An interesting vantage-point, I think, is to view the relationship between the OT
and the New is that we are on two tracks, one leading from the OT to the New,
and one leading from the New Testament to the Old. In any point of Biblical
theology, we can stand from the vantage-point of one of the testaments and ask
how the other illuminates it. For example, it is commonplace to read the OT
Sacrifices from the vantage-point of Jesus. Jesus fulfills the OT sacrificial
system. Is it illuminating to read the crucifixion of Jesus from the vantage-point
of Leviticus? What would it have to say that is of help in understanding the
nature of what Jesus has done in his crucifixion and resurrection? Even the last statement betrays a Christocentric approach to the text that the self-consciously Christian scholar cannot escape. As a Christian, I will
ask different things from the text than a Jewish scholaror scholar from another
religion or with no faith experience at all.
This
is a Canonical approach like Brevard Childs’, in which the OT and NT are the
Church’s book, and that what is authoritative for the church is the Bible as
read in the church. The Bible is interpreted in the community of Faith, and has
a binding word to say to them. This is almost similar to Brueggemann’s
approach, in which he writes that the NT story is one way with which to
interpret the OT, but it is not necessary. There are a variety of appropriate
approaches. This fits into Brueggemann’s radically community centered view of
authority by which the community can accept the witness of the Scriptures, in
which they become binding, but they can just as easily not. Childs sees the
whole Bible as being a reliable revelation of God. This of course, is also
testimony concerning God, but it is more than that. It is more than just
Testimony, but a truth statement concerning God.
Tomorrow, we will unpack what viewing the crucifixion through the lens of Leviticus has to say about Christ's redemptive work on the cross.
No comments:
Post a Comment