Reinterpretation or Typology?

A friend of mine asked me to take a look at this article and let him know what my thoughts were. This post is my response.

Rather than reproduce sections of the article in this post, you can read the original post here (Don’t worry; it’s not lengthy): Does Romans 9:25-26 Support Covenant Theology?

1. Mr. Waymeyer seems to be reading the Dispensational definition of “church” into that of covenant theology, making it seem as though Covenant theologians advocate the church’s replacement of Israel. Dispensational theologians typically restrict their definition of “the church” to those believers (Jew & Gentile) in the present age of history, beginning at Pentecost and ending (as far as new members go) with the “Rapture” at the end of this age. Regardless of whose definition is correct, we need to at least let our brothers’ definitions stand for the sake of discussion, so we do not unintentionally misrepresent them. This goes for both Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians, who often end up talking past one another.

What Mr. Waymeyer needs to take into account is that in Covenant Theology terms, the entirety of the elect throughout history is the “new and true” Israel – the elect are the antitype of Israel’s type. Most Covenant Theologians will simply say “the church,” but usually they simply mean nothing more than the elect of God throughout history, even though the church was not formally organized until the time of the New Testament. This is because Covenant Theologians see Scripture presenting one unified people of God, not two peoples of God with two parallel eschatalogical destinies. Rather, they see the elect, and ethnic Israel as her type. We’ll come back to typology later.

2. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Waymeyer in his rejection of the “People = Israel” view, for the reasons he presents.

3. For all his desire to be true to the plain meaning of the Old Testament text, I believe Mr. Waymeyer’s attempt actually obscures the plain meaning of the New Testament text. This happens by way of his “analogical” interpretation of the New Testament use of the Old Testament. He provides examples of other “analogical” passages, including Matthew 2:14-15, 17-18; and 8:17. But all three of these passages in Matthew explicitly speak of the “fulfillment” of prophecy – not an analogical illustration. Making the statement, “This event is similar in principle to what that Old Testament text spoke of” cannot be construed as a “fulfillment” of what was said in a passage of prophecy. The fact that Mr. Waymeyer uses these text as examples should cast doubt on the validity of his “analogical” assumption regarding the proper interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 as well.

4. The “absence of any referent in the introductory formula” is an argument from silence, not a positive support for Mr. Waymeyer’s analogical interpretation.

Finally, I have not read Ladd (who held to historic premillennialism) or Storms on the subject, so I do not know if Mr. Waymeyer’s description of the “reinterpretation view” accurately applies to them. However, I will say that it does not apply to me, nor to what I know of Covenant Theology in general. His description is basically that Paul is cherry-picking an Old Testament text, completely divorcing it from its original meaning, and giving it a new meaning. Actually, I think Mr. Waymeyer is being polite by using the label “reinterpretation.” The view he describes is tantamount to saying Paul is performing divinely-inspired eisegesis. Needless to say, for a truthful God for whom yes means yes and no means no, such a view would be unacceptable, and we would be wise to reject it. However, I do not believe his description accurately portrays a Covenantal view of typological interpretation.

Instead of the “reinterpretation” view as Mr. Waymeyer describes Covenant Theologians as espousing, I would actually hold to a typological interpretation of the passage. The apostle Paul is unpacking an Old Testament prophecy which involves typological elements. In this case, the type is ethnic Israel, and the antitype (what is meant by “true Israel”) is the elect. One need only go back to the beginning of the chapter in verses 6-8 to see Paul making this very point. “Israel” can refer to either a) the entirety of ethnic Israel, or b) Israelite believers (the group of whom which would later be expanded to include Gentiles, becoming what is formally known as “the church”).

In conclusion, while I would agree with Mr. Waymeyer that Romans 9:25-26 is not a “proof-text” for Covenant Theology, I would also say that a proper recognition of biblical typology, and allowing the NT writers to mean what they say, in no way contradicts a likewise proper view of Covenant Theology (such as that of the 1689 London Baptist Confession).

For a brief, general comparison of the hermeneutics of 1689 Federalism (Covenant Theology) and Dispensationalism (as well as other systems like New Covenant Theology and Westminster Paedobaptist Covenant Theology), check out this site: 1689federalism.com.

Advertisement

Crampton on Creeds, Confessions, and Exegesis

W. Gary Crampton, in his book, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture, does not fail to mention the importance of paying attention to historical theology. This is in opposition to the “biblicist” approach discussed by James Renihan here. Crampton writes,

A creed or confession is a summary and orderly statement about what the church believes concerning Christian doctrine. As standards subordinate to the Word of God, creeds serve as distillations of the teaching of Scripture, and are useful in Christian education. Too, they serve as guards against heresy. In [Presbyterian -PMcW] Reformed churches, the Westminster Confession of Faith functions as a paradigm that provides boundaries, acting as a filter to screen theological teachings. All teaching is run through the “grid” or the paradigm of the Confession.

