John Goldingay is never less than provocative, and his latest book is no exception. Written out of a conviction that the church has often distorted the Old Testament by trying to force it into a Trinitarian and Christocentric mould, Goldingay attempts to allow the “First Testament” (his preferred term) to speak for itself. His conclusions? Virtually all that we think of as “Christian teaching” is already present in at least seed form in the Old Testament, and therefore Jesus’s uniqueness is expressed less in what he said and more in what he embodied.
Early in the book Goldingay, professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, announces: “I’m working on a book on biblical theology, and you could also see this book as a statement of the assumptions which lie behind that book” (9). This is an honest and helpful confession; perhaps my greatest frustration with Do We Need the New Testament? was the slightly bewildering order of chapters. However, coupled with the information that the book was born out of a collection of papers read at SBL and elsewhere, this helped to ease the frustration. It reads more like a series of conversations with an extremely stimulating and knowledgeable conversation partner than a tightly argued defense of the central thesis. So, for example, a couple of general opening chapters addressing the theme are followed by one on the Spirit in the Old Testament; the importance of “middle narratives” in the Old Testament; the book of Hebrews; Old Testament spirituality; memory; Moses, Jesus, and Paul; and finally a discussion of the weaknesses of theological interpretation. While it’d be unfair to say the chapters bear no relation to one another, they are more like meditations on a theme rather than a systematic argument (which I suspect Goldingay would argue reflects the nature of the “First Testament” beautifully).
Interesting Reading
Goldingay is a thoroughly honest, personally winsome, and warmhearted believer in the Lord Jesus, who is passionate about the reality and power of the resurrection. An ordained “traditional” Anglican who was significantly influenced by the charismatic renewal, he also stands right in the mainstream of Old Testament “critical orthodoxy.” This mixture makes for interesting reading—for example, whether the fact that he now receives fewer “prophetic pictures” is evidence of the Spirit’s withdrawal.
I do love the fact that in this book (as in all his work), Goldingay goes fearlessly to where he thinks the text is taking him. As we shall see, this creates both methodological and exegetical issues, but in the first place it frees him up to make some powerful observations we’d do well to take seriously. For instance, he points out that Jesus’s coming didn’t make much difference to many features of Ancient Near Eastern life (e.g., slavery) (42); the New Testament has very little to say about social justice (46–47); and Hebrews 11:33–34 makes it “impossible to argue that the New Testament would disapprove of the violence of the First Testament” (95). The book is littered with fresh explanations of the biblical text.
Do We Need the New Testament? Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself
John Goldingay
Do We Need the New Testament? Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself
John Goldingay
At points, Goldingay’s discussion is nothing less than beautiful—his treatment of the nature of biblical worship is moving and profound, as are his descriptions of the Lord Jesus. It’s scarcely possible to read a page without pausing to allow the import of what he’s saying to sink in. And some of his expressions are simple but brilliant: “God’s strategy was that his people would be the magnet that attracts people to him. Israel was not good at being a magnet, and the church continues to have this problem” (19).
Unhelpful Bits
Do We Need the New Testament? is not only interesting and challenging, however. It’s also infuriating. While it’d be unfair to criticize Goldingay for not being a Reformed evangelical (he makes no claim to be one), it’s entirely reasonable to expect some acknowledgement of the huge differences of opinion at key points in his argument. His depiction of the events recounted in Genesis to 2 Kings—in terms of God trying a range of options (starting with creation), “none of which worked’” (18)—is highly simplistic and completely flattens all meaningful discussion of God’s sovereignty.
Moreover, his claim that “in none of the Gospels does Jesus tell his disciples to extend the kingdom, work for the kingdom, build up the kingdom, or further the kingdom” (34) is slightly misleading at best. Likewise, his characterization of Torah as “a risk on God’s part” and an “enigma to Paul” (63) is not defensible. And while the claim that “the hermeneutical guidance the New Testament offers us is that we should not be looking to it for hermeneutical guidance” (97) is certainly clever, it falls far short of the kind of nuanced discussion the New Testament’s use of the Old really needs.
Stimulating but Deficient
If it’s a while since you’ve read “outside the camp,” then you should find Do We Need the New Testament? a stimulating and refreshing read. Goldingay’s discussions of sacrifice and the new covenant, for example, are helpful, and his central premise that there’s much more to the Old Testament than we often admit is a welcome corrective.
His basic approach, however, which cuts exegesis free from any confessional framework and downplays the Christ-centeredness of the Old Testament, means that anyone looking for a sure-footed guide to reading the Old Testament on its own terms would be better off looking elsewhere.