Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

Exegesis and Interpretation

Beale, G. K.

• Editorial: Baker Academic
• Año: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781441240255
• Categoría: Theology & Religion
• Categoría: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

This concise guide by a leading New Testament scholar helps readers understand how to better study the multitude of Old Testament references in the New Testament. G. K. Beale, coeditor of the bestselling Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, focuses on the "how to" of interpreting the New Testament use of the Old Testament, providing students and pastors with many of the insights and categories necessary for them to do their own exegesis. Brief enough to be accessible yet thorough enough to be useful, this handbook will be a trusted guide for all students of the Bible. "This handbook provides readers with a wonderful overview of key issues in and tools for the study of the use of the Old Testament in the New. I expect it to become a standard textbook for courses on the subject and the first book to which newcomers will be directed to help them navigate through these sometimes complex waters."-- Roy E. Ciampa, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

1

Challenges to Interpreting the Use of the Old Testament in the New

Before proceeding to suggest guidelines for studying the OT in the NT, readers should be generally aware of several classic debates that have arisen over the way the NT writers and Jesus use the OT.

How Much Continuity or Discontinuity Is There between the Old Testament and the New?

The most important debate is about whether the NT interprets the Old in line with the original OT meaning. Does the NT show awareness of the contextual meaning of the OT references to which it appeals? How much continuity or discontinuity is there between the original meaning of the OT passages and their use in the NT? Scholars give conflicting answers to these questions.

The Debate about the Influence of Jewish Interpretation on the New Testament Writers

One widely held position is that Jesus and the writers of the NT used noncontextual hermeneutical methods that caused them to miss the original meaning of the OT texts that they were trying to interpret. In doing so, they were influenced by their Jewish contemporaries, whether in earlier rabbinic midrashic exegesis, Qumran scrolls, or Jewish apocalyptic literature. Today we generally regard noncontextual methods as illegitimate. While they refer to the OT, they do not interpret it in a way consistent with the original meaning of the OT passage.[1] For example, it is held that the NT allegorizes various OT texts, reading in foreign meanings that completely miss the earlier meaning of the OT author. Some scholars conclude that such uncontrolled interpretations are but one of the many ways the NT bears the mark of human fallibility.

Others agree that at certain places the NT writers missed the meaning of the OT yet believe that they were guided in their interpretation by the example of Christ and by the Spirit. Thus, while their interpretative procedure was flawed, the meaning they wrote down was inspired. Accordingly, though we cannot imitate their interpretative methods today, we can trust their conclusions and believe their doctrine.[2] It is comparable to listening to preachers whose interpretation of a particular passage is clearly off the mark, but what they say is good theology and found elsewhere in the Bible, though not in the passage they are expounding.

Thus many would conclude that an inductive study reveals an oft-occurring disconnection of meaning between NT writers’ interpretations of the OT and the original meaning of that OT text. Examples of such alleged misinterpretations include:[3]

1. Ad hominem argumentation: the role of angels in revealing the law in Gal. 3:19; the exodus “veil” theme in 2 Cor. 3:13–18; and the “seed” of Gen. 12:7 (KJV) and 22:17–18 in Gal. 3:16.
2. Noncontextual midrashic treatments: the understanding of baptism and the “following rock” in 1 Cor. 10:1–4; Deut. 30:12–14 in Rom. 10:6–8; Gen. 12:7 (KJV) and 22:17–18 in Gal. 3:16; Ps. 68:18 in Eph. 4:8; Hosea 11:1 in Matt. 2:15.
3. Allegorical interpretations: Deut. 25:4 in 1 Cor. 9:9; the use of the OT in Gal. 4:24; Gen. 14 in Heb. 7.
4. Atomistic interpretations, uncontrolled by any kind of interpretative rules: Isa. 40:6–8 in 1 Pet. 1:24–25.

However, some scholars are more optimistic about the NT authors’ ability to interpret the OT.

It is not at all clear that noncontextual midrashic exegesis was as central to earlier Pharisaic and Qumran exegesis as is suggested by scholars favoring the approach we have described above. First, it may not be appropriate to speak of a noncontextual rabbinic method before AD 70 since most examples come from later, and earlier ones that can be dated with probability do not appear to reflect such an uncontrolled interpretative approach.[4] Second, concern for contextual exegesis is characteristically found in both Qumran scrolls and Jewish apocalyptic.[5] This analysis has far-reaching negative implications for the argument of those who believe that early Christian interpreters were influenced by a prevalent Jewish hermeneutic that was not concerned about the original meaning of OT passages.

But even this assumption of Jewish influence on NT exegesis of the Old may be questioned. It sounds a priori plausible that the interpretative procedures of the NT would resemble those of contemporary Judaism. And yet, since early Christianity had a unique perspective in comparison with early Judaism, one should not assume that first-century Jewish and Christian exegetical approaches are mostly the same.[6] To assess the issue, it is necessary to look at the NT itself without prejudice about methodological continuity or discontinuity. Though this is a debated assessment, it is not unusual. For example, along these same lines, Richard Hays has declared:

Rabbinic Judaism, no less than early Christianity, represents (along with the Qumran community and Philo’s scholastic Alexandrian Judaism, inter alia), one of several different adaptations of the religious and cultural heritage represented by Israel’s Scriptures. These different adaptations should be studied, at least initially, as parallel phenomena, related but distinct dispositions of that heritage. To argue that one of these phenomena represents a source of influence for another is likely to be misleading unless some documentable line of historical dependence can be demonstrated. One thing that is clearly documentable is that all of them deliberately regard Scripture as source and authority for their own quite different theological developments. Thus, we are undertaking a valid and necessary (even if preliminary) task when we inquire independently into the way in which any one of them uses scriptural texts.[7]

This is not a conclusion reached only by more conservative American or English scholars. For example, Hans Hübner in his Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments concludes that the key to Paul’s interpretation of the OT is not found by seeing Judaism as the determinative influence on him. Rather, the way NT authors handle their Scripture should be analyzed first from their own writings, independent of Jewish methods of interpretation.[8]

Furthermore, it is not certain that the typical examples of noncontextual exegesis adduced above are really conclusive. A number of scholars have offered viable and even persuasive explanations of how they could well be cases of contextual exegesis.[9] In addition, even if it were granted that they are convincing examples of noncontextual hermeneutics, it does not necessarily follow that they are truly representative of a wider hermeneutical pattern in the NT.[10] They may be exceptional rather than typical.

A substantial and sometimes neglected argument against the view that the NT uses the OT differently from its original meaning is C. H. Dodd’s classic work According to the Scriptures.[11] In brief, Dodd observes that throughout the NT are numerous and scattered quotations that derive from the same few OT contexts. He asks why, given that the same segment of the OT is in view, there are so few identical quotations of the same verse; and second, why different verses are cited from the same segments of the OT. He concludes that this phenomenon indicates that the NT authors were aware of broad OT contexts and did not focus merely on single verses independent of the segment from which they were drawn. Single verses and phrases are merely signposts to the overall OT context from which they are cited. Furthermore, he concludes that this was a unique hermeneutical phenomenon of the day, in contrast to Jewish exegesis. He goes on to assert that since this hermeneutical phenomenon can be found in the very earliest strata of the NT traditions, and since such innovations are not characteristic of committees, then Christ was the most likely source of this original, creative hermeneutic, and from him the NT writers learned their interpretative approach.[12]

Some disagree with Dodd, and indeed many scholars in this field generally affirm that the NT writers often employ a noncontextual exegetical method.[13] Nevertheless, others have confirmed Dodd’s thesis about the NT’s unique and consistent respect for the OT context.[14]

The Testimony Book Debate

Additionally, some scholars have contended that the NT writers took their OT quotations from a so-called testimony book, which contained various kinds of proof texts (testimonia) commonly used for apologetic reasons.[15] If this were the case, then the NT authors would not have been using these OT references with the literary context of the OT in view. Others have qualified the hypothesis of one testimony book and have proposed that there were excerpts of Scripture texts on various topics made by individuals and used either privately or circulated more generally.[16]

This qualified view of excerpted Scripture lists, if true, would still point to the likelihood that the NT writers were not interpreting OT passages holistically in the light of their literary context, but were merely using texts from an abstracted list of selected OT verses. Some argue for the existence of such lists because similar lists were found with the Qumran scrolls and among the writings of the later church fathers; they claim that these findings point to the existence of such excerpts among apostolic writers like Paul. In addition, such lists appear to be the more likely source of the NT writers’ OT references, since whole manuscripts of OT books would have been expensive and not easily available. Accordingly, someone like Paul would presumably have made his own anthological lists from such manuscripts possessed by more wealthy Christians in the various places where he traveled.[17]

Since C. H. Dodd believed that his conclusions about the NT authors’ awareness of the context of OT references show that a testimony book did not exist, some have said his arguments do not have as much force against the idea that there were multiple testimony books or especially excerpted Scripture lists of different kinds. Other scholars have concluded, however, that Dodd’s arguments still hold, even if several testimony books or excerpted testimony lists also existed.

The most balanced view appears to be that such excerpted lists did exist but that the NT writers also had access to actual OT scrolls containing whole books. In addition, they would likely have committed a number of OT books or segments thereof to memory, which to some extent would also have naturally occurred through their having been saturated with liturgical readings of Scripture sections in synagogue worship. The probability that authors like Paul were not limited to accessing excerpts is indicated by a spate of works appearing since Dodd’s According to the Scriptures, works showing that NT writers were aware of the broader OT contexts from which they cited specific verses. A good example of such works most recently is by Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, and others have followed in his wake.[18] But even if NT writers were often dependent on such testimony books, since they would also have been familiar with the OT and memorized portions of the OT, as we have posited just above, would it not be that such individual testimony quotations would invoke for them the wider context of that cited verse? In this respect David Lincicum’s conclusion is on target: “The more convincing such readings [with contextual awareness of the OT] may be shown to be, the less likelihood there is that Paul was solely reliant upon a collection of excerpta.”[19]

The Christocentric Debate

The influence of contemporary Jewish interpretation and dependence on lists of excerpted Scripture verses are not the only reasons that certain scholars see NT writers as interpreting the OT contrary to its original meaning. Some believe that the apostolic writers were so christocentric in their understanding of the OT that they read Christ into passages that had nothing to do with the coming Messiah. In so doing, they (allegedly) distorted the meaning of the OT writer by reading in their presupposition that all of OT Scripture points to Christ.[20] Similarly, others believe that many of the NT authors were so caught up in defending Christ as Messiah that they twisted OT passages to support their viewpoint about the truth of the gospel.[21]

On the one hand, according to traditional exegetical criteria, this christocentric misreading of the OT is counted by some as mistaken interpretation. On the other hand, those of a more postmodern bent (see below), while acknowledging that the OT meaning has been distorted, would merely say that modern interpreters have no right to impose their standards of interpretation on the ancient writers and judge them by those standards. Still others of a more conservative persuasion, while agreeing with the postmodern assessment, claim that what we moderns might view as a defective interpretative approach of the NT authors resulted in a divinely inspired doctrinal conclusion. That is, the apostolic writers preached the right doctrine but from the wrong texts, though the interpretations they wrote down were done so with divine authority.

But does a christocentric presupposition necessitate a misreading of the OT? It certainly could, but must it? The answer to the question depends to a large degree on how one defines what is a christocentric hermeneutic. Some prefer to call this a “christotelic” approach, but this faces the same problem of finding a precise definition. In addition to the vagueness of definition, a christocentric or christotelic approach is one of a number of presuppositions that the apostles held in their understanding of the OT. A later chapter discusses this presupposition in the light of other presuppositions in order to obtain a more precise and balanced perspective of it. Then we can further address the question about whether such an interpretative assumption reads into the OT a foreign idea that distorts the original meaning.

In addition, a case-by-case study of each instance of a purported christocentric or christotelic interpretation of OT passages would need to include careful exegetical examination before one could determine whether distortion of the OT’s meaning has taken place. Even after such thorough investigations, however, scholars will still disagree. There is one criterion, however, that can eventually point us in the right direction for solving this difficult issue: Do such analyses show that these christocentric readings reveal an awareness of the broader OT context and provide satisfying rhetorical and insightful interpretative and theological readings of both the OT and NT contexts? Or do these readings reveal significant discontinuity between the OT and NT contexts? This will not be an absolute guarantee of deciding the issue, since interpretation is a subjective enterprise whereby what satisfies and appears insightful to one interpreter will not be so to another interpreter. Nevertheless, I believe that there is sufficient corroborating and cumulative hard evidence in this task that can provide us a way forward in debating this in the public domain, which involves comparing one’s presuppositions with the assumptions of others who disagree.[22]

The Rhetorical Debate

Still others affirm that writers like Paul were not primarily concerned to use the OT to convey its contextual import but rhetorically to persuade readers to obey their exhortations. Thus only the wording of the OT is appealed to without consideration for its sense—in order to enhance the NT writer’s apostolic authority in a “power move” to make the readers submit.[23] Some contend that NT writers would not care about what an OT verse means in its context since the majority of the readers/hearers in churches would have been gentiles, lacking the educational background to read the OT and appreciate its significance. Furthermore, such a view likely entails that even if many had possessed such an educational preparation to be able to read Greek, since they were recently converted pagans, they would not have had any exposure to the Greek OT. Consequently, in either ca...