Dating the Gospels and Spiritual Warfare

Peter Leithart:

As with the synoptic problem as a whole, the issue of dating is ultimately a spiritual battle. Consider: If the gospels are written shortly after Jesus dies and rises again, by eyewitnesses, are you inclined to believe them? What if they are written fifty years after Jesus, by people who never knew Jesus Himself? Are you as likely to believe the gospels then? The further away the gospels are from the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, the less reliable they seem.

—The Four: A Survey of the Gospels (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2010), 104.

The Synoptic Problem, Questioning Q, and Satan

Peter Leithart:

If the view of the church fathers explains the gospels, and does so fairly simply, why do scholars have to invent a complicated "synoptic problem" and resolve it with a mythical document called "Q"? 

There are many answers to that question, but at base the answer is that much of modern New Testament scholarship is a Satanic attack on the truth and reliability of the gospel of Jesus. . . . This is not to say that New Testament scholars themselves are demonic. They aren't. But New Testament scholarship is an arena of spiritual battle, where we fight not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and rulers of wickedness. 

—The Four: A Survey of the Gospels (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2010), 101.

Christian Political Witness

The upcoming theology conference at Wheaton College on "Christian Political Witness" will take place on Apr. 4-6.

Evangelical Christians are often superficial in their thinking about this matter, and about the relation between the church and state. It's an area where we desperately need to repent and need help from some frontline thinkers.

I'm especially eager to hear Peter Leithart's talk. 

The Formation of Believers' Identity

"Parents who constantly remind us that we belong to Christ, ministers who week by week pronounce absolution, fellow believers who communicate the love of God in word and deed—these are the means by which God's gracious Word comes to us and forms our identity as believers."

—Peter Leithart, The Baptized Body, 126.

Leitharted Instruction for Writers

A witty word for writers from Peter Leithart.

What is Typology?

Here are a few answers.

J. I. Packer succinctly gives us the standard stuff:

Typology . . . looks into Old Testament patterns of divine action, agency, and instruction that [find] final fulfillment in Christ. . . .[1]

Peter J. Leithart says it in his own way:

 “Typology” is a loaded word. . . . I use the word not only to highlight the principle that the Old Testament points ahead to Christ, but also to describe the structure of the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament is composed according to a rhythm of “repetition with difference” that is a microcosm of New Testament typology. David is a “type” of Jesus, but he is also an “antitype” of Adam. When I speak of a “typological” understanding of the Old Testament I am further calling attention to the literary devices that the Bible uses to communicate its message. These are “typological” in the sense that they are the means by which the Bible presents the rhythms of history, as well as the means by which the Old Testament in particular points to Christ. . . .[2]

And D. L. Baker perhaps puts it most helpfully:

The fundamental conviction that underlies typology is that God is consistently active in the history of this world (especially in the history of his chosen people) and that as a consequence the events in this history tend to follow a consistent pattern. One event may thus be chosen as typical of another or of many others. 

A type is a biblical event, person, or institution that serves as an example or pattern for other events, person, or institutions; typology is the study of types and the historical and theological correspondences between them; the basis of typology is God’s consistent activity in the history of his chosen people.[3]

---

[1] J. I. Packer, From the Forward of The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1988), 8.

[2] Peter Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow: Canon Press, 2000), 27-28.

[3] Quoted in Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 45. 

Grammatico-Historical Method Not Enough

Ahhh. A breath of fresh air. Peter Leithart on our approach to the Scriptures:

Since the Reformation, "grammatical-historical" biblical interpretation has been the main hermeneutical method among Protestants. A development of the medieval idea of "literal" meaning, the grammatical-historical approach attempts to understand Scripture in the light of the grammar of the original languages and the historical and cultural setting in which the text was written.

Something like the grammatical-historical method has been foundational to all biblical interpretation throughout the history of the church. Biblical interpretation would be a free play of signifiers without grounding in the vocabulary, grammar, and historical setting of the Bible.

But the grammatical-historical method, essential as it is as a foundation, cannot provide the overarching "grammar" for the interpretation of Scripture. If it becomes the sole method of interpretation, the study of the Old Testament will be reduced to a study of "what they did then" rather than a study of the glories of the Christ who was yet to come.

Liberal interpretation of the Old Testament can, in fact, be understood as the product of an exclusive reliance on the grammatical-historical method, and evangelical biblical study often has the same narrow focus. Interpretation of the Old Testament must be grounded in grammar and history, but if it does not move to typology, it is not Christian interpretation.

—A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Canon Press: Moscow, 2000), 27.