Do We Need the New Testament?: Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself

by John E. Goldingay

Do we need the Old Testament? That's a familiar question, often asked. But as an Old Testament scholar, John Goldingay turns that question on its Do we need the New Testament? What's new about the New Testament? After all, the Old Testament was the only Bible Jesus and the disciples knew. Jesus affirmed it as the Word of God. Do we need anything more? And what happens when we begin to look at the Old Testament, which is the First Testament, not as a deficient old work in need of a christological makeover, but as a rich and splendid revelation of God's faithfulness to Israel and the world? In this cheerfully provocative yet probingly serious book, John Goldingay sets the question and views it from a variety of angles. Under his expert hand, each facet unfolds the surprising richness of the Old Testament and challenges us to recalibrate our perspective on it.

Genres: Theology, Old Testament, Biblical Studies, New Testament, Nonfiction, Christianity, Religion

184 pages, Paperback

First published May 15, 2015

About the author

John Goldingay is David Allan Hubbard Professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. An internationally respected Old Testament scholar, Goldingay is the author of many commentaries and books.

Reviews

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I was reminded recently we Christians tend to take a rather Marcionite view of the Old Testament/First Testament. We prefer the New Testament to it, and even verge on assuming that the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT. At the same time, we tend to read the OT through a NT lens, so that the First Testament loses its ability to speak for itself. Everything points to Jesus, we're told, and so the First Testament essentially becomes superfluous. It had its moment, but that moment has passed.

John Goldingay is an evangelical scholar of the First Testament teaching at my alma mater -- Fuller Theological Seminary. He's not happy with the way the First Testament is treated by Christians, and he wants to argue for letting the First Testament to speak on its own. He recognizes the place of theological interpretation, but warns against narrowing the scope of interpretation so that the First Testament is silenced.

The title is intriguing -- do we need the New Testament? This should catch our attention. It might shock you, but Goldingay insists that the neither Jesus nor the New Testament doesn't reveal anything new about God that's not already present in the First Testament. Jesus does embody the God revealed in the First Testament, and the New Testament sharpens the focus, but the message is already present in the OT.

Goldingay wants Christians to let the First Testament speak for itself, without imposing a NT or Christian tradition interpretation on top of it. With this in mind, he invites us to consider some questions like whether Jesus is important? He asks whether the Holy Spirit is present in the First Testament. He distinguishes between the Grand Narrative (the Biblical story) and the middle narratives that are present in both Testaments. He invites us to consider how the Book of Hebrews may have caused problems for our interpretation, as well as the "costly loss of First Testament Spirituality." He speaks of the importance of memory and the hardness of hearts. Finally, he addresses the challenges of theological interpretation. For Christians this last chapter might be difficult to deal with, because he suggests that our interpretation of the First Testament should not be Christo-centric, Trinitarian, or limited by the Rule of Faith. He writes that our theological interpretation "will make the assumption that the God who speaks and acts in Scriptures us the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it will not read that formulation into Scriptures, because that would skew what we might learn theologically from particular texts" (p. 175).

This is a most intriguing book. There are parts I found strongly compelling, and other parts of course not as compelling. What I most appreciated from reading the book was his encouragement to truly listen to the First Testament on its own terms, and that as a Christian I should recognize that the message of Jesus and the early Christians is firmly rooted in the First Testament and does not depart from that message.

[Jimmy Reagan · Rating 3 out of 5]

We must applaud volumes that encourage us to see the Old Testament in all its splendor. Too many push it back to secondary status. Enter Old Testament scholar John Goldingay who makes his attempt to shake up our thinking on the subject. His aim is ” letting the Old Testament speak for itself.”

There are pluses and minuses in this volume for sure. The author writes well, knows the scholarly issues out there, and can be quite thought provoking. His chapter on “The Costly Loss Of First Testament Spirituality”, for example, covered several trains on thought that I had never thought of, particularly on the Psalms and worship.

There were also chapters, like chapter four on Grand and Middle Narratives, that I simply could not get on with. Perhaps that says more about me as a reviewer than him as a writer–I am not sure.

