Even in a day when dictionaries proliferate, the publication of the Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation (ed. Stanley E. Porter; London/New York: Routledge, 2007) is a welcome development. The new reference work (just out) features entries on major figures in biblical interpretation (e.g. J. Barr, K. Barth, F. C. Baur, R. E. Brown, R. Bultmann, O. Cullmann, J. Derrida, C. H. Dodd, J. D. G. Dunn, M. Hengel, G. E. Ladd, etc.) as well as on major topics including Biblical Theology (D. A. Carson), Early Church Interpretation (R. N. Longenecker), Greek Grammar and Lexicography (S. Porter), and Testament Relationships (A. Köstenberger). The dictionary joins the ranks of the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005); the 2-volume Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. John H. Hayes; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999); and the older Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Holden; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1990). Below is an excerpt from my entry on Testament Relationships.

TESTAMENT RELATIONSHIPS

1. General patterns construing the Old Testament-New Testament relationship
2. The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament

The study of the Old Testament-New Testament relationship entails an investigation of general approaches to the question as well as a survey of the distinctive approaches to the Old Testament by various New Testament authors.

1. General patterns of construing the Old Testament-New Testament relationship

The relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament has been variously described as following a pattern of disunity/discontinuity or unity-continuity (Hasel 1978; Baker 1991). Various mediating approaches attempting to balance elements of continuity and discontinuity have been proposed as well. Disunity/discontinuity is advocated in an extreme form by the second-century heretic Marcion, who completely dissociated the two Testaments and rejected the Old Testament in its entirety (as well as parts of the New Testament) owing to what he perceived as its inferior presentation of God. Others, more recently, while less radical, have nonetheless asserted the superiority of the New Testament while minimizing the Old Testament’s importance. According to Bultmann (cited in Hasel 1978: 175), the Old Testament depicts the ‘failure of history’; ‘the history of Israel is not history of revelation’; and the Old Testament is nothing but ‘the presupposition of the New.’ On the opposite side of the spectrum, some have underemphasized the New Testament while overstating the importance of the Old Testament. The Reformed scholar Vischer, for example, claims that the Old Testament is Christological to such an extent that Jesus’ biography can be reconstructed from its data. However, either extreme is of doubtful value.

Those identifying a pattern of unity/continuity find that ‘the Old Testament continually looks forward to something beyond itself’ while ‘the New Testament continually looks back to the Old’ (Rowley 1953: 95). Scholars favoring this approach view the Old Testament-New Testament relationship as reciprocal. While the Old Testament cannot be fully understood without the New Testament, the New Testament, without the Old Testament, would lack its proper foundation. The continuity can be traced along the following lines (Hasel 1978: 186–96): (a) salvation history: the history of God’s people encompasses both the history of Israel and the history of the New Testament church; (b) scripture: the New Testament writers frequently cite, allude to, or echo Old Testament passages, utilizing distinctive hermeneutical axioms and appropriation techniques (Moo 1983: 384–87); Longenecker 1999); (c) terminology: Jesus and the New Testament writers frequently draw on Old Testament language; the study of significance New Testament theological terms requires an investigation of their Old Testament background; (d) themes: beyond the verbal level, the Old Testament and the New Testament are united by important themes such as creation, sin, promise, covenant, salvation, or Messiah; (e) typology (Goppelt 1982 [1939]): the New Testament features antitypes (escalated patterns) of Old Testament types, be it events (the Exodus), characters (Elijah), or institutions (the sacrificial system); (f) promise fulfillment: the New Testament records the fulfillment of countless Old Testament promises in and through the Lord Jesus Christ (e.g., the Matthean and Johannine ‘fulfilment quotations’; see below); and (g) perspective: both the Old Testament and the New Testament look forward to an eschatological consummation of the redemptive purposes of God.

While these patterns of unity/continuity are undeniable, however, unity ought not to be misconstrued as uniformity and the biblical witness ought to be viewed within a framework that allows for development and diversity (Köstenberger 2002a: 144–58) and even discontinuity (though not disunity), properly understood. An element of discontinuity is introduced into the biblical record through the presence of initially undisclosed but subsequently revealed salvation truths, such as Paul’s formulation of the mystērion of the body of Christ encompassing both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 16:25–27; Eph. 3:1–6; Col. 1:25–27; Bockmühl 1990). Progressive dispensationalists and others also point to the distinct identities of Israel and the church, contending that the church does not replace Israel in God’s plan and that there remains a future for ethnic Israel (Rom. 11:25–32; Blaising and Bock 1992).

[end of heading 1; the entry continues with heading 2: The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament]

For further reading see also the recently published Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. Stanley Porter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

Technorati Tags: biblical theology, Old Testament, New Testament

The release of the new book Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright; Nashville: B & H, 2007), has already stirred a considerable amount of discussion. In his endorsement of the volume, Daniel Akin says the book “is destined to be a classic concerning the doctrine of baptism.” Wayne Grudem says this is “a challenging book that may well cause many readers to re-think their own positions on baptism.” Contributors to the volume include Bob Stein, Tom Schreiner, Stephen Wellum, Steve McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Shawn Wright, Duane Garrett, Ardel Caneday, Mark Dever, and myself. To whet your appetite, here is an excerpt from the conclusion of my essay on “Baptism in the Gospels” (pp. 33–34).

