In Reformed circles usually you will hear of a christocentric hermeneutic when it comes to interpreting scripture. What this means, simply, is that the New Testament is the interpreter and final arbiter of how we understand the Old Testament. So that when we read ‘Israel’ in the Old Testament, in general, this means the ‘Church’ in the New Testament.
Working within this ‘Reformed tradition’ TF Torrance, of course, has a different take on what an actual christocentric hermeneutic might look like; he says:
One of the first things we have to say both about Jesus’ teaching that he came ‘to give his life as a ransom for many (lutron anti pollon)’, as about his teaching on ‘the new covenant in his blood’, is that it is given in a setting in which Jesus is profoundly conscious of the constraint of the will of God upon him. That is not simply a constraint that arises out of his direct consciousness of the Father’s will, but a constraint laid upon him by the revelation of the Father’s will in the scriptures of the Old Testament. He has come to fulfill the will of God manifested in covenant relation with Israel and therefore he spoke of himself as having to fulfill the Old Testament scriptures. Because his passion is related to the Old Testament and he deliberately laid down his life in such a way as to take upon himself the burden of the servant of which the Old Testament spoke, it is only in the context of the Old Testament revelation that we can rightly appreciate and understand his teaching. Thus we have to take into account not only the teaching of the Old Testament cultus about atoning sacrfice and redemption, but we have to consider very especially certain passages that were undoubtedly in our Lord’s own mind as he uttered these words, such as Psalm 49 and Job 33, Exodus 12, Jeremiah 31 and Isaiah 53, to name only some of the most obvious of them. Thus only by careful sifting of the Old Testament background can we reach a true understanding of his words and acts in the New. (Thomas Torrance, ed. Robert T. Walker, “Atonement,” 25)
This is at odds with the typical order of the typical ‘Reformed’ approach; in fact TFT’s approach starts with the OT as a necessary correlate to our reading of the NT (i.e. with all of its expectations and motifs intact). I would say the primary reason TF’s approach is different is because it actually starts with Jesus as the centerpiece of both the Old Testament (promise) and the New Testament (fulfillment). This is related to the fact that TFT saw Jesus as scripture, and then written scripture as secondary witness (albeit special witness) to THE WORD of GOD. So Torrance’s approach is different than typical approaches because his view of ‘revelation’ was different than typical views.
What do you think, do you like Torrance’s approach? Need more explanation? Or maybe you think Torrance is out to lunch on this :-).
It's the only approah that makes sense. Thanks!
Guess I'm not quite understanding.I'd like to like Torrance's approach but got lost after your comment that "Israel" in the OT means "church" in the NT.My brain went off somewhere else as I was thinking that there are too many passages that suggest "Israel" still is Israel, even though God's blessing and offer of salvation has been opened to the Gentiles for a time. It seems that Paul even warned his Romans readers to not become arrogant because God chose to be merciful to us.I was thinking the other day that Jesus is literally the uniting "tie" between the two testaments. And all people are saved by faith in Christ alone (either looking ahead, having met personally or looking back), regardless of what form of obedience God has directed. On the other hand, I've been thinking that the account of Israel would also be an interesting study. It may very well be a double exposed picture of not just "Israel", but a revelation of the nature of God and the way He deals with all people in all ages.I dunno. Maybe I'll just ask you to please clarify Torrances statement ;)Heather
Moe,I'm not saying that TF is all that far from the typical approach (well maybe); the big distinction is that the typical is text based, and TF's is Person based. So this has an impact on the "priority" that the NT has, nevertheless, TF sees the NT as very important to interpreting the OT; it's just that I don't see him having to defend the "NT herm" as adamantly as the Classic Reformed approach.Heather,I was just stating how an "amiller" in general would interpret Israel in the OT (even TF does). I don't follow this, I still see a "functional" distinction between the nation of Israel (the remnant) and the Church (I am progressive dispensational). To be honest, after I posted this, I reread it, and didn't think it was a very clear of good post. I'll need to clarify this stuff via another post further . . . I mean amend, I think I "overstated" a bit in this one. π
Hi Bobby, and Heather!By God's grace it only took a few minutes to find the section in "Incarnation", but I Had to read a few pages to get to his punchline. I don't think TFT uses bullet points, but developes long arguments, which one must follow through to the end to get to his punchline. In "incarnation" chapter 2, under "the agony of Israel and the faithfulness of God"and going forward, He developes a few different themes:Jesus is not only man incarnate, but also Israel incarnate. He is a particular man, and a particular Israelite. Jesus is Israel, the suffering servant. At the same time Israel stands in for mankind as the crucifier of the Holy One of Israel. To cut this argument of several pages to the bone, Israel was elected to birth the incarnate Son of God Messiah. Israel was also elected to vicariously reject God's grace for all mankind. P 53 …the election of Israel to be the sphere in which the Son of God let Himself be condemned as a sinner and be put to death on the cross meant that Israel could only fulfill the gracious purpose of God by rejecting Christ…The Jews carried that out in fearful wickedness, but throughout it all the Son of God remained in sovereign control…[watch this!] how could He, the incarnate love of God, let man become guilty of the ulimate wickedness of putting the Son of God to death?"I could quote the next couple pages because it is wonderful, but he wraps it up saying that the rejection of Israel is salvation to the gentiles. But " the wrath that has come upon Israel through the cross has to be understood as the chastening wrath of the Heavenly Father."then on page 56 (this part makes me cry for hope and joy, because no man can cause God to break His covenant.): But this much is revealed, that through darkness God's ancient people will come to the light of the resurrection, and all Israel will be saved. That does not simply mean that the Jewish people will eventually become Christians and members of one holy catholic and apostolic church, but that within the one church of Christ, the Israel of God, there will be a special place for Israel as a people,…Maybe not strictly dispensational, but not typical of the reformed. I have a special place n my heart for the Israel of Joseph and Joshua, and David and Elijah and Bethlehem.Isn't that wonderful?Your Brother
Hey Duane,
Thanks for sharing that. Actually did you know that there are many Reformed Amils, even historically, who have seen a ‘special place’ for Israel in re. to salvation. Rom 11 is typically appealed to. So I would just want to clarify that there are plenty of amillers who see a special place for a remnant of Jewish believers (TF being one of them, Kim Riddlebarger and Beale being a couple of ‘Reformed Amils’ who fit this today).
Duane, you have really done a nice bit of homework. It follows closely to the Jewish bits in Torrance’s book, ‘The Mediation of Christ’. I would just add that there is also a book edited by David W Torrance, Handsel press, called ‘The witness of the Jews to God. In it, is an essay by TFT on ‘The divine vocation and destiny of Israel in world history’. I learnt a lot about the continuing relevance of Israel to the history of the world, especially the holocaust which so parallels the movement of God in the Cross for gentiles.