The prophetic hermeneutic shows how the Old Testament writers were exegetes and theologians. They legitimately developed certain theological implications from antecedent Scripture via new revelation, and set up for others to continue their logic. At times, this produces a chain of texts spanning from the Old Testament and setting up for the New.

 

The question is whether or not the New Testament picks up on this chain. Does the apostolic hermeneutic continue the prophetic hermeneutic (hermeneutical continuity)? Quite a few evangelicals argue in the affirmative. Even though they might not agree how this exactly works in individual cases, scholars like Kaiser, Beale, Hamilton, and Bock contend that at the core the apostles used the Old Testament contextually.[1] I would join my own voice to that chorus.

 

Nevertheless, as discussed in the last chapter, not everyone agrees. Some argue the New Testament writers use the Old Testament noncontextually because they utilized the methods of their contemporaries.[2] Others argue God gave the apostles insight into the full and hidden meaning of the Old Testament (sensus plenior).[3] To either view, the Christ event justifies a reinterpretation of the Old Testament.[4] There are many reasons why godly people have held to these views. The issues are complex, as we have seen.

However, we cannot avoid this question of hermeneutical continuity. We are at a critical juncture in the discussion. The way the biblical writers read the Bible has bearing upon how we study it. If the Old Testament does one thing but then the New Testament abandons that method for something different, how does that shape us as interpreters of Scripture? The question is substantial. So while the issue of hermeneutical continuity is complicated, it is one that we need to deal with. In some ways, that is what this entire book is trying to address.

While the above solutions may seem compelling, I propose the New Testament writers do not use the Old Testament noncontextually but robustly contextually; they pick up the network of Old Testament texts established by the prophets. We can see this deductively in the way they introduced Scripture, by the way they described their ministry, as well as the manner in which they correlate Old Testament texts. Such evidence argues the apostles claimed to use the Old Testament per its original intent. Of course, many might point out a variety of instances when they do not seem to do so. These numerous examples are the reason why the issue is so difficult in the first place! Accordingly, I will cover these texts and show how the continuity of the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutics can help resolve these passages. Together, these factors suggest the apostles asserted hermeneutical continuity with the prophets and did so. The apostolic hermeneutic continues the prophetic hermeneutic.

INITIAL EVIDENCE FOR CONTINUITY

I acknowledge that the best way to defend hermeneutical continuity is by going through every example of the New Testament’s use of the Old. I will address some of the most difficult passages shortly. Nonetheless, some overarching pieces of evidence support hermeneutical continuity as opposed to discontinuity. Though they might not be definitive, these factors lean us in that direction.

Introductory Formulas

One of the most direct ways to access the hermeneutical rationale of the apostles is to examine how they introduce their Old Testament quotations. These formulas provide initial indicators into how they applied previous revelation. They also give insight into how the apostles thought about the nature of the Old Testament and helped to define the relationship between their new revelation and older revelation.

I examined nearly two hundred instances of introductory formulae, a lot of which were repeated phrases that many are familiar with.[5] For example, a common introduction is “for it is written” (cf. Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:10; Acts 1:20; Rom. 8:36; Gal. 3:10). Other formulae are shorter with only “because” (ὅτι) or “for” (γάρ) (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 7:17; 8:5; James 2:11; 1 Peter 3:10; 5:5). Another frequent type of formulae revolves around comparison. The New Testament writers often say “just as it is written” (καθὼς γέγραπται) or “just as” (καθὼς) or “as” (ὡς) (cf. Mark 1:2; Luke 2:23; John 1:23; 6:31; 12:14; Acts 7:42; Rom. 3:4; 9:25; 1 Cor. 2:9; Heb. 4:3). Other introductions posit the Old Testament as the foundation for the argument. They claim what is said is “according to the Scriptures” (κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς; cf. Rom. 4:18; 1 Cor. 15:3–4; James 2:8; 2 Peter 2:22). Another introduction states the discussion is in harmony with what was previously written (Acts 15:15). Finally, we probably are quite familiar with formulae that assert the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture (ἵνα πληρωθῇ; cf. Matt. 2:15, 17, 23; 21:14; Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37; John 15:25; Acts 1:16; 3:18; James 2:23).

We may notice a pattern in all of these examples. They all claim in some way that the Old Testament is the grounds or basis for the apostles’ reasoning.

“For,” “because,” or any other causal statement assert the Old Testament is the reason behind or support of the New Testament claim. The “just as” formulas posit the Old Testament as the basis for comparison, which make it the grounds for the New Testament’s conclusion. Similarly, the statement of “according to the Scripture” (and the like) make the Old Testament the basis for the apostles’ argument. Even the fulfillment formulae fundamentally show how the Old Testament works out into the New Testament. Accordingly, these formulas introduce Scripture as the foundation for and proof of the legitimacy of the New Testament writers’ conclusions. Put differently, by using such language, the apostles argue their words are consistent with and build upon their Old Testament counterparts. This sounds a lot like the continuity of prophetic and apostolic hermeneutics.

Thus, the introductory formulas indicate the apostles continued the intent and rationale of their predecessors. That is the primary thrust of what we can observe from these statements. Nonetheless, we can make some additional observations from these formulas about how the apostles thought about the Old Testament.

First, their use of introductory formulas implies they believed in authorial intent as well as the confluence between human and divine authors. We have already discussed this in chapter 2. The fact that they use the “Scripture,” the human author, and God interchangeably implies that they believed there was unity between the three. Namely, the Scripture speaking is the same as God speaking, which is the same as the intent of the human author (cf. Matt. 3:3; 4:14; cf. 2 Peter 1:20–21).[6] As just discussed, their desire was to honor and be consistent with that intent.

Second, the apostles do not view the human authors of Scripture as ignorant. Instead, the apostles’ introductory formulas assert the prophets understood the ramifications of their writings. For instance, Jesus points out David must have known Psalm 110:1 referred to Messiah (Matt. 22:43). Peter makes a claim David knew the Messiah must be raised (Acts 2:25, 34). Paul understood the author of Genesis knew the gospel implications of “in you all nations will be blessed” (cf. Gal. 3:8).[7]

These indicate the apostles did not believe they were finding a hidden meaning in Scripture but one already intended.

This also hints the apostles believed in the directionality of the Old Testament just as the prophets intended. In fact, while Peter acknowledges the prophets did not know the exact circumstances or timing of their prophecies, they did know they spoke to a future audience (1 Peter 1:10–12). This too supports a sort of directionality in the Old Testament.

Third, the way the apostles introduce Scripture shows they believed the meaning of the Old Testament is sufficient without any need for modification. This was already implied in our above discussion on introductory formulae. We can further see this when there is no (or barely any) introduction. For instance, the author of Hebrews quotes a series of texts about the Son and angels with little more than “But of the Son/angels he says” (Heb. 1:5–13). Similarly, certain passages will only contain “it is written” or “it was said” (Matt. 5:38, 43; Luke 19:46; Rom. 10:8, 20–21). In these cases, Old Testament texts are simply stated and it appears the apostles presume the reader will understand. By doing this, the apostles arguably did not believe their readers needed more revelation to interpret the meaning of the Old Testament text. What their audience already knew about the Old Testament was completely adequate.

What did the apostles claim to do with the Old Testament? Do they assert they read it in new ways, reinterpret it, or find a new meaning in the text? The introductory formulae demonstrate the opposite.8 These statements assert that the apostles quote the Old Testament as the grounds for their argument and conclusion. As such, they claimed that their rationale is based upon those truths. The formulae even show how the apostles were aware of the prophets’ complex knowledge and directionality, key parts of the prophetic hermeneutic. All of this points to the fact that the apostles, through the introductory formulae, claimed to continue the prophetic hermeneutic. They do not claim to change the Old Testament but to abide in it. As we consider how the New Testament’s use of the Old, we need to take that claim seriously.

This excerpt is taken from The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles  © 2018 by Abner Chou. Excerpted and used by permission arrangement with Kregel Publications, a division of Kregel Inc. All rights reserved.

References

[1] Kaiser, “Single Meaning, Unified Referents,” 88–89; Beale, “Jesus and His Followers,” 387–90; Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman,” 30–32; Bock, “Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts,” 106–7. Within this, Bock would lean toward revelation filling in more gaps the prophets had whereas Kaiser would be Within this spectrum, I would lean toward Kaiser over Bock especially relative to certain messianic prophecies. I think the prophetic hermeneutic and antecedent revelation helps to support how the prophets (at times) spoke of the Messiah. Nevertheless, there are cases exegetically when there are more “gaps.” In those instances, Bock’s general approach is correct and not in total opposition with Kaiser. All are in the spectrum of acknowledge the dominance of the context of the Old Testament in the apostles’ logic. All affirm that new revelation works within the significance of prior revelation.

[2] Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 142–43; Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period.

[3] Moo, “The Problem of Sensus Plenior”; Brown, “The History and Development of the Theory of Sensus Plenior.”

[4] Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 152.

[5] Special thanks goes to Chris Williams, who helped me compile and collate these introductory formulas.

[6] Notice how one text states that God spoke through Isaiah the prophet (Matt. 4:14) but in Matthew 3:3, Isaiah speaks the prophecy.

[7] See Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 227–28; George, Galatians, 225; Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, 142.