I imagine some will love this book and rate it highly, but for me it was marred by his suppositions that led him far afield. He has so little regard for the historicity of the Bible, thinks books like Jonah and Ruth must be fictional, and his claims of their abiding value are undermined by his view of dating. His ideas of memory may be a trendy, new scholarly view, but it seems bizarre to me.

His last chapter fails completely in how it deals with Christology in the Old Testament, and I believe a majority of Christianity would think so. I will be curious to read future reviews. I will be curious, too, with his being such an influential scholar what will come of his discussion. He did at least succeed in making you feel he loved the Old Testament. You will have to check this one out and decide for yourself.

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.

[Chuck · Rating 3 out of 5]

I always find John Goldingay a challenging author. He makes me think deeply about the topics he addresses. In that sense, this book doesn't disappoint. However, I don't think he convinced me along the way. I'm not ready to accept that the First Covenant (his term) is as thoroughly complete as he presents.

However, what he did do was open my eyes to a number of ideas that I had not cast in quite the same light as he did. It helped me to see what I thought more "New Testament" in nature and he convinced me of their presence in the First Testament.

I would rarely recommend someone start at the end of the book, but this time, I think I would. I believe I would have had a better experience with this material if I'd read the final chapter first, to prepare me for what was to come.

[Mark Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a NT scholar, I was intrigued by the question of John Goldingay’s title, Do We Need the New Testament?: Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself. If an evangelical scholar of his erudition is asking the question, I want to know why and hear his point. The answer he lays out in the book is at once affirming and challenging. It affirms what I have become increasingly convinced of, i.e., the error of pitting an OT God of wrath and ritual against a NT God of grace and love who cares about mercy more than our sacrifice. No such distinction exists. God is the same, yesterday, today and forever, and the compassion and grace he showed in Christ are precisely what he revealed to Moses and Israel at Sinai (Exod 34:6-7). But the ways Goldingay draws out the implications of this truth challenge us to rethink many of the points where we see still discontinuity or difference between the Old and New Covenants.
He argues that the NT tells us nothing new about God or the proper way to relate to him. We need it not for new revelation, but because it brings the First Testament story to is surprising, yet consistent conclusion. In Christ, God does more, but nothing really new: he’s always been absorbing his people’s rebellion and carrying their sin. The new thing about Jesus isn’t what he tells us about God, but the fact that he embodies it and, in his life, death and resurrection, ushers in the next stage of salvation history. It’s not even that true transformation is finally possible in under the New Covenant. Many OT saints were transformed at least as much as any NT Christian. One key change, however, is “God’s missional strategy”: instead of Israel drawing the nations in, Spirit-empowered, Christians take the good news out to the nations, so people can die with confident hope for resurrection (which they did not have before Christ).
Goldingay also dampens our optimism and eagerness to “build the kingdom,” reminding us that we, like FT heroes, are sinful, stubborn and powerless to achieve justice; our efforts are fragile and utterly dependent on God. But to say these efforts are “not destined to be successful” may go too far. It seems if we maintain a posture of dependence, God’s power can be made perfect in our weakness (2 Cor 12:9). The fact that we don’t see the Kingdom in all its fullness doesn’t mean we don’t see it at all. But knowing that one day we will assures us that our current, imperfect “labor is not in vain” (1 Cor 15:58)!
Goldingay suggests that the Spirit is not new to the NT. Pentecost was a fresh wave of power in a pattern of “divine withdrawal and divine outpouring” that has been an ongoing part of Israel’s national experience and has continued in the history of the church. If we in the West currently find ourselves in a period of withdrawal, the pattern gives us a basis for hopeful praying and expecting that God will yet pour his presence upon us in a fresh and mighty way!
“How People Have Mis(?)read Hebrews,” is the chapter that piqued my curiosity the most, and it did not disappoint. Here Goldingay argues that Hebrews’ use of the First Testament has led Christians to misunderstand FT teaching in two ways. First, we’ve have believed that all sacrifice in the FT was about the forgiveness of sin. In fact, sacrifice had many functions, and few of them have any explicit links to sin as we would define it. In cases of deliberate sin, one could not sacrifice, but only plead God’s mercy (e.g. Ps 51). So we should be careful about reading sacrificial laws through the lens of NT atonement theology and thinking the FT rituals exist merely to explain Jesus’ death. Second, reading about “models of faith” in Hebrews 11 has led us to read the FT as a storehouse of good and bad moral examples. But that’s not the point. The only true ethical model in the FT is God, not a human being. While I agree that Israel’s purpose in telling her national story goes far beyond giving moral models, it certainly may include that. In Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically, for example, Gordon Wenham offers a reading of the FT in which ethical teaching works within larger narrative purposes.
The most personal and prophetic chapter of the book is “The Costly Loss of First Testament Spirituality.” The Psalms, says Goldingay, are in scripture to teach us to praise and pray. Our failure to learn from and be shaped by them has cost us greatly. He shows us how different types of Psalms can instruct our worship and prayer life. For example, protest/lament psalms and imprecatory psalms allow us to pray from a place of solidarity for brothers and sisters who are suffering or being oppressed in ways that we are not. This is a powerful, practical insight that can breathe new purpose into our praying of the Psalms.
Goldingay’s book is full of thought provoking ideas on these and other issues concerning the relationship between the testaments. Although I had trouble seeing how his chapter on Memory (ch. 7) advanced his overall thesis, the rest of the book challenged me to think from fresh angles about many questions. Sometimes Goldingay muddied waters that had seemed clear, sometimes he added insight on perennial questions, and sometimes (e.g. on the Psalms) he offered profound spiritual challenge. For all these reasons, I’m grateful for his person and his work in this book, and I highly recommend it!
Thanks to IVP for providing me with a complimentary copy of Do We Need the New Testament?: Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself for the purpose of this review.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe there's not as much new in the NT as we think

