A RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE TITLED “FINDING CHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: TRADITIONS AND TYPES OF MESSIAH”

BY ANDY WARREN-ROTHLIN

Joseph Ezekiel Dickson

UJ/2014/PGAR/0096

Being a Research Paper Presented to the Department of Religion and Philosophy, University of Jos in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Course

ROT 514 The Text of the Old testament

Lecturer: Professor Yoilah K. Yilpet

Date: 17th September, 2015

Review and Response to Warren’s Argument

Andy Warren starts by stating the premise of his argument, namely that “the Old

Testament is not a Christian book” because it was written by people with “theologies and

worldviews different from our own” (37). He argues that the Old Testament authors would

not agree with Christians on any doctrinal statement or systematic theology. Unfortunately,

this is to deny the Old Testament its prophetic and futuristic flavour which found its

culmination in the New Testament. It should be pointed that most Old Testament authors

clearly indicated the prophetic nature of their work which awaits fulfilment in the future. It is

no wonder that Warren believes in oral tradition, that the Old Testament was in oral form

before it was put in written. He seems to believe that God could entrust his word to human

memory instead of his divinely inspired authors.

Warren argues that Israel was monolatrous in nature before transiting to a

monotheistic society. This indicates that Warren believes in the theory of evolution of

Israelite religion. His emphasis on the difference of gap that lies between the Old Testament

and the New Testament and subsequently the New Testament and us seems to indicate that

we should have nothing to do with the two texts. He states that our interpretations are heavily

influenced by our theology and worldview, and our commitment to the New Testament has

inclined us to a particular kind of messianic texts, which he argues becloud our sense of

reasoning, hence making Christians to interpret Old Testament texts that were originally not

messianic as messianic texts. He uses Genesis 3:15 as being interpreted messianically by

Christians when it was not so in the original contexts. Warren’s position is misleading

because he fails to explain why the Bible did not come up with other ‘myths’ to explain the

enmity between humans and other wild animals, but dwells only on Genesis 3:15, the popular

proto-euwangelion to explain away its prophetic and messianic sense, arguing that it was a

myth explaining the enmity between serpents and humans.

2

Warren calls Genesis 1a mythological, and oral prehistory text which cannot be linked

with covenant. This indicates that Warren is an evolutionist, not a Biblicist. Perhaps, this

means he has little interest in the knowledge of the Bible and how the world all began from

biblical point of view.

In his use of Genesis 1:28, Warren fails to indicate which Christian scholars and in

which work was such passage ever interpreted to be messianic or prophetic, that found its

fulfilment in Christ. He seems to be cooking some in his head, because even his liberal-

critical, friend Barth Erhman, whom he cites most often, cannot take such position. Perhaps,

it should be pointed that placing Genesis 1:28 in its literal context will not permit a prophetic

interpretation that found fulfilment in Christ. However, a canonical interpretation of Scripture

indicates that man’s failure in Genesis three which ushered in the messianic prophesies

culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ for the redemption of sin, has extended the

missional responsibility of the Church to the Great Commission.

Warren argues that ascribing Immanuel to Jesus is an accidental mistranslation and

misapplication of Isaiah 7:14 which God has used. It should be pointed that the application of

the passage is an interpretive practice that was acceptable during the day of the apostles, as

practiced by their Jewish contemporaries. Warren equally acknowledges this fact when he

cites Longenecker on the different methods of biblical interpretation practiced by the early

church: “. . . they seem to make no sharp distinctions between what we would call historico-

grammatical exegesis, illustration by way of analogy, midrash exegesis, pesher interpretation,

allegorical treatment, and interpretation on a ‘corporate solidarity’ understanding of people

and events in redemptive history” (42). Having accepted these interpretive methods as

practicable in the days of the apostles, one wonders why Warren finds it difficult to accept

the fact that seeing this in the way the New Testament cited the Old Testament should not be

a surprise.

3

He equally insists that even the Old Testament law has no relevance to Gentile

Christians since it was meant for the Jews, while Christians live the greater law, the law of

the Spirit. He however, accused Jesus and Paul for altering the Old Testament law to make it

apply to Christians.

Similarly, he accused the New Testament writers of being propagandists, who chose

to proof-text the Old Testament texts they cited for the purpose of proving that Jesus was the

messiah even though he was not. He claims that this tradition of proof-texting was continued

by the church fathers, stating that “God’s messiah on the cross was a totally baffling

fulfilment of the prophetic predictions and not something any literalist could have figured

out” (41). This statement is true and also acknowledged by the disciples on their way to

Emmaus and expressed by them in the interaction with the resurrected Jesus in Luke 24:13-

21:

Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him. He asked them, ‘What are you discussing together as you walk along?’ They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, ‘Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?’ ‘What things?’ he asked. ‘About Jesus of Nazareth,’ they replied. ‘He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place” (NIV).

The rest of the story in the interaction of the disciples culminated in Jesus opening their eyes

to see that the whole Old Testament prophesied about him. It should be pointed to Warren

that the beginning of the Jewish expectation of a political and kingly messiah who would

come to redeem them from the oppression of their overlords is rooted in the colonial

experiences of the Jewish people, and not a product of proper interpretation and

understanding of Old Testament prophesies about Jesus Christ, that he failed to fulfil. The

Qumran community had their concept of ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ in the same way as the

4

Jews of Jesus’ time expected a political and kingly messiah. The zealots and other violent

Jewish movements during Christ’s ministry suffice to prove Jewish understanding of

messiah.

Furthermore, Warren lists several Old Testament passages that were cited in the New

Testament as typology, but seems to disagree with typology as a legitimate means of

interpreting Scriptures. It should be point to Warren that some Old Testament events were

interpreted in the New Testament as typological. For instance, in predicting his death, Jesus

Himself said, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of

Man be lifted up” (John 3:14, NKJV). This indicates that the serpent in the Old Testament

prefigures the death of Jesus in some way. Also, John 1:29 records that, “The next day John

saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of

the world!” (NIV). The ‘lamb’ imagery comes from the Passover event in Exodus 12, which

in the New Testament comes to mean that Jesus is similar to the Passover lamb as his

sacrifice offers a salvific effect, and universal salvation for mankind. Again, Paul used

typology to describe Jesus as second Adam in Romans 5:12-14:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern (type) of the one to come” (NIV).

The few passages cited above indicate that some New Testament passages interpreted Old

Testament events typologically, a practice that even Warren cannot dispute.

It is unfortunate that Warren asserts that OT prophecies rooted in Kingship predicted

David instead of Christ. He argues that the OT texts with a real kingship background had

already necessarily been reinterpreted as eschatological cum messianic psalms by the time the

Psalter was taking shape. He refuses to accept the prophetic nature of the messianic psalms as

5

pointing to Christ. Perhaps he should explain whom David’s own prophecies in the psalms

point to.

He argues that the idea of corporate solidarity, in which “the king and the people are

bound together in such a way that what is true of the one is true in principle of the other” (45)

started after the fall of Jerusalem, as a Jewish means of interpreting the exile experience.

Warren should remember that the idea of corporate solidarity did not start after the fall of

Jerusalem but, it was an idea rooted in Pentateuchal theology. In Joshua 7, when Achan

sinned by taking the loot, the whole Israelite community suffered the consequences. Also,

Warren’s statement that the ‘father-son’ formula is not used to refer to a ruling messianic

representative, but individual members of the messianic community betrays his ignorance of

the idea of corporate solidarity as he claims. First, the representative nature of Israelite kings

is in corporate solidarity, the one in the many. Sometimes, the sin of the king is punished in

corporate fashion as though the whole community sinned. For instance, “The anger of the

LORD burnt against ‘Israel’” (2 Samuel 24:1), not against David alone, when David sinned

by taking the census of Israel’s soldiers.

Jonathan Lunde in his article titled “An Introduction To Central Questions In The

New Testament Use Of The Old Testament” sheds more light that the idea of corporate

solidarity allows the king or pries to represent the nation; an animal can bear sins

representatively for all, and a prophet can picture the nation’s fate in his individual life.

Because of his identification with the identity of the group as a its representative, Jesus’

relationship with the nation of Israel allows New Testament authors to craft arguments that

portray Jesus in corporate relationship with the nation; thus, titles which were ascribed to

Israel as a nation, were ascribed to him (Lunde 38).

In his discussion of the genealogy and birth of Jesus Christ, Warren asserts that Jesus

is personally tainted by the suspicion of illegitimacy and prostitution through the family line

6

he descended from, all to “fulfil the nation’s identity with respect to the reproach which it had

brought on itself through its adultery and idolatry, a fact which he sees as an integral part of

Christ’s messianic ministry of associating with sinners. Warren should understand that all

those parents in the lineage of Jesus have never been interpreted by the worst of critics in that

manner. However, many scholars have leaned on the side of “the inclusion of the Gentiles”

principles in the plan of God’s salvation for mankind to explain these incidents of Jesus’

parentage.

Warren should state with caution the fact that Jesus supplanted his brother, John the

Baptist to become the messiah, a motif he claims runs throughout Scripture. Jesus’s nature of

calling is distinct from any of the examples Warren has given, except if he wants to dispute

the deity of Christ.

