Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is part of Zondervan’s “Counterpoints” series. I have read a fair number of this books (Millennial Views, Women in the Church, Grace and Law, Messianic Judaism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Canaanite Genocide, Baptism, Lord’s Supper, Creation and Evolution, and Apologetics) and I like the layout. For those who haven’t read this series before, each book had a central theological/biblical concept that each author explores from her or his viewpoint. Following their essay, each of the other authors write a short critique showing how their view differs from the essay that was just read. Then the book moves on to the essay exploring another view. It’s a good introduction for people who are kicking around some issues and want to get a look at the strengths and weaknesses of all of the different views.
In this book the major biblical concept is the NT’s use of the OT. The introduction was written by Jonathan Lunde, who is associate professor of biblical studies and theology at Talbot School. In the introduction he lays out the central issues that the authors will be dealing with, such as the relationship of the OT author’s meaning to the NT author’s meaning, exegetical methods, context, typology, sensus plenior, and replication.
The first essay is written by Walter Kaiser who is representing the view summarized as “single meaning, unified referents.” Kaiser’s essay came across as extremely polemical. Instead of simply laying out his viewpoint and then applying it to specific texts, thus providing a positive example of his chosen approach to the issue, he, instead, spends the large majority of his time grinding his axe against the idea of sensus plenior. What the reader is left with is not so much a better understanding of how to understand the NT’s use of the OT, but simply with the understanding that the idea of sensus plenior is wrong. In explaining his view, Kaiser quotes J.C. Ryle in complete agreement: “I also hold that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and adhere rigidly to it” (46). That, apparently, is how Kaiser sums up his view. Lunde, in the introduction, provides a better description of Kaisers view, which denies any distinction between the OT’s use and the NT’s use and believes that “what the OT author intends by his words is what the NT author is saying” (40).
Darrell Bock and Peter Enns respond well to Kaiser’s essay, both voicing their disagreement. Although Kaiser’s view might sound convincing in the abstract, the Scriptural data tells a different story. For instance, how does one square Matthew 2.15 with Hosea 11.1 using Kaiser’s viewpoint? Was Hosea really referring to Jesus’ trip to Egypt and subsequent return? If he was, why did Hosea go onto say “the more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to Baals and burning offerings to idols” (Hosea 11.2). Is Hosea also saying this about Jesus? I should hope not!
In my opinion, Kaiser’s view does not hold any water whatsoever. It seems to be more the result of his doctrine of Scripture than actual study of the phenomena of the NT author’s use of OT texts. Not only does his view not hold any water, his essay was not well written, nor was it persuasive in the least. Had he at least provided some positive examples of his viewpoint, perhaps I would have been more sympathetic towards his viewpoint. But the essay was almost completely polemical in nature, void of any positive examples of how his viewpoint holds up to the biblical data.
Darrell Bock’s essay came next and was a very good read. Bock’s view, “single meaning, multiple contexts and referents” which he expresses numerous times throughout the essay, is understood best by asking the question, “is the NT author’s meaning the same as the OT author’s meaning,” to which Bock’s answer is “yes and no.” The ‘basic meaning’ of the OT text does not change, although the referents to which the NT author’s refer change with the changing contexts. Even though the referents change, Bock assures the reader that it is not a complete departure of the OT author’s meaning. Rather, the ‘fuller meaning’ of the NT author was, in some way, implicit within the original OT text. His concluding remarks are worth quoting fully:
There is a sense (a basic principle or subject matter) in which meaning is stable. There is a fundamental meaning to the text. Such meaning can be clearly stated. What can shift is that to which the meaning applies. Linguistically this shift of meaning is associated with what is called the referent, since a new context often means fresh referents. However, in that later application of meaning, the original meaning is still at work and it is still developing. What is more, once the additional meaning becomes clear, that later meaning can refract in a way on the earlier text to give it fresh understanding. All of this development is the function of multiple contexts being at work with the meaning, a factor that impacts the theological force and application of the textual meaning, giving that meaning additional depth” (146).