Goldingay argues that the First Testament (OT) tells us pretty much all we need to know about God, and that the NT doesn't really add much in that regard. The God of the FT is embodied in Jesus, and it is that truth, along with what Jesus does, that is what's new in the NT. Hence, the assumption that we only learn of God's gracious and merciful nature in and through Jesus is simply false. The FT reveals this sufficiently. Jesus was more reminding people of what they already knew from the FT, and not revealing something new. Any idea that the FT can be unhitched from the NT lose plausibility in this perspective.

Goldingay's argument will certainly challenge common assumptions, but his careful reading of the FT text serves to support his claims. His exegetical insights provided in this volume will serve as a valuable resource for better understanding the NT and theology.

Styles wise, I found the book started off slow (although maybe it was just me). But the insights and implications of his argument became more engaging the further I progressed.

[Kwan Qi Xiang · Rating 3 out of 5]

the arguments made in this book aren't as provocative as the title suggests, but nonetheless, still provides some good pointers for OT hermeneutics. However, it seems that the ideas explored here will benefit from a more systematic application to extended OT texts, which Goldingay seems to promise in his upcoming book. On its own, this book provides food for thought on how we interpret the OT, and what the NT actually can mean when we read the OT on its own terms.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Goldingay is David Allan Hubbard Professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including An Introduction to the Old Testament, The Theology of the Book of Isaiah, and the magisterial three-volume Old Testament Theology. Goldingay is well-known for his enthusiastic approach to the Old Testament and his desire to allow the ‘first’ Testament to function as authoritative Christian Scripture.

Do We Need the New Testament?: Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself is a brief volume that seeks to turn a popular question within Christian circles on its head. Now that Jesus has come and we have the New Testament, do Christians really need the Old Testament? Goldingay points the question back at the well-intended interrogator: Do we really need the New Testament? After all, what's new about the New Testament? And what happens when we look at the Old Testament, not as a deficient old work in need of a Christological makeover, but as a rich and splendid revelation of God's faithfulness to Israel and the world? (back cover). It is here that Goldingay begins to dismantle contemporary misnomers concerning the deficiency of the Old Testament.

