steve adair th 683 isr203 a4

8/3/2019 Steve Adair TH 683 ISR203 A4

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/steve-adair-th-683-isr203-a4 1/9

Name: Stephen T. Adair

Student ID Number: 2060329784

Email Address: [email protected]

Course Name: Old Testament Theology

Course Number: TH-683-ISR203

Assignment Number: Assignment 4Audio Number: N/A

Project Number: N/A

Date of seminar (if applicable): N/A

Course instructor for seminar (if applicable):

Location of seminar (if applicable): N/A

**The Module Number, Audio Number (if applicable), and Project Number (if

applicable) must be accurate in order to process the lesson and record the grade. The

correct information is stated in the Course Study Guide.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Study Guide Code/Date/Version

found on the first page of the Study Guide: 20101112Degree Program: MA in Biblical Studies

Address: PO Box 2132

City: Mossel Bay

State: Western Cape

Zip: 6500

Country: South Africa

Telephone: +27 44 690 5133

--------------------End of Coversheet--------------------

PLEASE TYPE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS LESSON SUBMISSION AS

THEY APPEAR IN YOUR STUDY GUIDE HERE



Read Goldingay’s book Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Faith. Then write a reviewof at least 1000 words about the book. Stress the Old Testament theological motifsthat he discussed.

Note what you can learn about the author from the Internet.

Discuss what you can learn about the author’s theological presuppositions from thecontent of the book.

Discuss areas of the book with which you disagree.

Finally, note how you evaluate the usefulness of the book.

INTRODUCTION

Holding a BA from Oxford, a PhD from Nottingham, and a Lambeth DD, Goldingay is the David Allan

Hubbard Professor of Old Testament in the School of Theology of Fuller Theological Seminary1

, and is

regarded as one of the world’s leading evangelical Old Testament scholars2.

His three volume series, “Old Testament Theology”3, is widely regarded as a comprehensive and

magisterial contribution to Old Testament studies4. This document seeks to review the first volume of this

series, which concentrates on Old Testament narratives covering creation through to the birth of Christ.

METHODOLOGY AND THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

A major factor in Goldingay’s methodology is his belief in the trustworthiness of the entire Old

Testament text5, which leads to his assertion that the Old Testament text must be allowed to stand on its

1 Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Goldingay.2 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/01/14/a-review-of-old-testament-theology-3-vols-by-john-goldingay/.3 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003; Goldingay, J., “Old

Testament Theology Volume 2: Israel's Faith”, InterVarsity Press, 2006; Goldingay, J., “Old Testament TheologyVolume 3: Israel's Life”, InterVarsity Press, 2009.4 See for instance: Barrick, W. D., “Reviews”, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2009, pp103-106;Lessing, R., Concordia Journal, Vol. 33, No 4, 2007, pp418-420; Green, B., “Book Reviews”, Theological Studies,

Vol. 68, No 2, 2007, pp433-434; Warstler, K., “Book Reviews”, Criswell Theological Review, Vol. 4, No 1, 2006, p

113-116; Chisholm, R. B. Jr., “Book Reviews”, Bibliotheca sacra, Vol. 163, No 651, 2006, p 357-359; Ollenburger,

B. C., “Reviews”, Interpretation, Vol. 60, No 2, 2006, pp214-216; Kissling, P. J., “Book Reviews”, Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 48, No 2, 2005, p 368-370; Spawn, K. L., “Book Reviews”, Pneuma, Vol. 28,

No 1, 2006, p 172-174.5 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003. P19.

of 9



own merit6. Goldingay is critical of Brueggemann’s postmodern, liberal approach to Old Testament

theology, which seeks to deconstruct the Old Testament narrative7.

Although writing from a Christian perspective8, Goldingay argues that the Christian should resist reading

Christian beliefs back into the Old Testament9.

Consequently, Goldingay seeks to derive his theology directly from the Old Testament text, without

imposing Christian views onto the text, and with little systematic theological harmonization or

philosophical reflection.

Scripture

Whilst Goldingay identifies himself “with those Christians who affirm the entire trustworthiness and

authority of Scripture”10, he expresses an affinity with the documentary hypothesis11, assuming that the

Pentateuch is a post exilic creation12.

Creation

Of the many metaphors employed for God’s work of creation, Goldingay prefers the idea of God giving

birth to His creation13. Thus, creation came through pain and travail on God’s part, and thus, Goldingay is

not surprised that God desired a day of rest following completion of His work 14.

6 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p25.7 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p22.8 This can be seen particularly in the inclusion of the eleventh chapter, “God Sent”, dealing with the birth, life and

ministry of Christ.9 Goldingay says “In this volume I shall not pay much attention to the way the New Testament uses the Old

Testament. That usage emerges from the New Testament’s distinctive concerns. It especially wants to understand the significance of Jesus and the significance of the church, and that determines the lenses it brings to the Old

Testament. Its approach to the Old Testament therefore need not influence an attempt to work out the inherent

theological significance of the Old Testament—indeed, we must resist it’s doing so.”, Goldingay, J., “Old Testament

Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p25.10 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p19.11 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, pp381-382.12 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p697.13 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p61.14 Ibid.

of 9



Moreover, Goldingay regards creation as triumph of God over “other dynamic forces” 15, implying some

form of eternal dualism; a view which contradicts the conventional conservative evangelical view of

creation as the act of an omnipotent and unopposed divine being16.