General Observation to Warren’s Opinion

Warren seems to apply all critical approaches to interpreting the Bible, but he fails to

accept the concept of sensus plenior, a position of some critical scholars like him. Sensus

plenior has been accepted by some as a means of interpreting Old Testament events in light

of New Testament owing to the fact that some scholars see the possibility of multiple layers

of meaning in scripture. Sensus plenior has been an acceptable way of resolving the tension

between what Old Testament text means with what a New Testament text means especially

when the later seems to quote the former out of context. Thus, some scholars assume that

some NT authors “appeal to a divinely-intended ‘fuller’ meaning of Scripture that is

discerned by the inspired NT authors- the so-called sensus plenior (lit., the ‘fuller sense’)

(Lunde 14). Jonathan Lunde cites Brown defining sensus plenior, as “that additional, deeper

meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to

exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are

studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation}”

7

(14). He adds, “The literal sense answers the question of what this text meant according to its

author’s intention as that author was inspired to compose it in his particular stage in the

history of God’s plan of salvation. The SP [sensus plenior] answers the question of what the

text means in the whole context of God’s plan, a meaning which God, who knew the whole

plan from the start, intended from the moment. He inspired the composition of the text” (15).

Although some Protestant scholars do not accept sensus plenior as a legitimate way of

interpreting the Bible, it would have been better if Warren considers this as a possibility.

Warren’s refusal to come to terms with typology needs to be restated here because

there are typological assumptions that guide the authors of the Bible such as “(1) God is

sovereign over history and is directing it in ways that reveal his unchanging character; (2)

historical patterns that pertain to significant events, institutions, and people theologically

foreshadow later recurrences of similar things; and (3) the final historical fulfillments will

eclipse their prior counterparts, since God’s explicit expressions of his ultimate purposes

outstrip what has already occurred” (Lunde 19). Lunde adds that this “eclipsing can be a

fulfillment that is more glorious than any previous fulfillment, or it can replace a previously

negative occurrence with a positive one” (19). Several examples suffice to prove the point.

First, John’s typological interpretation of the nonbreaking of Jesus’ legs in John 19:36 which

he see as fulfilment of the Scripture regarding the treatment of the body of the Passover lamb

in Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 is a case in point. Also, the travels of Jesus and his

parents to and from Egypt according to Matthew (Matt 2:15) fulfills Hosea 11:1 and its

description of Israel’s exodus from Egypt (Matt 2:15). This and many more illustrate the fact

that typology was an acceptable way of interpreting the scriptures by the New Testament

authors.

Warren listed some interpretive methods used in early church period without

accepting whether they are legitimate or not. Lunde states a fact there are various

8

assumptions that guide the NT authors in their use of the OT which is similar to ones that

guided their Jewish contemporaries:

The interpretations of Scripture found at Qumran illustrate this well. As is revealed in their writings, these sectarian Jews were convinced of their identity as the ‘children of light’ . . . Equipped with their hermeneutical key- which is none other than their Teacher of Righteousness- they saw in their own history the fulfillment of end time prophecies. Accordingly, they unhesitatingly applied the Scriptures to their own community. What is important to recognize is that this is analogous to what the NT authors have done in their use of the OT. Equipped with Jesus, who is their interpretive key, they appropriate the Scriptures to validate their claim that Jesus is the Messiah and to bolster their assertions concerning their own identity and destiny. Like the Qumranians, they view Scripture through the lens of their presuppositions about Jesus (35-36).

Thus, it is important that Warren accepts this fact an incorporate into his hermeneutic.

Conclusion

From this article, one can assume that Andy Warren holds a low view of Scripture. It

should be pointed without the least hesitation that Andy Warren’s view of the Bible is

contaminated and therefore contagious, owing to the position holds in a reputable theological

college that holds a high view of Scripture. Although he did not state it explicitly, I doubt if

his position on inerrancy and infallibility are orthodox. It is important to state here that when

scholars hold theological views very far apart from the institutions they teach, they should

resign for conscience’ sake. A typical example is Julius Wellsausen, who propounded the

Documentary Hypothesis. An online article titled “Julius Wellhausen” in Encyclopedia of

World Biography narrates that after raising several critical questions without getting answers

on Old Testament narratives, Wellhausen lost his faith and soon came to adopt only critical,

historical, and scientific methods of inquiry about the Bible. But the report shows that

Wellhausen “resigned in 1882 because he believed that his teachings were having a dire

effect on theological students destined for the ministry, and because he had become a figure

of controversy over his published views on the Old Testament.” Perhaps, Andy Warren-

Rothlin should resign his position in TCNN because his views about the Bible are different

9

from that of the proprietors of TCNN. This will help him not to infect his students with his

own kind of views about Scripture.

10

WORKS CITED

___________ “Julius Wellhausen.” in  Encyclopedia of World Biography 2004. Encyclopedia.com. 2 Sep. 2015<http://www.encyclopedia.com

Lunde, Jonathan. “An Introduction To Central Questions In The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament” in Three Views on New Testament Use of the Old Testament edited by Kenneth Berding, Jonathan Lunde and Stanley Gundry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008 Print.

Warren-Rothlin, Andy. “Finding Christ In The Old Testament: Traditions And Types Of Messiah” TCNN Research Bulletin

11