Three Views on the NT Use of the OT

Andy Naselli — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:45:11 +0000

I’m planning to write my second dissertation on the use of the OT in a passage in Romans, so I am particularly grateful that Zondervan is publishing this volume:

Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Counterpoints. Ed. Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008 (coming November 1, 2008). 256 pp. (More info available here.)

Structure

(The table of contents and an excerpt from chapter 1 is available as a 10-page PDF.)

[Introduction] Jonathan Lunde: An Introduction to Central Questions in the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

View 1. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: “Single Meaning, Unified Referents: Accurate and Authoritative Citations of the Old Testament by the New Testament”
- Darrell L. Bock: Response to Kaiser
- Peter Enns: Response to Kaiser

View 2. Darrell L. Bock: “Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents: The New Testament’s Legitimate, Accurate, and Multifaceted Use of the Old”
- Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: Response to Bock
- Peter Enns: Response to Bock

View 3. Peter Enns: “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the Old in Its First-Century Interpretive Environment”
- Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: Response to Enns
- Darrell L. Bock: Response to Enns

[Conclusion] Kenneth Berding: “An Analysis of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament”

Summary

Lunde frames the discussion by explaining “the gravitational center and five orbiting questions” (pp. 10-35).

NT writers frequently use the OT in ways that at least appear to imply meanings that eclipse or diverge in some way from those of the original authors. How is the relationship between these intended meanings to be understood? This is the gravitational center for the discussion contained in this book (p. 11).

Five questions orbit around this center (p. 12):

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?

Berding provides a useful table to summarize how the three views respond to these five questions (p. 240):

	Kaiser	Bock	Enns
Sensus plenior?	No, the prophets knew where their prophecies were heading.	Yes, but only in the limited sense of acknowledging that the OT writers could not always see fulfillments that emerge later.	Yes, because Christ-as-telos holds it all together. This, however, is not the way to resolve the “hermeneutical tension.”
Typology?	Yes, but it must be seen ahead of time and possess “divine indication” that it is a type.	Yes, and fundamental for resolving difficult cases; can be either prospective or retrospective.	Yes, but again not the way to resolve the hermeneutical tension.
Context?	Yes, both the immediate literary context and the antecedent “promise-plan” context are important.	Yes, the immediate “exegetical context” is drawn upon but the “canonical context” is the key.	Sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Use of Second Temple exegetical methods?	No, such comparisons are misguided.	Sometimes yes, but constrained by the NT authors’ commitment to canonical reading.	Yes, and this is the central issue in the discussion.
Replication?	Yes, because the NT authors are careful interpreters just as we should be.	Yes, but particularly in terms of their overall appeal to canonical themes.	Yes, but less in terms of their exegetical methods and more in terms of their “Christotelic” goal.

This book is a fine introduction to a complex topic. I find Bock’s view to be the most persuasive of the three, but as the editors acknowledge, views on the NT use of the OT are not limited to just these three.

Andy Naselli » Peter Enns

Three Views on the NT Use of the OT

Structure

Summary