While I am sympathetic towards Bock’s viewpoint and I thought his essay was well written, I still don’t believe that this viewpoint can actually hold up when presented with the biblical data. His explanation of Matthew’s use of Hosea, for example, was an exegetical adventure that took you through some interesting places but, at the end of the day, leaves you unsatisfied. It was a bit of a stretch to say, for instance, “Jesus’ reenactment of the nation’s exodus experience invokes the pattern of God working for his people again. So, the TYPOLOGICAL-prophetic [sic] connection can be made when one recognizes that the exodus itself is a “pattern” image for salvation and that Jesus as King (and as the “one in the many”) is able to represent (and thus recapitulate) the nation’s history” (120). While I do not deny the typology of the Exodus being a powerful theme throughout Scripture, this explanation falls well short of actually explaining how or why Matthew takes a historical recounting of Israel and then claims that this has been “fulfilled” in Christ. Hosea was not prophesying anything. He was recounting something. To make the jump, as Bock does, and say that Hosea was, in some way, “prophetic” takes much more than simply relying on typology.
The last essay was written by Peter Enns, whose view is described as “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the Old in Its First-Century Interpretive Environment.” Pete begins his essay by cautioning the reader not to push her or his interpretive methods back onto Scripture. What this type of reading usually ends up as is a defense of the hermeneutical tension that is present between our modern methods of interpretation and the NT author’s methods of interpretation. Instead of attempting to equate the NT author’s interpretive methods with our own, one should acknowledge that “revelation means that God has spoken in Scripture in time and space, and those factors ought to play a positive role in our explanation of biblical phenomena” (172). By understanding both the interpretive methods and interpretive traditions of second Temple Judaism, one comes to a clearer understanding of what, exactly, the NT authors are doing when they interpret the OT in seemingly odd ways according to modern standards. Pete uses three examples to show how his viewpoint works when presented with the biblical data: Galatians 3.15-29 (Paul’s use of ‘seed’), angels and the law (Gal 3.19; Acts 7.53; Heb 2.2), and Matthew 2.15 (Matthew’s use of Hosea 11.1). While Pete sees some positive aspects of both typology and sensus plenior, both fall short of being able to completely explain the hermeneutics of the NT authors. He then discusses his view of the OT being “Christotelic” and how Christ at the center of the NT author’s hermeneutics affects their reading of the OT.
It will be no surprise to regular readers of this blog that I agree with Pete in this area. When one actually reads second Temple texts and then goes back to the NT, one is struck by the similarity in hermeneutics and interpretive traditions. Viewing this issue from this perspective makes the most sense of the biblical data and would have made the most sense to the original audience of the NT. While Bock included some interesting critiques in his response, I did not find them to be persuasive or to raise any red flags. Had Pete been able to write a response to Bock’s critique, I think one would have been able to see just how well Pete’s viewpoint stands up to scrutiny.
Kaiser just ranted and didn’t raise any good critiques, unless one considers this little gem a valid critique: “Apparently God purposely intended this fuller sense to be displayed later on, but where he hid this meaning, Professor Enns forgot to tell us” (223). Very profound.
All in all, the book was worth the read. If I had to read it all over again then I would have skipped Kaiser all together and only read Bock’s essay and critique of Enns and Enns’ essay and critique of Bock, as they seemed to be the only ones who actually dealt with the issues.
Anyone else read this? (BTW, before one speaks about a book, it would be a good idea to read it).
7 November 2008 at 9.13 pm
Hi Art – Thank you so much for the review. I share similar feelings about each author’s presentation. Here is my post on it (mostly reflections):
Three Views on the NT Use of the OT
8 November 2008 at 3.33 pm
suppose the apostles used 2nd temple hermeneutics that we can’t replicate today. if we come across a passage that seems to be used in a way discordant with the original authorial intent, should that have any bearing on the OT text at all? should the NT passage even be used when teaching from the OT passage? The reason I say this is, if the apostles were using a method that diverts from the original meaning, does this imply the apostles have a new better meaning of that OT text, or just that they are using a 2nd temple understanding for arguing for a NT theology.
rephrasing completely, should a new hermeneutical method apply meaning to older texts, or should a new hermeneutical method merely result in new application and meaning.
8 November 2008 at 4.06 pm
v02468:
That’s a tricky question because of the way you have worded it. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “new better meaning.”
I would suggest reading Dan McCartney’s article entitled “The New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament” in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic as well as chapter 4 (113-65) of I&I.
Both Dan and Pete argue that that the NT authors shared hermeneutical methods with their 2nd Temple context, but had a different hermeneutical goal, which was Christ (i.e., a Christotelic hermeneutic). They both also answer the question as to whether or not we can replicate these hermeneutics (both give a good explanation of their ‘yes and no’ answer).
That is difficult to say, as it would be different in different circumstances based on whether or not the quoted OT text is prophetic, historical, etc.
