In my post Is Reinterpretation the Right Term? I noted Steve Hays’s objection to using the word. Steve wrote, “Does the NT reinterpret OT prophecies and promises? Dispensationalists are understandably critical of this suggestion,” and later, ” It is possible, therefore, to oppose “Zionist” exegesis without taking the position that the NT reinterprets the OT.” Steve himself does admit that some scholars (he cites B. Waltke), do believe the NT reinterprets the OT (Not to be funny, but I’m not actually …
Category: Hermeneutics
I have been a little disappointed at the lack of interaction from naysayers on my “40 Reasons” posts. Where there has been a bare trickle of response it has been ad hominen and trivial. But Fred Butler informed me that Steve Hays had written something on his blog, which, although it doesn’t directly interact with my articles, at least addresses two pertinent points. Steve does not say he had me in mind when he wrote, so I have no right …
The First Twenty Reasons (link) In presenting these objections to the reinterpretation of OT passages by favored interpretations of the NT I am not throwing down the gauntlet to anyone. If someone wishes to respond to these objections I would be fascinated to read what they have to say. But no one is under pressure to agree with me. However, I hope these forty reasons will be given thoughtful consideration by anybody who comes across them. I believe, of course, …
Here are the first twenty of forty reasons (there could be more but it’s a good number) why a student of the Bible should not adopt the common tactic of reading the New Testament back into the Old, with the resultant outcome that the clear statements of the Old Testament passages in context are altered and mutated to mean something which, without universal prevenient prophetic inspiration, no Old Testament saint (or New Testament saint who did not have access to …
I have been asked some questions which I find are better fitted to another post than an interminable reply in the combox. The questioner is my friend Paul Duncan, and I hope he will not be embarrassed if I address my comments directly to him, though with other readers in mind. Hi Paul, I am back in town and will try to answer your questions as asked in the comments on the fourth post. However, I shall have to point …
This post will summarize the main points I would wish to make about how best to understand the seeming tension between Paul’s teaching about the “Seed” in his discussion of faith in Galatians 3. I believe if we are not going to turn much of the testimony of Scripture on its head we should not go down the road suggested by Grover Gunn in his explanation of the passage and his inferences based thereon. In disagreeing with Gunn I am …
So far we have seen that there is something in the contention that the Apostle Paul does have in mind the covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; promises which include the land given to the nation of Israel, in his theology of the Seed (singular) in Galatians 3. But what is that “something”? Gunn, along with supercessionists generally, believes that because the Genesis passages cited or alluded to by Paul include the land-promise, that the Church – the “New …
I’m going out of town again for a few days, and, what with Christmas and everything, I don’t expect to be posting much till the New Year. I wanted to finish this topic off with this post, but I’ve actually become a little engrossed in it, so expect at least one more effort. Part One here Grover Gunn is sure that Paul is quoting Genesis 13:15-17 and 17:8, 10 from the Septuagint to make his argument in Galatians 3:16. There …
One of my readers (Justin) wrote to ask me if I might say a few things about this post by former Dispensationalist Grover Gunn. I don’t have time or inclination to respond to the whole paper, but I shall at least try to address Justin’s specific problem. Before commenting let me reproduce Justin’s question: The Question: “Hello Paul. Thanks indeed for this. I have a question relating to this. I’m sorry the text I’ve copied below is long. Perhaps when …
Parameters of Meaning – Rule 5: Do not contrast the plain-sense with a supposedly deeper “spiritual” sense. This implies God doesn’t mean what He says and is thus equivocal in His very nature; which in turn incurs heavy penalties philosophically. If a person is going to claim that the revealing God intended to pass on a meaning to men which lies somewhere beneath the surface of the words He chose to communicate with, that person must understand that they are …
