What do you think?
Rate this book
Five Views of Christ in the Old Testament: Genre, Authorial Intent, and the Nature of Scripture
The authors of the New Testament regularly quote and allude to Old Testament passages that point to the presence, person, and work of Jesus. Jesus himself claimed that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46). And on the road to Emmaus, Jesus instructed the disciples from "Moses and all the prophets" regarding himself (Luke 24:27). Though Christians affirm that the Old Testament bears witness to Christ, how the Old Testament writers did this is a matter of extensive debate. Furthermore, Christian biblical scholars also debate the degree to which contemporary interpreters of the Bible can follow the hermeneutics of the New Testament authors in using the Old Testament to point to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Five Views on Christ in the Old Testament is the first book to bring together in conversation the major views on how the Old Testament points to Christ. Contributors and views Each contributor presents their preferred methodology, showing readers how their interpretive approach best explains the biblical data. Additionally, authors provide case studies of various Old Testament passages that equip readers to better compare the strengths and weaknesses of each of author's approaches. This essential resource will help readers learn practical steps to help them read the Old Testament more faithfully as it testifies to Jesus the Messiah.
322 pages, Paperback
Published October 25, 2022
21 people are currently reading
118 people want to read
About the author
Brian J. Tabb
16 books5 followersBrian Tabb (PhD, London School of Theology) is Academic Dean and Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Bethlehem College & Seminary.
Brian Tabb has been a full-time faculty member since 2009. He oversees academic programs at Bethlehem College & Seminary and teaches courses in hermeneutics, biblical languages, exegesis, and research. His research interests include suffering, the use of the OT in the NT, Acts, and Revelation. He also serves as managing editor for Themelios, published by The Gospel Coalition.
Brian is married to Kristin, has four children, and serves as an elder at Bethlehem Baptist Church’s downtown campus. He enjoys reading good books, playing baseball and sledding with his kids, and cheering for the Minnesota Twins.
Brian Tabb has been a full-time faculty member since 2009. He oversees academic programs at Bethlehem College & Seminary and teaches courses in hermeneutics, biblical languages, exegesis, and research. His research interests include suffering, the use of the OT in the NT, Acts, and Revelation. He also serves as managing editor for Themelios, published by The Gospel Coalition.
Brian is married to Kristin, has four children, and serves as an elder at Bethlehem Baptist Church’s downtown campus. He enjoys reading good books, playing baseball and sledding with his kids, and cheering for the Minnesota Twins.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
July 6, 2023
This is maybe my favorite multiple-views book. The format of including standard sections on the nature of the Scriptures and Christ’s relation to the Old Testament, a description of interpretive steps, and case studies from every major section of the Old Testament (Gen 22, Prov 8, Is 42) made for very fruitful interactions.
Unsurprisingly, I found myself most deeply resonant with DeRouchie and Carter, most scandalized by Goldingay (modern) and Dharamraj (postmodern), and most frustrated by Longman (for trying to have his cake and eat it too—maintaining modernistic methods with pre-modern orthodox conclusions; an inherently untenable position).
Between DeRouchie and Carter, I found DeRouchie’s exegesis mesmerizing, soul-stirring, and convincing. Still, I find my sympathies with Carter on the key distinction between the two. While I am convinced that some passages (like the ones DeRouchie carefully exegetes) indicate that OT authors themselves intended fuller christological development, I remain unconvinced, along with Carter (and most pre-moderns) that such is the case with every christological meaning of an OT passage. I see no reason why, in light of divine inspiration and providence, we can’t accept that sometimes, OT authors wrote types and shadows of Christ without realizing that what they wrote were in fact types and shadows (Carter’s appeal to Leviticus is a good example). If one could prove that Moses himself did not consciously see a connection between the Day of Atonement and the prophet who would come after him, this would not make the connection illegitimate. That such a connection most certainly is there, and that it can’t necessarily be discernibly intended by the OT authors, is reason for affirming the pre-modern way, in my estimation.
But again, there’s much harmony between Carter and DeRouchie (which is reassuring for me, as someone who has been personally influenced by both). This confirms for me that there is much to be optimistic about regarding the trajectory of whole-Bible biblical theology on the one hand (in the vein of DeRouchie, Beale, Hamilton, et al), and dogmatic theology on the other (in the vein of Carter, Barrett, Dolezal, et al). There is much harmony between these two complementary camps, which bodes well for future dialogue, I think. Lord willing.
Unsurprisingly, I found myself most deeply resonant with DeRouchie and Carter, most scandalized by Goldingay (modern) and Dharamraj (postmodern), and most frustrated by Longman (for trying to have his cake and eat it too—maintaining modernistic methods with pre-modern orthodox conclusions; an inherently untenable position).
Between DeRouchie and Carter, I found DeRouchie’s exegesis mesmerizing, soul-stirring, and convincing. Still, I find my sympathies with Carter on the key distinction between the two. While I am convinced that some passages (like the ones DeRouchie carefully exegetes) indicate that OT authors themselves intended fuller christological development, I remain unconvinced, along with Carter (and most pre-moderns) that such is the case with every christological meaning of an OT passage. I see no reason why, in light of divine inspiration and providence, we can’t accept that sometimes, OT authors wrote types and shadows of Christ without realizing that what they wrote were in fact types and shadows (Carter’s appeal to Leviticus is a good example). If one could prove that Moses himself did not consciously see a connection between the Day of Atonement and the prophet who would come after him, this would not make the connection illegitimate. That such a connection most certainly is there, and that it can’t necessarily be discernibly intended by the OT authors, is reason for affirming the pre-modern way, in my estimation.
But again, there’s much harmony between Carter and DeRouchie (which is reassuring for me, as someone who has been personally influenced by both). This confirms for me that there is much to be optimistic about regarding the trajectory of whole-Bible biblical theology on the one hand (in the vein of DeRouchie, Beale, Hamilton, et al), and dogmatic theology on the other (in the vein of Carter, Barrett, Dolezal, et al). There is much harmony between these two complementary camps, which bodes well for future dialogue, I think. Lord willing.
June 18, 2023
I've read several "multiple views" books at this point. This is one of the better ones, primarily for two reasons. First, the quality of contributors is excellent; and second, the format of essay/responses/rejoinder allows for a lot of interaction between them.
Just to lay my cards on the table: I probably identify most closely with DeRouchie's "Redemptive-Historical, Christocentric Approach." His responses to the other contributors were consistently on-point, and I found his principles for Christological readings of the OT to be solid. That said, I didn't find every point of his actual exegesis convincing, and I think Carter is correct in arguing that in at least some cases, typology is grounded more in the divine author's intent than the human author's. Longman had some helpful points to make as well. As for Goldingay and Dharamaj: aside from a useful insight here or there, I found their overall approaches to be fundamentally misguided.
One minor critique is that I would have liked the authors to have given more space to making tight arguments for their hermeneutical approaches; instead, they ended up spending most of their time explaining and demonstrating their methods rather than rigorously arguing for them. However, the editors describe the book as a "conversation starter" rather than the last word, and at that, it certainly succeeds.
Just to lay my cards on the table: I probably identify most closely with DeRouchie's "Redemptive-Historical, Christocentric Approach." His responses to the other contributors were consistently on-point, and I found his principles for Christological readings of the OT to be solid. That said, I didn't find every point of his actual exegesis convincing, and I think Carter is correct in arguing that in at least some cases, typology is grounded more in the divine author's intent than the human author's. Longman had some helpful points to make as well. As for Goldingay and Dharamaj: aside from a useful insight here or there, I found their overall approaches to be fundamentally misguided.
One minor critique is that I would have liked the authors to have given more space to making tight arguments for their hermeneutical approaches; instead, they ended up spending most of their time explaining and demonstrating their methods rather than rigorously arguing for them. However, the editors describe the book as a "conversation starter" rather than the last word, and at that, it certainly succeeds.
December 10, 2025
Hard to rate this one because of the five different authors. The first three deserves 1-2 stars and the second two 4-4.5. So here we are. And here is a brief and uncharitable summary of their work.
Goldingay: It's all in the name...
Longman III: Also all in the name.
Dharamraj: Whoever let her in either had a very bad day or a great sense of humor.
DeRouchie: NO! YOU GUYS ARE WRONG! [insert fifteen bible verses]
Carter: Ugh, moderns *eye roll*
Goldingay: It's all in the name...
Longman III: Also all in the name.
Dharamraj: Whoever let her in either had a very bad day or a great sense of humor.
DeRouchie: NO! YOU GUYS ARE WRONG! [insert fifteen bible verses]
Carter: Ugh, moderns *eye roll*
May 16, 2025
Reviewing a book like this is unintuitive, to say the least. I give it five stars because it effectively accomplishes its aim: It presents five alternative approaches for getting to Christ from the OT text, and gives opportunity for the reader to see some back-and-forth interaction between practitioners of those approaches. What follows here are just some assorted thoughts on the book.
• The texts for the case studies were well-chosen. Kudos to the editors.
• I expected Goldingay's essay to be much worse. I still didn't like it at all, but he pleasantly surprised me by affirming inerrancy and actually tracing lines to Jesus in the case studies.
• I was surprised that Longman was as positive as he was in his evaluation of Goldingay. I think he saw far more common ground than I do between their views.
• I'm probably most sympathetic to Longman's approach (with some tweaks and caveats).
• Dharamraj's essay was helpful not so much as a positive presentation of what we should do as much as a neutral description of what many believers actually do. Note to self: Read up on comparative literature, because the descriptive work in that field looks genuinely interesting.
• While I didn't like Dharamraj's essay, I found her critiques were often incisive and insightful.
• I found DeRouchie's essay excruciating to read because I agree with so many of his principles, but found his exegesis to be strained in the extreme -- especially on Proverbs 8. The responses were spot-on, with one exception (Carter).
• DeRouchie's responses to the other contributors can largely be boiled down to, "This view is inadequate because the author doesn't see what I'm seeing in these texts."
• I was probably most disappointed by Carter's work here. Where I would personally land might be summarized as Longman's methods rooted in Carter's metaphysics. But Carter just doesn't sell his view well in this book. He spends so much time on his black-and-white polemics that he doesn't really leave himself time to make a good positive articulation. I totally agree with what he had to say, I just wish he'd said it better.
• In addition to the insufficiency of Carter's essay, his responses were embarrassingly sloppy. Like, he had me questioning his reading comprehension.
• The texts for the case studies were well-chosen. Kudos to the editors.
• I expected Goldingay's essay to be much worse. I still didn't like it at all, but he pleasantly surprised me by affirming inerrancy and actually tracing lines to Jesus in the case studies.
• I was surprised that Longman was as positive as he was in his evaluation of Goldingay. I think he saw far more common ground than I do between their views.
• I'm probably most sympathetic to Longman's approach (with some tweaks and caveats).
• Dharamraj's essay was helpful not so much as a positive presentation of what we should do as much as a neutral description of what many believers actually do. Note to self: Read up on comparative literature, because the descriptive work in that field looks genuinely interesting.
• While I didn't like Dharamraj's essay, I found her critiques were often incisive and insightful.
• I found DeRouchie's essay excruciating to read because I agree with so many of his principles, but found his exegesis to be strained in the extreme -- especially on Proverbs 8. The responses were spot-on, with one exception (Carter).
• DeRouchie's responses to the other contributors can largely be boiled down to, "This view is inadequate because the author doesn't see what I'm seeing in these texts."
• I was probably most disappointed by Carter's work here. Where I would personally land might be summarized as Longman's methods rooted in Carter's metaphysics. But Carter just doesn't sell his view well in this book. He spends so much time on his black-and-white polemics that he doesn't really leave himself time to make a good positive articulation. I totally agree with what he had to say, I just wish he'd said it better.
• In addition to the insufficiency of Carter's essay, his responses were embarrassingly sloppy. Like, he had me questioning his reading comprehension.
April 15, 2023
Rating the 5 views from best to worst:
Tied for 1st - Redemptive-Historical Christocentric (DeRouchie) and Premodern (Carter) views - Christ is in the OT (types, allegory, prophecy, etc.). These 2 views differ on how aware they think the biblical authors were that they were writing about Jesus. Either way, Christ is clearly the center of the OT (Luke 24).
2 - Christotelic view (Longman) - the OT points to Christ even though it’s not actually literally about him. I’m not the biggest fan of this view, but it’s not as bad as the last two…
3 - Reception-Centered Intertextual view (Dharamraj) - The reader is allowed to make connections between the OT and Jesus. This is the focus rather than on literal meaning. Although I (along with Cater and DeRouchie) agree with her that intertextual connections are necessary for interpreting Scripture, she does not seem to think there is a right or wrong connection. “It’s about the reader.”
4 - The First Testament Priority view (Goldingay) - “Jesus is not in the OT” (actual quote), the OT is not about Jesus. “Everything shouldn’t be about Jesus” (paraphrased, but very close, quote). This was by far the worst view in my opinion. It took everything in me not to skip past his sections.
It was interesting to me to see how Carter and DeRouchie were the only ones who emphasized what Jesus said in Luke 24—that the Old Testament is about him—and explained how that could be the case.
Definitely recommend!
_____
My rating criteria
⭐️ : I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), didn’t disagree with too much, enjoyed it decently well
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything, was above-average enjoyable to read
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: life-changing book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
Tied for 1st - Redemptive-Historical Christocentric (DeRouchie) and Premodern (Carter) views - Christ is in the OT (types, allegory, prophecy, etc.). These 2 views differ on how aware they think the biblical authors were that they were writing about Jesus. Either way, Christ is clearly the center of the OT (Luke 24).
2 - Christotelic view (Longman) - the OT points to Christ even though it’s not actually literally about him. I’m not the biggest fan of this view, but it’s not as bad as the last two…
3 - Reception-Centered Intertextual view (Dharamraj) - The reader is allowed to make connections between the OT and Jesus. This is the focus rather than on literal meaning. Although I (along with Cater and DeRouchie) agree with her that intertextual connections are necessary for interpreting Scripture, she does not seem to think there is a right or wrong connection. “It’s about the reader.”
4 - The First Testament Priority view (Goldingay) - “Jesus is not in the OT” (actual quote), the OT is not about Jesus. “Everything shouldn’t be about Jesus” (paraphrased, but very close, quote). This was by far the worst view in my opinion. It took everything in me not to skip past his sections.
It was interesting to me to see how Carter and DeRouchie were the only ones who emphasized what Jesus said in Luke 24—that the Old Testament is about him—and explained how that could be the case.
Definitely recommend!
_____
My rating criteria
⭐️ : I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), didn’t disagree with too much, enjoyed it decently well
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything, was above-average enjoyable to read
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: life-changing book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
February 24, 2023
This is a helpful book for considering ways we view Christ throughout the Old Testament. The authors present approaches that are distinct, while also holding similarities with one another. The format of the book that allows for an initial essay, and then responses from each of the other contributors is a very helpful way to process their claims and compare and contrast with each other. Some of the arguments are more compelling. Personally, I find Tremper Longman’s arguments to be the most faithful to the Old and New Testaments in each of their own contexts. Generally, the dialog between the contributors is charitable and positive, though I didn’t feel that quite so much in DeRouchie’s sections. Overall, I think this is a helpful introduction to the topic, while also containing many arguments that I would come back to in the future.
November 4, 2022
Very helpful read on a very important topic. Among the 5 views presented in this book Jason DeRouchie’s hermeneutic and methodology wins the day.
Goldingay’s “First Testament Approach” is rigid in the extreme and unnecessarily separates what God has joined together as the Ultimate Author of the Bible.
Carter’s “Premodern Approach” is rigid in the opposite extreme unnecessarily diminishing the vital importance of historical-grammatical exegesis in order to discover the intended meaning of the human authors of the Bible.
Dharamraj’s “Reception-Centered, Intertextual Approach” is, well, what you would expect from such a title. DeRouchie summarizes it well:
“preunderstandings are not bad in themselves; indeed, recognizing our presuppositions allows us to evaluate them in the light of Scripture and increasingly conform them to it. The challenge comes when we allow our presuppositions to become prejudices that produce meaning, and this results in the reader of Scripture assuming a higher authority than the divine author himself. Dharamraj's approach to intertextual interpretation fails at just this point” (164).
DeRouchie’s approach is tied securely to the text in its close, continuing, and canonical contexts in such a way that that it would naturally lead to a premillenial eschatology as much as or more so than a amillennial understanding.
Among the various “multiple views” books I thought the format of this one was very helpful. The opportunity for rejoinders was beneficial. Kudos to the editors!
Goldingay’s “First Testament Approach” is rigid in the extreme and unnecessarily separates what God has joined together as the Ultimate Author of the Bible.
Carter’s “Premodern Approach” is rigid in the opposite extreme unnecessarily diminishing the vital importance of historical-grammatical exegesis in order to discover the intended meaning of the human authors of the Bible.
Dharamraj’s “Reception-Centered, Intertextual Approach” is, well, what you would expect from such a title. DeRouchie summarizes it well:
“preunderstandings are not bad in themselves; indeed, recognizing our presuppositions allows us to evaluate them in the light of Scripture and increasingly conform them to it. The challenge comes when we allow our presuppositions to become prejudices that produce meaning, and this results in the reader of Scripture assuming a higher authority than the divine author himself. Dharamraj's approach to intertextual interpretation fails at just this point” (164).
DeRouchie’s approach is tied securely to the text in its close, continuing, and canonical contexts in such a way that that it would naturally lead to a premillenial eschatology as much as or more so than a amillennial understanding.
Among the various “multiple views” books I thought the format of this one was very helpful. The opportunity for rejoinders was beneficial. Kudos to the editors!
October 12, 2024
This might be at the top of my five/four views books. I found the debate and discussion helpful and insightful—though not all the views presently were such. The book is worth purchasing for the contributions by Jason S. DeRouchie and Craig A. Carter alone. They were my favorite contributors, and I’d like to see more cooperation between the two approaches—the Redemptive-Historical Christocentric View (DeRouchie) and the Premodern View (Carter). John Goldingay’s First Testament Priority view and Havilah Dharamraj’s Reception-Centered Intertextual view were both unconvincing, if not outright unhelpful. Tremper Longman’s Christotelic View was just “eh.” Grab the book and enjoy DeRouchie and Carter, and read Holy Scripture accordingly.
4/5
4/5
September 26, 2025
An ok book. DeRouchie's chapter is good but also pretty basic. The book didn't really give any new insights. I was also surprised how much I disagreed with certain pieces of some of the other views...certain parts would be easily dismissed as untenable.
February 10, 2024
I enjoy these "counterpoint" books. They help to see the strengths and weaknesses of varying positions and showing different belief options. The downside is that sometimes the views presented are unique to the individual author and not really laying out a framework for belief. This particular book is a perfect example of this. Each of the views come from a different standpoint, but each is so idiosyncratic and filled with nuance, it feels more like listening in on a lengthy conversation between these five particular individuals rather than laying out the various options for viewing the subject.
When I first picked up the book, I thought it would be about Old Testament Christophany or something like that. I think the title is a bit misleading. The book is actually asking the question: "How are Christians supposed to understand the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament specifically in relation to what the Old Testament might have to say about Jesus."
My summary of the Views
John Goldingay - First Testament Approach
Christ is not IN the Old Testament (he calls it the First Testament). We're just confusing "meaning" with "significance" when we think so. Jesus was not on the minds of the authors of the Hebrew scriptures and we should just try to understand what they were trying to convey without adding some extra meaning.
My thoughts:
I think this is true if we're trying to understand what the OT authors are saying, but there are two big issues with this.
First: The whole problem of "authorial intent". I am against a pure reader-response or post-modern hermeneutic, but the fact of the matter is, it's sometimes impossible to get into the mind of the author, especially authors so far removed from us. We don't even know when Joel was written, for example, let alone who he was. We don't know who wrote Chronicles, for example. So how can we know what he was thinking or intending?
Second: 99% of the reason we want to know the meaning of these Old Testament scrolls is not because they were written down a long time ago, but because of what they are a part of. We can't ignore this. Obadiah has a meaning, sure, but by itself would anyone care? The fact that it is in the bible makes all the difference. This is a canonical critique. We're reading the scriptures as scriptures and we're reading the scriptures as Christians. This matters more than Goldingay lets on.
Tremper Longman III - Christotelic Approach
Christians have to have several readings or understandings of the Old Testament to truly understand it. The First is to read the OT as stand-alone scrolls. The second is to read it with the NT in mind. The third is to read them together and in light of each other.
My thoughts:
The addresses my second issue with Goldingay, but still has a problem overcoming the first. It does much better though, as the meaning is not relegated to an unknown author's unknown mindset when writing, but enters into a dialogue with the other scriptures and perhaps especially with the New Testament. I resonate with this approach, but I do have issues with it. The rules of historical-grammatical exegesis are helpful, but after a hundred years of employing it, we are further than ever from a scientific consensus of what the OT texts "mean", and in fact we've come up with more interpretations than ever before. This is a post-modern critique which I accept, although I absolutely avoid throwing the baby of meaning out with the bathwater of authorship, as what typically happens. Certainly the text as it stands has a somewhat definite meaning, even when we can't answer questions about the author.
Havilah Dharamraj - Reception-Centered, Intertextual Approach
Readers determine the meaning of an OT text by seeing it interact with the New Testament. This doesn't mean the reader can say whatever they want about a text, there are rules. An Old Testament text must be "linked" to a New Testament text through a common "icon". So, when we read about Abraham sacrificing Isaac on Moriah, we can bring in meaning by pairing it with Jesus being killed on Golgotha. The icon being the sacrifice of the willing son.
My thoughts:
I really enjoyed everything Dr. Dharamraj said about why she takes the approach she did. I agreed with almost all her critiques of the other approaches. The problem came when she laid out her approach in practice. I found her way of interpreting to be almost certainly useless, edifying and explaining nothing.
In her approach - which is basically a reader-response criticism with some additional nuance - the problem is always the same: The reader can do whatever they want to the text. She says that there are rules and parameters to prevent this, but based on her examples, this wasn't the case at all. Each OT text she interpreted was "paired" with a random NT text and interpreted in light of each other. She gave reasons why she picked the NT text that she did, but each one was arbitrary and ad-hoc. It was very disappointing, as I was hoping for something more.
Jason S. Derouchie - Redemptive-Historical, Christocentric Approach
Christ himself is the meaning of the bible. The OT points ahead to him and the NT points back to him. Each text is about Christ is some way. Jesus is thus the solution and the algorithm for the Old Testament. He shows the direction the OT texts were always supposed to be understood by being the endpoint to which they terminate.
My thoughts:
This seemed to be the view that was most "orthodox", or at least describes the way most Christians and Christian hermeneutics textbooks teach the bible. The problem is the "reading into" the Old Testament (and even the New Testament) with Christian orthodoxy in mind. We see the trinity in the pronoun choices of Genesis 1 for example. But does this really mean that it took Athanasius - a man living almost 2,000 years after the first authorship - to finally uncover the real meaning? What would the author of Genesis think about that? And is this really how we imagine the prophets and OT writers speaking? They don't really even know what they are saying until we tell them what they actually meant? I find that what typically happens in practice is people read all sorts of wacky things into the Old Testament. They do it usually because they will be thinking about a certain topic when then do their devotional and wouldn't-you-know-it... there it is in the bible! This approach falls victim to a self-fulfilling prophecy and hermeneutical spiral (not the Grant Osborne kind, the kind which leaves you staring into your own navel and imagining Jonah was describing the lint you find there).
Craig A. Carter - The Premodern Approach
The revelatory interpretations of the Christian church set the meaning of the text, as the bible was and is the book of the church. The OT is read not just in light of the NT, but in light of the group called the church. The church interprets it's own scriptures as scriptures.
My thoughts:
I actually resonate with this view and I think it touches on something the others don't. If we're asking the question about how to read the Old Testament as Christians, we should see how Christians actually read the bible. Anyone can read the a company manual, but it has a heftier meaning and application to those working for that company, and especially the HR team and lawyers who work for the company.
The problem is this doesn't seem to solve much. The church itself also has wildly different interpretations on texts, depending on who is doing the reading. It is also extremely prone to allegorical interpretations. The premodern approach died out when people started asking the right questions. Read any interpretation of Jesus' parables up until the time of the reformation and you will see why this approach must be wrong. The "meanings" are bonkers. The good Samaritan pays three coins to the innkeeper because they represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The two breasts of the woman in Song of Songs represent the Old and New Testament. Just really weird stuff. I can't see how going back to that is helpful at all.
My view - The Holy Spirit Approach:
I'm not going to lay out a detailed or even well-thought out framework here, but there is something missing from all five authors: The work of the Holy Spirit. He was almost present in the Premodern Approach, but not really. It was a glaring omission in my opinion. The Spirit illuminates the text, or rather the reader as he or she encounters the text through reading or hearing. This same Spirit is the throughline for the OT authors, OT readers, and NT authors and readers. We're all part of the same family despite our different contexts. The Spirit being the author of this family and in some sense, the bible as well. I say in some sense, because it is important to have the right view of "inspiration" for this to work.
I'd like to combine certain aspects from each approach as well:
First Testament Approach - We really need to read and study the First Testament, particular scrolls, and maybe even sections of scrolls in light of their original context, if possible. Not to stop there though, to aid in the illumination process. The original context and author is extremely helpful (but not essential). We ignore it at our peril.
Christotelic Approach - The Spirit leads us to read each book in light of the place it takes in the whole of scripture. We have the privilege of seeing this whole, as well as the reception history of the text throughout the ages. Again, this is not essential, but helpful in aiding the illumination process.
Reception-Centered, Intertextual Approach - I think the critiques are what is important here. Picking and choosing two different text to spar with one another is unhelpful. Instead, I would suggest playing the OT text off of the canon as a whole and reception history of God's people. This will inevitably lead to the same thing as well as giving those very necessary "boundaries" that this approach promised but didn't deliver.
Redemptive-Historical Christocentric Approach - Keep everything here, but leave aside all the parts about the Old Testament authors not understanding what they were writing. They wrote what they wanted and meant and the Holy Spirit guided this - not to write what they didn't understand, but what they did understand. The later readers then become illumined to other meanings based on the place the writing takes within the canon and the reception of the text into the life of current Spirit-family members.
Premodern Approach - Shift away from historical or magisterial dictats, and move to the church-as-believers and now we're talking. Yes, individual Christians and denominations have wildly varying interpretations, but neither are individual Christians and denominations the entirety and authority of the church. The Spirit is. The boundaries can and should be flexible. There are things the text certainly can't mean, but also, if someone reading Joshua decides to give up smoking at the Spirit's prompting - I think that's a valid interpretation.
Lots of good stuff to think about. And, as I said, lots of stuff to aid in the illumination process.
When I first picked up the book, I thought it would be about Old Testament Christophany or something like that. I think the title is a bit misleading. The book is actually asking the question: "How are Christians supposed to understand the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament specifically in relation to what the Old Testament might have to say about Jesus."
My summary of the Views
John Goldingay - First Testament Approach
Christ is not IN the Old Testament (he calls it the First Testament). We're just confusing "meaning" with "significance" when we think so. Jesus was not on the minds of the authors of the Hebrew scriptures and we should just try to understand what they were trying to convey without adding some extra meaning.
My thoughts:
I think this is true if we're trying to understand what the OT authors are saying, but there are two big issues with this.
First: The whole problem of "authorial intent". I am against a pure reader-response or post-modern hermeneutic, but the fact of the matter is, it's sometimes impossible to get into the mind of the author, especially authors so far removed from us. We don't even know when Joel was written, for example, let alone who he was. We don't know who wrote Chronicles, for example. So how can we know what he was thinking or intending?
Second: 99% of the reason we want to know the meaning of these Old Testament scrolls is not because they were written down a long time ago, but because of what they are a part of. We can't ignore this. Obadiah has a meaning, sure, but by itself would anyone care? The fact that it is in the bible makes all the difference. This is a canonical critique. We're reading the scriptures as scriptures and we're reading the scriptures as Christians. This matters more than Goldingay lets on.
Tremper Longman III - Christotelic Approach
Christians have to have several readings or understandings of the Old Testament to truly understand it. The First is to read the OT as stand-alone scrolls. The second is to read it with the NT in mind. The third is to read them together and in light of each other.
My thoughts:
The addresses my second issue with Goldingay, but still has a problem overcoming the first. It does much better though, as the meaning is not relegated to an unknown author's unknown mindset when writing, but enters into a dialogue with the other scriptures and perhaps especially with the New Testament. I resonate with this approach, but I do have issues with it. The rules of historical-grammatical exegesis are helpful, but after a hundred years of employing it, we are further than ever from a scientific consensus of what the OT texts "mean", and in fact we've come up with more interpretations than ever before. This is a post-modern critique which I accept, although I absolutely avoid throwing the baby of meaning out with the bathwater of authorship, as what typically happens. Certainly the text as it stands has a somewhat definite meaning, even when we can't answer questions about the author.
Havilah Dharamraj - Reception-Centered, Intertextual Approach
Readers determine the meaning of an OT text by seeing it interact with the New Testament. This doesn't mean the reader can say whatever they want about a text, there are rules. An Old Testament text must be "linked" to a New Testament text through a common "icon". So, when we read about Abraham sacrificing Isaac on Moriah, we can bring in meaning by pairing it with Jesus being killed on Golgotha. The icon being the sacrifice of the willing son.
My thoughts:
I really enjoyed everything Dr. Dharamraj said about why she takes the approach she did. I agreed with almost all her critiques of the other approaches. The problem came when she laid out her approach in practice. I found her way of interpreting to be almost certainly useless, edifying and explaining nothing.
In her approach - which is basically a reader-response criticism with some additional nuance - the problem is always the same: The reader can do whatever they want to the text. She says that there are rules and parameters to prevent this, but based on her examples, this wasn't the case at all. Each OT text she interpreted was "paired" with a random NT text and interpreted in light of each other. She gave reasons why she picked the NT text that she did, but each one was arbitrary and ad-hoc. It was very disappointing, as I was hoping for something more.
Jason S. Derouchie - Redemptive-Historical, Christocentric Approach
Christ himself is the meaning of the bible. The OT points ahead to him and the NT points back to him. Each text is about Christ is some way. Jesus is thus the solution and the algorithm for the Old Testament. He shows the direction the OT texts were always supposed to be understood by being the endpoint to which they terminate.