Goldingay begins with a broad chapter that uncovers many of the issues examined in more detail as the book unfolds, such as ethics, spirituality, and various aspects of theology (i.e. salvation, etc.). Most of the chapters in the book arose as papers presented at the Society of Biblical Literature, the Society of Old Testament Study, and others (p. 10). This explains the somewhat random organization of the book, which may come as a frustration to some readers. Goldingay’s conclusion is that, “Yes, of course, we need the New Testament Scriptures, but they don’t supersede the earlier Scriptures” (p. 32). According to Goldingay, we need the Old Testament for understanding the story of God’s working purpose, for its theology, spirituality, hope, understanding of mission, salvation, and for its ethics (p. 32). Goldingay not only substantiate such statements, but he does so by guiding readers towards a newfound appreciation for the Old Testament.

There are aspects of Goldingay’s approach that will undoubtedly cause some readers distress. The book as a whole is stimulating and exciting, but some statements can appear oversimplified and even somewhat misleading at times. For example, he states that “in none of the Gospels does Jesus tell his disciples to extend the kingdom, work for the kingdom, build the kingdom, or further the kingdom” (p. 34). This is certainly a thought provoking statement. But, is it an accurate statement? I’ll let the reader decide. Other examples of similar weight could be given as well. Where I think Goldingay shines is in the continuity that he brings between the portrait of God in the Old Testament and the New. This is helpful for many reasons, but the origin of the initial questions concerning the Old Testament tend to arise on this point and Goldingay hits the nail on the head.

Do We Need the New Testament?: Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself by John Goldingay is not without its shortcomings. But, what he does well, he does really well! Goldingay is witty and sharp in his interaction with the questions at hand, and readers will appreciate his serious desire to hear from the Old Testament as Scripture. If you’re a looking for a thought-provoking book that will turn your heart and mind todays the Scriptures, and consequently towards the God to whom the Scriptures reveal, then this is a book worth reading. It comes highly recommended!

[Michael Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Goldingay titles his book with a provocative question, but immediately provides a straightforward answer: “Yes, of course, we do need the New Testament.” His book does not question the NT’s value but is instead a reflection on why we need it, especially in relation to what Goldingay calls the "First Testament."

He makes many thoughtful and helpful points. Goldingay brings rich theological insight to his discussion of the relationship between the Testaments. Christian theology (and preaching and teaching) often sidelines the Hebrew Scriptures. This book is an effort to restore them to their rightful place in Christian thought and practice.

Alas, the book is not always easy to read, not because of theological complexities, but because of his literary style. At times, Goldingay’s rhetorical flourishes and metaphorical language becomes distracting. I often found myself wishing for plainer prose and more direct argumentation. His fondness for imaginative analogies obscured rather than illuminated some central points.

Despite that, several chapters stand out. His exploration of the “Grand Narrative” and “Middle Narrative” frameworks is especially helpful for understanding how the biblical story is told and retold across all of Scripture. For me the strongest chapter is “The Costly Loss of First Testament Spirituality,” where he makes a compelling case for the enduring theological and pastoral value of the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms. His discussion of intercession, imprecation, and the allegorical method of interpretation (especially its dangers) was insightful. His reflections on history as "selective memory" also offer valuable food for thought as I begin a renewed study of the historical books.

I do recommend this book for those interested in the theological interplay between the Testaments. Be prepared, however, for prose that sometimes meanders. The content is worth engaging, but, if you’re like me, it will require patience to extract its gems.

[Jonathan Anderson · Rating 2 out of 5]

From exceptional highs to such devastating depths, this roller coaster was too scary for real enjoyment. The highs include some sober critiques about theological interpretation and the tendency to miss what was actually revealed in specific texts due to a focus on favorite theologies like Christ, the Trinity, or the rule of faith; a robust confidence in the Old Testament to speak clearly; inherent authority of the OT, etc. However, as soon as I mention some of these highs, which by themselves would be strengths, they seem to be muted by confusing, if not contradictory problems. For example, Goldingay follows up some great statements about the inherent clarity and authority of Old Testament, texts with a tragic, if not heretical, comment that “we don’t exactly need the New Testament in order to make it possible for us to believe in God‘s promises; at least, many Jews, believe in them without believing in Jesus.” Which is it? Are those promises clear and authoritative even before the NT? Yes! So, is anyone actually believing the OT who is currently rejecting the NT message that Jesus of Nazareth actually fulfills the prophecies about the Seed, Son, Angel of the Lord, Messiah? Absolutely not!

[Glenn Crouch · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book to be challenging, entertaining and thought-provoking. Goldingay is a fine communicator, and it is good to read someone who is so passionate about the Old Testament - or as he likes to call it, the First Testament - and I must say I think he has a good argument for that.

As an Academic, the Author at times can be quite scholarly - but you also see his Pastor's heart shining through. So even when I disagree (or at least am unconvinced) about some of his scholarly views, I find that he is gracious in how he uses them. This is not a large book, and thus it wouldn't be appropriate for him to justify or give thorough backgrounds for these. Anyway, a good theological book is one that makes you think, makes you question your assumptions - so that even if you disagree with the Author, the journey has been rewarding. Now of course I agree with much that Goldingay has to say, but I think with some of his conclusions he is taking his arguments too far.

I would recommend this book to any fellow Christian wanting to get a better understanding of the Old Testament - pardon me, the First Testament and how it relates to the New Testament.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a lot to like about this book, which is essentially a collection of different, thought-provoking essays. The first chapter, in particular, is outstanding, and really challenges some popular-theology regarding the discontinuity between the testaments.

I found something provocative and challenging in pretty much every chapter, and the topics vary widely, and I appreciated the overall thrust of the book. However, I also found the chapters pretty uneven, and many of them simply felt "unfinished," as if Goldingay would spin up a really intriguing concept, but then leave it hanging. Overall, it's still a helpful book with some powerful insights that I will definitely be referring to as specific topics come up in my own preaching and study (the chapter on Hebrews, or the spirituality of Psalms, etc.). This book is a good counterweight to a lot of other New Testament-centric theology that I appreciate, and has lended some nuance to my own perspective, which I am thankful for.

[Mjschuurman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hebben christenen het Nieuwe Testament eigenlijk wel nodig? Meestal wordt deze vraag gesteld met betrekking tot het Oude Testament. De gedachte is dat een christen aan het Nieuwe Testament genoeg heeft en het Oude Testament van minder waarde is. Als reactie op de onderwaardering van het Oude Testament draait John Goldingay de vraag om. Goldingay is een evangelicale Bijbelwetenschapper en hoogleraar Oude Testament aan het Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, in de Amerikaanse staat Californië. In zijn jongste boek verdedigt hij de stelling dat het Nieuwe Testament ten opzichte van het Oude Testament nauwelijks iets nieuws bevat. Goldingay spreekt ook liever niet over het Oude Testament, omdat die naam de suggestie doorklinkt dat dit deel van de Bijbel verouderd is. Hij spreek over het Eerste Testament.

De verhouding van het Oude tot het Nieuwe Testament moet niet als een probleem worden behandeld, zoals vaak gebeurt, vindt Goldingay. Hij vergelijkt de relatie tussen het Eerste en het Nieuwe Testament met de bekende Amerikaanse films over Jason Bourne. Het eerste deel van die film was een zelfstandige film, waarbij een vervolg niet noodzakelijk was. Die eerste film kan dan ook gezien worden los van andere delen. Zo is het niet noodzakelijk dat Eerste Testament gelezen wordt vanuit het Nieuwe Testament. Het Eerste Testament heeft een eigen boodschap. Wanneer de tekst van het Eerste Testament wordt gecorrigeerd vanuit het Nieuwe Testament wordt de boodschap van het Eerste Testament buiten werking gesteld. Wat buiten werking wordt gesteld zijn vooral ethische noties die kritisch zijn ten opzichte van de westerse cultuur. Een christologische lezing van het Eerste Testament komt het westen erg goed uit. Wat Goldingay ook signaleert is dat een christologische lezing van het Eerste Testament een verkeerde bril geeft om het heden te duiden.
De Brit Goldingay die nu werkzaam is in de Verenigde Staten verbaast zich erover dat daar in de VS de gedachte heerst dat de kerk in ballingschap is. Van de kerk in Europa kan hij dat begrijpen. Van de kerk in de VS niet. De invloed van de kerk neemt weliswaar af, maar de kerk in de VS staat er nog redelijk goed voor. De kerk in de VS wordt wel aangevallen, maar Jeruzalem is nog niet gevallen. Als er een vergelijking gemaakt wordt met die periode van Israël is het gepaster om de link te leggen met de periode voor de ballingschap. Waarbij de kritische boodschap van Jeremia tegen Jeruzalem ook voor de kerk van nu geldt.

Een voorbeeld waarbij de boodschap buiten werking wordt gesteld, omdat de ethische boodschap het westen niet goed uitkomt, is het spreken over oorlog en geweld. Pacifisten kunnen zich niet op het Eerste Testament beroepen. In het Eerste Testament wordt gesproken over oorlogen die door de koningen worden gevoerd, zonder dat die strijd wordt bekritiseerd. In het Eerste Testament is er wel een verschil tussen geweld dat door God is gelegitimeerd en geweld dat in het teken staat van onrecht dat begaan wordt door mensen die niet van God willen weten. Dit gebruik van geweld wordt nogal eens vanuit het Nieuwe Testament bekritiseerd vanuit het gebod van de naastenliefde. Goldingay tekent hierbij aan dat de ethiek van de naastenliefde een opdracht voor individuen is en niet voor overheden of staten. Bovendien kunnen de westerse christenen zich niet vergelijken met het kwetsbare Israël. Vanwege hun koloniale verleden en hun huidige macht in de wereld zijn de westerse landen niet met Israël te vergelijken. Israël was een speelbal tussen de grootmachten. Wij zijn Babylon. Wij zijn Amalek. Zowel Babylon als Amalek waren sterke machten die de zwakke aanvielen.

Die koppeling tussen de westerse christenen en de dreigende grootmachten uit het Oude Testament legt Goldingay ook in de uitleg van de wraakpsalmen. Veel westerse christenen hebben moeite met deze psalmen, maar ze vergeten dat die psalmen tegen ons westerse christenen zijn bedoeld.
Als voorbeeld geeft hij Psalm 137. Deze psalm is berucht vanwege het slot waarin gebeden wordt of de kinderen van Babylon tegen de rotsen te pletter gegooid mogen worden. Goldingay wijst erop dat deze psalm van groot belang is geweest voor de Rastafari’s op Jamaica in hun verzet tegen de Britse koloniale overheersers. Psalm 137 was de inspiratiebron voor een van de belangrijkste verzetsliederen: Rivers of Babylon. De ironie is dat dit lied nummer 1 werd in Groot-Brittannië. De Britten hadden niet door dat dit lied tegen hen was gericht en vooral tegen de Britse overheersing van Jamaica.
Hoewel christenen uit het westen vaak moeite hebben met wraakpsalmen, kunnen zij deze psalmen wel bidden. Maar dan met het oog op de christenen die worden vervolgd. Wij moeten ze bidden, maar dan vanuit het besef dat wij met onze wereldpolitiek aan de verkeerde kant staan, omdat het westen vanwege de overmacht zwakkere landen kan aanvallen en overheersen. Met deze wraakpsalmen bidden wij om onze eigen bekering. Goldingay is daarom fel tegen een allegorische interpretatie, omdat we daarmee de wraakpsalmen onschadelijk maken voor onszelf: wij willen niet graag Amalek zijn. Volgens hem is klopt de klassieke regel, dat wat in het Eerste Testament verborgen is in niet Nieuwe Testament onthuld wordt, niet. Het is volgens hem andersom: Wat in het Eerste Testament onthuld is, wordt in het Nieuwe Testament verborgen.

En Jezus dan? Goldingay stelt dat Jezus geen nieuwe boodschap over God had ten opzichte van het Eerste Testament. Wat nieuw is, is dat Jezus de belichaming is van wat het Eerste Testament over God verkondigt. In zijn boodschap was Jezus niet op zichzelf gericht, maar op God. Een christologische interpretatie van het Eerste Testament hanteert daarom een maatstaf die niet alleen vreemd is aan het Eerste Testament, maar ook haaks staat op het Nieuwe Testament.