9 November 2008 at 6.16 pm
I haven’t read this particular book, though I’ve read others in the series and generally find them to be interesting. I may have to pick this one up at some point. I know that N.T. Wright has some pretty convincing arguments on this issue, at least as he put forth in “Jesus and the Victory of God,” which I read recently. I would be interested to read this Counterpoints book and see if he appears to fall into any of these categories.
10 November 2008 at 1.30 pm
Yeah, I believe Wright would mostly agree with Bock (e.g. Exodus typology). And interestingly he knows a bit about second Temple texts.
It seems typology is routinely misunderstood. With Hosea, for instance, the prophet did not necessarily have to be consciously aware that is words were “prophetic”. If one has a robust view of God’s sovereignty and believes in divine inspiration it makes sense that there could be (intentional) institutions, religious offices, people and patterns (type) that point to a greater realties (antitype). This does not mean that the biblical writers (like Hosea) had to be cognitively aware of the implications or “fuller meaning” (sensus plenior) of what they wrote. If fact, many of the writing prophets probably did not.
Also, it seems problematic on a number of levels to say that the NT writers employed hermeneutical procedures that, at least in some ways, the church “cannot” be imitated by the modern church (so Enns and Longnecker)
10 November 2008 at 2.21 pm
Brandon: Wright does stress ‘return from Exile’ and ‘second Exodus’ themes in his work on Jesus, but the entire New Perspective, of which Wright is representative of a strand, is based on understanding that Paul was speaking within a first century world using words and hermeneutics similar to the second Temple Jewish community.
With that said, I believe that he would actually be much more comfortable with Enns’ view than with Bocks. Have you read the book? If so, your thoughts on this?
As for Hosea, I don’t believe that it has anything to do with one’s view of sovereignty of God, as I believe mine to be quite robust. I also do not believe it has anything to do with the patters or types or whether or not Hosea knew that Matthew was going to use his text that way. Rather, it has to do with the way Matthew used Hosea (i.e., the hermeneutics that Matthew put to use to turn a historical text referring to the past and claiming that it has been ‘fulfilled’ in Jesus).
The whole idea of sensus plenior says something about the OT text, but it does not sufficiently explain the hermeneutics employed by the NT authors.
As for the supposed problems that this raises for you, why? Before you answer, do you think those ‘problems’ come from your a priori assumptions of what Scripture is and how Scripture should function? Or do they come from Scripture itself?
10 November 2008 at 3.14 pm
Brandon, You Said…
“Also, it seems problematic on a number of levels to say that the NT writers employed hermeneutical procedures that, at least in some ways, the church “cannot” be imitated by the modern church ”
How does this compare/contrast with the idea that the early church (apostles) wrote literature which the church today cannot imitate; e.g. inspired and infallible texts?
Pax Christi…Nick
10 November 2008 at 4.37 pm
Just found another review that agreed Bock and Enns’ essays were the most helpful, while Kaiser’s struggled. It also seems to favor Pete’s viewpoint.
10 November 2008 at 8.36 pm
Art: In all fairness I have not read this book, although I have skimmed it and read I&I. So I’ll refrain from making any remarks after this.
I believe Matthew was reading his OT typologically. Types must have certain controls such being historically grounded, having an (organic) textual warrant, be tied to God’s eschatological/teleological plan, and have some sense of escalation or intensification (sometimes via little installments) from type to antitype. It seems to me these controls are derivative from Scripture’s domestic use of types, rather than a priori concerns. Enns lack of controls is what troubles me, for then typology gives way to allegory, which can be used to justify nearly any reading of Scripture.
I think there needs to be a sense that the NT interpretation of the Old cannot contravene the integrity of earlier texts. Rather it should follow the canonical development of the OT. Of course typologically is only one of many ways the NT uses the Old. But there must be a correspondence of the divine intent of the canonical parts of the OT (but not always the human).
Further, while I do think it’s helpful to study and compare Jewish hermeneutics, caution is needed. The fact 1st century Christians read their OT “differently” than Jews must be noted. Otherwise Jews would be Christians.
10 November 2008 at 9.00 pm
Brandon: I do hope you will continue the conversation (I was just curious if you had read the book to see if you have any familiarity with Enns’ work). Seeing that you have read I&I, you do.
I understand what you are saying, but ‘typology’ is not a hermeneutic but a type of exegesis (see, for instance, The Old Testament in Early Christianity by E.E. Ellis or “Typology” by Daniel Treier in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin Vanhoozer). Hermeneutics stands behind exegesis. For instance, one can exegete typologically from a postmodern hermeneutic and come to very different ends than one who exegetes typologically from a modern hermeneutic.
For example, Pete writes:
So simply to say that “Matthew was reading his OT typologically” does not answer the hermeneutical question, only the theological one.
Can you give an example? I ask because I do not see this.
Why? This seems like an a priori assumption that, at certain points, breaks down when the NT data is presented, or even when the OT data is presented (i.e., 1 Sam – 2 Kings and 1-2 Chron, variations in the law code throughout the OT, Ezekiel’s comments on the law being evil, etc.). I understand your assertion, but I’m not convinced of it because it seems to be a type of paradigm or dogmatic statement that is reached before one reads the text as opposed as something that comes from the text itself.
Did they read it ‘differently,’ or did they simply reach different conclusions while actually ‘reading’ it quite similarly on the hermeneutical level? For instance, I know many fundamentalists who read their Bible just like Bart Ehrman but their conclusions couldn’t be more different. Just because the conclusions are different does not presuppose that their hermeneutical methods are the same. Does that make sense?
11 November 2008 at 12.36 pm
Art: Thanks for your thoughts. I am still hammering out my views on this, so it’s helpful to dialogue with others. Here are a few thoughts:
1. For clarification I was “not” arguing Matthew exclusively reads the OT through the lens of typology. But I find the hermeneutical technique of typology helpful in understanding Matt 2:15 (following Carson, Moo and others). Perhaps against Enns, I do believe typology is a one aspect of hermeneutics (Richard Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures). Thus I believe Matthew sees the OT “fulfilled” literally, typologically, and in other ways. One could say typology is subset of prophecy. What does Enns mean by restricting typology to theology?
2. To some extent agree with some of your thoughts on the hermeneutical similarities between Jews and (early) Christians. My point was only that it must be nuanced. Douglas Moo was written about distinguishing between the hermeneutical techniques and hermeneutical axioms of the biblical writers. He says that while there is substantial agreement in former, there is a noticeable disjunction with the later. Thus Paul’s salvation-history reading of the OT in some ways differs with the Jews fixation on Sinai (cf. Trypho and Justin Martyr’s reading of the OT).
If we simply collapse the two into one, allegory is close at hand (which Enns is strangely ok with according to ‘”Is the Bible ever wrong”?). This is because much Jewish interpretation engages in unwarranted allegory (I.e. the Song of Songs being a “history of Israel”; or Jewish linguistic fallacies, like in Deut 24:6). However, if there are not controls on hermeneutics, all interpretations are equal and were left in a sea of subjectivism.
More likely, I would want to argue that there is a consistent divine message across the OT canon. Of course there are tensions, apparent discrepancies, etc as you noted, but the gist of the divine message is consistent.
11 November 2008 at 1.33 pm
Brandon:
Enns (and others, as noted above) note that typology is an inherently theological type of exegesis. It is not based on a historical or grammatical exegetical method, but on theological truths that the author believes and reads back onto an earlier text. For instance, Matthew knew that Christ was the end of the story and so he read back onto Hosea his Christotelic hermeneutic. That is a theological move as it does not do justice with Hosea’s original point nor does it pay attention to the context of Hosea (i.e., Hosea 11.2). Theologically it looks like typology; hermeneutically it looks like Midrash (see Renee Bloch’s seminal essay on Midrash and note the similarities with Matthew 2.15, most strikingly, perhaps, the characteristic of ‘actualization’).
I believe I said a very similar thing in my last comment.
As for allegory, I’m not quite sure where you are going with that. Pete does not affirm some open-ended, uncontrolled hermeneutic party. Also, Paul seems to believe that allegorical readings are beneficial (Gal 4.21ff). So to deny allegory to uphold some consistent view of Scripture is to, ironically, cut off the branch you are standing on.
How broad is the ‘gist’ and who defines where the boundaries of the ‘gist’ ends?
To put it differently, while I get your major point, this statement is much, much too vague to be beneficial when one is actually approached with the text.
13 November 2008 at 5.11 pm
Art – What is the title of Renee Bloch’s essay? Thanks.
13 November 2008 at 5.27 pm
Maer: The essay is entitled “Midrash” and is in the book Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice ed. William Scott Green (Brown Judaic Studies I, Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978), 29-50. It is the classic essay on Midrash.
14 November 2008 at 11.20 am
Thanks, Art. I’m looking forward to reading it.