Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Euangelion

John Goldingay: Do We Need the NT?

Last updated on: December 30, 2015 at 3:17 am   by Michael F. Bird

John Goldingay: Do We Need the NT? 2015-12-30T03:17:13-04:00 Michael F. Bird

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

John Goldingay

Do We Need the New Testament? Letting the Old Speak for Itself.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2015.
Available at Amazon.com

This book, mostly a collection of lectures by John Goldingay, allows Goldingay to play the part of provocateur by pushing back on doctrines of scripture that are too NT-centric and schemes of hermeneutics that overly christianize the OT.

To begin with, Goldingay hates the descriptor “Old Testament” because “old” implies obsolescence and “old” is only used to describe the mosaic covenant in contrast to the new covenant, not Israel’s scriptures. So he prefers the designation “First Testament.” I’m sympathetic here.

On whether we need the NT, Goldingay’s answer is, “Yes, of course, we need the New Testament Scriptures, but they don’t supersede the earlier Scriptures. We need the First Testament for an understanding of the story of God’s working out his purpose, for its theology, for its spirituality, for its hope, for its understanding of mission, for its understanding of salvation and ethics.”

There is an interesting essay on the Book of Hebrews where Goldingay claims that the book has inadvertedly had a negative impact on Christian views of the OT. I wonder what David deSilva, Craig Koester, Luke Johnson, and Andrew Lincoln would say to this?

The best chapter was the final one on theological interpretation. Goldingay believes in theological interpretation because the only reason why the Bible exists is because it talks about God and God’s people. And Goldingay believes, contra John Collins, that the Bible does have a singular and unified story. But Goldingay complains that bland generalizations like “The book of Jonah is all about Christ,” is trite and inaccurate. He thinks the Bible is theocentric because Christ himself was theocentric! He doesn’t see a lot of hope for trinitarian readings of the OT since “Yahweh is God – period; therefore Yahweh is Father, Son and Spirit.” To say otherwise obscures the theological significance of OT pronouncements about God. On the Rule of Faith, Goldingay notes its attraction, but argues that it can only be used analytically, it can help us see what is there, but it cannot determine what is allowed to be there. To sum up his point: “So my argument is that theological interpretation needs to be wary of being christocentric and being Trinitarian and following the formulations of Christian theology and the Rule of Faith. The God of the First Testament became incarnate in Jesus, but reading the Scriptures, and the First Testament in particular, in those ways easily generates readings that are unfaithful to the theological significance of texts that have other things to say than ideas that fit easily with Christology, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Rule of Faith.” I take the point, but I think it’d be pushing a big rock up a steep hill to argue that the apostles and church fathers took that approach.

If I had to sum up Goldingay’s  main point it would be this: theology is great, but do theology while letting the Old [First] Testament be itself.

In the end, I certainly don’t agree with everything Goldingay says, but it is a short, interesting, readable, and provocative book for everyone concerned with how to read the Old [First] Testament as Christians without reducing it into an allegory of Christian beliefs.

Interestingly enough, Joel Green, an academic dean at Fuller Seminary, one of Goldingay’s colleagues, has written a fine book on theological interpretation. It would be a fun day at Fuller Seminary to get both guys together for a debate on the subject: How shall we read the Bible?

Uncategorized

Previous Post



December 29, 2015

A New Tool in Pastoral Care for Seminary Students

Next Post



December 30, 2015 On-line N.T. Wright Courses on Galatians, Gospel, and PFG


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Bible Lands Blogosphere Book Review Calvinism Colleges & Universities Ecclesiology Emerging Adulthood Evangelicalism Foreign Affairs Gospel of John Greco-Roman World Humor Just War N. T. Wright Old Testament Resurrection Terrorism Theological Education Travel Uncategorized Writing

Select a Month September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 January 2011




TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to 2 Peter, what are believers partakers of?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The divine nature God's kingdom Christ's sufferings Eternal glory

Books by This Author Books by Mike Bird

See All Titles »

Related posts from Euangelion

Evangelical

Rom 3:21-26 - Translates, Paraphrase, Notes

Euangelion

Evangelical

Studying the New Testament through Inscriptions

Euangelion

Evangelical

Is Paul's Christ an Angel?

Euangelion

Evangelical

Romans 13:1-7 - Translates, Paraphrase, and Notes

Euangelion

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical

The REST of Your Life: A Creative Wrestles...

This week I had a conversation with a good friend from church....

How the author of the world's best hymn...

I've been working with John Newton for a while now. This makes...

Psalm 130 | Lectio Divina

Long before this Lectio Divina, Psalm 130 - the song - started...

What About the Trees? Another Living Parable

After I finished writing the last article about falling leaves as a...

Why Classical Education Is a Conversation, Not a...

Come and Read: Joy in Classical Education When I was a little...

What Happened at Cornell?

Cornell University has received a great deal of negative publicity and intense...

view all Evangelical blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube