Anabapt-ish Theology Book Club discussion

As you read, what is sticking out to you? What questions are arising? What are you finding compelling or shocking?

I thought it interesting that regarding Joseph the author cites "Brueggemann (commenting that, although the Genesis story focuses on Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, the latter is dropped from the subsequent mantra "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"), suggests that it is precisely because Joseph's counsel to Pharaoh results in an Egyptian monopoly of food that becomes an economic tool and political weapon in Pharaoh's hands that Joseph's name is dropped." But what about the visions Joseph had growing up? What about the explanation from God that Joseph gave to Pharaoh regarding the upcoming famine?

One quick comment, “in certain groups these tendencies were held in tension or used without attempting harmonization, regarding reliance on the Spirit and adherence to the letter as complementary.” Not everything needs to make sense.

I’m really impressed with the interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed the Peterson advocates for on p. 96. To summarize, if the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed it isn’t, as many suppose, referring to the size. It is referring to the mustard’s propensity to show and take root where it is not wanted (say, for instance, the Roman Empire!).

This reading also brings to memory Kreider’s book that we worked through earlier in the summer.

I’m interested in some of y’all’s thoughts on Petersen’s use of the the word “Christocentric.” I’ve always preferred the term “Christotelic.” (I first came across it while reading Tremper Longman). If the former means that all scripture is centered on Christ then the latter means the all scripture finds its end (telos) in Christ.

The difference is subtle, but I think it leaves more room for Old Testament texts to speak on their own terms before we over-theologize them.

Kevin wrote: "I’m interested in some of y’all’s thoughts on Petersen’s use of the the word “Christocentric.” I’ve always preferred the term “Christotelic.” (I first came across it while reading Tremper Longman)...."

I've heard Pete Enns use Christotelic too. I'm a fan, as it really aligns with my understanding of the gospel (spelled out really well in the King Jesus Gospel by McKnight and NT Wright's work).

I feel like a Christocentric reading of the OT allows readers to still read the OT as simply predicting the future Messiah. So you jump around and pluck verses in Isaiah out of context, point at how it predicts the coming of Jesus, and say you're reading the OT is a Christian way.

I think a Christotelic reading goes a little deeper by understanding those OT passages in their original context and then showing how the NT specifically understood Christ in relation to the entire story of Israel.