My thoughts:
This seemed to be the view that was most "orthodox", or at least describes the way most Christians and Christian hermeneutics textbooks teach the bible. The problem is the "reading into" the Old Testament (and even the New Testament) with Christian orthodoxy in mind. We see the trinity in the pronoun choices of Genesis 1 for example. But does this really mean that it took Athanasius - a man living almost 2,000 years after the first authorship - to finally uncover the real meaning? What would the author of Genesis think about that? And is this really how we imagine the prophets and OT writers speaking? They don't really even know what they are saying until we tell them what they actually meant? I find that what typically happens in practice is people read all sorts of wacky things into the Old Testament. They do it usually because they will be thinking about a certain topic when then do their devotional and wouldn't-you-know-it... there it is in the bible! This approach falls victim to a self-fulfilling prophecy and hermeneutical spiral (not the Grant Osborne kind, the kind which leaves you staring into your own navel and imagining Jonah was describing the lint you find there).
Craig A. Carter - The Premodern Approach
The revelatory interpretations of the Christian church set the meaning of the text, as the bible was and is the book of the church. The OT is read not just in light of the NT, but in light of the group called the church. The church interprets it's own scriptures as scriptures.
My thoughts:
I actually resonate with this view and I think it touches on something the others don't. If we're asking the question about how to read the Old Testament as Christians, we should see how Christians actually read the bible. Anyone can read the a company manual, but it has a heftier meaning and application to those working for that company, and especially the HR team and lawyers who work for the company.
The problem is this doesn't seem to solve much. The church itself also has wildly different interpretations on texts, depending on who is doing the reading. It is also extremely prone to allegorical interpretations. The premodern approach died out when people started asking the right questions. Read any interpretation of Jesus' parables up until the time of the reformation and you will see why this approach must be wrong. The "meanings" are bonkers. The good Samaritan pays three coins to the innkeeper because they represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The two breasts of the woman in Song of Songs represent the Old and New Testament. Just really weird stuff. I can't see how going back to that is helpful at all.
My view - The Holy Spirit Approach:
I'm not going to lay out a detailed or even well-thought out framework here, but there is something missing from all five authors: The work of the Holy Spirit. He was almost present in the Premodern Approach, but not really. It was a glaring omission in my opinion. The Spirit illuminates the text, or rather the reader as he or she encounters the text through reading or hearing. This same Spirit is the throughline for the OT authors, OT readers, and NT authors and readers. We're all part of the same family despite our different contexts. The Spirit being the author of this family and in some sense, the bible as well. I say in some sense, because it is important to have the right view of "inspiration" for this to work.
I'd like to combine certain aspects from each approach as well:
First Testament Approach - We really need to read and study the First Testament, particular scrolls, and maybe even sections of scrolls in light of their original context, if possible. Not to stop there though, to aid in the illumination process. The original context and author is extremely helpful (but not essential). We ignore it at our peril.
Christotelic Approach - The Spirit leads us to read each book in light of the place it takes in the whole of scripture. We have the privilege of seeing this whole, as well as the reception history of the text throughout the ages. Again, this is not essential, but helpful in aiding the illumination process.
Reception-Centered, Intertextual Approach - I think the critiques are what is important here. Picking and choosing two different text to spar with one another is unhelpful. Instead, I would suggest playing the OT text off of the canon as a whole and reception history of God's people. This will inevitably lead to the same thing as well as giving those very necessary "boundaries" that this approach promised but didn't deliver.
Redemptive-Historical Christocentric Approach - Keep everything here, but leave aside all the parts about the Old Testament authors not understanding what they were writing. They wrote what they wanted and meant and the Holy Spirit guided this - not to write what they didn't understand, but what they did understand. The later readers then become illumined to other meanings based on the place the writing takes within the canon and the reception of the text into the life of current Spirit-family members.
Premodern Approach - Shift away from historical or magisterial dictats, and move to the church-as-believers and now we're talking. Yes, individual Christians and denominations have wildly varying interpretations, but neither are individual Christians and denominations the entirety and authority of the church. The Spirit is. The boundaries can and should be flexible. There are things the text certainly can't mean, but also, if someone reading Joshua decides to give up smoking at the Spirit's prompting - I think that's a valid interpretation.
Lots of good stuff to think about. And, as I said, lots of stuff to aid in the illumination process.
March 21, 2024
Great introduction to these ideas! I find myself full of questions for further study, including:
- How does progressive revelation unfold throughout Scripture?
- How does faith before Christ’s sacrifice play out? (i.e is the sacrificial system merely symbolic/sacramental?)
- To what degree and in what divine capacity did Old Testament human authors understand messianic implications of their writings?
- What role can historical-grammatical-critical methods of exegesis play in a devoted Christian’s study of the Bible?
I found myself wanting to harmonize many of the contributors’ viewpoints, although I suppose I aligned most with the premodern approach, however I would temper such an approach with an emphasis on what I still believe is a vital part of exegesis - historical and grammatical criticism. However, the premodern contributor recognizes most fully the importance of trying to unveil the intentions of the Bible’s divine author rather than its many human authors.
Some notes from each viewpoint:
- First Testament Approach
- “The First Testament is rich in its portrait of God in his grace and faithfulness and in its account of how he was at work in the world and in Israel. God indeed spoke to our ancestors through the prophets, on the way to embodying that same speaking in Jesus (Heb 1:1-2). But a focus on reading Jesus back into the First Testament means we don't get to hear what it has to say.”
- “Whereas God spoke in varying ways through the prophets, he has now spoken through his Son. There is no difference between the content of what he said through the prophets and through his Son. The difference lies in his varying ways of speaking through different prophets and the unified embodiment of this teaching in Jesus.”
- “While the spiritual meaning of the prophets' messages was the Holy Spirit's message to their own people, everything the First Testament says is also instructive beyond its original context.
- “Being God-breathed underlies the Scriptures' capacity to inform people about salvation through Jesus and be useful for teaching, testing, cor-recting, and training in right living. They have this capacity whether or not the authors were aware of saying things that would benefit people who would eventually believe in Jesus.”
- Christotelic Approach
- “Christian interpreters should start by reading an Old Testament text in its original setting (first reading). Then, after learning from the rich message of the text in its "discrete meaning," Christians should then read the Old Testament in the light of the fuller revelation of the New Testament, fully expecting to see how the passage or book anticipates the coming of Christ.”
- Reception-Centered, Intertextual Approach
- “the Common Reader pairs one text with another, say, the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 with a crucifixion narrative. The pairing is directed by a dominant theme-technically an icon— shared by the texts. When one text (T1) is paired with and engaged with another (T2), the transcript of the conversation between the two becomes a third text (3). Discovering the effect of this inter-textual conversation is the purpose of this method. In sum, iconicity and effect are the unique identifiers of the reception-centered intertextual method, a largely reader-centered, literary investigation.”
- Redemptive-Historical, Christocentric Approach
- “From one perspective, every word of the Old Testament testifies to Christ because every word is blood bought. With this, we can see and celebrate Jesus at least through (1) direct messianic predictions, 2) salvation-historical trajectories, (3) similarities and contrasts, (4) typology, (5) Yahweh's identity and activity, (6) ethical ideals, and (7) living out the law of love. The Old Testament's human authors searched intently to learn about the Christ and his time, and God revealed to them that their Spirit-led interpretations would serve Christians even more than themselves.”
- Premodern Approach
- “The modern approach seeks to identify the intended meaning of the original human author, which it equates with the literal sense; the premodern approach seeks to hear God speak through the literal sense of the text. In the premodern approach, the literal sense is the divine author's intended meaning as communicated through the human author's words.”
- “Since God is the transcendent Creator and sovereign Lord of history who alone is worthy of worship, the true interpretation of Scripture depends on recognizing it as a unified book centered on Jesus Christ. The Bible is literally about Jesus Christ. This is why the expanded literal sense of the Old Testament text, under the hermeneutical control of New Testament Christology, bears witness to him.”
