Everyday communication assumes that the one speaking and the one listening can understand each other. Blog writers post for others to read their thoughts. Newspapers and books are published on this assumption. Even “postmodern” deconstructionists complain if their stated views are misconstrued. Every debate and every teaching situation from the beginning of time requires that words communicate intent and that intent can be known. Misunderstandings occur when, for example, someone has not said what they meant to say, or has …
Category: Articles
This post responds to two by Steve Hays (link, link) 1. Revelation and Communication Steve Hays wants to return to the issue of meaning. He says I have not addressed it. He is mistaken. In the “More Responses” post I wrote: My main concern in the “40 Reasons” was God’s intention. Second to that is the inspired author. As both are benign communicators, the assumption is that they wanted their first hearers to grasp their intentions. If that were not …
In his post imaginatively titled, “The future’s not what it used to be” Steve Hays interacted somewhat with several other statements in my 40 Reasons: He quotes Reason 22: 22. It forces one to adopt a “promise – fulfillment” scheme between the Testaments, ignoring the fact that the OT possesses no such promise scheme, but rather a more relational “covenant – blessing” scheme. Then says, I believe he picked this up from Sailhamer’s recent book (The Meaning of the Pentateuch). …
This post responds to Steve Hays’, The New Exodus. Steve starts us off by quoting my Reason 37 from the “40 Reasons” I said: “With all due respect I think Steve is letting a presumed theological motif pass rudely over what the texts are really saying. As I pointed out in Reason 37: 37. In reality what happens is that the theological presuppositions of the interpreter which are read into the NT text and then back into the OT. There …
I am a good three posts behind Steve Hays, but I hope to stay in sight, even if I lag behind. As I have said many times, I am not interested in defending dispensationalism as a system. Yet I have to confess that when a brother has the gall to challenge my conclusions my flesh immediately consoles my wicked heart with the reassurance that they can’t possibly have a good argument. On my better days, I hope I listen and …
This is a continuation of the one on Recapitulation and Typology in Isaiah and Jeremiah. This time we deal with Isaiah and Ezekiel. One of the things to look out for in this exchange is that Hays is not your run-of-the-mill covenant theologian (he doesn’t think OT Israel is a type, although I can’t see why he makes the exception Actually, he clarified that point in a post I missed, so I am happy to be corrected. I confess I …
In my post Is Reinterpretation the Right Term? I noted Steve Hays’s objection to using the word. Steve wrote, “Does the NT reinterpret OT prophecies and promises? Dispensationalists are understandably critical of this suggestion,” and later, ” It is possible, therefore, to oppose “Zionist” exegesis without taking the position that the NT reinterprets the OT.” Steve himself does admit that some scholars (he cites B. Waltke), do believe the NT reinterprets the OT (Not to be funny, but I’m not actually …
I have been a little disappointed at the lack of interaction from naysayers on my “40 Reasons” posts. Where there has been a bare trickle of response it has been ad hominen and trivial. But Fred Butler informed me that Steve Hays had written something on his blog, which, although it doesn’t directly interact with my articles, at least addresses two pertinent points. Steve does not say he had me in mind when he wrote, so I have no right …
The First Twenty Reasons (link) In presenting these objections to the reinterpretation of OT passages by favored interpretations of the NT I am not throwing down the gauntlet to anyone. If someone wishes to respond to these objections I would be fascinated to read what they have to say. But no one is under pressure to agree with me. However, I hope these forty reasons will be given thoughtful consideration by anybody who comes across them. I believe, of course, …
Here are the first twenty of forty reasons (there could be more but it’s a good number) why a student of the Bible should not adopt the common tactic of reading the New Testament back into the Old, with the resultant outcome that the clear statements of the Old Testament passages in context are altered and mutated to mean something which, without universal prevenient prophetic inspiration, no Old Testament saint (or New Testament saint who did not have access to …
