A RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE TITLED FINDING CHRIST IN THE OLD

TESTAMENT: TRADITIONS AND TYPES OF MESSIAH

BY ANDY WARREN-ROTHLIN

Joseph Ezekiel Dickson

UJ/2014/PGAR/0096

Being a Research Paper Presented to the Department of Religion and Philosophy,

University of Jos in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Course
ROT 514 The Text of the Old testament

Lecturer: Professor Yoilah K. Yilpet

Date: 17th September, 2015

Review and Response to Warrens Argument

Andy Warren starts by stating the premise of his argument, namely that the Old
Testament is not a Christian book because it was written by people with theologies and
worldviews different from our own (37). He argues that the Old Testament authors would
not agree with Christians on any doctrinal statement or systematic theology. Unfortunately,
this is to deny the Old Testament its prophetic and futuristic flavour which found its
culmination in the New Testament. It should be pointed that most Old Testament authors
clearly indicated the prophetic nature of their work which awaits fulfilment in the future. It is
no wonder that Warren believes in oral tradition, that the Old Testament was in oral form
before it was put in written. He seems to believe that God could entrust his word to human
memory instead of his divinely inspired authors.
Warren argues that Israel was monolatrous in nature before transiting to a
monotheistic society. This indicates that Warren believes in the theory of evolution of
Israelite religion. His emphasis on the difference of gap that lies between the Old Testament
and the New Testament and subsequently the New Testament and us seems to indicate that
we should have nothing to do with the two texts. He states that our interpretations are heavily
influenced by our theology and worldview, and our commitment to the New Testament has
inclined us to a particular kind of messianic texts, which he argues becloud our sense of
reasoning, hence making Christians to interpret Old Testament texts that were originally not
messianic as messianic texts. He uses Genesis 3:15 as being interpreted messianically by
Christians when it was not so in the original contexts. Warrens position is misleading
because he fails to explain why the Bible did not come up with other myths to explain the
enmity between humans and other wild animals, but dwells only on Genesis 3:15, the popular
proto-euwangelion to explain away its prophetic and messianic sense, arguing that it was a
myth explaining the enmity between serpents and humans.

Warren calls Genesis 1a mythological, and oral prehistory text which cannot be linked
with covenant. This indicates that Warren is an evolutionist, not a Biblicist. Perhaps, this
means he has little interest in the knowledge of the Bible and how the world all began from
biblical point of view.
In his use of Genesis 1:28, Warren fails to indicate which Christian scholars and in
which work was such passage ever interpreted to be messianic or prophetic, that found its
fulfilment in Christ. He seems to be cooking some in his head, because even his liberalcritical, friend Barth Erhman, whom he cites most often, cannot take such position. Perhaps,
it should be pointed that placing Genesis 1:28 in its literal context will not permit a prophetic
interpretation that found fulfilment in Christ. However, a canonical interpretation of Scripture
indicates that mans failure in Genesis three which ushered in the messianic prophesies
culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ for the redemption of sin, has extended the
missional responsibility of the Church to the Great Commission.
Warren argues that ascribing Immanuel to Jesus is an accidental mistranslation and
misapplication of Isaiah 7:14 which God has used. It should be pointed that the application of
the passage is an interpretive practice that was acceptable during the day of the apostles, as
practiced by their Jewish contemporaries. Warren equally acknowledges this fact when he
cites Longenecker on the different methods of biblical interpretation practiced by the early
church: . . . they seem to make no sharp distinctions between what we would call historicogrammatical exegesis, illustration by way of analogy, midrash exegesis, pesher interpretation,
allegorical treatment, and interpretation on a corporate solidarity understanding of people
and events in redemptive history (42). Having accepted these interpretive methods as
practicable in the days of the apostles, one wonders why Warren finds it difficult to accept the
fact that seeing this in the way the New Testament cited the Old Testament should not be a
surprise.

He equally insists that even the Old Testament law has no relevance to Gentile
Christians since it was meant for the Jews, while Christians live the greater law, the law of
the Spirit. He however, accused Jesus and Paul for altering the Old Testament law to make it
apply to Christians.
Similarly, he accused the New Testament writers of being propagandists, who chose
to proof-text the Old Testament texts they cited for the purpose of proving that Jesus was the
messiah even though he was not. He claims that this tradition of proof-texting was continued
by the church fathers, stating that Gods messiah on the cross was a totally baffling
fulfilment of the prophetic predictions and not something any literalist could have figured
out (41). This statement is true and also acknowledged by the disciples on their way to
Emmaus and expressed by them in the interaction with the resurrected Jesus in Luke 24:1321:
Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven
miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had
happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself
came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him. He
asked them, What are you discussing together as you walk along? They stood still,
their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, Are you only a visitor
to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?
What things? he asked. About Jesus of Nazareth, they replied. He was a prophet,
powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our
rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had
hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the
third day since all this took place (NIV).
The rest of the story in the interaction of the disciples culminated in Jesus opening their eyes
to see that the whole Old Testament prophesied about him. It should be pointed to Warren that
the beginning of the Jewish expectation of a political and kingly messiah who would come to
redeem them from the oppression of their overlords is rooted in the colonial experiences of
the Jewish people, and not a product of proper interpretation and understanding of Old
Testament prophesies about Jesus Christ, that he failed to fulfil. The Qumran community had
their concept of Teacher of Righteousness in the same way as the Jews of Jesus time
4

expected a political and kingly messiah. The zealots and other violent Jewish movements
during Christs ministry suffice to prove Jewish understanding of messiah.
Furthermore, Warren lists several Old Testament passages that were cited in the New
Testament as typology, but seems to disagree with typology as a legitimate means of
interpreting Scriptures. It should be point to Warren that some Old Testament events were
interpreted in the New Testament as typological. For instance, in predicting his death, Jesus
Himself said, And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of
Man be lifted up (John 3:14, NKJV). This indicates that the serpent in the Old Testament
prefigures the death of Jesus in some way. Also, John 1:29 records that, The next day John
saw Jesus coming toward him and said, Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of
the world! (NIV). The lamb imagery comes from the Passover event in Exodus 12, which
in the New Testament comes to mean that Jesus is similar to the Passover lamb as his
sacrifice offers a salvific effect, and universal salvation for mankind. Again, Paul used
typology to describe Jesus as second Adam in Romans 5:12-14:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and
in this way death came to all men, because all sinned- for before the law was given,
sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over
those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern
(type) of the one to come (NIV).
The few passages cited above indicate that some New Testament passages interpreted Old
Testament events typologically, a practice that even Warren cannot dispute.
It is unfortunate that Warren asserts that OT prophecies rooted in Kingship predicted
David instead of Christ. He argues that the OT texts with a real kingship background had
already necessarily been reinterpreted as eschatological cum messianic psalms by the time the
Psalter was taking shape. He refuses to accept the prophetic nature of the messianic psalms as
pointing to Christ. Perhaps he should explain whom Davids own prophecies in the psalms
point to.
5

He argues that the idea of corporate solidarity, in which the king and the people are
bound together in such a way that what is true of the one is true in principle of the other (45)
started after the fall of Jerusalem, as a Jewish means of interpreting the exile experience.
Warren should remember that the idea of corporate solidarity did not start after the fall of
Jerusalem but, it was an idea rooted in Pentateuchal theology. In Joshua 7, when Achan
sinned by taking the loot, the whole Israelite community suffered the consequences. Also,
Warrens statement that the father-son formula is not used to refer to a ruling messianic
representative, but individual members of the messianic community betrays his ignorance of
the idea of corporate solidarity as he claims. First, the representative nature of Israelite kings
is in corporate solidarity, the one in the many. Sometimes, the sin of the king is punished in
corporate fashion as though the whole community sinned. For instance, The anger of the
LORD burnt against Israel (2 Samuel 24:1), not against David alone, when David sinned
by taking the census of Israels soldiers.
Jonathan Lunde in his article titled An Introduction To Central Questions In The
New Testament Use Of The Old Testament sheds more light that the idea of corporate
solidarity allows the king or pries to represent the nation; an animal can bear sins
representatively for all, and a prophet can picture the nations fate in his individual life.
Because of his identification with the identity of the group as a its representative, Jesus
relationship with the nation of Israel allows New Testament authors to craft arguments that
portray Jesus in corporate relationship with the nation; thus, titles which were ascribed to
Israel as a nation, were ascribed to him (Lunde 38).
In his discussion of the genealogy and birth of Jesus Christ, Warren asserts that Jesus
is personally tainted by the suspicion of illegitimacy and prostitution through the family line
he descended from, all to fulfil the nations identity with respect to the reproach which it had
brought on itself through its adultery and idolatry, a fact which he sees as an integral part of

Christs messianic ministry of associating with sinners. Warren should understand that all
those parents in the lineage of Jesus have never been interpreted by the worst of critics in that
manner. However, many scholars have leaned on the side of the inclusion of the Gentiles
principles in the plan of Gods salvation for mankind to explain these incidents of Jesus
parentage.
Warren should state with caution the fact that Jesus supplanted his brother, John the
Baptist to become the messiah, a motif he claims runs throughout Scripture. Jesuss nature of
calling is distinct from any of the examples Warren has given, except if he wants to dispute
the deity of Christ.
General Observation to Warrens Opinion
Warren seems to apply all critical approaches to interpreting the Bible, but he fails to
accept the concept of sensus plenior, a position of some critical scholars like him. Sensus
plenior has been accepted by some as a means of interpreting Old Testament events in light of
New Testament owing to the fact that some scholars see the possibility of multiple layers of
meaning in scripture. Sensus plenior has been an acceptable way of resolving the tension
between what Old Testament text means with what a New Testament text means especially
when the later seems to quote the former out of context. Thus, some scholars assume that
some NT authors appeal to a divinely-intended fuller meaning of Scripture that is
discerned by the inspired NT authors- the so-called sensus plenior (lit., the fuller sense)
(Lunde 14). Jonathan Lunde cites Brown defining sensus plenior, as that additional, deeper
meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to
exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are
studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation}
(14). He adds, The literal sense answers the question of what this text meant according to its
authors intention as that author was inspired to compose it in his particular stage in the

