Three Views on the NT Use of the OT
Berding, Kenneth, Stanley N. Gundry and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.
Issues surrounding the NT use of the OT have been of great interest to me for a long time, so it was with equally great delight that I read yet another contribution to this complicated and yet fascinating field of study.
The structure of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is very simple. It contains an introduction, closing remarks by one of the editors and three essays followed by a response by the two other opposing views. Although the length of the essays were adequate, I wish more space had been given for the responses.
The three views represented are:
Walter Kaiser – Single Meaning, Unified Referents
Darrell Bock – Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents
Peter Enns – Fuller Meaning, Single Goal
The task of each author was to answer the following questions:
- Is sensus plenior an appropriate way of explaining the NT use of the OT?
- How is typology best understood?
- Do the NT writers take into account the context of the passages they cite?
- Does the NT writers’ use of Jewish exegetical methods explain the NT use of the OT?
- Are we able to replicate the exegetical and hermeneutical approaches to the OT that we find in the writings of the NT?
It would be pointless to reproduce the arguments of each author here since this is a complex subject and there is no way I can do justice to their views. But I would like to make some general observations and share some personal impressions of the different positions and the book.
Can We Read the OT on its Own Terms?
There is a sense in which Walter Kaiser provides the most satisfactory answer to the question “should we replicate the hermeneutics of the NT authors?” His answer is an unqualified yes since the meaning, in his opinion, is the same in both Testaments. But the fact that we have a book with at least three views on this matter goes to show that it is not obvious to many that this is the case. In my view, it becomes the task of Walter Kaiser to show exegetically that the OT passage contains enough clues to suggest that the OT writer was able to see the near fulfillment of what he was writing about as well as the distant fulfillment. And it is here that Kaiser’s exegesis becomes, as Peter Enns would say, midrashic. But one of the things that became clear to me as I read Kaiser’s essay and his responses is that he is very concerned that if the meaning is not bound to the original intent of the OT author, the NT becomes our de facto Bible (Canon within a Canon) and there is really little use for the OT. In other words, Kaiser wants to make sure that the OT be heard on its own terms and that it be the Word of God in every sense that the NT is. I really appreciate his concern specially at a time when many people would be all too happy to have the NT (oh, maybe a few psalms and proverbs) as their Bible. However, when Kaiser insists that a passage like Hosea 11 was messianic in its own context, isn’t that already using the NT as an interpretive grid? In other words, would our exegesis of Hosea 11 demand (or at least highly suggest) a messianic reading if it weren’t for Matthew? I would say no, in which case Kaiser is already submitting the OT to the NT’s interpretive reading, albeit through the backdoor. However, Kaiser would say yes (see Kaiser’s response to Peter Enns’ understanding of these passages on p. 222). In this case, it all boils down to how convincing Kaiser’s exegesis of the OT passage is. Check out his book The Messiah in the Old Testament to see how he attempts to do that.
A Theological-canonical Approach: Does it work?
I really enjoyed reading Bock’s essay. His presentation was clear, nuanced and when he asked the question of whether or not the NT author infused a fuller meaning in the OT text, his answer was always “no and yes.” The reason he answers this way is because he is making a distinction between “sense” and “referent.” So while the sense of the passage remains the same between the OT and the NT, the referent is different. For all practical purposes, he is saying that the “principle” of the OT passage (when considering its larger context) will be the same in the NT, but the “application” of that principle will be different. However, if this principle/application analogy stops there, it will not get to the heart of what Bock is proposing. The application (the sense applied to a different referent) is really a fuller meaning because God’s revelation has been more fully understood in the unfolding of redemptive history. In other words, we need to understand the use of the OT in the NT canonically.
At this point, the question I had was “wouldn’t Peter Enns somehow agree with that?” As it turns out, Enns finds that looking at the larger context of the OT passage helpful and that canonical connections can be made, but it still does not explain why the NT writers used the OT the way they did in every instance. Referring to Matthew 2:12, Enns says that
“whereas the larger context is a helpful category for understanding Matthew 2:15, it is not a decisive hermeneutical point, nor is it a category that can be applied to every instance of the NT use of the OT” (210).
What I understand Enns to be saying is that although using Bock’s method can help us make sense of the theology of the NT author and point us in the right direction of why he used the passage the way he did, you will not be able to use this method consistently to explain the hermeneutical data everywhere. At some point you are going to encounter a text that can only be understood canonically by creative exegesis (eisegesis with a flair?) of the OT passage. In other words, for some passages, it will become a game of trying to extract the “sense,” and this may involve some midrashic maneuvering. So, although Enns is not opposed to see the larger context of the OT passages, he is opposed to appealing to this method to explain away the hermeneutical difficulties. For Enns, the hermeneutical tensions can be better explained by the hermeneutical methods employed by Second Temple Judaism.
Should We Replicate the Hermeneutics of the NT Author? Bock and Enns, Your Turn!
I found the answers by Bock and Enns to the question “should we replicate the hermeneutics of the NT author?” to be quite provocative.
Bock says we already do that!
“My argument is that we do it [what the apostles did] even when we claim we do not. Our theological structures are built off of how we put the texts together theologically as a whole unit, much like the theological-canonical reading I have been defending. As long as this is done within the framework of the theological grid the Scriptures give us, this is legitimate” (147).
That really made me stop and take stock of how I currently handle the NT use of the OT. As much as I like Enns’ approach, in practice I find myself doing what Bock is suggesting. There are probably two major reasons for this: 1) I just don’t know enough about Second Temple Judaism to intelligently make judgment on the hermeneutical underpinnings of a particular text; 2) I find that a canonical reading of the biblical text helps me appreciate the multi-layered hermeneutical possibilities of both OT and NT. Having said this, I still think that we need to strive to pay more attention to the hermeneutical environment of Second Temple Judaism. Although I have not read all of the contributions to the Commentary of the Use of the OT in the NT edited by D. A. Carson and Greg Beale, I have read enough to find many treatments (which basically follow Bock’s view) unsatisfactory and sometimes unhelpful.
This brings us to Enns’ answer to the question which is – surprise! – yes and no. He makes a distinction between the hermeneutical goal of the NT authors (which, for Enns, means they were reading the OT eschatologically/christotelically) and the method of interpretation that they used. Part of Enns’ argument is that the method of interpretation of the NT author is another example how God used people in their own contexts to reveal His Word. We do accept that God used a specific historical, social and linguistic context over a period of time for His Word to be written, why not a hermeneutical context especially since the data seem to demand it? For this reason, although God used the NT writers in their hermeneutical contexts, it would be a mistake to think that we should use the same hermeneutics (the “mechanics”) of that time. In other words, it is through our current hermeneutical context that we should be reading Scripture while, at the same time, being guided by same reality that drove the NT writers, Christ himself.
The Conclusion is…
I think it was wise for Kenneth Berding to finish his closing remarks with a probing question to each author. As he said,
“It is hoped that this book will conclude with a certain about of open-endedness and thereby underscore that there is still much work to be done in sorting out the difficult question of how the NT authors use the OT” (241).
One More Thing
There is one more thing that I would like to say concerning this book. Each essay championed particular passages to illustrate the view espoused by each author. There was not adequate space for more elaborate responses for some of passages discussed. I really would like to see a book of this sort where each author chooses at least one representative passage of the NT use of the OT that he would like to exegete to explain his view. However the same passage would be also discussed by the other authors. This would give a chance for the reader to see at least three passages being discussed for each view. The disadvantage is that the readers would not be exposed to a greater number of texts and there will be some inevitable repetition. But the advantage is that each author will be forced to deal with the texts that best represent the other views instead of short rebuttals.
This is a great contribution to this fascinating field. People who are not familiar with the issues will benefit from the introduction of the book and will get a sense of how people view not only the role of apostolic hermeneutics but also how they view the very nature of the Bible.
2 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By art, November 8, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Maer,
Thanks for writing this. It’s always interesting for me to read other people’s reviews and see what they picked up on that I missed. I like your proposal to have each author work through the same passage. I think that would be really helpful. Since Bock and Enns both went through three passages and there were three contributors, it would have been great to have them all pick out one passage that they all had to go through using their distinct approach.
I’ll be adding you to my blog reader and bloglist on my blog. You have a lot of interesting posts and I’m looking forward to reading more!
By Maer, November 8, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Art – Thanks for stopping by and your words of encouragement. I’m looking forward to further interaction.