Xxxx,
Good to hear from you, brother. It sounds like classes are getting off to an interesting start. I'm kind of jealous.
I think I hear where you are coming from. There are a lot of places in the OT where I am hard pressed to see the picture of Christ. Never the less, I am convinced they are there, pointing forward to ultimate fulfillment.
I will try to speak to you thoughts as best I can. It seems like your concerns center on covenant issues. That, or maybe the lack of direct Messianic prophecy or types. And you're right: there is no apparent discussion of covenant or any transparent Messianic types (though I do believe there might be one, or even two, translucent ones which I'll get to). I would respond by saying that covenant and prophetic fulfillment are not the only type/anti-type relationships in the Bible. Another major one is the promise of moral uprightness.
So, when Christ says,
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,"
(Matthew 5:17 ESV)
he is not saying (as my Presbyterian friends tend to argue) that he is extending the Law or adding to it, but that he is literally fulfilling the predicative element of it (or so says Carson unpacking the Greek). It comes in the midst of saying that it must continue to be kept and taught by those who would follow him, but I do not think it is for justification's sake. Rather, it is because that Law pointed to One for who it would be a natural expression of his character. In this sense, Jesus doesn't keep the law; he just is Jesus. It is the same way in which we don't keep the law of breathing in and out while we're respirating at all times. To do otherwise is impossible.
Now, what of Ecclesiastes? It seems especially hard because of the meandering style. However, there are a few things I see here that, even if you don't call them, "Christ in the Old Testament," certainly help to build expectation, or maybe hope, or, at the very least, longing for a Person very much like Jesus.
When Ecclesiastes describes the vain pursuit of pleasure, it sets us up for the expectation of one at whose right hand are pleasures forevermore. When the teacher talks about wisdom that does not profit or prolong life over that of the fool, wisdom born of man's efforts, it raises the question of whether there is a greater wisdom, a heavenly wisdom, that does lead to life. When he bemoans the uselessness of acquiring wealth for it will all pass to another generation that may not use it to good ends, we know that there are investments to be made and treasures to be laid up that will outlast our deaths and provide returns for all eternity.
Maybe the most important expectation Ecclesiastes raises through its use of countertypes (I just made that word up) is the longing for a righteous king, one who does not pervert justice. What's more, there are a couple of passages that, while not explicitly messianic prophecy, are at least minor types of Christ. Consider:
Better was a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who no longer knew how to take advice. For he went from prison to the throne, though in his own kingdom he had been born poor. I saw all the living who move about under the sun, along with that youth who was to stand in the king's place. There was no end of all the people, all of whom he led. Yet those who come later will not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and a striving after wind.
(Ecclesiastes 4:13-16 ESV)
This may seem a little thin, but when you consider how the NT often quotes the OT, it's not as far fetched as it appears at first (look at Psalm 45 then how Hebrews 1 quotes it).
Ultimately, Ecclesiastes is about the human condition. Like the other wisdom literature, it is best in the OT at embracing themes that the Gentile world can identify with. Though it is not part of the progression of covenant thought, it does contribute to the expectation of a coming Messiah and His righteous reign. It does this by revealing the pointlessness of the pursuit of these good gifts outside the rule of God and by laying out precepts of wisdom that demonstrate the character of that coming King.
Is this faithful to authorial intent? I'd say yes...and no. It is evident that the OT writers did not have the whole picture. Peter says, "they searched intently for the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ was pointing when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow." However, the teacher's longing for an end to meaninglessness is evident on every page. He may not know what the end to it is, but he knows he longs for it.
Those are my thoughts. I appreciate your caution in approaching the text. Be patient, pray for the Holy Spirit to cast light on the Word and give it the necessary time to think through each passage for what it meant and what it means in the light of the NT. Remember that last part especially. It's not always transparently predicative. Sometimes it is a picture that needs the future light of Christ to reveal all its contours.
I hope that helps or contributes to the conversation in some way.
Grace and Peace,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
To: jchristopherslice@gmail.com
Jim, today we did an exercise in class where we "looked for Christ" in
Ecclesiastics. It was just a 15 minute surface level, get your mind
going sort of exercise. I inadequately voiced my confusion, so I sent
this email to my pastors for clarity. I wanted to know your thoughts,
too. Thanks pal.
For the sake of my sanity, I wanted to attempt to clarify my hang-ups I
mentioned in class today that I oh-so-woefully attempted to communicate.
I think my biggest struggle is the extent to which we seek to find
authorial intent (when i say this, i mean human author's intent) and to
what extent we look for Jesus hiding behind the text, so to speak. A
fear of mine, which would be just as bad as moralizing the text, I
think, is inserting Jesus where he sort of belongs and / or
over-spiritualizing a text. (Not to suggest I think we did this
today.)
There are obviously stark differences between the nature of the Old
Covenant (under which most of the Old Testament was written) and how
God's people related to God and the nature of the New Covenant and how
we relate to God... so what sort of helpful "restraints" could we put
on a texts prior to exegesis? Certainly the unique characteristics of
genre, geography, cultural barriers..... but what about biblical
theology as it relates to salvation history? Specifically the
similarities and differences between the Old and the New Covenant.
We're obviously not Covenant theologians, but we do believe God had a
single, unified purpose in history. We do recognize, however, there is
a distinction between the Covenants under the umbrella of God's
redemptive plan, and that a few massively significant
theological-historical events occurred in the meantime which divided
the two... Jesus as the new lawgiver and progenitor of a new cov, his
death, burial, resurrection, Pentecost, AD 70, etc, etc....
With Ecclesiastes today I really struggled to find Christ in the text.
I found principles that could ultimately be answered in Christ in a
roundabout sort of way, but I didn't really see an arrow pointing the
Gospel or the Messiah or anything like that... not even implicitly.
My first thoughts were to try and understand Jesus as maybe the one who
fulfilled the author of Ecc, maybe the suffering King or the man of
sorrows or something like that, but that seemed too forced.... so I
don't know, maybe the hangups are in my understanding of the phrase,
"Christ in the OT." I'm also notoriously notorious for making things
more difficult than necessary.
Grace and Peace,
Xxxx
No comments:
Post a Comment