[Douglas Fyfe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m a big Goldingay fan, and this was a book I was excited to read. The best chapter and one that was the most challenging was the final one on Theological Interpretation of Scripture, where he pushed back against reading everything through a christological lens or through the regula fide. I think I agree with his concerns although there is surely some place for a christological reflection on the First Testament- this is after all what the NT writers do.

The book did however feel like a bit of a collection of essays, and the chapter on the Holy Spirit I felt a little lacking and didn’t really answer the question.

But over all a great book and engrossing read - chapters a great length to get through in one sitting.

[Audra Spiven · Rating 4 out of 5]

As far as required texts go, I enjoyed this one for the most part. It got a little heady in a couple of chapters, but overall, it was a very compelling argument toward why the Old Testament is both necessary and important for Christian spiritual formation today. I walked away with at least one suggested practice I'm interested in trying to incorporate into my own life: praying the Psalms. Goldingay is an accomplished scholar, and it shows in this book.

[Caleb Rolling · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of essays and really good, and I enjoyed reading about the NT from the perspective of an OT scholar. The last chapter on theological interpretation might be worth the price of the book, too. This is definitely a book I’ll eventually reread and consult.

[Timothy Decker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Did not enjoy. Sharp disagreements!

[Simon Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Goldingay is a scholar who brings the reallness. Love his grounded writing. I found this read confronted my own prejudices and assumptions about the place of the Hebrew Testament.

[Kevin · Rating 2 out of 5]

It didn't deliver on the title.

[Jess Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un recueil d'articles. Mais retravaillés pour former un tout cohérent qui ressemble au final à une première introduction au Premier Testament pour reprendre l'expression de Goldingay.

L'ensemble est plutôt bon, avec des hauts et des bas selon la qualité/intérêt de l'article original (celui sur le culte est exceptionnel, celui sur la mémoire semble un peu hors propos).

Au final un ouvrage plutôt stimulant, riche en réflexions et qui donne envie de lire les "gros" livre de Goldingay sur la théologie du Premier Testament.

[Derek Winterburn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This a deliberately provocative title to a stimulating book. As an Anglican priest Goldingay is committed to Jesus Christ as set forth in the New Testament, but as an Old / First Testament scholar is sensitive to the way Christians for centuries have underplayed the value of the First Testament, and even slighted it. As such it has points of contact with the work of Sanders etc in bringing back into the discussion the Jewish context of Jesus, and trying to locate him amongst his contemporaries.

He makes the bold claim that Jesus's teaching is largely an expression of what had gone before; he fulfilled the Law and the Prophets in the sense that he embodied the teaching in a way that no one else had done (or could do?). Otherwise Jesus is largely representing First Testament content. Rather the First Testament being the location of an angry God, Goldingay tells us several times that it is Jesus who introduces the ideas of Hell and hating other people.. Jesus' key innovations are around eschatology - inevitable in the context of the resurrection, promised parousia and judgement.

Christianity was born not to accommodate not so much a new understanding of God, as an outcome of the reconciliation God offers to every person in the death of Jesus, and the subsequent experience of the Spirit. Goldingay offers an atonement theory that is not Penal Substitution, but arises out of his broader understanding of the range of sacrifices in Leviticus. His chapter on Hebrews attempts to move forgiveness away from requiring propitiation by blood offerings.

This book is full of striking comments, and interesting ideas. As many of these kinds of books are, it is a compendium of various lectures and articles. As such there are some annoying repetitions (and two seemingly irrelevant chapters on memory) which means it is hard to grasp the whole (and/or what has not been said) in any one chapter. I intend to revisit some key chapters now that I have finished the book. For example I am not clear on what he makes of key Pauline texts that put aside the First Testament, or why the Day of Atonement sacrifices are not brought into the discussion more.

[Michelle Murray · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was at times engaging and others almost boring - but I felt like I really learned quite a bit from its pages. Since it is a book about theology of the Old Testament it lived up to my expectations

[Nicholas Quient · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great, challenging little book.

[Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glad I read it. I think it brings some helpful correctives for reading the Old Testament.