- How does progressive revelation unfold throughout Scripture?
- How does faith before Christ’s sacrifice play out? (i.e is the sacrificial system merely symbolic/sacramental?)
- To what degree and in what divine capacity did Old Testament human authors understand messianic implications of their writings?
- What role can historical-grammatical-critical methods of exegesis play in a devoted Christian’s study of the Bible?
I found myself wanting to harmonize many of the contributors’ viewpoints, although I suppose I aligned most with the premodern approach, however I would temper such an approach with an emphasis on what I still believe is a vital part of exegesis - historical and grammatical criticism. However, the premodern contributor recognizes most fully the importance of trying to unveil the intentions of the Bible’s divine author rather than its many human authors.
Some notes from each viewpoint:
- First Testament Approach
- “The First Testament is rich in its portrait of God in his grace and faithfulness and in its account of how he was at work in the world and in Israel. God indeed spoke to our ancestors through the prophets, on the way to embodying that same speaking in Jesus (Heb 1:1-2). But a focus on reading Jesus back into the First Testament means we don't get to hear what it has to say.”
- “Whereas God spoke in varying ways through the prophets, he has now spoken through his Son. There is no difference between the content of what he said through the prophets and through his Son. The difference lies in his varying ways of speaking through different prophets and the unified embodiment of this teaching in Jesus.”
- “While the spiritual meaning of the prophets' messages was the Holy Spirit's message to their own people, everything the First Testament says is also instructive beyond its original context.
- “Being God-breathed underlies the Scriptures' capacity to inform people about salvation through Jesus and be useful for teaching, testing, cor-recting, and training in right living. They have this capacity whether or not the authors were aware of saying things that would benefit people who would eventually believe in Jesus.”
- Christotelic Approach
- “Christian interpreters should start by reading an Old Testament text in its original setting (first reading). Then, after learning from the rich message of the text in its "discrete meaning," Christians should then read the Old Testament in the light of the fuller revelation of the New Testament, fully expecting to see how the passage or book anticipates the coming of Christ.”
- Reception-Centered, Intertextual Approach
- “the Common Reader pairs one text with another, say, the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 with a crucifixion narrative. The pairing is directed by a dominant theme-technically an icon— shared by the texts. When one text (T1) is paired with and engaged with another (T2), the transcript of the conversation between the two becomes a third text (3). Discovering the effect of this inter-textual conversation is the purpose of this method. In sum, iconicity and effect are the unique identifiers of the reception-centered intertextual method, a largely reader-centered, literary investigation.”
- Redemptive-Historical, Christocentric Approach
- “From one perspective, every word of the Old Testament testifies to Christ because every word is blood bought. With this, we can see and celebrate Jesus at least through (1) direct messianic predictions, 2) salvation-historical trajectories, (3) similarities and contrasts, (4) typology, (5) Yahweh's identity and activity, (6) ethical ideals, and (7) living out the law of love. The Old Testament's human authors searched intently to learn about the Christ and his time, and God revealed to them that their Spirit-led interpretations would serve Christians even more than themselves.”
- Premodern Approach
- “The modern approach seeks to identify the intended meaning of the original human author, which it equates with the literal sense; the premodern approach seeks to hear God speak through the literal sense of the text. In the premodern approach, the literal sense is the divine author's intended meaning as communicated through the human author's words.”
- “Since God is the transcendent Creator and sovereign Lord of history who alone is worthy of worship, the true interpretation of Scripture depends on recognizing it as a unified book centered on Jesus Christ. The Bible is literally about Jesus Christ. This is why the expanded literal sense of the Old Testament text, under the hermeneutical control of New Testament Christology, bears witness to him.”
December 22, 2024
“Is Christ in the Old Testament? In many ways, this question gets to the heart of what it means to read the Old Testament as Christian Scripture.”
An excellent selection of scholars representing distinct approaches to reading Christ in or through the Old Testament. In my particular context, preaching Christ from the Old Testament is something taken for granted in a lot of ways. Yet, I don’t stop and ponder enough HOW Christ relates to the message of the Old Testament. All of these authors recognize the pivotal role of Jesus Christ to the biblical message, but they disagree on his exact role in the Scriptures. Boy are tensions high at times as the scholars interact with one another throughout this book!
John Goldingay does not believe that Christ is IN the Old Testament and called the reader to pay attention to the original and discrete message of the OT. The New Testament and the life of Christ give new significance to the OT but don’t impact its meaning. Tremper Longman (my favorite OT scholar and a major draw for me reading this book) sees Christ as the aim of the OT. The reader reads the Old Testament text first for its discrete and original message. Then, the reader goes through the text again in light of the NT and Christ to see how the text points to Christ. Havilah Dharamraj represents the postmodern or reader-response approach as we consider the Common Reader and what inter-texts might come to mind when the Reader reads an OT passage. The Common Reader is exposed to a number of OT and NT texts through spiritual and ecclesial life, and NT texts about Christ and the similar icons of the text may come to mind as the Reader reads the OT and makes important connections. Jason Derouchie believes that the OT authors were very aware of the Christ and Messiah they prophesied about and that we must pay attention to the close and continuing context of OT passages to see how the texts ultimately find their meaning and end in Christ. Craig Carter argues for the premodern approach and believes that the fourfold sense of Scripture with its spiritual or Christological sense. Readers must show greater interest to the Divine Author’s (God’s) intent in the biblical text than the human author as they pay attention to the ontological reality of Christ in an Old Testament text.
As with the other Counterpoints books, there is no one position that I entirely identify with in this selection, and I would find strengths and weaknesses in each. This book was extremely helpful for learning about hermeneutical distinctive among biblical scholars concerning the nature of Scripture and authorial intent and awareness. Instead of identifying the position I agree with, I will list my reactions to each position:
Goldingay’s position - most shocking and off-putting. Hard to even call this a “Christian” approach.
Longman’s position - most compelling and attentive to the OT’s meaning as well as Christ’s supremacy. Though I do not see a reason to distinguish between two readings of an OT text.
Dharamraj’s positon - most informative as I haven’t read much from reader-response scholars before. Her article is very well argued and clears up misconceptions or caricatures some may have about this approach.
Derouchie’s position - most common method one is likely to find in evangelical churches. However, I feel like his method doesn’t do justice to the immediate context of a biblical text or the historical context of a passage.
Carter’s approach - honestly the weakest approach in this whole book. Has an automatic suspicion of modern approaches for some reason. Doesn’t really lay out a premodern method (as if developing a premodern method is even possible as we are not premodern readers!) Also, he was extremely militant and even rude throughout this book. Honestly, he was a bit of an embarrassing pick for the premodern or TIS crowd. I’m not exactly compelled to read more literature by him.
These are my thoughts on the book and approaches.
An excellent selection of scholars representing distinct approaches to reading Christ in or through the Old Testament. In my particular context, preaching Christ from the Old Testament is something taken for granted in a lot of ways. Yet, I don’t stop and ponder enough HOW Christ relates to the message of the Old Testament. All of these authors recognize the pivotal role of Jesus Christ to the biblical message, but they disagree on his exact role in the Scriptures. Boy are tensions high at times as the scholars interact with one another throughout this book!
