BIBLIOTHECA
SACRA 142 (Oct. 1985): 302-19
Copyright © 1985 by
Evangelicals and the Use
of
the Old Testament
in the New
Part 2
Darrell
L. Bock
In a previous article1 this writer
discussed four schools of
approach within evangelicalism with regard to the
use of the Old
Testament by the New. In the interaction
between these schools of
thought four tension points will be raised in
this article concerning
dual authorship, language-referent, the progress of
revelation, and
the problem of the differing texts used in Old
Testament citations
by their New Testament fulfillment(s). In
isolating these four areas
of concern, it is important to recall that in any
passage being
discussed all these concerns interact with one
another. That is why
this area of hermeneutics is so difficult to discuss.
Nevertheless by
isolating
the key issues, discussion of problem texts may become
more
manageable, since the area of concern can be more easily
identified. In this article the state of the debate
will be evaluated
and
a suggested approach will be offered.
Dual Authorship
The question of dual authorship is the basic one
to be consid-
ered. Can God intend more in
a passage than the human author
intended? For Kaiser and also, it seems, for Waltke the answer to
this question is no.2 What the prophet
intended, God intended;
and He intended no more than what the prophet
intended. God
may have a greater understanding about the
intention of the
passage; but the prophet must understand what he
was trying to
306
Evangelicals
and the Use of the Old Testament in the New 307
say.
The concept of “generic promise” is especially important to this
view.
For those who make a distinction between the
human author’s
intention and God’s intention, a variety of
approaches exist. Appeal
is made to sensus plenior or references
plenior. S. Lewis Johnson
and Elliott E. Johnson try to establish a firm link
between God’s
intention and the human author's intention so that
the Old Testa-
ment prophet’s message
remains demonstrably the basis for the
divine New Testament fulfillment. This limitation
prevents a
charge of arbitrary fulfillment being raised against
the New Testa-
ment. Their limitation is
either “the implication of the words” in
light of the progress of revelation (S. Lewis
Johnson) or the “defi-
ning sense” of the human
author’s words (Elliott E. Johnson).
Those who emphasize the historical perspective
of the use of
the Old Testament in the New (the third school of
thought) gener-
ally do not discuss dual authorship in any detail.
They simply
regard this distinction as established. This omission
is a major
weakness of the historical school. Dunnett is an exception within
this approach and attempts to suggest limitations
under which a
distinction of authorship can be maintained. He
initially appeals to
the vague category of “other criteria” as he
discusses sensus plen-
ior. Later he refers to the
“other criteria.”3 These criteria seem
similar to an appeal to the progress of
revelation. He also insists on
an “organic connection” between the two meanings.
In describing
texts like Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 53; and Hosea 11:1, Dunnett sum-
marizes by saying:
These kinds of texts may illustrate for us a sensus plenior. Yet
to
maintain some control in
exegesis one should begin with the literal
sense of the text, observe
the total context, realize that the divine
purpose in history is certain
of fulfillment (on God’s terms), and
include both Old and New
Testaments to have a measure for inter-
pretation.4
How is this question of dual authorship to be
evaluated? A fair
summary would be to say that God wrote to His
people at a point in
history and to His people throughout time, while
the human
author wrote to his people at a point in history
and/or, as a prophet,
wrote to his people with hope as he expressed God’s
ultimate
deliverance, either (a) in full human consciousness
(direct proph-
ecy, full human intent;
Dan. 7:9-14), (b) in the ideal language of the
passage itself (many of the psalms such as 16;
22; 110; and Isa. 53),
(c)
in language capable of expansion of reference into a
new context
through progressive revelation (Gen. 2:7; 3:15; Pss. 2:1-2; 8; 16:10;
308 Bibliotheca Sacra-October-December 1985
Isa. 61:1-2; Old Testament kingdom texts; texts
about Yahweh in
the Old Testament that refer to Christ in the New
Testament), or (d)
in language that involves a “pattern” of
fulfillment but with less
than full human authorial understanding of each
referent in the
pattern (typology that is typico-prophetic,
Gen. 2:7; Pss. 8; 95:7-11;
Isa. 7:14; 40; Hos.
11:1).5
The reason this writer rejects a “total”
identification between
the divine intent and the human author’s intent is
that in certain
psalms, as well as in other Old Testament passages,
theological
revelation had not yet developed to the point where
the full thrust of
God’s
intention was capable of being understood by the human
author. For example the divine nature of messianic kingship
was
nowhere so explicitly stated in the Old
Testament that it became a
basic tenet of ancient Jewish eschatological hope.
Psalm 110 sug-
gests it strongly, but it is not entirely clear that
the Davidic Cove-
nant by itself at the time it was given required a
divine son for
fulfillment. Apparently David thought Solomon could
be that son.
One
must also reckon with the fact that Old Testament prophets
sometimes admitted that they did not understand
their utterances
(Dan.
12:6-8; John 11:44-52; and esp. 1 Peter 1:10-12). Kaiser has
admirably tried to deal with these passages; but
his explanations
have failed to convince most scholars that he is
correct in uniting
the authorial intent of the human and divine
authors. Kaiser’s
concept of generic prophecy is a helpful one for
this discussion; but
what is unclear is whether the human author always intended all
the sense that emerges from the promise in the New
Testament and
whether the human author always understood all
the referents in
the promise. The four qualifications stated in the
preceding para-
graph concerning the human author's language are an
attempt to
describe the various ways human and divine intent
can be joined
without being a violation of the sense and
promise of a passage.
So to try to limit the meaning to the human
author’s intention
seems to be too narrow a view. However, to say that
there is a clear
and definable connection between the expression of
the human
author and God’s intention seems necessary, or else
the text can be
made to say anything whatsoever in its fulfillment.
Another impor-
tant point is that the
nature of the connection between the two
passages can manifest itself in a variety of ways, including a
human author’s full intent. To try to limit the
nature of the connec-
tion to one specific type of
relationship seems to place a limitation
on the text that its phenomena may not sustain.
Broadly speaking,
such a view places this writer in agreement with
those of the
Evangelicals
and the Use of the Old Testament in the New 309
second school (the human words school) and with some
of those of
the third school (the progress of revelation or
Jewish hermeneutics
school), who affirm that God could intend more than
the human
author did but never at the expense of the thrust of
his wording.
The
New Testament fulfillment will either agree with or expand by
natural implication the human author’s wording.
Whether it is
better to call this relationship sensus plenior or references plenior
or some other term, should still be discussed by
evangelicals after a
renewed study of several sample passages from
different authors of
the New Testament.6 The variety of
relationships between the
divine and human authors naturally leads to a
discussion of mean-
ing in these texts and the
role of language, that is, it leads to
semantic issues of language and referent.
Language-Referent
This specific hermeneutical issue deals with the
question,
Where
does meaning reside in a given utterance? Is it at the level of
sense (the definitions of the words within a passage)
or at the level
of the referents? Is it at the level of the word
or at the level of the
word in its context? This question raises the
complex area of
semantics. Elliott E. Johnson grapples seriously
with this area.
The
works of Moo and of this writer have also attempted to raise
issues in this area.7 In general the
other schools have not dealt
with it in any detail. The area still needs much
study, especially in
light of the acknowledged fact that words gain their
sense not in
and of themselves but from their literary context,
that is, from the
sentence, paragraph, and larger setting in which
they are con-
tained.8 So the role of the
context of a passage is crucial in deter-
mining the passage’s meaning.
An additional question is this: As the biblical
theological con-
text of a passage is deepened, how is the meaning of
that passage
affected? Much of the debate among evangelicals
about
eschatology falls in this semantic area. Does a
“heavenly” referent
for the New Testament fulfillment of passages like
Psalms 2 and 110
nullify what appears to be an “earthly”
reference in the original Old
Testament contexts? Amillenarians
will answer yes to this ques-
tion, while
dispensationalists answer no and covenant pre-
millenarians vacillate.9 Are New Testament
fulfillments final, ini-
tial, or
decisive-but-not-final?
If the “seed” example from Genesis 3 cited in
the previous
article is any guide, then meaning deals
primarily with the sense,
310 Bibliotheca Sacra-October-December 1985
not always with the referent, of a passage as that
meaning is
defined by its literary context. For Kaiser, the
literary context is
limited to antecedent revelation. For the other
schools, the literary
context of all of Scripture is to be used. But
it is important to state
that when appealing to the whole of Scripture an awareness of
what is antecedent to the given passage and what is subsequent
must be maintained. 10
Within the Scriptures the following
sense-referent rela-
tionships can occur:
1. Referents of passages were made more
specific, as in the
“seed” example.
2. Motifs were reapplied. For example the Exodus
imagery was
reused and reapplied, sometimes with changes, by
Isaiah and by
some New Testament writers; also Adam is introduced
as the “first
Adam”
by Paul, a change made in light of Jesus’ coming.
3. Language that was “earthly”
in the Old Testament was
expanded to include a “heavenly thrust.” For example,
the king as
“son” in a nonontological sense in
the Old Testament is “the Son” in
an ontological sense in the New Testament (Heb. 1);
“kingdom” in
some New Testament texts along with “Jesus as King”
refer to
something other than an earthly rule (Luke
17:20,21: Acts
2:32-36).
The eschatological debate turns on the question
whether
the Old Testament earthly sense is removed by the
heavenly thrust
of some New Testament texts. Premillennialists
answer this ques-
tion with a firm no.
4. Language that was figurative became literal.
Examples are
(a)
the righteous sufferer in Psalm 22 is described with
figurative
language that Jesus, the righteous Sufferer par
excellence, fulfills
literally; (b) Psalm 69; and (c) “the right hand”
of Psalm 110.
5. Language that is literal becomes figurative.
For example
literal lambs were sacrificed in the Old
Testament but Christ was
“the Passover lamb” in the New (1 Cor.
5:7), and the literal first
fruits in the Old Testament refer in 1 Corinthians
15:20 figuratively
to resurrected saints.
Though a variety of relationships exist at the
level of the
referent, the basic sense of the passage is
maintained.11 At what
level is the basic sense of the original passage
determined? Is it at
the level of the word, the phrase, the sentence, or
the paragraph?
This
question still needs to be dealt with in detail by evangelicals.
Meaning as it relates to the use of the Old
Testament in the New
and as it relates to the language of these passages
is vitally con-
cerned with issues of sense
versus issues of referent; but the exact
Evangelicals
and the Use of the Old Testament in the New 311
limits of any approach to this issue are still
unclear. One area that
obviously touches on this discussion is the
progress of revelation,
the next area of concern.
The Progress of Revelation
This issue deals with historical concerns. The
question here is
this: What effect did the history of Jesus’ life and
ministry,
especially His resurrection and ascension, have on
the church’s
understanding and the apostolic
understanding of Scripture? The
revelation of Jesus, the living Word of God, helps
specify the refer-
ents in the Scriptures and
the exact focus of their promises. John
2:22;
12:16; and 20:9 confirm this. The life of Christ did help the
disciples understand what the Scriptures taught.
What they did
not realize about the Old Testament before, the
life of Christ made
clear to them.
As stated in the previous article in this
series, knowing that
there are two comings of Christ and seeing Jesus as
Lord in Old
Testament
texts that referred to Yahweh are two examples of the
effect of this factor. These show an interaction
between the life of
Christ
and the Old Testament in which the revelation of the Person
helped make clear the revelation of the Book, by
showing how the
promise came to fruition. It is here that the
concept of pattern and
generic promise are helpful, because with the
coming of the pat-
tern and the promise, many seemingly loose ends in
the Scriptures
were tied together in one Person, bringing a unity
to the whole
plan. Patterns were completed and promises were
fulfilled in ways
that reflected a connection to Old Testament persons
or events, or
in ways that heightened them. The “refraction”
principle, which
was mentioned earlier, 12 rightfully
belongs here.
Longenecker correctly takes the
role of this historical factor
seriously in explaining how the New Testament
authors saw some
of these texts as fulfillments. In short, they saw
in the revelation of
Jesus
Christ a revelation on revelation. Two points can be made to
those who object that such an approach seems to
demean proph-
cy because the realization of a prophecy's full
presence is limited to
the time of its fulfillment. First, a passage may
not have been
recognized as a prophecy until it was fulfilled. So
one must dis-
tinguish, then, between what the
passage initially declared and
what one comes to realize later was ultimately meant
by the pas-
sage. This distinction does not mean, however, that
the passage
did not originally suggest the prophetic meaning the reader now
312 Bibliotheca Sacra-October-December 1985
understands it to have. Through the progress of
revelation, he can
come to understand what he could not originally
comprehend,
because the Old Testament passage or larger Old
Testament con-
text only hinted at that meaning. This is much like
a play in the
second quarter of a football game that many come to
realize in the
fourth quarter was the turning point of the game.
Second, many of the Old Testament passages the
New Testa-
ment appeals to were recognized
as prophetic in Judaism, but the
referent of those passages was disputed. 13The
force of the passage
was seen as prophetic, but who or what fulfilled it
was an issue in
the first century. In the context of the progress
of revelation, the
disciples could point to recent historical events
in the life of Jesus
that fulfilled these passages and completed the
promises. This is
something that even the
of their “pesher”
fulfillments which still looked to future and thus
unverifiable events. The clear
strength of New Testament proclama-
tion about fulfillment was
its historical and textual base.
A more controversial aspect of the historical
emphasis school
is the role of noncanonical
phenomena. specifically Jewish inter-
testamental theology and Jewish
hermeneutics. Evangelicals have
often neglected the role of Jewish theology as the
framework of
theological discussion in the first century. On the
other hand the
New Testament use of
terms from Jewish theology does not neces-
sarily mean the terms were appropriated without any change in
meaning in the New Testament. Careful historical-grammatical
exegesis should trace both this background and
any modification
of it in the New Testament. As stated in the
earlier article, 14 certain
developments in Jewish theology may
well have reflected divine
reality, not because Jewish theology as a whole
was true and
authoritative, but because on certain
issues they accurately
expressed or developed the teaching of Scripture.
In a more
extreme example Paul cited the Greek poet Aratus without endors-
ing his pagan world view
(Acts 17:28). God is sovereign enough to
prepare the world for Christ in the conceptual
realm of first-century
Jewish
religious expression as well as in the social-political realm
of the first century with its Pax
Romana.
The techniques of Jewish hermeneutics do appear
in the New
Testament. The use of key words to link certain
passages is clearly
seen in 1 Peter 2:4-10 and in 2 Corinthians 3:1-18.
These are two of
many examples. Longenecker
demonstrates the repeated use of
these techniques in the New Testament. What is
debated is (a) how
Evangelicals
and the Use of the Old Testament in the New 313
much the perspective of this hermeneutic has influenced the
interpretations of the New Testament
and (b) how proper it is to
refer to New Testament quotations in Jewish terms
such as
“pesher” or “midrash.”
With regard to the first issue, it is fair to say
that the key hermeneutical perspectives of New
Testament inter-
pretation (its Christological
focus, corporate solidarity and the
presence of pattern) all emerge either from the
events of Jesus’ life
(Christology)
or from perspectives already present in the Old Testa-
ment (corporate solidarity
and the use of pattern).15 So the key
elements in the New Testament approach to
hermeneutics, accord-
ing to Longenecker,
are not found in Jewish hermeneutics but
rather in the history and theology of the Old
Testament and Jesus’
first advent.
Much confusion exists with regard to
the use of the terms
“pesher” and “midrash.”
The definitions of these terms are not
fixed even in the technical literature.16
Often when these terms are
used, they are not clearly defined. Longenecker’s repeated use of the
term “pesher exegesis”
suffers from this problem. Is he referring to
an “eschatologically fulfilled
and presently fulfilled” text or to a
“technical style” of exegesis? Also is he using “pesher” in a descrip-
tive-analogical sense (in which the New
Testament use is parallel
to this Jewish technique but with important distinctions) or is
he
using “pesher” to refer to
a New Testament technique in which the
technique and the theological approach of the two systems are so
identified that they are treated
as virtually synonymous her-
meneutical systems?
Much of the reaction against this ancient
hermeneutical ter-
minology grows out of a sense of
excessive identification between
the Jewish and New Testament approaches in the
writings of the
progressive revelation school, without careful
qualification or with-
out a strong enough stress on the differences
between the Jewish
and Christian approaches to the Old Testament. More
important
than the choice of descriptive terms is what is
meant by their use. If
the terms are merely descriptive and analogical,
then a problem
does not seem to exist with their use; but if an
identification of
hermeneutical approach is asserted,
then the distinctives of the
New
Testament perspective are minimized.
In summary the role of the progress of
revelation in this discus-
sion is a major one.
Consequently a careful reader will seek to avoid
being insensitive to the historical progress of God’s
revelation.
Wrong
emphases exist on all sides of this issue, including the
denial of the original Old Testament meaning, the
denial of the
314 Bibliotheca Sacra-October-December 1985
influence of the events of Christ’s life on the
New Testament
authors’ reading of the Old Testament, and an
excessive or unclear
identification between the
hermeneutics of early Christianity and
first-century Judaism.
Differing
Texts
This issue is one about which the majority of
evangelicals are
most aware. The question is this: Do not certain New
Testament
uses of the Old Testament require an altering of the
Hebrew text in
such a way that fulfillments are possible only
because the text has
been altered? The alterations are often used by nonevangelicals to
show the nonprophetic,
haphazard, and nonauthentic use of the
Old
Testament by the New, especially in passages attributed to
Jesus and the earliest church.
Evangelicals have usually answered this charge
in one of two
ways. One reply is to assert that since
first-century
multilingual, Jesus and the early
church on occasion used the
Greek text. This reply avoids the basic issue, which
is this: If the
inspired text is the original text (which is
usually reflected in the
Hebrew
version), then how could the New Testament authors have
cited a flawed translation? A second reply is to
argue that whenever
the Greek text is cited against the Hebrew text,
then ipso facto the
Greek
text represents the original text or the Greek text represents
what was an original but now lost Hebrew text.18
Another approach is to wrestle with the change
by working at
the hermeneutical and semantic level. Alteration of
wording can be
seen in one of several ways. The first is to
distinguish between the
textual form of the citation (i.e., what Old Testament text was used)
and the conceptual
form of the citation (i.e., what point the text is
making). In making this distinction, a basic question
needs to be
asked: Could the point of the passage be made from
the Hebrew
text, given the speaker's understanding of Old
Testament biblical
theology and his understanding of the events of
Jesus’ life up to the
point in question? In all the passages treated in
Luke-Acts, the
answer to this question was that the theological point
could have
emerged from an understanding of the Hebrew
wording, so the fact
that Luke used a Greek
Old Testament text is irrelevant as a charge
against the historicity of the event. 19
Second, in other cases alteration of wording has
clearly
occurred and the above basic question about a
Hebrew origin for
the text can still be answered positively, and yet
a question remains
Evangelicals
and the Use of the Old Testament in the New 315
as to the legitimacy of the change (e.g., the use
of Ps. 68 in Eph. 4,
the dual use of ku<rioj
for two distinct Hebrew terms in Ps. 110, or
the
change of meta tau?ta from Joel 2:28 to e]n
e]ska<taij h[me<raij
in Acts 2:17). Acts 2:17 is a good example of an
interpretive biblical
theological change, in which the “after this” in
Joel is interpreted
correctly as “the last days.” No first-century Jew
would deny that
Joel
2 dealt with the eschaton.
His question would have been, Is
today that time? And that was the point Peter was
trying to argue.
So
a change may be interpretively grounded in larger biblical
theological concerns
of history.
Third, sometimes the wording was changed because
a larger
literary context, either around
the passage itself or around the
theme of the passage, was being invoked without
citing all the
verrses.20 So alterations could
occur in New Testament texts for
biblical theological grounds (whether this biblical theology emer-
ges from historical events
or other biblical texts or motifs) that were
broader than the verses being cited. The area of
differing texts is a
complex one, but this need not raise charges of
arbitrary her-
meneutics or a lack of
historicity in these citations. 21
Conclusion
Recent discussions on the use of the Old
Testament in the New
have resulted in four distinct evangelical
approaches to this issue.
Also
the debate has isolated four areas of concern for evangelical
hermeneutics: dual authorship,
language-referent, the progress of
revelation, and the problem of differing texts.
Work still remains to
be done, especially in the area of semantics, in
historical issues
related to the progress of revelation, and in
handling in detail all the
specific passages with these concerns in mind.
But this outline of
the discussion shows that the framework for an
overall satisfactory
approach to this issue does exist, even if some
details still need
working out.
The theses of this article are four: (1) A
distinction between
divine intention and the intent of the human author is
to be made;
but both intentions are related in their basic
meaning and that
relationship can be articulated. (2)
Meaning involves the sense of a
passage and not primarily the referents of a
passage; but the
language of an Old Testament passage and its New
Testament
fulfillment can be related in terms of referents in
one of several
ways. (3) The progress of revelation affects the
detailed understand-
ing of Old Testament
passages in specifying details about the
316 Bibliotheca Sacra-October-December 1985
completion of the promise and the completion of salvific patterns in
God’s revelation. But one should always
be aware of (a) what was
originally understood by the human author at the
time of the
original revelation and (b) what God disclosed
about the details of
that revelation through later revelation or through
events in Jesus’
life. (4) New Testament alterations of Old Testament
texts were
neither arbitrary changes to create fulfillment
in the New Testa-
ment nor reflections of
later church theology placed back anach-
ronistically into the lips of Jesus
or the early church; rather they
reflect accurate biblical theological
considerations of the New Testa-
ment authors on the original
Old Testament text.
Of course the test of such theses is whether
they can be related
to all the specific examples from the text.
Several supporting exam-
ples have been supplied,
usually in notes or parentheses, for con-
sideration in evaluating this
approach. It is hoped that this
overview has helped (a) present fairly the
different approaches to
this area within evangelicalism. (b) distinguish clearly the key
issues facing evangelicals in this area of
hermeneutics, and (c)
suggest avenues of solutions for these issues,
while recognizing
the recent valuable work and contributions of many
evangelicals of
different persuasions who have worked so
diligently on these mat-
ters. The author also hopes
that in being rather eclectic with the
various approaches, the wheat has been
successfully retained from
each view while the chaff has been left behind.
Notes
1
Darrell L. Bock, "Evangelicals and the
use of the Old Testament in the New, Part
1”
Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (July-October
1985):209-23.
2
This hesitation with regard to Waltke’s position results from the tact that he
claims to hold to the original author’s intent: and
yet in his example from Psalm
2:6-7
he moves from an “earthly” to a “heavenly” reference between
the old dispen-
sation and the new. Such a shift in understanding seems to leave
the Old Testament
prophetic intention somewhat unclear. So this
writer places Waltke here with a
question mark as to whether this description of
his view is really an accurate one
(Bruce
K. Waltke, “Is It Right to Read the New Testament into
the Old?” Christianity
Today, September 2, 1983, p.
77).
3
Walter M. Dunnett.
The Interpretation of Holy Scripture
(
Nelson Publishers. 1984), p. 60.
4 Ibid., p. 62.
5
A
full treatment of example texts is beyond the scope of this article. The
description given of the relationship between the
human and the divine author in
these Old Testament-New Testament passages reflects
studies by the present writer
in Luke-Acts, his teaching of a doctoral seminar
on the use of the Old Testament in
the New, and teaching a course on the master’s
level jointly with Donald R. Glenn.
whose aid in articulating these issues has been
indispensable. The views stated
here are the authors and not necessarily Glenn’s.
Evangelicals
and the Use of the Old Testament in the New 317
A sample listing of texts reflecting the authors
views might be as follows: (a) in
full consciousness (i.e., directly prophetic): Psalm
110; (b) in ideal language: Psalm
16
(where the psalmist is confident of deliverance but the details of the “how” of
the
deliverance are not entirely clear in light of the
language of the whole psalm) and
Isaiah
52:13-53:12; (c) in language capable of an expansion of reference and
context (i.e., in the progress of revelation):
Hosea 11:1, with use of the concept of the
corporate solidarity of the Son with the nation;
and (d) in language that involves a
pattern of fulfillment (i.e., topological
prophetic); Isaiah 7:14: Psalm 2: Psalm 16
(possibly if the above categorization is not correct); Psalm
22; Psalm 69; Exodus
fulfillment language in the New Testament; Isaiah
52:13--53:12; and Deuteronomy
18.
Often the difference between “ideal language” and “language capable of expan-
sion” is slight and
debatable. Other passages make use of both “ideal language” and
pattern of fulfillment” (e.g., Isa.. 53 is classified as “ideal language” because by the
point of Isa. 53, the
servant figure is described in highly individualized language).
The
author sees “language capable of expansion” as drawing heavily on theological
concepts outside the passage in question (the
theological presuppositions or her-
meneutical axioms of the New
Testament author) to complete its fulfillment, while
“ideal language” makes decisive use of only material in the
cited text. If one prefers
to think of “ideal language” as a subcategory that
can operate either in the progress
of revelation category or in the pattern category
such an approach could be
defended. The author prefers the term “pattern”
to typology for reasons he has
defended elsewhere (Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern
[
6
This area needs more study by
evangelicals in light of recent discussions and in
light of issues raised in semantics and the history
of hermeneutics.
7
Douglas Moo. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (
Almond Press. 1983),
pp. 75-78, 387-97. Moo probably belongs in the historical
school, but lie is certainly aware of the semantic
issues.
8
J. P Louw. Semantics of New Testament Greek (
1982),
pp. 39-66. See Bock. “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the
New. Part 1.” p. 222, n. 16.
9 The
basic question is the one raised by Waltke’s article
in Christianity Today,
especially when he calls the New Testament
fulfillment a “literal” fulfillment. Dis-
pensationalists have the best way to
unify the Testaments on this issue, by arguing
for a “both/and” fulfillment rather than an “either/or”
approach.
10 Dunnett is sensitive to this distinction in referring to
the importance of
starting with the original context, while Waltke’s approach seems less sensitive.
Much
teaching, exposition, and preaching can create a misimpression when it
insensitively and without
qualification reads back a teaching into an earlier text
without making clear that that detailed teaching
may not have been what the
human author had in mind for his audience at the
time. Rather it should be clear
that this teaching is what God Was ultimately
pointing toward, as His whole
revelation later clarified.
11 Some
of these referential relationships do not deal directly with meaning but
with significance, that is, they deal not with what
the passage meant or declares
(meaning) but why it is relevant to another situation (significance).
Some of these
relationships between sense and
referent are unclear as to which side of the
meaning/significance distinction they fall.
More work by evangelicals is needed on
this issue as well.
12 Bock,
“Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Part l,” pp. 216-19.
13 It is
remarkable how often in key fulfillment passages in Luke-Acts, the Jewish
interpretation also had an
eschatological strain that elevated either wisdom, the
Torah,
the Messiah, or the end time in general as the final fulfillment (Bock,
Proclamation from
Prophecy and Pattern. chaps.
2-5).
318 Bibliotheca Sacra-October-December 1985
14 Bock. “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old
Testament in the New, Part I,” p. 223, n. 24.
15
Corporate solidarity is seen in “the
one and the many” concepts of the Old
Testament. An example is the servant figure of
Isaiah. who is seen as the nation or
as an individual. The use of pattern is shown in
the reuse of Exodus or creation
motifs in the Old Testament prophets. These hermeneutical
perspectives are part of
the Old Testament theology.
16
A term like “midrash”
is variously used in scholarly literature to refer to
“Jewish
exposition in general,” to “the application of the Scriptures to a new
Setting,” or to “a specific type of literary
genre of Jewish literature.” A term like
“pesher” can refer to “any eschatologically focused exegesis that declares that this
form, where a direct reference to the mystery
revealed by the pesher interpretation
is required. On midrash see Gary Porton,
“Defining Midrash,” in The Study of
Ancient Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1981),
1:55-92.
On pesher see M. Horgan. Pesharim:
Books (Washington: Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1979).
17 By
authenticity reference is made to its technical meaning in New Testament
studies, that is, that a passage is authentic if
it comes out of the historical setting
from which it claims to arise. Many critics argue
that New Testament uses of the Old
Testament
that claim to emerge in a Semitic
context from Jesus’ life or from the
make their point, cannot be authentic historically,
since Jesus would have used a
Semitic
text with its Semitic wording, as the
The
argument ignores the fact that it is inherently likely that a Greek text or
tradition would use the Greek Old Testament to
render Old Testament passages for
the sake of the audience rather than engaging in
retranslation. This latter point,
however, simply pushes back the question to the
level of the historical background
of the passage's argument; it does not answer the
charge. Jesus’ authentic use of
Psalm
110 is often rejected by the use of this argument. But see Bock, Proclamation
from Prophecy and Pattern, on Luke 20:41-44: 22:69: and Acts 2:34-35.
18 The
text-critical argument is complex because in the first century various
versions of both the Greek and Hebrew Old
Testament text were in existence.
Therefore
this argument is a possibility that must be reckoned with. However, it is
difficult to use this argument in instances where only
the Greek Old Testament text
has the adopted reading, while none of the extant
Hebrew manuscripts do--which
is often the case. For a recent work comparing
texts and often using this argument,
see Gleason L. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno,
Old Testament Quotations in the New
Testament: A Complete
Survey
(Chicago; Moody Press, 1983).
19
Bock. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, especially the treatments
of
Psalm
110: Psalm 16: and Isaiah 55. Of course, these examples do not deal with the
situations where the wording of the Greek text is
used in a Greek setting to make a
point. For all such situations see points 4-10 in
note 21.
20
Some say that this is what is occurring
with Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4. The line
cited is not so much a verbatim quotation as a
summary citation drawing on the
rest of the context of Psalm 68, which suggests God
blesses those who fought with
Him. However, some do not think Psalm 68 is cited at
all in this passage, since the
introductory formula need not be
invoking Scripture. W. Hall Harris III, a colleague
of this writer, has made this suggestion to the
present writer. C. H. Dodd has
championed the view that often New Testament
writers refer to the larger context in
citing a passage (According
to the Scriptures (London; Collins. 1952)).
21
Moises Silva
in his article “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament, in
Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and
John Woodbridge (
Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), pp. 150-57,
lists eight possible approaches to
dealing with an Old Testament citation in the
New to describe what might be
occurring. To his list, the writer after dividing
one category (nos. 4 and 5 are
Evangelicals
and the Use of the Old Testament in the New 319
combined by Silva) adds one more (no. 8).
1. Corruption in the transmission of the Hebrew
text.
2. Corruption in the transmission of the LXX.
3. Corruption in the transmission of the New Testament text.
4. The Masoretic understanding and
pointing of the text are correct over that
of the LXX.
5. The LXX understanding and syntactical
arrangement of the text are cor-
rect. (This is less
commonly the case.)
6. Both the Masoretic
text and the LXX are correct, that is, legitimate harmony
exists.
7. The New Testament quotation of the LXX has
included an erroneous part of
the LXX translation which
the New Testament author is not affirming.
8. The New Testament quotation of the LXX
contains a figure different from
that in the Masoretic text, but the point made from the figure is
exactly the same as
in the Masoretic
text (e.g., Ps. 40 in Heb. 10) or is close enough to the Masoretic
text
so as not to be a problem
(perhaps Ps. 8 in Heb. 2 is an example).
9. The difference is trivial (and the biblical
author affirms it). Silva rightly
rejects this category
10. The New Testament draws on an interpretive
tradition about the passage
from Judaism. This tradition
draws on a context larger than the passage itself.
including nonbiblical
sources, and represents an interpretation of the text that the
New Testament author
supports. (This last category is how Silva solves the Heb.
11:21 problem he
discusses, thus revealing his agreement with the Longenecker
school.) This last category is
much discussed, and more work needs to be done in
evaluating its validity.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
www.dts.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at:
Thanks to Linh Tran for help in
proofing.