history of Gods plan of salvation. The SP [sensus plenior] answers the question of what the
text means in the whole context of Gods plan, a meaning which God, who knew the whole
plan from the start, intended from the moment. He inspired the composition of the text (15).
Although some Protestant scholars do not accept sensus plenior as a legitimate way of
interpreting the Bible, it would have been better if Warren considers this as a possibility.
Warrens refusal to come to terms with typology needs to be restated here because
there are typological assumptions that guide the authors of the Bible such as (1) God is
sovereign over history and is directing it in ways that reveal his unchanging character; (2)
historical patterns that pertain to significant events, institutions, and people theologically
foreshadow later recurrences of similar things; and (3) the final historical fulfillments will
eclipse their prior counterparts, since Gods explicit expressions of his ultimate purposes
outstrip what has already occurred (Lunde 19). Lunde adds that this eclipsing can be a
fulfillment that is more glorious than any previous fulfillment, or it can replace a previously
negative occurrence with a positive one (19). Several examples suffice to prove the point.
First, Johns typological interpretation of the nonbreaking of Jesus legs in John 19:36 which
he see as fulfilment of the Scripture regarding the treatment of the body of the Passover lamb
in Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 is a case in point. Also, the travels of Jesus and his
parents to and from Egypt according to Matthew (Matt 2:15) fulfills Hosea 11:1 and its
description of Israels exodus from Egypt (Matt 2:15). This and many more illustrate the fact
that typology was an acceptable way of interpreting the scriptures by the New Testament
authors.
Warren listed some interpretive methods used in early church period without
accepting whether they are legitimate or not. Lunde states a fact there are various
assumptions that guide the NT authors in their use of the OT which is similar to ones that
guided their Jewish contemporaries:

The interpretations of Scripture found at Qumran illustrate this well. As is revealed in

their writings, these sectarian Jews were convinced of their identity as the children of
light . . . Equipped with their hermeneutical key- which is none other than their
Teacher of Righteousness- they saw in their own history the fulfillment of end time
prophecies. Accordingly, they unhesitatingly applied the Scriptures to their own
community. What is important to recognize is that this is analogous to what the NT
authors have done in their use of the OT. Equipped with Jesus, who is their
interpretive key, they appropriate the Scriptures to validate their claim that Jesus is the
Messiah and to bolster their assertions concerning their own identity and destiny. Like
the Qumranians, they view Scripture through the lens of their presuppositions about
Jesus (35-36).
Thus, it is important that Warren accepts this fact an incorporate into his hermeneutic.
Conclusion
From this article, one can assume that Andy Warren holds a low view of Scripture. It
should be pointed without the least hesitation that Andy Warrens view of the Bible is
contaminated and therefore contagious, owing to the position holds in a reputable theological
college that holds a high view of Scripture. Although he did not state it explicitly, I doubt if
his position on inerrancy and infallibility are orthodox. It is important to state here that when
scholars hold theological views very far apart from the institutions they teach, they should
resign for conscience sake. A typical example is Julius Wellsausen, who propounded the
Documentary Hypothesis. An online article titled Julius Wellhausen in Encyclopedia of
World Biography narrates that after raising several critical questions without getting answers
on Old Testament narratives, Wellhausen lost his faith and soon came to adopt only critical,
historical, and scientific methods of inquiry about the Bible. But the report shows that
Wellhausen resigned in 1882 because he believed that his teachings were having a dire effect
on theological students destined for the ministry, and because he had become a figure of
controversy over his published views on the Old Testament. Perhaps, Andy Warren-Rothlin
should resign his position in TCNN because his views about the Bible are different from that
of the proprietors of TCNN. This will help him not to infect his students with his own kind of
views about Scripture.
9

WORKS CITED
___________ Julius Wellhausen. in Encyclopedia of World Biography 2004.
Encyclopedia.com. 2 Sep. 2015<http://www.encyclopedia.com
10

Lunde, Jonathan. An Introduction To Central Questions In The New Testament Use Of The
Old Testament in Three Views on New Testament Use of the Old Testament edited
by Kenneth Berding, Jonathan Lunde and Stanley Gundry. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 2008 Print.
Warren-Rothlin, Andy. Finding Christ In The Old Testament: Traditions And Types Of
Messiah TCNN Research Bulletin

11