Pages

Monday, October 06, 2014

God with us


Tremper Longman and Iain Duguid had a brief exchange over at Green Baggins on christoteolism:


But it's striking that Longman never responded to Duguid's follow-up question. You'd think Isa 7:14 would be an excellent test-case to compare and contrast christotelic hermeneutics with the alternatives. So why did Longman back out? Did he suddenly realize that it was a tactical blunder for him to comment on Isa 7:14? That he better not tip his hand any further, because he'd already shown too much? What he said about Isa 7:14 was already pretty damaging for christotelism.  

BTW, here are two good studies of Isa 7:14 and Mt 1:23:





    iain duguid said,
October 1, 2014 at 5:18 pm 
Jonathan,
If I can clarify the concern that I think Lane is raising, it is this: were the Old Testament saints able genuinely to see the gospel during the Old Testament period through a proper understanding of the Scriptures that they had then (albeit dimly), or did that have to wait until the coming of Christ? If the gospel is not visible (even though present) in the Old Testament until the coming of Christ, how were Abraham and Moses saved? On some level, the gospel has to be visible through ordinary exegesis of the OT texts in the OT period if it is to be the means by which God’s people were saved, which is a central tenet of Reformed theology.


Of course they didn’t have as full an understanding as we have (just as we don’t have a full understanding of the events that will surround the Lord’s return), but they did see enough of the gospel to place their trust prospectively in Christ. So, to take the Isaiah 7 passage, I’m sure the prophet’s original audience didn’t understand the fullness of what it meant. But they could see the contrast between that first young woman’s faith in Immanuel (“God with us”) and the cynical skepticism of the Davidic king, Ahaz. The initial fulfillment in the form of the destruction of the northern kingdom and of Syria was a rebuke to Ahaz and a call to the contemporary audience to trust in the promise of Immanuel, a promise in seed form that flowers completely in the coming of Christ. 


This is not to speak directly to the views of specific people, or to say that the gospel is equally clear everywhere in the OT. But I think that one concern of critics of the TRV is that it sounds as if the gospel is not actually visible through a normal, plain reading of the OT by itself, without the NT. And that, it seems to me, does raise significant theological questions. Does that help to clarify matters?


Tremper Longman said,
October 1, 2014 at 7:17 pm
Iain,
Jonathan is totally correct. And as much as I respect you, as my former student and friend, your attempt to argue that the original audience would even have a glimmer of a future messianic hope, not to speak of any kind of specific understanding of the virgin birth of Christ in Isaiah 7:14, is hardly persuasive. The thought process that you are attributing to the original audience is highly improbable. And unnecessary. It is true (and Dan and Doug would agree) that there was a messianic expectation that arose from the Old Testament, that was present in the intertestamental period, but it was not well understood until the resurrection of Christ. Again, in this case, I think Jonathan is exactly right.


iain duguid said,
October 1, 2014 at 8:57 pm
Tremper,
Thanks for your response. I also respect the many things that I learned from you. I’d just like you to clarify what you said, since clarity is of the essence in this discussion. When you say “there was a messianic expectation that arose from the Old Testament, that was present in the intertestamental period, but it was not well understood until the resurrection of Christ”, do you mean that there was no genuine and clear messianic understanding within the Old Testament itself before the intertestamental period? Or, to put it more precisely, that Isaiah’s contemporaries did not understand on some genuine level that through the suffering servant of whom he spoke, the Lord would take away their sins – that that knowledge only became clear after the coming of Christ? Or would you say that the Old Testament saints knew the gospel, truly and genuinely on the basis of what had already been revealed, even though much of the way in which God would fulfill these rich promises was not yet apparent to them?


For me, this is one of the pivotal questions in this debate and I ask it because I’d genuinely like to know how you are processing these things (regardless of where other people may be – I don’t know enough to speculate on what their answers might be).

2 comments:

  1. It seems the student has surpassed the master.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Longman continues to show his cards. His hermeneutic would be rejected at RTS and Covenant as well as WTS.

    ReplyDelete