Previous posts in this series:
Canonical Structure and Hermeneutics: Intro.
Canonical Structure of the OT – 1
Canonical Structure of the OT – 2 (the Hebrew Bible)
Hermeneutical Implications of Canonical Structure
1. Both Testaments are similar in that the Pentateuch and the Gospels function as historical and theological foundations for subsequent books. This is so obvious in light of previous posts that it needs no further comment.
2. Both Testaments are similar in that subsequent books depend on previous revelation and are theologically continuous of that revelation. Since this is the case, we should not be surprised if subsequent revelation includes some explanation of antecedent revelation. And when this occurs, it is God commenting on what he has done or said in the past and its relevance for the present. Subsequent revelation often makes explicit what was only implicit in antecedent revelation.
3. Both Testaments have similar canonical shapes which seem to have been deliberately formed. What Dempster says of the New Testament Gospels can be said of the Old Testament’s Pentateuch. “…the Gospels…have a hermeneutical and theological priority by virtue of their initial position in the canon.”[1] The New Testament is clearly centered on Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic promise. Its canonical shape seems to reflect its theological content (the coming of Christ [the Gospels] is followed by the implications of his coming [Acts-Revelation]). If it is indeed the case that canonical shape was theologically deliberate, then it would seem at least to suggest that the following words of James Hamilton with reference to the Old Testament are worthy of serious consideration. Hamilton says, “…from start to finish, the OT is a messianic document, written from a messianic perspective, to sustain a messianic hope.”[2] He goes on to offer two caveats to this claim.
First, I wish to make plain the inductive steps that led to this hypothesis. We inductively observe that there is much messianic speculation in second temple Judaism (both in the NT and the intertestamental literature). We add to this the observation that this speculation is anchored in the OT. We then set aside the possibility that ancient people were stupid, which seems to be an implicit assumption of a good deal of modern scholarship, and we seek a hypothesis that explains the data. Since the authors of these texts are presumably seeking to be persuasive to their contemporaries (see, e.g., John 20:31), it seems to me unlikely that their contemporaries would grant the imposition of new meanings onto these texts. One hypothesis that explains the fact that “Early Christians, rabbinic sources, and the sectarians at Qumran cite the same biblical texts in their portrayals of the royal messiah” (J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations,” in The Messiah [ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 41 n. 2) is that the OT is a messianic document, written from a messianic perspective, to sustain a messianic hope. This would mean that these disparate groups are not imposing a messianic interpretation on these texts but rightly interpreting them. This is not the only available hypothesis, but it seems to me to be the most convincing. I agree with John Sailhamer, who writes, “I believe the messianic thrust of the OT was the whole reason the books of the Hebrew Bible were written. In other words, the Hebrew Bible was not written as the national literature of Israel. It probably also was not written to the nation of Israel as such. It was rather written, in my opinion, as the expression of the deep-seated messianic hope of a small group of faithful prophets
and their followers” (“The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 [2001]: 23). The variations in messianic expectation show that the developing portrait of the coming Messiah was not crystal clear, but the pervasive expectation supports the hypothesis.
My second caveat is that though I am calling this “messianic,” I do recognize that this term seems not to receive a technical meaning until the second temple period. But as Rose has written, “It is a matter of confusing language and thought . . . to conclude on this basis that one can speak of messianic expectations properly only after a particular word was used to refer to the person at the center of these expectations” (W. H. Rose, “Messiah,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003], 566). Cf. also John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 11–12.[3]
[1] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 42.
[2] James Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10.2 (2006), 30.
[3] Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman,” SBJT 10.2 (2006), 44, n.5.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
