http://www.tesm.edu/deans-corner/dcblog/bibtheo
This little article is a US evangelical episcopalian's take on what in Moore College/Oak Hill circles has become known as 'biblical theology'. In brief, Zahl's take on it is a Lutheran one: pointing out that the Goldsworthy-style biblical theology has a strongly Reformed heritage for starters. His complaint is interesting: that BT collapses the OT into the NT, such that you cannot hear the message of the OT except as a kind of pre-NT. Certainly, I have heard preaching on the Psalms for example which allows no other reading than the christological one - a method which I think is hard to sustain and necessarily subdues some of the best bits! Often the schema is used more rigidly than you would ever hear from Graeme himself (as always happens with systems and schemas...)
Zahl accuses BT of 'colonizing the Old Testament on behalf of the New.' His (very Lutheran!) response is that the OT is God's 'first word' designed to convict the world of sin - to which the NT, his 'second word', is the complement. The OT, if you like, is the bad news, and the NT is the good. (perhaps this caricatures PZ's position, but ... maybe not).
There is something in this I think. However, is not Christ the lynchpin here? Is not God's word in the OT AND the NT still Christ?
AND - doesn't Zahl's proposal risk minimizing the aspects of the OT which consist of promise, redemption and grace? Is the law really just a matter of a very high standard which no-one can keep but which makes you feel really bad? Why does the Psalmist (19, 119 eg.) delight in the law in that case?
It should be remembered also that BT is a response to so much evangelical preaching on the OT which was either hopelessly allegorical or hopelessly moralistic. (sometimes you feel that same principles could have been drawn from Homer or Jane Austen). BT reminds us that the bible is a grand narrative of redemption and to locate ourselves according to that narrative when we read the OT. Thoughts anyone? (btw, do read Zahl's very brief article as well).
7 comments:
Continuity/discontinuity - a thought: is the continuity/discontinuity between OT/NT the same (or a parallel) as that between Creation and New Creation? Was the cross the final event of the Old Covenant and the resurrection the first of the new? Or does that belong to the incarnation, with a period of overlap between old and new within the life of Jesus ? Just a thought.
What are the continuities/discontinuities between the continuity/discontinuity of the OT/NT and the continuity/discontinity of creation/new creation?
'In Christ's death on the cross, this world of injustice and violence reaches its end, for his resurrection from the dead is already the beginning of 'the life of the world to come'.'
- J. Moltmann 'The Liberation of the Future' in God will be all in all (ed. R. Bauckham), 266.
More answers Byron, fewer questions!
Answers:
i) a parallel
ii) yes and yes. However, the cross was also the inauguration/ratification of the new covenant (cf. Lk 22.20).
iii) yes as well (overlap between old and new covenants in the life of Jesus)
iv) discontinuities: The OT and the NT were both God's actions to solve the problem. Even the old covenant was to deal with sin. However, the creation was not to solve a problem.
continuities: the move from OT to NT is not replacement but fulfilment; same for the move from creation to new creation.
well I am expecting a couple of my English anti-New Perspective friends to comment here in defence of the Zahl position...
hmm. But the fulfillment involves some pretty strong discontinuities... ie. sin and evil does get 'fulfilled' it gets burnt off.
What do you make Byron of 2 Peter 3's discontinuous imagery?
You might consider reading this too:
http://blog.worship.com/worship/2007/09/paul-zahl-on-th.html
Post a Comment