Customer Reviews

Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The book begins with an introduction by Dr. Jonathan Lunde which serves to frame the interaction which follows. He identifies the central question as being the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament authors' intended meaning. Surrounding this central issue he identifies five "orbiting questions":

1. Is sensus plenior an appropriate way of explaining the NT use of the OT?
2. How is typology best understood?
3. Do the NT writers take into account the context of the passages they cite?
4. Does the NT writers' use of Jewish exegetical methods explain the NT use of the OT?
5. Are we able to replicate the exegetical and hermeneutical approaches to the OT that we find in the writings of the NT? (12)

The participants in this discussion (Walter Kaiser, Darrell Bock, and Peter Enns) articulate their positions by addressing these questions and by illustrating how their view works in particular biblical texts.

First, Walter Kaiser argues for the "single meaning, unified referents" view. Whereas many scholars see a problematic disparity between the NT authors' meaning and that of the OT authors, this perspective claims that closer exegetical investigation reveals complete harmony between the two. Kaiser goes even further down this line of thinking by arguing that the Old Testament writers understood where their prophecies were moving. Consequently, he rejects any appeal to sensus plenior or to the use of Jewish exegetical methods to explain any supposed tension.

Second, Darrell Bock argues for the "single meaning, multiple contexts and referents" view. While acknowledging that there is disparity between the NT and the OT meanings, he nevertheless argues that they are fundamentally connected. He makes this move through employing the distinction of "sense" and "referent." While there may be a disparity on the level of "referent," there is a unity on the level of "sense." Therefore, like Kaiser, he seeks to vindicate the NT authors' reading of the OT. However, unlike Kaiser, he is quite willing to appeal to sensus plenior and to the use of Jewish exegetical methods in order to explain what the NT authors were doing.

Third, Peter Enns argues for the "fuller meaning, single goal" view. Out of all three views, Enns allows for the greatest amount of tension between the meaning of the OT and NT authors. Although he affirms that we must factor in the questions of sensus plenior and typology, he rejects the usage of these concepts to attempt to remove this tension. On the contrary, he claims that the NT authors did not always respect the context of the OT passages to which they refer. However, he agues that this isn't a problem because they used Jewish exegetical methods which were appropriate to their time and context, and most importantly, because they properly read the OT Scriptures with a "Christotelic" hermeneutic.

Dr. Kenneth Berding then concludes the book by offering a summary of these three positions (with a very handy summary chart on page 240), by noting the "benefits" and "potential problems" of these three views, and by offering a "probing question" to each of the contributors.

Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is an excellent introduction to this topic and I highly recommend it. Dr. Jonathan Lunde and Dr. Kenneth Berding are particularly to be thanked for the following reasons.

First, the project which they have undertaken here is much needed. Those who have given the topic of the NT's use of the OT some attention will know that it is one of the most challenging and yet most fruitful areas in biblical studies. Beyond the obvious essential of doing good exegesis of both Old and New Testament texts, it further requires of students that they give particular attention to textual, hermeneutical, and canonical considerations. Beyond this, beginners are faced with the challenge that there is relatively little introductory level secondary literature in this area. This book helps to fill this gap in the literature by providing students with a substantial yet accessible introduction to this subject.

Second, although books of the "Counterpoint" variety aim to introduce to the major viewpoints rather than to break any new ground on their subject, the framework for this topic outlined by Dr. Lunde in his introductory chapter (i.e., the central question with its five "orbiting questions") provides readers with a new way to break down the issues in order to more effectively organize their thoughts and determine where they stand. This point could easily be overlooked, but it is worth noting. Whereas many of the other counterpoint volumes have topics in which there are already clearly delineated positions, such is not the case with this topic. While there have been some attempts to do this (see, for example, Darrell Bock's own attempt: "Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New [part 1]," Bib Sac 142:567 [Jul 1985], 209-223), there have not been many. In any case, I believe that readers will find Lunde and Berding's approach to be especially helpful.

Rather than delve into a few of my somewhat minor criticisms and my general disappointment with Kaiser's contribution, I conclude this already overly lengthy review on a more appropriately positive note--a quote from Dr. Lunde: "If the church wakes up to this dimension of the NT use of the OT, it will recover the profound perspective that the first Christians had in relation to Jesus--a perspective that enlivened a mission that changed the world." (http://www.christiansincontext.org/2008/11/interview-with-ken-berding-and-jon.html accessed on December 1, 2008).

"Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old" is a collection and interaction of three essays on the topic of how to understand the New Testament authors' use of the Old Testament. The three contributors to the book are Walter Kaiser (single meaning, unified referents view), Darrell Bock (single meaning, multiple contexts and referents view), and Peter Enns (fuller meaning, single goal view). Each of the three lengthy chapters includes an essay by one of the contributors espousing his view followed by two short responses by the other contributors.

Co-editor Jonathan Lunde lays the conceptual foundation for the rest of the work in the introduction and orients the reader to the book's primary question when he writes, "When New Testament authors appeal to OT texts in order to support or validate their arguments, the relationship between their meanings and that which was originally intended by their OT forebears is the central question" (pg. 11). In addition to this central question the contributors are also asked to address five "orbiting questions" in their essays. These five questions are:

1. Is sensus plenior an appropriate way of explaining the NT use of the OT?
2. How is typology best understood?
3. Do the NT writers take into account the context of the passages they cite?
4. Does the NT writers' use of Jewish exegetical methods explain the NT use of the OT?
5. Are we able to replicate the exegetical and hermeneutical approaches to the OT that we find in the writings of the NT?

The five questions provide the conceptual framework for the contributor's essays and encapsulate some of the specific points of debate in the overall discussion. The general purpose of the work as a whole is modest. Lunde again writes "We are seeking simply to expose our readers to a range of approaches to some of the questions posed by this issue, in the hope that their understanding will be deepened at various levels, enabling them to evaluate conclusions..." (p. 10). The book unquestionably achieves this overall goal and serves as a valuable resource to any student of God's Word wishing to explore the NT use of the OT.

I would firmly recommend this book to any student of Scripture who is seeking to understand the issue at hand more fully. Even if one does not agree in total with any one particular view presented, one will quickly come to an understanding of the questions that must be answered and will make progress in seeking to become "a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

Do the New Testament writers use the OT in its grammatical historical sense, or do they give it a deeper meaning unforeseen by the OT writers? These questions and more are developed in this volume. Walter Kaiser defends the single meaning, unified referents viewpoint. He believes that the NT writers presented Christ as the fulfillment of the OT, and that they didn't bring out a deeper meaning unforeseen by the OT writers. Kaiser rejects the notion that 1 Peter 1:10-12, 2 Peter 1:19-21, and John 11:49-52 are examples that support the sensus plenior (deeper meaning viewpoint) reading of the text. Moreover, he presents John 13:18 as a direct fulfillment of Psalm 41:9, Acts 15 as a direct fulfillment of Amos 9:9-15, and Acts 2:30-35 as a direct fulfillment of Psalm 16.

Darrell Bock effectively counters Kaiser, noting that Psalm 41 probably had an initial application to Ahithopel's betrayal of David, and that Psalm 16 was probably the Psalmist's reflection on his own experience in its initial application. But Bock contends that the general meaning of Psalm 41 remains the same in the NT: It's about a good king being betrayed by a friend. Similarly, Psalm 16 is about a future beyond the grave.

In Bock's own essay, he develops this idea more fully. He notes that Psalm 2 is about people opposing God and His regent king, and Acts 4 sticks with this same meaning, only that the enemy of God is not just the Gentile nations, now it is Israel in their opposition to the apostles!

Peter Enns goes on to say that the NT writers did not always stick with the original meaning that the OT writers had in mind. He believes that Paul and other NT writers used pesher, midrash, and other hermeneutical tools that were prevalent during the era of Second Temple Judaism. His best example was probably Matthew's use of Hosea 11. Hosea is talking about how God called Israel out of Egypt and Matthew describes this text as being fulfilled when Christ and his parents were called INTO Egypt (Matthew 2).

Kaiser counters by saying that the common thread is the expression "My son." Christ's ancestors were alive when they were called out of Egypt, and so Christ himself, in a sense, was being called out of Egypt in Hosea 11. But I found this to be an extremely weak counter. Hosea 11 goes on to say "The more I (God) called, the more they strayed." Did Christ himself go astray from God?

My answer would be that Christ as the exemplary Israelite relives Israelite history in His own experience. He fulfills Hosea 11 analogically. Just as God called Israel into and then out of Egypt, God called Christ into and then out of Egypt. In other words, I'm sort of in line with Bock. Matthew sticks with Hosea's general meaning: God's son being called into and then eventually out of Egypt. This view is also the one presented by Craig Blomberg in his commentary on Matthew.

I think three essays made very good points. None of the writers landed a knockout blow, but my own view seems to be similar to Darrell Bock's. I should also mention that the opening essay of this book presents the five or six questions that Bock, Kaiser, and Enns answer as they deal with these issues.

If you're interested in the relationship between the testaments, I think this is a great place to start, but not the final word.

"Out of Egypt I called my son." With these words from Hosea, Matthew seeks to demonstrate that Jesus' escape from death into Egypt was in some way a "fulfillment" of Scripture. Understanding what Matthew is doing by quoting this Old Testament text entails a host of questions about the hermeneutical practices of the New Testament writers.

Editors Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde provide readers with a snapshot of the wide interpretive spectrum of answers given to these questions. As part of Zondervan's Counterpoints Series, this volume features three views defended by Walter Kaiser, Darrell Bock, and Peter Enns. Each scholar makes a case for his position and briefly responds to the other two presentations.

Recognizing the complexity of the New Testament's use of the Old Testament, Berding and Lunde have the "modest" goal of exposing their readers to "a range of approaches to some of the questions posed by this issue" (10). They focus the discussion on "the relationship between the meanings intended by the OT authors in their texts and those derived from those texts by the NT authors" (10). For the editors, this question possesses the "requisite density to lie at the center of the gravity in this discussion" (10). In analyzing the idea of intended meaning, the contributors also address the related issues of sensus plenior, typology, the Old Testament context, Jewish exegetical methods, and whether or not contemporary interpreters should replicate the approach of New Testament authors.

The essays themselves are brief but substantive engagements of the topic. Kaiser argues that between the Old Testament and New Testament text there is a single meaning with unified referents. He denies that New Testament authors employed sensus plenior or any other Jewish exegetical methods and affirms that the typologies they find are warranted from the Old Testament context. Bock argues for a single meaning but with multiple contexts and referents, which allows for a moderate use of sensus plenior, typology, and similar Jewish interpretive techniques. He still seeks to maintain a "stable meaning" that relates in some way to the Old Testament context. Enns argues that there actually is a fuller meaning in the New Testament text, thus affirming that New Testament authors freely employ sensus plenior with minimal relation to the original Old Testament meaning. For him, the two authors share a single goal (Christ) but not a single textual strategy.

One strength of this volume is its overall structural focus. Berding and Lunde concentrate the dialogue around the central question of authorial intent. Lunde's introduction frames the discussion and introduces the important terms and concepts, and Berding's conclusion summarizes and systematizes the answers given in the essays. This format allows for an orientation to the debate and enables the reader to interact critically with the positions.

Though the presentations cover common ground, each author does have his own particular emphasis. For instance, Kaiser couches most of his essay as a strong polemic against the use of sensus plenior, and Enns spends the bulk of his essay defending the legitimacy of viewing Second Temple Judaism as the key to the whole debate. This unevenness in the presentations seems somewhat disconnected from the clear structure that Lunde sets forth in the introduction. Though the editorial bookends provide clarity and a balance of emphasis, the essays do not always share this trait.

Another strength is the amount of example texts used by the contributors. In the course of the book, quite a few of the important texts in this debate are exegeted or analyzed. However, because each author chooses to elaborate and focus on different texts in his essay and the responses are necessarily brief, it is sometimes unclear how each of the views would respond to a given text. Having each contributor deal with the same major case studies (e.g., Matthew's use of Hosea 11), would have embedded the responses in the flow of the book, thus demonstrating what is at stake in exegesis more clearly.

Despite this concern, in the overall interchange, there are numerous examples that enable the reader to see quickly the differing interpretations of the authors. To give one example, in Acts 4:25-26, Peter's sermon includes Israel in the "nations" that rage against God's anointed in Psalm 2. For Kaiser, Peter's interpretation is "not too surprising" (154), while for Bock, it "only takes one reading to see the surprise here" (129). For Enns, Peter's sermon exemplifies "the radical nature of the early church's use of the Psalm 2" (163). Seeing this type of interpretive spectrum is helpful in analyzing the differing approaches and is common throughout the book.

Though the "panel discussion" format allows for a quick comparison of three views, it also inevitably omits several from the discussion. With this issue in particular, there are many nuanced positions worth considering (e.g., John Sailhamer's emphasis on compositional strategy or Richard Hays' interest in intertextuality). A further example of an unaddressed issue is the Old Testament's use of the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament authors developed and employed patterns and techniques as they utilized texts and themes from the Pentateuch and other foundational passages. Some of these authors were even from the period of Second Temple Judaism (e.g., the Chronicler and the editor of the Psalter). The contributors do not typically consider the possibility that the writers of the New Testament may have adopted these previously established textual strategies.

There are limitations to this work, but the editors have anticipated most of them. They accomplish their modest aim of providing a basic framework and encouraging believers "to think more intentionally about broad connections between the OT and NT" (243), making this volume a helpful introduction to this key issue in biblical theology.

This review might appear to be bipolar but there is a reason for the madness!

First, this book is great for someone entering into the debate. Kaiser has argued consistently throughout the years the NT uses a consistent historical-grammatical hermeneutic when using OT texts. Enns stands on the opposite side of the spectrum arguing NT authors used Jewish hermeneutics and other variety of methods when dealing with the OT to convey and argue their point, sometimes without any regard for the original context. Bock seems to be in the middle understanding a literal use but also sees an inspired sensus plenior (although I'm not sure he would prefer that term) from time to time in the NT. He might describe it as the NT authors changing the referent in the OT text. This reviewer would prefer not to get into the details of each author but describe why this is a good book.

The three views are not the only views, but they give the reader a glimpse into some of the major views. The introduction and conclusion are particularly helpful as the editor discusses five areas where men disagree. He in essence uncovers much of the skeleton to the debate. After reading this book, the reader will have a good framework to continue his / her study on this issue. Readers will find the book more valuable if he / she takes time to read the conclusion as well. The editor has done a great job of summarizing each view, recognizing each views strength while challenging each view with a good probing question.

So, why 4 stars? 4 Stars exist because of what is missing. Kaiser's article is good, but could be better written. One will only understand him if you are already familiar with his "promise-plan" theology. Kaiser assumes familiarity while the editors should have caught this problem.

Second, the book would have been better had the editors given each author 3 to 5 verses and asked all of them to comment on how the NT is using the OT. This would better allow readers to see and discern the difference between each view. The way it stands now, each author can discuss whatever text he desires. By forcing them to interact with similar texts it would better provide a litmus test for determining the views.

This second problem is big enough in this reviewers mind to declare the book a 4 star. However, having said this, I would still strongly encourage anyone interested in this topic to buy the book. Read the introduction three times, open your Bible, and delve into each man's argument.

I'm a first-time buyer and I had an excellent experience. I'm satisfied with the products and the service was fast, efficient and effective! I hightly recommend it!

Pretty dense theology- hard to grasp the nuances between the views, but I think it's just the nature of the topic. Great introduction before the 3 views are presented to get the uninitiated up to speed. Great Scripture reference in the back- I'll use it when I come across a passage that deals with this issue.

An addition to personal library, do not know when chance will arise to read as seminary still requires another year of reading, no time for personal pursuits at this time.