In these ways creeds and confessions are very useful. This is the sense in which Augustine once wrote: “The sentiments of the bishops who have gone before us, men who treated these divine words [of Scripture] faithfully and memorably…what they found in the church, they held; what they had learned, they taught; what they had received from the fathers, this they delivered to the children.”* But never are creeds and confessions to be considered on a par with Scripture. Rather, they, like the decisions of synods and councils, says the Confession (31:4), may and do err: “therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be use as a help in both.” The Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God, the only infallible, inerrant standard by which all is to be judged.

*Augustine, Against Julian, 2, 19:34; as cited by Joseph Gallegos in Not By Scripture Alone, 390.

(53-54)

Crampton also comments on the necessary tools and approach for proper exegesis of Scripture:

In contrast to Roman Catholicism, which teaches that only the Roman Church-State can properly interpret the Bible for its children, Christian theology teaches that all believers are to be adults in understanding, not children; they are to be involved in Bible study; and they are able to interpret Scripture correctly (Psalm 1:2-3; Joshua 1:8; 1 Corinthians 14:20). As stated by Charles Hodge: “The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the church.”**

When Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica, it was the whole body of believers that he commanded to “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The Apostle John told his readers that they were to “test the spirits” in order that they would be able to discern “the spirit of truth” from “the spirit of error” (1 John 4:1, 6). Understanding this, the Reformers spoke of the importance of the individual’s right and duty to study privately and to interpret the Scriptures. Christians have both the right and the responsibility to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. By this they would be able to “test” all teachings, and be able to discern “the spirit of truth” from the “spirit of error.” As we have just studied, it is due to the fact that “all of the people of God…have [a] right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,” that we are to have accurate translations in “the vulgar language of every nation.”

This does not mean that every believer has the right to interpret Scripture as he pleases (2 Peter 1:20-21). Rather, Scripture is to be interpreted according to the meaning given to it by Christ, through His Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16). This is why the discipline of Biblical hermeneutics is of vital importance. Biblical, or sacred, hermeneutics is the science of or the theory of the interpretation of the Bible. The root of the word “hermeneutics” is found in Mark 5:41 (methermeneuo, “to translate”) and 1 Corinthians 12:10 (hermeneia, “translate” or “interpret”). Biblical hermeneutics, as a discipline, is inseparably related to exegesis. The word “exegesis” (exegeomai; John 1:18) means “to lead out.” Proper Biblical exegesis is the “leading out” or “explaining” of Scripture the true meaning of the text, which as the Confession says, “is not manifold, but one.”

…

The high view of Scripture propounded by the Westminster Assembly has several implications for a proper Biblical hermeneutic. First, as Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy claims, it binds us to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation: “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices.” This methodology focuses on the grammatical structure of the passages of Scripture, as they were originally written, and the historical context of the writing. According to Reymond, what this means is that the exegete “must seek to put himself in the writer’s linguistic, cultural, historical, and religious shoes to discover the writer’s intended meaning.”*** This being so, the Biblical exegete must understand something of the structure of the original languages, bringing to bear on the text the meaning of the words and the syntactical structure of the passage. He must also understand the historical context in which the book under study was written. Questions of authorship, date, and destination of the various books are relevant in a study of Scripture. Commentaries, lexicons, and concordances are available and very helpful to students at all levels of exegetical skills.

**Hodge, Systematic Theology, I:183.

***Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 49.

(125-127)

Emphasis in bold is mine.

Why I Am Not A Biblicist

James Renihan explains, “Why I Am Not A Biblicist.”

Nehemiah Coxe on the primacy of the NT in interpreting the OT

Nehemiah Coxe on the primacy of the NT in interpreting the OT.

“I’m Not Much of a Reader”

“I’m Not Much of a Reader”.

“What great toil and effort it cost the church fathers to gather up a few crumbs, while we with half the labor – with almost no labor at all – can acquire the whole loaf. O how their efforts put our indolence to shame!”
– Martin Luther

Crampton Reviews Wallace & Ehrman

Gary Crampton has written a brief review and criticism of Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue:
The Reliability of the New Testament, Edited by Robert B. Stewart. In his analysis, he shows how both Ehrman (a non-evangelical) and Wallace (an evangelical) reject the view of divine preservation of Scripture as held by the Reformers and expressed in Reformed confessions. This leads to an upside-down, illogical approach to the New Testament manuscripts – an approach now embraced by the majority of modern textual scholars. You can read the rest of Crampton’s thoughts here.