Goldingay holds to an evolutionary model for creation17, and regards the Old Testament creation accounts

to be “divinely inspired but humanly created imaginative parables”18. This view appears to reflect a

departure from Goldingay’s intended approach of permitting the Old Testament text to stand on its own

merit, but rather interprets the Old Testament text through the lens of modern scientific theory.

God

Goldingay asserts that the idea of God’s omniscience is a Christian one, which is heavily influenced by

Greek philosophy19. From his reading of the Old Testament Goldingay concludes that whilst God has

“extraordinary knowledge”, which may be considered to be supernatural, God is not omniscient20.

Goldingay argues that in creation, “God had an aim, a vision, some goals” 21, and that this occasionally

extends to a specific plan in particular circumstances22. However, Goldingay asserts that the Old

15 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, pp64, 67-67.16 See, for instance: House, P. R., “Old Testament theology”, InterVarsity Press, 1998, p59; Carson, D. A., “New

Bible commentary : 21st century edition”, Inter-Varsity Press, 1994; Grudem. W., “Systematic Theology: An

Introduction to Biblical Doctrine”, Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, p320 .17 Goldingay says: “What we know empirically raises questions about this. As far as we can tell, God did not bring

the animate world into being by a series of transcendent, supranatural acts but by an immanent process involving

trial and error. Species came into being and became extinct through “chance” mutations and the survival of the

fittest. Like the ecology of nature in the state in which we know it, it depended on strife, pain and death. At least this

thesis about the manner of God’s original creation matches nature as we know it, which works via process and death. It also matches the nature of God’s work in “history” as the First (and Second) Testament describes it, and

as we experience it”, Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003,

pp114-115.18

Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p879.19 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, pp137-138.20 Goldingay writes: “Sometimes God manifests supernatural knowledge…But even God’s supernatural knowledge

of us comes about through discovery, through “searching out,” rather than because God possesses this knowledge

automatically…Stories about Babel and about Abraham (Gen 11; 18; 22) will concretely show God taking steps to

come to know things. They will again show that God has extraordinary knowledge, but will incorporate no

declaration that Yhwh is omniscient, and preclude that by the way they portray God acting so as to discover things”; Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p137.21 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p60.22 Ibid.

of 9



Testament never speaks of God having a plan for the world or a plan of salvation, or a plan for

individual’s lives23. Thus, Goldingay views God more as an executive director, providing direction and

values to a company, but allowing the company to determine the details of implementation, rather than a

micro-manager seeking to make every decision Himself 24.

STRENGTHS OF THE BOOK

The structure of the book is formulated around the Old Testament narrative, allowing the Biblical

narrative to direct the development of theological concepts in an order that replicates the progressive

revelation of the Old Testament to its original recipients. Moreover, each chapter emphasises an action of

God25 within the unfolding story, demonstrating that God’s revelation involves His actions, His relations

and interactions with mankind and not just His messages to His people. Thus, although some critics, such

as Warstler, have argued that Goldingay’s “Old Testament Theology” lacks a centre or unifying

principle26, these views can be regarded as harsh as the book centres around the relationship between God

and mankind in general and Israel27 in particular 28. This intention can be seen clearly in the structure of

the book and the titles of each chapter 29.

Throughout the book Goldingay seeks to draw theological principles from careful attention to the detail of

the Old Testament text, thus clearly demonstrating his faith in the trustworthiness of the text. This may be

seen in much of his discussion, including matters such as covenant, models for the occupation of

Palestine, and equality:

23 Ibid.24

Ibid.25 “God Began; God Started Over; God Promised; God Delivered; God Sealed; God Gave; God Accommodated;

God Wrestled; God Preserved; God Sent”.26 Warstler, K., “Book Reviews”, Criswell Theological Review, Vol. 4, No 1, 2006, p 113-116.27 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p36.28 Thus, Goldingay’s central theme may be regarded as pretty conventional; see for instance: Hafemann, S. J., “The

Covenant Relationship”, in Hafeman, S. J., House, P. R., “Central Themes in Biblical Theology”, Baker Academic,

2007, p20.29 “God Began; God Started Over; God Promised; God Delivered; God Sealed; God Gave; God Accommodated;

God Wrestled; God Preserved; God Sent”.

of 9



• Covenant: Taking a position that challenges conventional Covenant Theology, Goldingay argues

robustly that the Old Testament narrative does not suggest a formal covenant between God and

mankind prior to the Noahic Covenant30, concluding that “there was no need for formally binding

commitments before the time of human disobedience and divine punishment”31.

• Invasion Models: Goldingay provides a robust comparison of the four common Promised Land

invasion models, and expresses a preference for the military invasion model because it is the

model which remains faithful to the Old Testament narrative32.

• Equality: By paying careful attention to the text, Goldingay is able to provide a robust defence of

the equality of the sexes, by demonstrating that man is only complete when he is in union with

woman33.

