Chris Tilling asks the important question about how we understand the Hebrew Scriptures. He offers three positions. I'm currently reading David Horrell's guide to 1 Peter. It offers an introduction to "1 Peter", aimed at undergraduate students. He suggests that "1 Peter" is an important text not least for the ways in which it both reflects and constructs early Christian identity, in its relationships with Judaism and the Roman Empire.
I'm about to hit the two important chapters, 4-5, but with regards to Chris' question, Horrell makes this comment:
In effect, this constitutes a claim that the true subject of biblical prophecy – and, by extension, of the Jewish scriptures as a whole – is Christ, and that the fulfilment of what is said by the prophets is found in the Christian gospel and is appropriated by Christian believers. The author of 1 Peter shares with other early Christians the conviction that the coming of Christ marked the beginning of the end-times, the final act in God’s drama of salvation (1:20; cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:2).
Horrell, 1 Peter, pg. 62-63
My question now arises, if this is the perspective of NT authors, does this mean that we, being those who submit ourselves to the worldview of the NT, have to embrace this view? Assuming we could demonstrate that the authors of the NT held strictly to a Christological interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, would we be bound to that hermeneutic? I'm slowly creeping through the pages of Goldingay's offering: Israel's Gospel. I've never been so refreshed and envisioned by these scriptures as I am now. Goldingay has done a tremendous job of showing the dynamic vision presented in the Hebrew narratives. So now I'm stuck, am I constrained to reject his view, because that is not the view of the NT authors? This is ofcourse a deeply theological question, and those concerned with history only have the freedom to choose their option. But do we? These thoughts occupy my time... You got any on this matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment