An Examination of the New Testament’s Christological Hermeneutic

BY

DARREN M. SLADE

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015

ii

CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Presuppositions ............................................................................................................................. 1

Dual Authorship .......................................................................................................................... 1

Contemporary Stress on Context ................................................................................................ 3

The Christological Hermeneutic of the New Testament ........................................................... 3

Variation within the Writers ....................................................................................................... 3

Christological Emphasis ............................................................................................................. 5

Presuppositions of a Christological Hermeneutic ....................................................................... 7

Validity of the Christological-Typological Hermeneutic......................................................... 10

Defining Typology .................................................................................................................... 10

Distinction between Intention and Meaning ............................................................................. 11

An Issue of Theology, Not Exegesis ......................................................................................... 12

Should Christians Today Employ a Christological Hermeneutic? ........................................ 13

The Noncontextual Use of Scripture ......................................................................................... 14

Cultural and Exegetical Differences ......................................................................................... 17

The Role of Sensus Plenior ....................................................................................................... 19

The Role of Typology ............................................................................................................... 20

Nine Guidelines for Contemporary Application ...................................................................... 21

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 25

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 27

1

Introduction

When examining the New Testament’s use of Jewish sacred writings, it is understandable

for modern Christians to question the pragmatic legitimacy of the biblical writers’ hermeneutic.1

In discussing Paul’s noncontextual use of Scripture, Steve Moyise remarks, “Behind such

interpretive strategies often lies the question of whether Paul’s use of Scripture offers a model

for how Christians should use it today, and clearly many churches will not want their

congregations changing the wording of Scripture and taking it out of context.”2 The purpose of

this paper is to answer whether Christians today can employ the hermeneutics of the New

Testament writers. It will first present two presuppositions to the research before describing the

christological hermeneutic of the early church and the validity of the New Testament’s

interpretive suppositions. Finally, it will discuss the New Testament’s exegetical conventions

and suggest nine guidelines for modern Christians to employ. In the end, the New Testament’s

christological presuppositions are valid for the implementation of sensus plenior and typology.

However, modern Christians should limit their imitation of the New Testament’s hermeneutic to

only those christological presuppositions while avoiding noncontextual exegetical practices.

Presuppositions

Dual Authorship

Before examining the New Testament’s hermeneutic, it is important to present the

presuppositions of this study. First, this investigation presupposes that the canonical Scriptures 1 Because the New Testament writers did not possess an “Old Testament” or always consult the Hebrew canonical Bible, this investigation will refer to their sources of revelation as “Jewish sacred writings” or other variants of that label (see Dennis L. Stamps, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as a Rhetorical Device: A Methodological Proposal,” in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006], 10-11). 2 Steve Moyise, Paul and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 124.

2

possess a concursive dual authorship of both human and divine agents. This was not only the

belief of Jewish exegetes in the first century, but it was also the belief of the New Testament

authors regarding their own writings (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).3 For the contemporary interpreter, the

issue of divine inspiration primarily relates to the discussion of socio-religious authority and the

establishment of exegetical standards.4 To answer whether Christians today can imitate biblical

practices depends on whether the Christian believes there is an inherent authority and sacredness

to the biblical texts. If there is not a divine author, then the interpretive methodology of the New

Testament simply becomes an intellectual exercise with little relevance for interpreters today.5

This also requires delineating between the text’s “meaning” and “significance.” Using E.

D. Hirsch’s differentiation, this investigation assumes that “meaning” is anything the author

expresses in the text, whether the object of that expression is direct, indirect, implicit, or allusive.

“Significance,” on the other hand, refers to the application of the author’s “meaning” to a

situation apart from the original author’s circumstances.6 However, suggesting that the divine

author intended a different meaning from the human author would prove methodologically

disastrous. There would need to be criteria to detect false interpretations of the divine author’s

meaning if it were different from the biblical text. Since only the biblical writings are available,

3 See Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 6 and Ben Witherington III, What’s in the Word: Rethinking the Socio-Rhetorical Character of the New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 158-64. 4 See Douglas J. Moo, ed., “The Problem of Sensus Plenior,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books, 1986), 175-211. For the negative implications of this presupposition, see Gerrie Snyman, “Identification and the Discourse of Fundamentalism: Reflections on a Reading of the Book of Esther,” in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 195 (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 191-202. 5 William W. Klein, Craig Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 17-21. 6 See his full discussion, E. D. Hirsch Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967), 1-67.

3

no such criteria could possibly exist. Thus, this investigation assumes that the divine author

meant at least whatever the human author meant. Nonetheless, it is not necessary to assume that

the divine author was in full congruity with the human intentions. Being finite, the human

authors may have intended only a limited application of their particular meaning, whereas the

divine author intended a larger significance because of God’s ability to see future applications.7

Contemporary Stress on Context

Secondly, contemporary exegetical practices often stress the importance of interpreting

Scripture in its original context in order to identify the intended meaning of the divine-human

authors. Because the divine author chose to communicate grammatically and rhetorically through

the social contexts of the human author, this investigation agrees with the need to preserve the

meaning of Scripture in its historical context. It also assumes that the preferred exegetical

practices for modern Christians are both the historical-grammatical and socio-rhetorical methods

of interpretation. This will allow contemporary exegetes to discern God’s message, eliminate or

alleviate erroneous interpretations, and apply God’s message to today.8

The Christological Hermeneutic of the New Testament

Variation within the Writers

According to Klyne Snodgrass, the New Testament writers show evidence of utilizing

ancient Jewish interpretive methods when treating Jewish sacred writings. Specifically, the

7 Vern Sheridan Poythress, “Divine Meaning of Scripture,” Westminster Theological Journal 48, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 241-79; Moo, 198-201, 203-4. 8 For a defense and guide to both historical-grammatical and socio-rhetorical interpretive methodologies, see J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God's Word: A Hands-on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005); Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993); George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, Studies in Religion (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation; Stamps, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as a Rhetorical Device;” and Witherington, What’s in the Word.

4

writers adopted the Jewish practices of midrash-pesher. Midrash refers to the exposition of

Scripture that isolates specific applications from the texts. Rather than act as a commentary,

midrashic interpretation oftentimes focused on individual words or letters to the neglect of the

historical context. Snodgrass believes the New Testament writers utilized Midrash in passages

such as Matthew 6:26, 12:1-8, and Galatians 3:8-14. Pesher, on the other hand, sought to identify

the person or event that providentially fulfilled a biblical passage, even if that particular section

is not prophetic by nature. He sees Acts 2:17 as an example of pesher in the New Testament.9

Likewise, Steve Moyise concludes that the New Testament has striking similarities to the

interpretive practices of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, the New Testament writers even utilized

the same texts and techniques to prove that they, like the Qumran community, were the

fulfillment of ancient Jewish prophecies and could apply the sacred texts to their particular place

in history. The New Testament writers exercised the same methods as Qumran’s typology,

allegory, altered quotations, heterodox interpretations, and homiletic argumentations, as well as

having capitalized on “catch-word links,” variant texts, and haggadah legends.10

However, G. K. Beale argues that exegetes should not press these similarities too far.

Despite the likelihood that different Jewish communities influenced the New Testament writers,

modern interpreters must not assume that they were exactly the same. It would be misleading to

suggest that a particular Jewish exegetical methodology or community were the direct source of

the hermeneutics of the New Testament. For Beale, it is far more likely that the early Christians

learned to interpret Scripture from Christ and, thus, developed a habit of viewing all contexts in a

9 Klyne Snodgrass, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 41-43. 10 Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction (New York: T&T Clark, 2001), 128-37.

5

christological fashion.11 Dennis Stamps concurs and emphasizes the varied nature of the Jewish

milieu, remarking that different Jewish traditions were far from monolithic. In fact, terms such as

“midrash” and “pesher” are generic designations for the diversity of exegetical practices present

at the time and do not actually describe a single form of interpretation.12

Regardless, it is apparent that the New Testament writers themselves were not uniform in

their interpretation of Scripture. Even the same author would approach the Jewish writings with a

different strategy, emphasis, or methodology depending on its rhetorical function.13 Christopher

Stanley remarks about Paul, “Quotations from Scripture play a variety of roles in Paul’s

argumentation. Most common is the appeal to authority….But Paul also adduces the words of

Scripture for other reasons: to illustrate or exemplify a point; to provide the premise for an

argument; to draw a lesson from a biblical character or event; to say something in a particularly

apt manner, etc.”14 The original audience’s biblical literacy also determined the extent of Paul’s

use of Scripture, suggesting that the other New Testament writers may have also chosen specific

verses depending on the audience’s knowledge of biblical and Jewish traditions.15

Christological Emphasis

It is also safe to assume that the New Testament writers did not practice a historical-

grammatical method of interpretation, either. As Stamps comments, “The Enlightenment-

11 G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 1-5. See also, Moo 192-95. 12 Stamps, 14-15. 13 Ibid., 17-18. See the multiple examples in Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), chaps. 5-8; Moo, 187-92; and Moyise, The Old Testament in the New, chaps. 2-9. 14 Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 173. 15 Ibid., 172-76.

6

informed, scientific, historical-critical approach to Scripture in a post-Christian context is

distinctly different from the way the NT writers understood their interpretative task.”16 Vern

Poythress contends the same: “When later human writers of Scripture interpret earlier parts of

Scripture, they typically do so without making fine scholarly distinctions concerning the basis of

their knowledge. Hence we ought not to require them to confine themselves to a narrow

grammatical-historical exegesis.”17 It is important to recognize the cultural differences between

the ancient writers and exegetes today. The New Testament authors utilized methodologies that

were legitimate for their era. However, those methodologies would be inappropriate today, and it

would be even more inappropriate to superimpose modern practices onto these ancient writers.18

Rather than suggest a monolithic methodology, it is best to recognize that the New

Testament writers had a unique approach to the Jewish writings that focused on understanding

Scripture in light of the advent of Christ. Scholars rightly characterize this hermeneutic as

“christological” or “christocentric.”19 C. F. D. Moule remarks, “Early Christian exegesis of

scripture … was a new and creative thing, albeit rooted also in an antecedent Jewish tradition.

Christ was found to be more authoritative than scripture, but in the sense of fulfilling and

transcending, not of abolishing it.”20 The ancient church viewed Scripture as directly and

personally fulfilled in the person of Christ. This is in addition to believing that Jesus was

16 Stamps, 20-21. 17 Poythress, 279. 18 Peter Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics And An Evangelical Doctrine Of Scripture: Moving Beyond A Modernist Impasse,” Westminster Theological Journal 65, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 266-70; Moyise, Paul and Scripture, 124-25. 19 Stamps, 18. Peter Enns prefers the term “Christotelic” (see Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics And An Evangelical Doctrine Of Scripture,” 277). 20 Charles Francis Digby Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd ed., Black's New Testament Commentaries (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1981), 75. See also, C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952), 110.

7

personally responsible for developing their new hermeneutic, as well as the New Testament

writers’ belief that they were divinely guided in their interpretations.21 This corresponded to both

popular and haggadic beliefs that the Messiah would help elucidate the Torah for Israel.22

Peter Enns explains that it was the conviction of the New Testament writers that Christ

had inaugurated the eschaton, which forced them to return to the Jewish sacred texts in order to

identify where and how Scripture pointed to Christ. This was not a grammatical-historical

endeavor but a christological endeavor. For the ancient church, the Jewish writings had a definite

purpose in pointing to Christ, making the ancient Scriptures incomplete without this

eschatological interpretation. Though this retrospective hermeneutic may be illegitimate today, it

was perfectly acceptable and customary in the first century.23

Presuppositions of a Christological Hermeneutic

In order to understand the New Testament’s christocentric hermeneutic, modern exegetes

must recognize at least five different hermeneutical axioms that fostered their approach to

Scripture. To begin, the New Testament writers believed that Jesus fulfilled the role of Messiah

as prophesied in the sacred texts (cf. Matt. 2:15; Mark 14:49; Luke 4:21; John 15:25; Acts 1:16).

It is this fundamental assumption that develops the rest of their hermeneutical practices, allowing

the church to read Christ into the ancient texts, not vice versa.24 Snodgrass writes, “The early

21 Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, xxxi. For a fuller discussion on the christological hermeneutic and the presuppositions of the New Testament writers, see E. Earle Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen 54 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 101-21. 22 Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 79. 23 Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics And An Evangelical Doctrine Of Scripture,” 266-279. 24 Jonathan Lunde, “An Introduction to Central Questions in the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 36-37; Moo, 181, 194; Snodgrass, 39-41.

8

church applied such texts to Jesus because of their conviction about his identity. The conviction

about his identity did not derive from the Old Testament. They did not find texts and then find

Jesus. They found Jesus and then saw how the Scriptures fit with him.”25 As opposed to other

Jewish communities, the nascent church was not interested in the text of Scripture for its own

sake. Rather, they were first concerned with the kerygma, which demanded that they use the

Jewish writings to defend their new beliefs. Barnabas Lindars explains, “Believing that Christ is

the fulfillment of the promises of God, and that they are living in the age to which all the

Scriptures refer, they employ the Old Testament in an ad hoc way, making recourse to it just

when and how they find it helpful for their purposes.”26

The second presupposition is the belief that the advent of Christ inaugurated the

eschatological age of fulfillment. In other words, the early church believed that the Jewish texts

were being fulfilled in their presence (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 10:11; Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim.

4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 18).27 Through both

direct and indirect prophecy, the whole of Jewish writings pointed to the new covenant age as

fulfilled in the Christian church.28 The difference between the Christian community and other

Jewish traditions is that the latter merely anticipated the end-time age and its imminent arrival

while the Christian community believed it had already begun (cf. Titus 2:11-14).29

25 Snodgrass, 39; emphasis in original. 26 Barnabas Lindars, “The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology: Prolegomena,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 143. 27 Lunde, 37. 28 Beale, 97; Lindars, 141-43. 29 Ellis, 101-5; Longenecker, 78-79; Lunde, 39; Snodgrass, 38-39.

9

The third hermeneutical presupposition is the church’s view of “corporate solidarity,”

which was the common Jewish assumption that a single member of the community could

represent the whole of that community. As Lunde describes it, “The king or priest can represent

the nation [2 Sam. 5:1; 1 Chron. 11:1], an animal can bear sins representatively for all [Lev.

16:15-24, 34.], and a prophet can picture the nation’s fate in his individual life [Ezek. 4-5;

12.].”30 As a result of this notion, the New Testament writers believed that Jesus took on the role

and task of Israel. Christ and his ministry had become the representative of God’s purposes for

the Israelite nation. “The christological titles ‘Servant,’ ‘Son of man,’ and ‘Son of God’ were all

representative titles that were applied to Israel first. Jesus took on these titles because he had

taken Israel’s task.”31 Because the church believed Jesus fulfilled the role of Israel and that they

were an extension and embodiment of Christ, the New Testament writers also extended this

application to the Christian church as the “true” Israel (cf. Rom. 9; Gal. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:9-10).32

A fourth presupposition involves the New Testament’s belief that the Holy Spirit divinely

guided its interpretation of Jewish sacred writings (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-16).33 The early church

recognized that none of the writers, or the hearers and readers of their writings, was able to

understand the christological interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures without divine guidance.34

Moule comments, “The early Christians were conscious that the voice of inspired prophecy, long

silent, had begun once more to be audible; and they therefore used both scripture and the

30 Lunde, 37-38. Snodgrass explains further, “The act of the individual is not merely an individual act, for it affects the community and vice versa. The individual is often representative of the community and vice versa” (Snodgrass, 37). 31 Snodgrass, 37. 32 See Ellis, 110-16; Longenecker, 77; Lunde, 36; and the numerous citations in Beale, 96nn4-5. 33 For a discussion on the New Testament’s “canon consciousness,” see Witherington, 158-64. 34 Ellis, 116-21; Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, xxxi.

10

memories and traditions of the words of Jesus with the creative freedom of the inspired.”35

Snodgrass explains that the New Testament authors believed that the Holy Spirit divinely

inspired their understanding of the deeper significance of ancient prophecies, allowing them to

apply Scripture in ways contrary to their original context.36

Finally, the fifth presupposition concerns a pattern correspondence in salvation-history.

The New Testament authors believed that the past was a foreshadow of God’s anticipated

intervention in future events (cf. Matt. 11:13; 13:16-17). In other words, they viewed God’s past

intervention, as reflected in the Jewish Scriptures, as a pattern for how God would intervene in

the future, as reflected in the ministry of Christ and the church. This had become the basis for a

typological interpretation of the sacred texts, which allowed the ancient church to view

contemporary events as fulfilling and eclipsing the past.37 Defining this as “typology,” Beale

explains, “OT history was understood as containing historical patterns that foreshadowed the

period of the eschaton. Consequently, the nation Israel, its kings, prophets, priests, and its

significant redemptive episodes compose the essential ingredients of this sacred history.”38

Validity of the Christological-Typological Hermeneutic

Defining Typology

Because the presuppositions of the New Testament’s hermeneutic result primarily in a

typological reading of the Jewish texts, it is important to identify whether typology is a valid

approach to understanding Scripture. Beale defines typology as, “The study of analogical

correspondences among revealed truths about persons, events, institutions, and other things 35 Moule, 58. 36 Snodgrass, 34. 37 Longenecker, 77-78; Lunde, 38-39; Snodgrass, 37-38. 38 Beale, 98.

11

within the historical framework of God’s special revelation, which, from a retrospective view,

are of a prophetic nature and are escalated in their meaning.”39 In other words, under the

direction of the Holy Spirit, the apostolic writers identified certain historical narratives about

persons, events, and institutions as indirect prophecies about Christ and his church. This was not

an innovation by Christians. Rather, they adopted the appropriation techniques of Jewish writers

themselves, where later prophets understood previous events from the Torah in a typological

fashion.40 These former persons, events, and institutions gain a larger significance upon an

eschatological-retrospective reading by contemporary interpreters. However, this does not imply

a mere analogical correspondence from one event to another. Instead, the historical narratives

also have an indirect prophetic quality that is in fact foreshadowing a future fulfillment.41

Distinction between Intention and Meaning

The question then becomes whether this christological approach was valid for the ancient

writers or if they had distorted the Jewish texts for their own theological purposes. The problem

with identifying types in the Jewish Scriptures is that the original Jewish authors likely did not

intend for their narratives to have a corresponding antitype in future generations. However, given

the presupposition of a dual authorship, it is imperative that exegetes recognize an exegetical

fallacy that equates “intention” with the human author’s conscious “meaning.” As Philip Payne

explains, the human author’s intention does not necessarily exhaust the total meaning of

Scripture, especially in poetic or prophetic literature. The divine author can intend more than the

human author had intended. This does not imply that exegetes can disregard the conscious 39 Beale, 14; italics in original. 40 See the numerous examples in David L. Baker, “Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 315-317. 41 Beale, 14-18; Moo, 195-98.

12

human intention made plain from the text; it simply means that the dual authorship of Scripture,

as well as the human author’s subconscious intentions, allow for a heightened understanding of

the text’s actual significance.42 There are several examples in Scripture where the human agents

were apparently unaware or did not fully understand the larger significance of their intentions

(cf. Dan. 8:27; 12:8-9; John 11:51; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).43 Therefore, the intended significance of a

text must not be limited only to the human author’s intended meaning. The exegete’s task should

be to understand God’s fuller intention behind the human author’s immediate application.44

An Issue of Theology, Not Exegesis

In this regard, typology was a valid practice for the New Testament authors in the first

century because it not only followed the pattern of earlier Jewish prophets, but it also considered

the entire canonical context of Scripture and the developments of salvation-history.45 The real

dilemma is not whether typological interpretations are valid, but whether the theological

presuppositions that result in a christocentric hermeneutic have merit.46 As David Baker

explains, the fundamental assumption is that God works consistently throughout human history,

which allows interpreters to identify correspondences and patterns between different persons,

events, and institutions separated in time. Because typology is not an exegetical endeavor but is a

study of relationships in salvation-history, the issue of typology is more theological than 42 Given Hirsch’s distinction between “meaning” and “significance,” it is best to understand the divine and human authors as having at least the same intended “meaning” while recognizing that the divine author intended for a larger “significance” than the human authors did. See the “Dual Authorship” presupposition above for details. 43 For a detailed exegetical analysis of 1 Pet. 1:10-12 and its implication that the Jewish prophets did not possess total knowledge of their predictions, see Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 97-106. 44 See the complete discussion in Philip B. Payne, “The Fallacy Of Equating Meaning With The Human Author’s Intention,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 3 (September 1977): 243-52. 45 Beale, 22-25. 46 Moo, 185-86, 198, 211.

13

hermeneutical. The New Testament writers believed that they shared in the same spiritual

experiences as the characters of Jewish Scripture. Thus, it was appropriate for the ancient

Christians to assume that earlier Jewish lives reflected the same divinely inspired events and

institutions as present in the first century church.47

Should Christians Today Employ a Christological Hermeneutic?

The question of whether Christians today should employ the same hermeneutic as the

New Testament writers is paramount for those who take the Bible as authoritative and divinely

inspired. However, in light of the variation in interpretation and application of Scripture by the

biblical writers, it is difficult to answer in either the affirmative or negative. There is no all-

encompassing methodology that defines and describes how each New Testament writer utilized

the Jewish Scriptures. Each author had a slightly different approach to each of the biblical

references, which requires modern exegetes to examine the literary dimensions of each citation

individually to understand the hermeneutical tactic implemented in every occurrence.48

Nonetheless, there are some general observations about the New Testament’s

christological hermeneutic that can provide a suitable answer, which depends on whether the

Christian agrees with the theological presuppositions of the New Testament writers. If this is the

case, then modern Christians should employ those same assumptions when interpreting

Scripture, especially the belief that Christ fulfilled the messianic expectations of the Jewish texts,

inaugurated the eschatological age of fulfillment, and sent the Holy Spirit to guide the New

Testament writers in their interpretations. Likewise, those who believe in the dual authorship of

Scripture should employ the same assumptions regarding “corporate solidarity” and pattern

47 Baker, 321-25. 48 See Stamps, 15-19 and Moo, 187-92.

14

correspondence (typology) when studying the Bible. However, it is inadvisable for modern

Christians to implement the same conventions and exegetical tactics as the first century writers

when they would require taking Scripture out of its original context.49 There must be a

distinction between the New Testament’s hermeneutical goal, which was the centrality of Christ

in salvation-history, and modern exegetical methods, which should discourage contemporary

Christians from altering Scripture for their own theological purposes.50

The Noncontextual Use of Scripture51

Despite attempts to make the New Testament authors appear to engage in sophisticated,

historical-grammatical interpretations of Scripture, there are clear examples of noncontextual

uses by the biblical writers.52 For instance, Paul attempted to prove that the promise made to

Abraham in Genesis 13:15 was to a singular “seed” or “offspring” (Gk. σπέρματι; Heb. ֲזְַרע),

arguing that the promise was actually a reference to Christ (see Gal. 3:15-29). However, the

Hebrew form of the word is a collective noun, meaning that it can be either singular or plural

depending on the context. In this particular case, Paul referenced a context that is specifically

plural. Enns comments, “What is clear is that, in the context of the promises in Genesis, zera’

has an undeniably plural meaning. Indeed, that is the very point of the promises, not that [זְַרעֲ ]

49 Longenecker writes, “Unless we are ‘restorationists’ in our attitude toward hermeneutics, Christians today are committed to the apostolic faith and doctrine of the New Testament, but not necessarily to the apostolic exegetical practices as detailed for us in the New Testament” (Richard N. Longenecker, “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? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994], 385). 50 Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics And An Evangelical Doctrine Of Scripture,” 282-83. 51 By “noncontextual,” this author means to suggest any reference to the Jewish Scriptures that amends, detracts, supplements, allegorizes, or atomizes the texts and, thus, contorts the original meaning for rhetorical or theological purposes. 52 For an extensive list of scholars who agree that the New Testament writers employed a noncontextual exegesis, see Beale, 5n13. Cf. Moo, 187-92.

15

Abraham will have one offspring, but that there will be too many to count!”53 There have been

attempts to assuage Paul’s linguistic argument, suggesting that he intended an ecclesiological or

corporate understanding of Christ and the church.54 However, this merely accounts for Paul’s

reapplication of Scripture. The problem still remains. Paul’s reference to Genesis does not align

with the original context because the promises to Abraham were to a plurality of offspring, not to

a singular Messiah. From reading Genesis alone, there are no textual indicators to suggest that

the biblical author knew of any other reference but to Abraham’s immediate human offspring.

The same could be said about other “fulfillment” passages that do not actually reference

the Messiah in their original contexts. Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my

son,” Matt. 2:15, ESV) is a classic example of the biblical writers engaging in Jewish interpretive

practices that were common in the first century. The original context of Hosea does not refer to

the future Messiah. Instead, it references the past adoption of Israel and her liberation from

Egypt (cf. Exod. 4:22-23).55 Matthew retrospectively interpreted Hosea in light of Christ, which

caused him to reapply Scripture in a fundamentally new way. Though his theological

presupposition resulted in taking the verse out of context, it was an acceptable practice that

mirrored the methodologies of other first century Jewish traditions.56

Moyise demonstrates that Paul’s writings often alter Scripture to fit their rhetorical or

theological purposes, such as engaging in allegory (Gal. 4:21-31), merging different verses into a

53 Peter Enns, “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the Old in Its First-Century Interpretive Environment,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 181; emphasis in original. 54 Cf. Moyise, Paul and Scripture, 40-42 and Darrell L. Bock, “Response to Enns,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 228-29. 55 Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1987), 31:177-78. 56 Enns, “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal,” 198-202.

16

single quote, using variant textual traditions, and exploiting grammatical details. Paul had a

tendency to read more into Scripture than was explicitly mentioned in the text, such as when he

wrote that Ishmael persecuted Isaac (Gal. 4:29). There are also examples of Paul misquoting the

Jewish Scriptures, such as when he cited 23,000 wilderness deaths (1 Cor. 10:8) when the

Masoretic and Septuagint texts state 24,000 (Num. 25:9). He sometimes quoted the Septuagint as

though it were divinely inspired, though the Septuagint adds interpolations not found in the

Hebrew text (cf. Rom. 2:24; Isa. 52:5). Other times, Paul completely changed the wording of

Scripture to make the texts say something different (cf. 1 Cor. 14:21; Isa. 28:11-12), deliberately

quoting only portions of a text in order to alter its meaning for rhetorical effect (cf. 1 Cor. 15:54-

55; Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:23; Isa. 25:7-9; Hosea 13:14). Paul even took verses that were originally

meant for Jews and reapplied them to Gentiles (cf. Rom. 9:25-26; Hosea 1:10; 2:23).57

There are also references to Jewish traditions that do not appear anywhere in the Hebrew

Bible. Enns presents the example of angels mediating the law of God on Mount Sinai (cf. Acts

7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). This appears to be in conflict with the Hebrew texts that indicate

Moses spoke directly with God without the attendance of angels (cf. Exod. 31:18; Deut. 9:10).

Though the exact origin of this angelic belief is complicated, there are strong indications that it

derived from Second-Temple interpretive traditions rather than from biblical exegetical studies.58

Enns writes,

There are other examples, no less valuable but that can only be hinted at here, of NT authors referring to episodes involving OT characters or events that are not found in the OT but that the writers presume their audiences to understand. For example: Jannes and Jambres as the names of Pharaoh’s magicians (2 Tim 3:8); the reference to the quarrel between Satan and Michael over Moses’ body (Jude 9); Noah as a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5); the specific reference to Enoch in Jude 14–15; the reference

57 Moyise, Paul and Scripture, 40-43, 53, 80-81, 91, 93-94, 102, 107-9, 123. 58 Enns, “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal,” 185-97.

17

to Moses’ Egyptian education (Acts 7:22); a mobile source of water during the Israelites’ wilderness wanderings (1 Cor 10:4).59 These extrabiblical references are a challenge to the notion that the New Testament writers were

always concerned with preserving the original context of Scripture. In fact, there are a number of

passages that reflect the noncontextual motifs of other Jewish traditions, suggesting that the New

Testament writers were not interested in a historical-grammatical exegesis of the texts. Instead,

their encounter with Christ resulted in the authors superimposing new meaning onto the original

context of Scripture.60 It is even highly questionable whether the New Testament writers even

knew the original context of Scripture or expected their audiences to know them, as well.61

Cultural and Exegetical Differences

In his attempt to explain away these inconsistencies, Beale comments, “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.”62 Richard Hayes refers to these citations as metaleptic tropes,

suggesting that the New Testament writers utilized the poetical device of metalepsis to cite only

fragments of Scripture in order to stimulate readers into recalling or researching the larger

subtexts of those fragments.63 However, these explanations often assume a great deal of literary

inventiveness and creativity that are more appropriate for a modern day fiction writer or doctoral 59 Ibid., 196. 60 For a helpful survey of numerous passages, see Richard N. Longenecker, “Can We Reproduce The Exegesis Of The New Testament?,” Tyndale Bulletin 21, no. 1 (1970): 16-32. 61 For a detailed study of the unlikelihood that the original audience would have even been able to understand or investigate the original contexts of Scripture, see Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Pearls Before Swine’: Did Paul's Audiences Understand His Biblical Quotations?,” Novum Testamentum 41, no. 2 (April 1999): 124-44. 62 Beale, 4. To support this claim, see his citation of numerous authors who agree (Beale, 4n9).

