In establishing how to use the Old Testament (OT) today, a key question is over whether the apostles’ hermeneutical methods were intended to be normative. If they were, then we have somewhere to look for wisdom on how to interpret and use the OT today. This essay first establishes that apostolic methods are indeed normative, before then examining five broad presuppositions to those methods for our use.
To what extent is are apostolic hermeneutics intended to be prescriptive?
Longenecker's presuppositions:
A read through Longenecker’s essay reveals two key presuppositions: The first is that the New Testament writers were happy to quote the Old Testament out of context, and even drew attention to the fact in Galatians 3:10-14 and 4:21-31 in particular.[1] We cannot therefore copy them because their ability to do so was an inspired one, and these methods are not according to the grammatico-historical norms of our day. The second relates to first century contextualisation, suggesting that apostolic hermeneutical methods were merely an aspect of a broader use of the culture of the day as a vehicle for revelation. Therefore the methods themselves are not to be seen as normative, but merely descriptive of what was suitable back then.[2]
Response to Longenecker:[3]
Beale responds to the first, stating that by contrast: "A number of scholars have offered viable and even persuasive explanations of how they could well be case of contextual exegesis."[4] Furthermore, he argues that the evidence for non-contextual Rabbinic exegesis before AD 70 is rare. Indeed, "concern for contextual exegesis is found not uncharacteristically both in
Furthermore, in Galatians 3 the apostle is appealing to scripture to demonstrate to un-inspired believers that Peter was in error.[7] He would not be able to do so if his exegesis had no consistent basis that they could hold in common with him. Indeed, in 3:8 he seems to assume a divine intent within scripture that "declared the gospel beforehand" in the original context "to Abraham." Moreover, the very fact that Paul highlights his argument in 4:21ff as allegorical/figurative perhaps suggests that he wants to raise caution over this particular interpretative method. If so, this would further suggest, (a) that he expects his readers to be adopting his methods otherwise, and (b) that he is prepared to stand somewhat aside from the more questionable contemporary Jewish techniques such as allegory. Indeed, Longenecker notes that allegory is rare in the NT.[8]
The question to be asked over Longenecker’s second presupposition is whether the parallel between apostolic hermeneutics and the contextualisation of the gospel is a valid one? Of course, contemporary thinking may not be that far removed from first century Judeo-Hellenistic thinking, meaning that contextualised norms might apply today anyway. Yet even were this not the case, there is an important difference between hermeneutics and contextualisation: The former is a means of interpreting revelation and so establishing doctrine, whereas the latter, whether the incarnation itself, or descriptive matters of church government etc, are not.
Indeed, if their methods are not normative, then on what grounds can we really know what is a correct hermeneutical method? Longenecker seems to accept Christological and grammatico-historical methods because they are acceptable to contemporary culture. However, Christological interpretation is not necessarily acceptable at all today. Many would argue that it is eisegesis. On what grounds then is it to be adopted, if not the apostolic example? Moreover, within the church, allegory was once culturally acceptable to a greater extreme than demonstrated by the apostles. Would Longenecker argue that this method was unquestionably valid then because it was culturally accepted, despite the fact that even where right doctrine was established the methods of attaining it were particularly dubious and tenuous? Furthermore, does he have any grounds for critiquing the contemporary post-modern technique of deconstruction that can remove the NT text of any meaning whatsoever? If so, then on what basis, unless certain rules for interpretation can be gleaned from the apostles themselves? Longenecker’s response might be that all such methods are valid as long as they are consistent with apostolic doctrine. But this is a chicken and egg scenario, for how is apostolic doctrine established except by presupposed interpretative techniques for both testaments?
Longenecker does actually acknowledge that the apostles "looked to Jesus' own use of Scripture as the source and initial paradigm for their own use," yet also states that they "used many of the same exegetical procedures as were common within the various branches of the then contemporary Judaism, and that they did so quite naturally and unconsciously."[9] Yet the former point would seem to contradict the latter as it suggests that they were not totally uncritical and assuming after all. This is further suggested by the fact that they only used “many of the same exegetical procedures” (my italics). As Beale puts it: "Since early Christianity had a unique perspective in comparison with early Judaism, one should not assume that Jewish and Christian hermeneutical approaches will necessarily have been identical in every way."[10]
Does the NT itself suggest that apostolic hermeneutics were normative?
Although a fair bit of space has been given to Longenecker’s arguments, it is worth asking whether the NT itself suggests that its readers should look to the apostles for an example in hermeneutics. If this is so, then the more technical arguments as to why they are not would a priori be discredited.
Here, two particular points might be made. First, various NT texts suggest that there were right and wrong ways of interpreting the OT,[11] and a key problem was that some of the methods of first century Judaism were in error.[12] Of course it could be said that the Jews were simply applying their own techniques badly. However, at the least, this context would make the apostles very aware of (a) the fallibility of merely accepting contemporary techniques, (b) the importance of ensuring that the early church adopted right practices. It is therefore at least likely that they would have intended their example to be normative, and it is no surprise that at times they seem concerned to highlight more dubious methodology, even when they do use it.[13] Furthermore, Jesus seems to have expected his contemporaries to have understood the scriptures rightly.[14] He doesn't seem to consider his interpretative technique as novel, nor requiring inspiration to be valid. Rather it was the way scripture should be read.
Second, Christ and Paul certainly expected their doctrine and lifestyle to be an example to others,[15] and Paul specifically urges Titus to be a model in "all respects" and speaks immediately of "teaching."[16] Furthermore, as the apostles formed a bridge between Christ and the early church, the fact that Christ clearly set a hermeneutical example to the apostles,[17] together with the common acceptance of this Christ-to-Paul-to-believers pattern would at least imply that the hermeneutical example of the apostles was also to be followed. This is especially suggested in Luke-Acts. The portrayal of the skeletal-gospel in Lk 24:45-49 forms the basic structure to the sermons to Jews in Acts.[18] Yet, it seems that Luke intends Peter's first sermon to suggest that all believers should in some way be following this prophetic Christo-Apostolic model.[19] This is confirmed by the fact that Stephen, Philip, and Apollos are portrayed as doing so.[20] Indeed, Apollos’ evangelism is described very similarly to Paul’s.[21] It might be responded, that this imitation may only have been hermeneutical methods used in evangelism to Jews or God-fearers in that particular culture. But this is to separate the interpretative methods from the doctrinal understanding they prove - a distinction Luke may not have accepted. Furthermore, although Paul used the OT more with Jews, there is no suggestion within the NT that he taught it differently to Jews than he did to Gentiles.[22]
Conclusion:
The sense of the NT itself suggests that apostolic hermeneutical principles, passed on by Christ himself, should be regarded as model for us except where the apostles themselves suggest otherwise; although "we are not allowed to claim for our results the infallibility of the Lord and His apostles."[23] Beale highlights the implications of the alternative: “If the contemporary church cannot exegete and do theology like the apostles did, how can it feel corporately at one with them in the theological process?” Furthermore, “if Jesus and the apostles were impoverished in their exegetical and theological method and only divine inspiration salvaged their conclusions, then the intellectual and apologetic foundation of our faith is seriously eroded?” [24] It would seem then, that to suggest that apostolic hermeneutics are not normative is to undermine the whole basis of Christian epistemology.
What hermeneutical methods did the apostles model?
Although Longenecker and Greidanus are unprepared to accept all apostolic methods as normative, they do accept those that are consistent with grammatico-historical exegesis.[25] In reality, this means rejecting certain specific OT usages,[26] but not the presuppositions that lie behind them. Here, a certain degree of consensus can be found, as seen in Appendix A. Five broad apostolic presuppositions to interpreting and using the Old Testament today seem to predominant. We will deal with each in turn.
1. The Old Testament must be read Christologically
Such methodology seems to be the clear model of Christ himself.[27] Indeed, he seems to assume that his contemporaries should have realised that the OT should be interpreted in this way.[28] Goldsworthy talks in terms of the gospel being central, yet defines this as "the person and work of Jesus Christ:" Jesus is God's means of salvation,[29] all scripture makes us wise to such salvation,[30] therefore all scripture is about Christ,[31] and all its history is to be seen as structured around this end.[32] Scripture is therefore to be interpreted not from past to present, but present to past, just as one sees so much more in a field of flowers if they are seen from the direction they face in being turned towards the sun.[33]
Beale comments that this latter point explains how Sensus Plenior might be understood, as the NT develops the OT "in a way which is consistent with the Old Testament author's understanding of the way in which God interacts with his people-which is the unifying factor between the Testaments."[34] Thus, the original intent of the author included broad assumptions and expectation with respect to God's action that encompassed that action in Christ. These broad assumptions are consistent with our further four NT presuppositions below.
Two key Christological questions therefore need to be asked for any OT text: (1)"What does this passage reveal about Jesus Christ?" And then (2) Which more specific models of NT interpretation lead to "the incarnate Christ?"[35] Greidanus' seven[36] might then be considered, whilst bearing in mind his warning against separating Christ from his purpose of glorifying God. Christological interpretation should therefore restore "the throne and dominion of God in the souls of men."[37]
2. The OT must be read redemptive-historically
Here, the assumption is of redemptive history being overseen by a sovereign God who is consistent in his character and action, and reveals himself cumulatively through that history. OT interpretation must also therefore be theocentric, asking the questions; (1)“What does this passage reveal about God and his will?”[38] (2)How is God’s character and action patterned in Christ? (3)How is his will at the point of the text cumulatively unfolded to Christ?
Dodd asserted that the New Testament writers quoted from large sections of the Old Testament, suggesting that they were concerned for the theological and redemptive-historical contexts to those quotes.[39] Likewise, Beale sees this perspective as "the wider literary context within which the New Testament authors interpreted Old Testament passages."[40] Thus any Old Testament text must also be interpreted not grammatico-historically, but grammatico-redemptive-historically. The original intent of the author should be ascertained in the light of the original genre and social and geographic contexts, as the point in history within which it was written needs to be accounted for.[41] Yet it must also be interpreted canonically and according to the whole plot-line of the bible; “from creation to new creation” as focused on Christ.[42] However, within the cosmic plan of God, the text also reflects the life of the nation and often also of individuals, and so their place within God’s purposes also needs consideration and interpretation.
3. The OT must be read eschatologically
In speaking of the
Of course this means that a clearer understanding of promise-fulfilment than is revealed within the “day of the LORD” OT generalisation is necessary for applying it correctly, eg. the relationship between the covenants, law and Spirit/gospel etc.[51] Thus a further two questions might be asked for any OT text: (1)What does this text promise about Christ? (2)How is it fulfilled in Christ? This suggests that to an extent, any OT text must be read in the light of the new. Some might object that this is not to truly read the OT. However, it is not to suggest that all that might be found within the OT is in the new. Rather, that the NT provides insights that will enable the fuller meaning of the OT to be better grasped, and therefore to see more of Christ as he is looked forward to. Indeed, a promise can reveal greater detail about its fulfilment than the fulfilment itself can reveal.
Here, an understanding of eschatology as the source as well as the goal of redemptive history is also necessary. "All things" are accomplished according to God's "counsel and will" to the end that "all things" might be gathered up "in Christ."[52] This brings perspective to the debate over whether the Old Testament should be read OT-NT-OT or NT-OT-NT. Instead, the OT can be read from the reality of eschatological fulfilment in Jesus Christ as its source and goal. The alternative is rather like trying to read a map without knowing where you are going. In the light of Christ, an OT text should therefore be interpreted with an understanding of the Christological significance of redemptive-history to that point, and then follow redemptive-history Christologically (taking into account any multiple fulfilments)[53] to fulfilment in Christ – achieved, applied and anticipated. Beale therefore writes that: "prophetic fulfilment must not be limited to fulfilment of direct verbal prophecies in the Old Testament but broadened to include also an indication of the 'redemptive-historical relationship of the new, climatic revelation of God in Christ to the preparatory, incomplete revelation to and through
4. The OT must be read typologically
Beale goes on to say: "Typology therefore indicates fulfilment of the indirect prophetic adumbration of events, people and institutions from the Old Testament who now is the final, climatic expression of all God ideally intended through these things in the Old Testament (eg. the law, the temple cultus, the commissions of prophets, judges, priests, and kings)."[55] He further states that this "concern for broad historical patterns or significant individuals, institutions and events...should steer us away from illegitimately focusing on minutiae as typological foreshadowings."[56] Such typology is more foundational to OT interpretation than merely one of various possible methods. It actually provides the framework for all interpretation. First, paradigmatically. Wright highlights three angles to God's universal redemptive-historical relationships as God - humanity - the earth. These are then patterned in those of God -
These biblical frameworks aid interpretation in two particular ways. The first helps interpret more fully the actual intent of any passage in terms of the covenantal relationship of God with humanity, Israel, the church etc, and then apply it more exactly to parallel contexts. For example, whether it should be referred to the church relationship, or that of wider humanity. The second, further aids application by suggesting the equivalent point in the respective cycle of redemption to which the text should be related. For example, paradigmatically the oppression of Judges speaks not only to the new
5. The OT must be read from the assumption of corporate solidarity
Key to an understanding of the above is this further assumption. The fall of humanity in Adam suggests that this is an accepted and divinely sanctioned Hebrew concept. It then explains how Christ can be seen as the anti-type to Adam and
Appendix B :
Greidanus’ seven methods of reading the OT Christologically[61]
| The way of redemptive-historical progression | Understand the text in the flow of redemptive history and show how its theocentric truth regarding God’s action relates to Christ. |
| The way of promise fulfilment | Move from the promise to Christ and back again, acknowledging any progressive fulfilments along the way. |
| The way of typology | Where a central OT person, institution or event has a symbolic meaning, carry it forward to Christ. |
| The way of analogy | Consider analogies between what God is and does for |
| The way of longitudinal themes | Plot the development of the theme through redemptive-history to fulfilment in and through Christ. |
| The way of contrast | Show the discontinuity that Christ brings with respect to the application of the text at hand. |
| The way of New Testament references | Interpret the text or subject Christologically as the NT authors did. |
Bibliography :
1. Bayer, Hans F. "The preaching of Peter in Acts" in Witness to the gospel: The theology of Acts, ed. I Howard Marshall, David Peterson, (
2. Beale G K. "Did Jesus and his followers preach the right doctrine from the wrong texts? An examination of the presuppositions of Jesus' and the apostles' exegetical method" in The right doctrine from the wrong texts? ed. G Beale, (Baker)
3. Dodd C H. According to the scriptures, (London, Nisbet & Co, 1952)
4. Goldingay, John. Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation, (Leicester, Apollos, 1990)
5. Goldsworthy Graeme. Preaching the whole bible as Christian scripture, (Leicester, IVP, 2000)
6. Goldsworthy, Graeme. Gospel and kingdom: A Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1994)
7. Goldsworthy, Graeme. The gospel in revelation, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1994)
8. Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999), p.190
9. Jensen, Peter. At the heart of the universe: What Christians believe, (Leicester, IVP, 1991)
10. Kaiser, Walter. Toward rediscovering the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Acadamie Books, 1987)
11. Lewis Johnson Jr, S. The Old Testament in the New, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1980)
12. Longenecker Richard N. "Who is the prophet talking about? Some reflections on the New Testament's use of the old" in The right doctrine from the wrong texts? ed. G Beale, (Baker)
13. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical exegesis in the apostolic period, second edition, p.xxxvi
14. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical exegesis in the apostolic period, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1995)
15. Schluter Michael & Clements Roy. Reactivating the extended family: From biblical norms to public policy in
16. Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin’s doctrine of the word and sacrament, (Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press, 1995)
17. Wright, The use of the bible in Social ethics, Grove booklet on ethics, (Bramcote, Grove Books, 1983)
[1] "There are also times when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament in ways that appear quite out of context" Longenecker Richard N. "Who is the prophet talking about? Some reflections on the New Testament's use of the old" in The right doctrine from the wrong texts?ad hominum in nature...(eg. Paul's catena of polemically motivated passages in Gal 3:10-13, or his argument on the generic "seed" in Gal
[2] "For though the gospel is supra-historical in its origin and effect, it comes from a God who always incarnates his word (as witness the incarnation par excellence, Jesus Christ) and who uses current historical modes as vehicles for his grace (as witness, for example, the sacraments). Why, then, should it be thought unusual or un-Christian for early believers in Jesus to have interpreted their Scriptures by means of the hermeneutical canons then at hand? Indeed, how could they have done otherwise?" Ibid, p.380 Elsewhere he likens this to "visions, ecstatic prophecies, the fleece of sheep" etc no longer being "meaningful" methods "used to interpret God's will and convey God's message." Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical exegesis in the apostolic period, second edition, p.xxxvi
“We have always distinguished between normative and the descriptive in other areas as presented in the New Testament - for example, in matters pertaining to church government...What the New Testament presents to us in setting out the exegetical practices of early Christians is how the gospel was contextualised in that day and for those particular audiences. We can appreciate something of how appropriate such methods were for the conveyance of the gospel then and of what was involved in their exegetical procedures. And we can learn from their exegetical methods how to contextualise that same gospel in our own day...speaking meaningfully to people as they are and think today." Longenecker, Right doctrine, Op Cit, p.385
[3] In agreeing with Longenecker, Greidanus as well as highlighting Galatians 4 as an example of hermeneutics that cannot be copied, refers to the genealogy of Matthew 1, and comments that we would not preach the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3 as a list of fourteen in the same way because this would not be understood today. But, rather than interpreting the OT in the way we have been discussing, Matthew may simply be using a culturally recognised literary device to teach a point. The difference is an important one, because he would not then be expecting his readers to accept that there were only fourteen generations, but rather to see what he was highlighting by listing them in that way. Thus he gives no model of an interpretative technique here, but only an example of how the properly interpreted meaning of 1 Chronicles might be taught in the first century. Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999), p.190
[4] Beale cites Dodd's hypothesis regarding the unique method considering the "broad" OT contexts. Beale G K. "Did Jesus and his followers preach the right doctrine from the wrong texts? An examination of the presuppositions of Jesus' and the apostles' exegetical method" in The right doctrine from the wrong texts? ed. G Beale, (Baker), p.387-8
[5] Ibid, p.388
[6] Ibid, p.389
[7] Gal 2:11-16
[8] Longenecker, Op Cit, p.383
[9] Ibid, p.384
[10] Beale, op Cit, p.388
[11] 2 Tim 2:14-15, 1 Cor 4:6, 2 Pet 3:16b
[12] Jn 5:39-40, Mtt 23:23-24
[13] Gal 4:21-31
[14] Jn
[15] Jn
[16] Tit 2:7-8
[17] Lk 24:25-49
[18] Bayer, Hans F. "The preaching of Peter in Acts" in Witness to the gospel: The theology of Acts, ed. I Howard Marshall, David Peterson, (Cambridge, Eerdmans, 1998), p.259 cf. See the appendix to my essay, What are the common features in the sermons to Jewish audiences recorded in the Acts of the Apostles? (
[19] As all are to prophecy, Acts 2:17-21
[20] Acts 7:1-51,
[21] Acts
[22] Acts 20:20-21
[23] Lewis Johnson Jr, S. The Old Testament in the New, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1980), p.94
[24] Beale, Op Cit, p.404
[25] Ie. where based on a “revelatory stance,” is “merely cultural,” or “circumstantial or ad hominum in nature.” Greidanus, Op Cit, p.191
[26] Longenecker rejects midrashic and allegorical usage, and Jewish manners of argumentation. Ibid, p.190. The Jewish manner of argumentation is certainly culturally specific and interpretation doesn’t depend on it.
[27] Lk 24:25-26, 45-49 cf. Acts
[28] Jn 5:39-40
[29] 1 Tim 2:5-6
[30] 2 Tim 3:15-16
[31]Goldsworthy Graeme. Preaching the whole bible as Christian scripture, (Leicester, IVP, 2000), p.84-85
[32] Ibid, p.88
[33] Greidanus, Op Cit, p.184
[34] Beale, Op Cit, p.393
[35] Greidanus, Op Cit, p.233
[36] Outlined in appendix B for information
[37] Greidanus quoting John Piper quoting Cotton Mather, Ibid, p.181
[38] Ibid, p.230
[39] Dodd C H. According to the scriptures, (London, Nisbet & Co, 1952), p.132-133
[40] Beale, Op Cit, p.394
[41] Greidanus, Op Cit, p.229
[42] Ibid, p.231-233
[43] Mk 1:14-15
[44] Acts
[45] Acts 3:20-21
[46] Acts 1:1-11 Jesus is described as coming just as he went v9-11, but with the mission of the church spanning the two advents v7-8.
[47] Joel 2:28-32 Goldsworthy, Graeme. The gospel in revelation, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1994), p.66
[48] Lk 4:18-19
[49] Ibid, p.71
[50] Goldsworthy, Preaching the whole bible, Op Cit, p.94
[51] A clear understanding of the relationships between the covenants requires another essay, but is key to correct eschatological expectations.
[52] Eph 1:9-11
[53] Greidanus, Op Cit, p.208
[54] Beale, Op Cit, p.396
[55] Ibid, p.396
[56] Ibid, p.400 Such an understanding of the typological presuppositions of the NT writers further suggests that they were not disregarding context when they interpret the OT in this way, but rather were considering the divine as well as the human original intent of the text, understood in its redemptive-historical context.
[57] Deut 4:21-31 and Gen 2:4-17
[58] 1 Pet 2:9-10 and Deut 7:6
[59] Rev 21:1-3 and Lev 26:11-12 Wright, The use of the bible in Social ethics, Grove booklet on ethics, (Bramcote, Grove Books, 1983)
[60] Goldsworthy, Graeme. Gospel and kingdom: A Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1994), p.97
[61] Greidanus, Op Cit, p.203-278