Sometimes we may be surprised at what we find. We should also be encouraged when we occasionally meet the unexpected in Scripture—that is, when the Scriptures convince us of the truth of something that changes our minds or leads us down paths once hidden from view. If we acknowledge the authority of Scripture, we must be willing to submit to it by being open-minded about our opinions. God’s Word is the final word.^[1]

We must always be ready to reevaluate our interpretations to ensure that we are attending to the Word rather than being inextricably bound to tradition.^[2]

It stands to reason, then, that if we look to the Bible for authoritative revelation from God, the authority must be vested in what it intends to communicate, not in what the reader wants to hear.^[3]

the fact that the written Word has authority while the reader’s response does not, should warn against intermingling them. The result is that we cannot be content learning our own lessons from Scripture, as valuable as they may be. We must strive to discover what the author intends to communicate, for that is where authority is vested.^[4]

A reader could have absolute mastery of the storyline, and be impacted not at all by the plotline. One could believe that the events took place and the people were historical, but failing to be impacted by the God of the Bible and his story, would miss the point entirely. The compelling reason to read the Bible is not to be found in the sweep of its narrative, but in the reality of the God who is revealed in its pages.^[5]

Proper interpretation does not require readers to throw away all presuppositions, but it does insist that readers recognize the presuppositions they hold, constantly reevaluate them for validity, and subordinate them to the text of Scripture.^[6]

If the text is to speak with authority, it must enjoy a certain amount of autonomy from the interpreter.^[7]

Another is that the author’s message ought not to be ignored or neglected in favor of how the interpreter wants to use the text (a common practice in Bible study groups and sermons).^[8]

As interpreters, if we can understand the author, the audience, the situation, and the literary genre as well as possible, we are in a good position to put ourselves in the audience and understand the words and, more important, the message of the section that is being interpreted. Interpretation requires us to become, to the best of our abilities, part of the original audience. The message to them is the same as the message to us.^[9]

There are also the long-acknowledged parallels between Egyptian and Hebrew wisdom literature and love poetry (see chapters 20 and 21, “Hebrew Poetic and Wisdom Literature” and “Job”).^[10]

According to John Bright, only the approach that takes seriously the Old Testament as Scripture correctly understands the text and elevates the old covenant to its rightful place in the Christian’s Bible. There is a sense in which the other three approaches (the Old Testament as a way of life, as a witness to Christ, and as salvation history) reduce the old covenant to a second rank in comparison with the New Testament. For Bright, this reading of the Old Testament with “New Testament glasses” robs the former of its authority for the Christian church. Since the Old Testament is intrinsically authoritative by virtue of its canonical status in the Christian community, it too is binding on the church in what it teaches explicitly and affirms implicitly. This canonical status also means that the Old Testament is authoritative in its entirety and cannot be appealed to selectively. Only this biblical theological approach preserves the divine authority of the entire Old Testament for the community of the New Testament church. This makes Paul’s statement intelligible: “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us” (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11).^[11]

Paul affirmed the law as holy, spiritual, righteous, and good (Rom. 7:12–14).^[12]

While demonstrating that sin left all persons without excuse before the holy God, the law exposed the human need for divine redemption.^[13]

The continuity between the covenants is also demonstrated by the New Testament understanding of Old Testament law. Three specific interpretive approaches may be identified, including (1) the typological (i.e., Old Testament persons, events, and things “foreshadow” the corresponding New Testament entities), (2) the allegorical (i.e., the biblical text is understood figuratively or symbolically), and (3) the didactic (i.e., the instructional value of the Old Testament for today’s readers). For example, the book of Hebrews outlines the typological relationship of Old Testament Levitical law to the priesthood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 7–9). Paul allegorically interprets Deuteronomy 25:4 in defending apostolic privilege to earn a living by preaching the gospel (1 Cor. 9:8–11). Elsewhere Paul underscores the instructional value of the Old Testament Scriptures for the life of the believer and the Christian church (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11).^[14]

Of even greater significance, the Levitical legislation related to the office of priest and the institution of animal sacrifice is superseded in the person and work of Jesus Christ as a greater high priest and the “once-for-all” atoning sacrifice for human sin (Heb. 7:15–28; 9:11–14).^[15]

So, while Jesus Christ is the Passover Lamb, rendering all further animal sacrifices obsolete and unnecessary (1 Cor. 5:7), the New Testament still admonishes all believers in Christ to present themselves as “living sacrifices” unto God (Rom. 12:1–2). Likewise, all believers are obligated to be holy even as God is holy (1 Peter 1:16) because they now constitute a royal priesthood in Christ Jesus (1 Peter 2:9).^[16] We feel that the authors totally missed the biblical point here. They miss the fact that Paul exhorts us to be living sacrifices and to be a royal priesthood with Christ because we are IN Christ, in union with Him as believers.

---

^[1] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[2] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[3] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[4] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[5] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[6] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[7] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[8] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[9] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[10] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[11] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[12] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[13] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[14] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[15] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[16] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. 2009. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.