My bent is toward everything New Testament (yes, a flaw 
). At any rate, I’m thrilled about what is being hailed as G.K. Beale’s Magnum opus: New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New.
Publisher’s Description: In this comprehensive exposition, a leading New Testament scholar explores the unfolding theological unity of the entire Bible from the vantage point of the New Testament. G. K. Beale, coeditor of the award-winning Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, examines how the New Testament storyline relates to and develops the Old Testament storyline. Beale argues that every major concept of the New Testament is a development of a concept from the Old and is to be understood as a facet of the inauguration of the latter-day new creation and kingdom.
Offering extensive interaction between the two testaments, this volume helps readers see the unifying conceptual threads of the Old Testament and how those threads are woven together in Christ. This major work will be valued by students of the New Testament and pastors alike.
Here’s Douglas Moo’s take: “The book is vintage Beale, creatively making connections between Old Testament and New Testament and pursuing a definite vision of how the Bible hangs together.”
November 16, 2011 at 2:38 pm
This should be a magnificent volume and WTS has it for 45% off!
November 16, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Yeah, bro.
November 16, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Yeah, this looks excellent! I like Beale.
November 16, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Sounds good – I’m in!
November 16, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Definitely looks like a good volume…
November 17, 2011 at 8:21 am
Sounds like a really good book. While I was listening to the video, I had this vision of points unfolding…like doorways to the future. If we go back in the OT we see this in the fact that when each promise was unfolded, or as the fulfillment point was reached, those who partook of the fulfillment realized there was more and then more and then…each fulfillment another opened door!
November 17, 2011 at 8:47 am
Nancy, I see you’ve gathered much already.
How all this turns on a person’s understanding of prophecies fulfillment, is the interesting thing.
November 17, 2011 at 10:18 am
I think Doug Moo hit the operative word here, which is “creative.” For example, on the video Beale spoke quite a bit about resurrection, but you really have to reach to find anything remotely similar in the Hebrew bible.
The Hebrew concept of religion was simple: obey God and he will make the nation prosper. Afterlife wasn’t just an afterthought, there was no concept of it at all for more than 1,000 years (until Daniel).
The point is that one can mine the Hebrew bible for NT concepts, but only by ignoring the intent of the authors and the meaning derived by the original readers.
Now many would see that as a valid approach, and interpreters have always been creative. For example, Paul said that when God promised to bless Abraham’s seed, God didn’t actually mean Abraham’s descendants, as was understood by Abraham and every other Jew. No, Paul contended that “seed” referred to Jesus, a very creative approach, but one clearly at odds with logic and original intent.
November 17, 2011 at 12:43 pm
It’s more complicated than that bondboy. You’ve seemed to reject the dual authorship of scripture (concursus Dei) which the history of interpretation within the confessing historic orthodox Christian Church has always presupposed. In fact this presupposition serves as one of the principles of canonicity. I can see your point if one follows Teutonic higher criticism, but that would be an anachronism (the methodology) imposed upon the text of scripture that is even more artificial than you are suggesting about the creativity of the Apostle Paul’s divinely inspired interpretation of the text (or sensus plenior). There is also the concept of referensus plenior so that the original intent and ‘sense’ is maintained while the door is left open for more than one referent relative to God’s proleptic foresight and again ‘fuller meaning’ in light of the inner-logic of the text, Jesus Christ (according to Jesus pace Jn 5.39 amongst other examples).
If someone rejects the History of Religions mode, as I do (which your point comes from); then your point is ultimately moot.
November 17, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I would buy this book except for the fact that I consistently find Beale to be too orthodox to be interesting.
November 17, 2011 at 2:12 pm
@Bondboy, yep, boils down to interpretation here. I appreciate your point along the lines of authorial intent. As you know, not a few debates continue to take place over this matter.
@Bobby, I love this from you:
|There is also the concept of referensus plenior so that the original intent and ‘sense’ is maintained while the door is left open for more than one referent relative to God’s proleptic foresight and again ‘fuller meaning’ in light of the inner-logic of the text, Jesus Christ (according to Jesus pace Jn 5.39 amongst other examples).|
Yes, we see Jesus and the NT writers doing such all the time. But the matter is quite complicated.
@NW, you might be surprised.
November 17, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Bobby, of course I reject the idea that there is some hidden code in the scripture that was unknown to the authors and original readers, that was my point. You must be a grad student, trying to show that you have read some big words in a textbook, but that’s got nothing to do with making a good argument. In fact, just the opposite is true. And I resent being called Teutonic. I have dark hair and brown eyes and I always root for Italy against the Germans in the World Cup.
November 17, 2011 at 7:28 pm
No, Bondboy, I resent being called a grad student; I’m a post-grad student. And in fact I presented (the lineaments of) an argument, and used my “big words” within a context and meaning which avoids the prestige jargon fallacy which I think you must be alluding to in a cryptic way. But you missed my point, completely.
Once you finish looking up my big words in the dictionary; maybe then you will feel obliged to engage my substantial points in response to your glossy first comment. Until then I’ll respect your evasion.
November 17, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Oh TC,
Sorry … I was distracted for a moment there
; thanks. It’s nice to know that Jesus isn’t the decoder key to the secret code of Scripture; it’s nice to know that Jesus is the key and code of Scripture — at least that’s what he thunk.
November 18, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Post-grad! Hahaha. I nailed that one. Either that or it was some kind of parody.