“First, the rite of baptism is designed for believers who have repented of their sin and have put their faith in God and in his Christ. Believer’s baptism is presupposed by both John’s baptism and the Matthean “Great Commission” passage. This does not mean that fairly young people, say, at the age of seven or eight, should be barred from receiving believer’s baptism if they have genuinely understood the implications of Christ’s death on their behalf and have repented of their sin and placed their faith in Jesus Christ. However, the Gospels provide no evidence or support for the baptism of infants, nor does the principle of believer’s baptism enunciated in the Gospels allow for such a practice. In fact, if (as is sometimes alleged) Jews were predisposed to baptize infants owing to the parallel with circumcision, it is remarkable—in fact, striking—that there is no mention of infant baptism anywhere in Jesus’ teaching recorded in the Gospels.

Second, baptism is an essential part of Christian discipleship. This is clear from the Matthean “Great Commission” passage, where disciple-making is said to consist of baptizing converts and of teaching them to obey the commands of Jesus (see also John 4:1). An obedient church will take to heart the risen Christ’s command to engage in mission and evangelistic preaching, seeking to engender conversions that ensue in baptism, instruction, and Christian growth. On an individual level, those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ and have repented of their sin must be baptized as part of their Christian discipleship. While there may be a period of instruction preceding baptism, no undue obstacle should be placed in the path of a person who is genuinely converted and desirous of baptism.

Third, the mode of John’s and Jesus’ baptism was most likely that of immersion. This is suggested by the root meaning of the word baptō, “to dip” (e.g., Josh 3:15 LXX; Ruth 2:14 LXX baptizō, “to baptize,” is an intensive or frequentative form. It is also indicated by the LXX usage of baptizō with reference to immersion (see 2 Kgs 5:14). Another piece of supporting evidence is the statement that Jesus “came up immediately from the water” subsequent to his baptism (Matt 3:16 par. Mark 1:10: euthus anebē/anabainōn apo/ek tou hudatos). While there are differences of view as to the way in which baptism by immersion ought to be stipulated in church polity, evidence from the Gospels suggests that this was in fact the NT and early church’s mode of baptism.

Fourth, theologically, water baptism presupposes spiritual regenerationas a prevenient and primary work of God in and through the person of the Holy Spirit. This follows plainly from the Baptist’s announcement that the Messiah would baptize people in the Spirit. Thus repentance from sin and faith in Christ, accompanied by regeneration, are logically and chronologically prior to water baptism. This, in turn, puts water baptism in proper perspective. There is no warrant in the Gospels for the notion of baptismal regeneration. There is also no support for viewing baptism as a sacrament, a sacred rite which mediates some sort of special grace to the recipient of baptism by virtue of the intrinsic efficacy of the rite (ex operere operato).”

Fair enough?

Technorati Tags: baptism, believer’s baptism, church

“All flesh is like grass,
and all its glory like a flower of the grass.

The grass withers,
and the flower drops off,

but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (Isaiah 40:6–8, cited in 1 Peter 1:24–25 NASB)

Taking some time off between Christmas and New Year afforded me the opportunity to reflect on my personal priorities for this year. I confess to a certain amount of “blog fatigue” before the holidays, but emerge from my time of soul-searching re-energized, believing even more firmly that only a return to the Biblical Foundations will ground us sufficiently in ultimate reality both individually as believers and corporately as the people of God. Only “the word of the Lord endures forever”—people are like flowers that, while beautiful (because God-made) for a season, eventually wither and die.

The beginning of 2007 marks two strategic initiatives for the ministry of Biblical Foundations. The first is the acquisition of the www.biblicalfoundations.com website and name. Once fully populated, this new sister website will feature all of my publications and resources on various topics related to rebuilding the biblical foundations for the home, the church, and society. The www.biblicalfoundations.org website will continue to feature my weekly blog, my speaking and teaching schedule, and a variety of other links and resources. This increased web presence will seek to lend an increasing voice to the mission and purpose of the Biblical Foundations ministry.

The second initiative is a 12-week discipleship series I will offer this spring at my local church, Richland Creek Community Church in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Starting February 11, the series will follow the outline of my book God, Marriage, and Family (Crossway, 2004), highlighting a different issue related to marriage and family each week. The opening segment of each session will be videotaped and made available at Richland Creek’s website, www.richlandcreek.com. For more information on the series, see the Speaking Schedule on this website as well as the Richland Creek website. Please join us if you are within driving distance.

Often we are too busy with the many good activities in which we are engaged that we lack the focus needed to accomplish (with God’s help) the great things our Lord has called us to pursue. This year may you and I heed the author of the Book of Hebrews’ call: “. . . let us lay aside every weight and the sin that so easily ensnares us, and run with endurance the race that lies before us, keeping our eyes on Jesus, the source and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that lay before Him endured a cross and despised the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of God’s throne.” (Hebrews 12:1–2 NASB) Help us to do so, Lord Jesus, for your glory and our good.

P.S.: At the time of writing, www.biblicalfoundations.com is still under construction, though some materials are already posted. Please let me know if you are interested in any particular features being added or if you have any suggestions on how to design the site. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with many of you in this way.

Technorati Tags: Biblical Foundations, God, marriage, family