Great piece, Ben. Interesting ideas.
I would be interested to hear more about this ‘trumping’ principle. So far, the contrast between ‘trumping’ and harmonisation is only in the abstract. Can you give any examples of where harmonisation would appear to be impossible and trumping a more viable solution?
I am intrigued by what you mean when you say: “The son speaks for God with greater authority than prophets.” By this, do you mean to say that Jesus has greater authority on the basis of his fuller revealing of the Godhead, or on some other grounds? Could you elaborate?
If we agree that God is truly speaking in both, and that God is by nature immutable (he does not change), surely both God-speeches carry equal authority? If so, and we work from the premise of God’s immutability (and thus equal authority), then any dichotomy between Hebrew Scripture and the NT can only be apparent. Hence, if the differences are only apparent, does this legitimise harmonisation? What do you think?
Also, what do you make of the legitimacy of harmonisation (if that is what you’d call it) based upon the idea of reading the Hebrew Scriptures in light of Christ? I’m thinking of Luke 24, and Jesus’ encounter with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus:
“Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.” (24:27)
I’m sure you have thought about this more than I, and that you have written other pieces that elaborate on the relationship between the Hebrew Scripture and the NT, which I have not yet read. However, these are some thoughts that come to mind.
All the best.