Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 11:1 (Winter 1968)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Anonymous

BETS 11:1 (Winter 1968) p. 40

Book Reviews

The Meaning of the Old Testament. By Daniel Lys. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967. Pp. 192. $3.75. Reviewed by Bruce K. Waltke, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.

The title of the book sets forth the twofold purpose of the author: the meaning of the text to, the biblical writer, and the meaning of the text to man today. Since the appropriation of the text ought to be based on a valid understanding of the text, Professor Lys of Montpelier is primarily concerned with the question of interpretation: what did the author want to say.

The crux of the hermeneutical problem, according to Lys, is a proper assumption of the apparent contradiction of the eternal God revealing himself in successive periods of history. In a brilliant chapter he demonstrates that various methods of interpretation are unsatisfactory because they avoid this contradiction by reducing every element of the Old Testament either to history or to eternity. Lys, on his part, assumes this contradiction by recognizing “the dynamism of revelation.” By this term he means that God at successive intervals totally revealed himself to the biblical writers in order to move history to his predetermined end; namely, the revelation in Jesus Christ. He argues, therefore, that the exegete ought to rediscover and illumine this dynamism, this spiritual message, this intent of the biblical writer.

This prudence should lead the exegete to, apply the following rules: 1) in each text discover the message behind the language; 2) follow the message in time through the history of each text and the succession of texts; 3) see the scope of the dynamism of this revelation at the end of this history of the message.

The reviewer offers the following criticisms in addition to those advanced by W. Sibley Towner in JBL, LXXXVI (Sept., 1967, pp. 325 f. 1) Lys assumes the validity of the traditio-historical approach. The reviewer for the most part finds this approach to be unscientific and unsatisfactory. 2) When Lys says that the exegete must distinguish what the writer wanted to say from what he did say (p. 135) he opens the door wide to pure subjectivism, thereby allowing the exegete to make the text say whatever he wants it to say. 3) Lys’ dynamic view of biblical revelation leads him to the same conclusion as his teacher, Visher, who contended that the plain meaning of the Old Testament is its meaning in the light of God’s intention as revealed in Jesus Christ. John Bright has correctly cautioned, however: “But in doing this we must be careful to hear the Old Testament’s own word, ...in its distinctive meaning” (The Authority of the Old Testament, 1967, pp. 86–89).

BETS 11:1 (Winter 1968) p. 41

On th...