John Goldingay does not believe that Christ is IN the Old Testament and called the reader to pay attention to the original and discrete message of the OT. The New Testament and the life of Christ give new significance to the OT but don’t impact its meaning. Tremper Longman (my favorite OT scholar and a major draw for me reading this book) sees Christ as the aim of the OT. The reader reads the Old Testament text first for its discrete and original message. Then, the reader goes through the text again in light of the NT and Christ to see how the text points to Christ. Havilah Dharamraj represents the postmodern or reader-response approach as we consider the Common Reader and what inter-texts might come to mind when the Reader reads an OT passage. The Common Reader is exposed to a number of OT and NT texts through spiritual and ecclesial life, and NT texts about Christ and the similar icons of the text may come to mind as the Reader reads the OT and makes important connections. Jason Derouchie believes that the OT authors were very aware of the Christ and Messiah they prophesied about and that we must pay attention to the close and continuing context of OT passages to see how the texts ultimately find their meaning and end in Christ. Craig Carter argues for the premodern approach and believes that the fourfold sense of Scripture with its spiritual or Christological sense. Readers must show greater interest to the Divine Author’s (God’s) intent in the biblical text than the human author as they pay attention to the ontological reality of Christ in an Old Testament text.
As with the other Counterpoints books, there is no one position that I entirely identify with in this selection, and I would find strengths and weaknesses in each. This book was extremely helpful for learning about hermeneutical distinctive among biblical scholars concerning the nature of Scripture and authorial intent and awareness. Instead of identifying the position I agree with, I will list my reactions to each position:
Goldingay’s position - most shocking and off-putting. Hard to even call this a “Christian” approach.
Longman’s position - most compelling and attentive to the OT’s meaning as well as Christ’s supremacy. Though I do not see a reason to distinguish between two readings of an OT text.
Dharamraj’s positon - most informative as I haven’t read much from reader-response scholars before. Her article is very well argued and clears up misconceptions or caricatures some may have about this approach.
Derouchie’s position - most common method one is likely to find in evangelical churches. However, I feel like his method doesn’t do justice to the immediate context of a biblical text or the historical context of a passage.
Carter’s approach - honestly the weakest approach in this whole book. Has an automatic suspicion of modern approaches for some reason. Doesn’t really lay out a premodern method (as if developing a premodern method is even possible as we are not premodern readers!) Also, he was extremely militant and even rude throughout this book. Honestly, he was a bit of an embarrassing pick for the premodern or TIS crowd. I’m not exactly compelled to read more literature by him.
These are my thoughts on the book and approaches.
February 27, 2023
As with most other books I have read in the Zondervan Counterpoints series, this was a bit frustrating. The value of the book is that it presents multiple different views. The challenge with these books is that (1) they don't allow enough space for the authors to present their views and arguments fully, (2) the rebuttals cover such a wide array of counter-arguments that they cannot go in-depth meaningfully, and (3) the proponent of the view gets very little space to respond to the rebuttals meaningfully.
In this book, each author gives some principles related to seeing Christ in the OT. They discuss hte nature of Scripture, and they work through 3 case study passages from the OT (1 from each major section) to demonstrate how they do or do not speak of Christ. The three case study passages are Genesis 22:1-19, Proverbs 8, and Isaiah 42:1-4. With Genesis 22:1-19, it would have been better if each author was instructed to specifically address 22:17-18, which two of the authors correctly understand to be specifically messianic. The other 3 others didn't even discuss these verses. Also, I would have preferred studying a messianic psalm (like 22 or 110) rather than Proverbs 8 for the case study for the Writings.
Brief summary of each view:
1. Goldingay - Christ is NOT in the OT; the OT can add significance to our understanding of Christ, though.
2. Longman - Read each passage in the OT 2x. The First time is literal, the second will have the deeper meaning.
3. Dharamraj - Christ is wherever a given reader may see him in the OT
4. DeRouchie - The OT writers consciously knew they were writing in anticipation of Christ.
5. Craig A. Carter - the sensus plenior reveals a fuller meaning not necessarily intended by the original OT writer.
Before reading the book, I assumed I would be most in agreement with DeRouchie. However, I have a hard time agreeing with the specificity to which he seems to believe the OT understood that they were speaking of the coming Messiah. In many ways, I appreciate Carter's article. Carter and DeRouchie mostly agree on the interpretation of the case study passages, but Carter adopts the "fourfold meaning" methodology and relies on sensus plenior for seeing Christ in the OT.
In the end, I would probably be somewhere between DeRouchie and Carter. I believe that the OT authors in many cases knew that they were aware that they were writing of the coming Messiah, but not in as many cases as DeRouchie suggests. And I have a problem with some of Carter's methodology. Also, I was sympathetic with much of Longman's argument as well.
The arguments of Dharamraj and Goldingay are fraught with methodological problems.
Rather than reading a book like this, I would rather listen to an extended discussion with DeRouchie, Longman, and Carter on this topic.
In this book, each author gives some principles related to seeing Christ in the OT. They discuss hte nature of Scripture, and they work through 3 case study passages from the OT (1 from each major section) to demonstrate how they do or do not speak of Christ. The three case study passages are Genesis 22:1-19, Proverbs 8, and Isaiah 42:1-4. With Genesis 22:1-19, it would have been better if each author was instructed to specifically address 22:17-18, which two of the authors correctly understand to be specifically messianic. The other 3 others didn't even discuss these verses. Also, I would have preferred studying a messianic psalm (like 22 or 110) rather than Proverbs 8 for the case study for the Writings.
Brief summary of each view:
1. Goldingay - Christ is NOT in the OT; the OT can add significance to our understanding of Christ, though.
2. Longman - Read each passage in the OT 2x. The First time is literal, the second will have the deeper meaning.
3. Dharamraj - Christ is wherever a given reader may see him in the OT
4. DeRouchie - The OT writers consciously knew they were writing in anticipation of Christ.
5. Craig A. Carter - the sensus plenior reveals a fuller meaning not necessarily intended by the original OT writer.
Before reading the book, I assumed I would be most in agreement with DeRouchie. However, I have a hard time agreeing with the specificity to which he seems to believe the OT understood that they were speaking of the coming Messiah. In many ways, I appreciate Carter's article. Carter and DeRouchie mostly agree on the interpretation of the case study passages, but Carter adopts the "fourfold meaning" methodology and relies on sensus plenior for seeing Christ in the OT.
In the end, I would probably be somewhere between DeRouchie and Carter. I believe that the OT authors in many cases knew that they were aware that they were writing of the coming Messiah, but not in as many cases as DeRouchie suggests. And I have a problem with some of Carter's methodology. Also, I was sympathetic with much of Longman's argument as well.
The arguments of Dharamraj and Goldingay are fraught with methodological problems.
Rather than reading a book like this, I would rather listen to an extended discussion with DeRouchie, Longman, and Carter on this topic.
December 11, 2023
The counterpoint series is a great idea, and this volume is a solid addition. I read this work to help me tune up a class I teach called One Story (sort of a Bible overview and an intro to biblical theology).
Some minor complaints about the 5 views paradigm. First, I sort of wish a higher critical scholar had been included. I think the series is directed toward believers, so they view may not be desired but I think seeing the other views interact with the best of that school would help the reader see what many (mainly Goldingay and Carter) are talking about. Second, I didn’t love that both the “premodern” advocates (DeRouchie and Carter) were baptist. Having a covenant theologian on that side would have been more fair in my opinion (and because that would be my tribe!).
Goldingay is a great OT scholar. But his chapter drove me crazy. Later he wrote that he may have over stated his case, but to deny that Jesus is in the OT is either to disagree with our Lord or to play unhelpful semantic games.
Longman, likewise, is one of my favorite OT commentators. I think his chapter with its two-stage reading strategy actually exemplifies what I actually do when I study and preach the OT. Some of the metaphysical punches from the later writers do land on his approach though.
The first time I read through Dharamraj, I thought it made no sense and omitted it in the class activity I was preparing. On second read though, I grew to appreciate bringing the reader into the interpretative dialogue. I also was grateful that the editors prevented a line up of exclusively white men.
DeRouchie’s chapter is likely the closest to my own view. His emphasis on 1 Peter 1:10-12 was a glaring omission for the other contributors and one of his stronger points.