WEAKNESSES OF THE BOOK

Goldingay considers that the historical narrative of the Old Testament contains the use of “traditions”

having “varied relationships to actual events”, a “reworking [of] existing literary versions” in order to

present Israel in a favourable light34. This approach tends to undermine the historical integrity of the Old

Testament narrative, challenges the assumption of scriptural inerrancy, and ultimately, for those that hold

to the divine inspiration of the scriptures, questions the moral character of God35.

30 The Hebrew term for covenant (berit) is first used in Gen. 6:18, where it is used of the Noahic Covenant.

Covenant Theology asserts that whilst the technical term “Covenant” is not used of the relationship between God

and mankind in the creation account, the descriptions of the relationship between God and Adam and Eve issufficient to infer a covenant relationship. See, for instance, Hafemann, S. J., “The Covenant Relationship”, in

Hafeman, S. J., House, P. R., “Central Themes in Biblical Theology”, Baker Academic, 2007, pp40-42.31 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p181.32 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p488.33 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, pp103-107.34 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p862.35 Warstler notes if the scriptures are divinely inspired, the inclusion of historical inaccuracies in the Old Testament

narrative would reflect [poorly] on God’s truthfulness. Warstler, K., “Book Reviews”, Criswell Theological Review,

Vol. 4, No 1, 2006, p 113-116.

of 9



Goldingay argues that “the Old Testament’s insights must be seen in light of those of the New, but only

as long as we immediately add that it is just as essential to see the New Testament’s insights in light of

those of the Old”36. Goldingay explains further, “it is inappropriate to describe the New Testament as the

‘authoritative interpretation’ of the Old without adding that the Old Testament is the authoritative

interpretation of the New”37, and “only when people have learned to take the Old Testament really

seriously can they be entrusted with the story of Jesus”38. It is surprising therefore, that Goldingay makes

a conscious decision not to focus on the Old Testament’s witness to Christ; its pointing to Christ; its

prophesying of Christ; its foreshadowing of the New Testament; the New Testament use of the Old

Testament39. Through his self-imposed restriction, Goldingay dismisses the value of Christ’s own

interpretation of the Old Testament narrative, as well as that of those most intimately associated with

him40, and of Paul, an Old Testament theologian par excellence, and yet is happy to allow interpretation

through the lenses of current (and disputed) scientific41 and archaeological understanding42.

CONCLUSION

Goldingay’s “Old Testament Theology” is comprehensive and well-crafted. It offers fresh and

challenging insights into the Old Testament narrative, and hence is a welcome addition to any Biblical

studies library. Goldingay considers the Old Testament narrative seriously, allowing the text to determine

the structure and direction of the book. Unfortunately, Goldingay falls short of achieving his stated goal

of allowing the Old Testament narrative to speak for itself by disallowing the text to be viewed the

36 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p20.37 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p25.38

Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, p20.39 Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003, pp26-27.40 For instance, John, Matthew, Peter and James.41 Note Goldingay’s views on creation, discussed earlier.42 Note Goldingay’s rejection of the Old Testament account of the conquest of Jericho on the basis on a disputed

archaeological opinion concerning Jericho. This position seems strange and inconsistent with Godlingay’s stated

intention to allow the text to speak for itself (Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”,

InterVarsity Press, 2003, pp25-27), and his view that the military invasion model is the most credible model for the

occupation of the Holy Land (Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity

Press, 2003, p488).

of 9



“lenses” of New Testament light, whilst allowing interpretation through the lenses of current scientific

and archaeological theories.

of 9



BIBLIOGRAPHY

GENERAL R EFERENCES

The Holy Bible, New International Version, Zondervan Bible Publishers, International Bible

Society, 1984.

R EFERENCES

Barrick, W. D., “Reviews”, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2009, pp103-106.

Carson, D. A., “New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition”, Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Chisholm, R. B. Jr., “Book Reviews”, Bibliotheca sacra, Vol. 163, No 651, 2006, p 357-359.

Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 1: Israel's Gospel”, InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 2: Israel's Faith”, InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Goldingay, J., “Old Testament Theology Volume 3: Israel's Life”, InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Green, B., “Book Reviews”, Theological Studies, Vol. 68, No 2, 2007, pp433-434.

Grudem. W., “Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine”, Inter-Varsity Press,

1994.

Hafeman, S. J., House, P. R., “Central Themes in Biblical Theology”, Baker Academic, 2007.

House, P. R., “Old Testament theology”, InterVarsity Press, 1998.

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/01/14/a-review-of-old-testament-theology-3-vols-by-

john-goldingay/.

Kissling, P. J., “Book Reviews”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 48, No 2,2005, p 368-370.

Lessing, R., Concordia Journal, Vol. 33, No 4, 2007, pp418-420.

Ollenburger, B. C., “Reviews”, Interpretation, Vol. 60, No 2, 2006, pp214-216.

Spawn, K. L., “Book Reviews”, Pneuma, Vol. 28, No 1, 2006, p 172-174.

Warstler, K., “Book Reviews”, Criswell Theological Review, Vol. 4, No 1, 2006, p 113-116.

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Goldingay.

of 9

steve adair th 683 isr203 a4

Documents