Now, I am not saying that the OT is about Christ exactly like the squirrel is about Christ. But I am saying that, like the squirrel, the objects and events and institutions and persons in the OT are what they are, and what they are by design is a master-symphony which all points to the central theme of Christ.

We are able to look at the Old Testament, from start to finish, and see that it points to Christ in a constellation of ways both direct and indirect. Some (many? most?) of these are clearer in the light of full revelation; but revelation does not insert new elements into those texts. Rather, it brings out what otherwise might have been thought obscure and not deeply significant.

There are many direct prophecies, such as Genesis 3:15; 49:10; Numbers 24:17; Deuteronomy 18:15, and a host of others. But the godly men and women point forward to Him by positive type, while in their sins and failings they point to Him in negative type. The institutions point to Him in what they accomplish, but almost more so in what they fail to accomplish. The history of the nation of Israel itself sets the stage for Him, both in its essence and in its failings.

Yet at the same time, these things are what they are.

But what they are, are pointers to Christ.

So, to try to be frontal: is the OT about the history of Israel — with all those diverse characters, institutions, morals, and prophecies — , or is it about Christ?  My answer:

The OT is about the history of Israel (etc.).

And Israel (etc.) is about Christ.

There y'go. Mend fast, Phil; everyone misses you!

---

UPDATE: you would swear that either I had read my friend Chris Anderson's essay on preaching Christ from Esther, or that he had read mine. Neither would be true. It is a sterling example of struggling with both text and the Christ-centered metanarrative in exactly the sort of direction I'm suggesting here.

---