Carter’s essay was the most off-centered, but also the most aware of metaphysical presuppositions which taint how we read the Bible. He seemed to be talking past his interlocutors but his project is a worthwhile one in my estimation.
Some minor complaints about the 5 views paradigm. First, I sort of wish a higher critical scholar had been included. I think the series is directed toward believers, so they view may not be desired but I think seeing the other views interact with the best of that school would help the reader see what many (mainly Goldingay and Carter) are talking about. Second, I didn’t love that both the “premodern” advocates (DeRouchie and Carter) were baptist. Having a covenant theologian on that side would have been more fair in my opinion (and because that would be my tribe!).
Goldingay is a great OT scholar. But his chapter drove me crazy. Later he wrote that he may have over stated his case, but to deny that Jesus is in the OT is either to disagree with our Lord or to play unhelpful semantic games.
Longman, likewise, is one of my favorite OT commentators. I think his chapter with its two-stage reading strategy actually exemplifies what I actually do when I study and preach the OT. Some of the metaphysical punches from the later writers do land on his approach though.
The first time I read through Dharamraj, I thought it made no sense and omitted it in the class activity I was preparing. On second read though, I grew to appreciate bringing the reader into the interpretative dialogue. I also was grateful that the editors prevented a line up of exclusively white men.
DeRouchie’s chapter is likely the closest to my own view. His emphasis on 1 Peter 1:10-12 was a glaring omission for the other contributors and one of his stronger points.
Carter’s essay was the most off-centered, but also the most aware of metaphysical presuppositions which taint how we read the Bible. He seemed to be talking past his interlocutors but his project is a worthwhile one in my estimation.
April 16, 2024
The five views reflected in this volume range from one pole to the other. Goldingay is the most hesitant to see Christ in the OT, even arguing that the OT does not predict the coming of Christ as messiah per se; Longman, while close to Goldingay (per his own admission), allows for a sensus plenor reading of the OT in light of Christ; Dharamraj argues for a common reader approach the OT and suggests that based on the intertextuality of the OT and NT and the reception of the OT by the reader, Christ is visible in the OT even if not in the strictly historical-grammatical sense; Derouchie argues for what most readers of evangelical scholarship after Geerhardus Vos and others would expect of an approach the OT, i.e., one that is distinctly redemptive-historical and Christocentric; and, Carter, is close to Derouchie except that, rather that seeing the OT as organically connected to Christ and thus one is able to see Christ in the OT according to the rules of exegesis, he argues that Scripture is ontologically loaded with Christ and the discovery of this awaits illumination by the Spirit.
Overall, this is a helpful read for the beginning student or one who desires the layout of different interpretative options regarding Christ in the OT. Each contributor is answered by the others and offers a rejoinder to the criticisms given. The reason for a four-star review is really one of preference: each author was usually drawn to the same texts (Gen 22; Isa 53; Prov 8), which, while providing a certain level of consistently throughout, raises the question of what the differing interpretative approaches would look like for more obscure texts like, say, Nahum 1-2. Despite this (personal) caveat, this book is good for orientating the reader to the debate swirling around the topic at hand.
Overall, this is a helpful read for the beginning student or one who desires the layout of different interpretative options regarding Christ in the OT. Each contributor is answered by the others and offers a rejoinder to the criticisms given. The reason for a four-star review is really one of preference: each author was usually drawn to the same texts (Gen 22; Isa 53; Prov 8), which, while providing a certain level of consistently throughout, raises the question of what the differing interpretative approaches would look like for more obscure texts like, say, Nahum 1-2. Despite this (personal) caveat, this book is good for orientating the reader to the debate swirling around the topic at hand.
August 30, 2025
I’ve read a number of these Counterpoints books now, and this one was a bit different. The title was a little misleading, insomuch as this book really presents what I consider to be three views on Christ in the Old Testament: two nuanced takes on the view that one can only read the Old Testament fully as a Christian and christologicaly, and two nuanced understandings of the Christotelic view, and one heterodox and perhaps completely heretical view espoused by Goldingay. Goldingay’s contributions are essentially worthless to an orthodox Christian, and they should all be ignored. Also a bit different from my experiences with the other books in this series, I agreed with all four of the orthodox presenters, especially with Dharamraj. Nominally, my own views line up closest with Derushe, but I found Dharamraj to be the most compelling writer (not completely surprising since I have a pronounced affinity for the work of Christopher Wright). Again, Goldingay’s contributions can be largely ignored as they all come across as heretical, whether that was his intention or not. I did not enjoy any of the rebuttals in this volume, which is strange for me. Typically I nearly perfectly align with one author, but I am equally interested in the contributions of the rebuttals. In this volume, I agreed with all the contributions except Goldingay, but all the rebuttals were uninspiring.
December 30, 2022
3.75. This gets bumped to a 3 because of my consistent annoyance at the “multiple views on X” book series. Some chapters and responses in this (Derouchie and Carter) are excellent and we’re definitely worth getting the book. Still, some other segments were lacking, and some of the “dialogue” amongst views missed some areas, which will always have to happen in these books because of the space constraints on the authors, thus, my annoyance with the series.
I’d love to see at least 3 of these writers do a YouTube panel discussion on the subject and really get into the details. This book is a good start though, and I recommend it if nothing else but to read Derouchie and Carter’s sections/responses
I’d love to see at least 3 of these writers do a YouTube panel discussion on the subject and really get into the details. This book is a good start though, and I recommend it if nothing else but to read Derouchie and Carter’s sections/responses
May 2, 2023
This book receives 5 stars from me not because it is without flaws, but because it so well accomplishes what it sets out to do in jelping the reader think critically and knowledgeably about the topic. I greatly benefitted from the reading of this book and recommend for anyone interested in the topic.
I also think the book is especially helpful alongside "3 Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament" which covers the other half of this broader subject. While this book discussed how we should see Christ in the OT, the 3 Views book discussed how the NT authors saw Christ in the OT. Both are great books, but I highly recommend them as a pair.
I also think the book is especially helpful alongside "3 Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament" which covers the other half of this broader subject. While this book discussed how we should see Christ in the OT, the 3 Views book discussed how the NT authors saw Christ in the OT. Both are great books, but I highly recommend them as a pair.
August 15, 2023
Zondervan…thank you.
If I had the time, I’d write a detailed endorsement of this book but alas, the time isn’t there. Overall, if I had one overarching comment on this book it would be this: Read these authors. To read this book and harp on one view exclusively would be to miss the point of the book entirely. The church needs this book and maybe more pointed, serious Bible readers and biblical-theologians need to take the overall hermeneutic of this book to heart. Why? Because it pushes a serious, in-depth look at the Old Testament and it’s New Testament christological implications.
With all that though, #TeamTremper.
If I had the time, I’d write a detailed endorsement of this book but alas, the time isn’t there. Overall, if I had one overarching comment on this book it would be this: Read these authors. To read this book and harp on one view exclusively would be to miss the point of the book entirely. The church needs this book and maybe more pointed, serious Bible readers and biblical-theologians need to take the overall hermeneutic of this book to heart. Why? Because it pushes a serious, in-depth look at the Old Testament and it’s New Testament christological implications.
With all that though, #TeamTremper.
July 15, 2024
It seemed like much of the content of this book was a debate about semantics. One writer overstates his case but then claims to (basically) believe what the others are saying, and repeat. Other than Goldingay, I had little trouble understanding and even accepting the views of the other scholars. For the most part, Goldingay just REALLY overstates his view. Longman is probably the easiest to get on board with.
March 29, 2024
This is a very helpful book on the issue. Dr. Carter's portion was my favorite, but Dr. DeRouchie's portion is also fantastic.
May 20, 2024
Helpful book offering some representative views on Christ in the Old Testament.
October 5, 2024
Even when there is a view that seems way off base, these books are always helpful in making informed opinions on the topic.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews