More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
October 1 - October 27, 2024
reading backward, from the New Testament to the Old Testament for the light of Christ, legitimate?
Calvin says the prophets “spread the table, that others might afterwards feed on the provisions laid on it.”15 The prophets could not see what is now plain for Christians to see, “a veil as it were being interposed,” for it was not fitting, while Christ was still absent, “that the full light should shine as at mid-day.”
Transfigural interpretation is the glorious unfolding of the literal sense. What remains to be seen, however, is whether this glorious unfolding involves reading forward and/or backward.
Once methodological naturalism is let in the interpreter’s house, it tends to take over, insisting that all interpretive decisions be made on historical rather than theological grounds.
The sentiment is laudable, but it is far from clear how to achieve this equilibrium or decide what counts as a fundamental dogmatic tenet.
“A Gospel-shaped hermeneutic necessarily entails reading backward, reinterpreting Israel’s Scripture in light of the story of Jesus.”41
“The transfiguration is a prophetic apocalypse of the eschatological enthronement of Jesus Christ as Lord.”
The prophetic word is more sure because Peter saw its light in the bright shining promise of Jesus’ once and future glory. He also heard the divine voice corroborating and interpreting the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah (2 Pet 1:18). Harink draws a stunning inference:
“The transfiguration reveals to us the proper understanding of the origin and interpretation of holy scripture.”56 Jesus’ transfiguration is God’s own spiritual interpretation of the story of Scripture, as it were: God’s own unveiling of the glory of the Old Testament’s literal sense.
Peter, especially when he says that, in addition to these eye- and ear-witness memories, ‘we have the prophetic word made more sure’ (v. 19).”57
his holiness would consume them (Exod 33:3). Again, Moses intercedes
Bible readers need to know certain things about God and Israel to make sense of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and this passage plays a pivotal role in helping us understand what is going on as we read forward.
With these cautions and criterion in mind, let us approach Moses’ transfiguration as an episode in the broader, indeed all-encompassing, economy of light.
The process, if not the proof, of transfigural interpretation is ultimately in the reading.
Accordingly, William Propp suggests that Moses’ proximity to Yahweh, a consuming fire (Deut 4:24), resulted in injurious side-effects and hideous disfigurement: “Presumably, this was some kind of light or heat burn . . . [perhaps] keratosis, a toughening of the layer of skin called keratin (Greek keras, ‘horn’) that can be caused by drastic overexposure to sunlight.”
These conflicting granular interpretations are intriguing, but they can take readers only so far: “Whatever the ancient Near Eastern parallels, there can be little dispute that the text as it now stands is not describing either a priestly mask or horns.”
the context of the broader biblical narrative, the reader understands that the giving of the Sinaitic law is a gracious provision that makes it possible for a sinful people to live in God’s presence (i.e., before his “face”).
This biblical-theological narrative frame of reference casts a different light on Moses’ shining face. It is the result of Moses’ successful covenant mediation and of his surviving God’s holy presence: “It brought the glory of God back into Israel’s midst in a human countenance. It was a visible sign of the Lord’s forgiveness, presence, and restored communication with Israel through Moses.”
“So the glory moves from the mountain to the tabernacle via Moses. So, Moses’ descent from the mountain is a device for the awesome coming of heavenly glory to dwell in the midst of Israel.”
Moses took the veil off when he spoke to God, then put it back on after he had finished relaying to the people what God told him (34:33, 35).76 What are we to make of this?
Moses’ close encounter with the glory of God causes his face to shine, which White interprets literally as “a mysterious quality of light” that irradiates Moses’ face.
conceal the exceptional grace that is given to him [Moses] alone.”
“Moses’ transfiguration was the basis for understanding the transfiguration of Jesus.”84 Others speak of the passage’s
Corinthians 3:6–16, one
Making sense of Paul’s interpretation of Moses’ veil in Exodus 34, then, is tough going, leading Richard Hays to lament, with tongue in cheek, “It is hard to escape the impression that, to this day, when 2 Corinthians 3 is read a veil lies over our minds.”
This is not a charitable interpretation, nor is it how I read Paul. For, as we shall see, Paul does justice to the literal sense, thanks to an interpretive framework that enables him to perceive its deeper glory.
“For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6; cf. Rom 2:29).
Paul is not referring to Scripture, for gramma is not the same as graphe (the usual New Testament word for the scriptural writings).
This soteriological view of the letter/spirit distinction focuses on law and Spirit as contrasting principles of covenant administration, with special emphasis on the relative impotence of the old covenant to ensure obedience in contrast to the vivifying power of the new.99 The focus of this soteriological interpretation is on the progressive outworking of this contrast in the history of redemption.
literal and the spiritual.
That the letter “kills” may be a metaphorical way of saying that humans’ efforts to make themselves right with God (which is what religion is) ultimately fail. This is similar to Augustine’s notion of “letter” as “law without grace.”
“religious” frame of reference only,
To read the law “religiously” is to distort its true intent: “ ‘Letter’ is rather what the legalist is left with as a result of his misunderstanding and misuse of the law. It is the letter of the law in separation from the Spirit.”110
Paul therefore presents himself as mediator of a new, supercharged covenant, “the eschatological counterpart to the role of Moses.”
“A biblical scholarship marked by ‘letter’ that is closed in principle to theological meanings (‘spirit’) is problematic to Christians.”
“Spiritual” interpretation must do more than sneak doctrinal systems through the textual back door. John’s caution remains salutary: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world”
christological reading of the Old Testament that goes beyond the gramma of the law in order to retrieve “its original divine intention.”
Jesus himself insists that the Law and the Prophets were about him (Luke 24:27; John 5:46).
Calvin believed that Christ was known to the Old Testament people of God “under the Law.”120 Israel had light, but it was not as bright as light incarnate.
To think theologically about biblical interpretation, I have argued, is to employ a theological framework of understanding that traces the work of the triune God in communicating light. There is one light yet different degrees of brightness. Recall that light refracts as it passes from one medium (e.g., the old covenant) to another (e.g., the new covenant).
transfigurally,
What does Paul make of Moses’ veil, to which he refers twice: first, in regard to the glory on Moses’ face (2 Cor 3:13) and, second, in regard to the veil over readers’ hearts that obscures the meaning of Moses’ text (v. 15)? (2) What does Paul say is the reason behind Moses’ veiling and unveiling?
To read modern commentaries on 2 Corinthians 3 is to join a conflict of interpretations about Paul’s interpretation.
katargeō
temporary, in
“Its context is consistently eschatological.”
The veil clearly has something to do with glory—but what, and whose? As to whose, there can be only one answer, for there is only one source: “It is the glory of the Lord on the face of Moses.”
Cyril of Alexandria said that by veiling himself, Moses was teaching Israel “that they were not strong enough to see the true face of the law (that is, Christ).
a symptom of their unwillingness to acknowledge that the old covenant was on its way out.
“Israel’s story is a metaphor for Christian experience.”