63 Richard B. Hays, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 42-43.

18

student than rhetoricians and orators of the first century.64 There is a substantial lack of explicit

indications that the original recipients could rise to the level of sophistication needed to

understand how these scriptural references related to the original context.65 Moyise comments

that while some scholars have advocated probing the larger narrative framework to understand

the New Testament’s argumentation, many scholars find this wholly unsatisfying. He writes,

Other scholars point out that there is a huge difference between the cultural values of the first century and the modern world. It is therefore to be expected that Paul does things with texts that were considered legitimate (and persuasive) at the time but would not necessarily be so today. They would argue that there is no reason why we should ‘defend’ Paul from this and attempt to turn him into a modern historical-critical exegete….modern day Christians can learn from how Paul argued in his context, but should not attempt to reproduce it.66 As Enns explains, these noncontextual techniques were acceptable because they believed there

was an inherent mystery behind the text of Scripture. Rather than anachronistically insist that the

New Testament authors respect the original context, modern exegetes should refrain from trying

to manufacture explanations out of a desperate need to rescue the biblical writers. Ultimately,

with enough ingenuity, modern readers can make the authors far more ingenious than the text

really allows. It is important for contemporary interpreters to recognize that the New Testament

primarily imitated the noncontextual conventions that were consistent with other contemporary

Jewish exegetical traditions.67 Douglas Moo concurs and advocates exercising humility when

64 While arguing that exegetes must still recognize the authoritative meaning of certain biblical contexts, Douglas Moo admits that “some ‘conservatives’ can justly be accused of forcing exegetically unlikely harmonizations on texts to preserve doctrinal purity” (Moo, 192). Similarly, Moyise writes, “An obvious danger of an intertextual approach is discovering all manner of allusions and echoes that never entered Paul’s mind” (Moyise, Paul and Scripture, 114). 65 Cf. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 148n30. 66 Moyise, Paul and Scripture, 124-25. 67 Enns, “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal,” 184-85, 193-95.

19

approaching the New Testament, even though it conflicts with modern exegesis, because the

biblical writers conformed to methods that were familiar and acceptable to the first century.68

The Role of Sensus Plenior

Despite these conventions, there is good reason to identify a theological consistency

throughout the Bible. As noted by several researchers, there is continuity between the broad

theological context of the Jewish Scriptures and the specific citations of the New Testament.69 In

other words, the divine intention behind the New Testament may in fact have a greater respect

for the original contexts than the New Testament writers may have known. However misguided,

it is this continuity that surfaces when modern exegetes attempt to unmask the supposed

contextual exegesis of the human writers. In light of their standard noncontextual use of

Scripture, the situation demands an explanation for this theological and contextual solidarity.

The concept of sensus plenior provides the best answer to whether Christians today can

employ the same presuppositions but not the same exegetical conventions of the New Testament

writers. As Raymond Brown defines term, “The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper

meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in

the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the

light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.”70 Given this

paper’s distinction between “meaning” and “significance,” exegetes ought to consider sensus

plenior to be the identification of the divine author’s larger “significance” in application to Christ

68 Moo, 192-95. 69 See the works of Dodd, According to the Scriptures; Hays, Reading Backwards; and the numerous works listed in Beale, 5n14. 70 Raymond E. Brown, The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture (1955; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008), 92; italics in original.

20

and his church.71 Brown writes elsewhere, “The SP [sensus plenior] answers the question of

what the text means in the whole context of God’s plan, a meaning which God, who knew the

whole plan from the start, intended from the moment He inspired the composition of the text.”72

Therefore, given the dual authorship of Scripture and the expanded knowledge that God

has over salvation-history, sensus plenior offers modern Christians a christological hermeneutic

that is not strictly bound to the historical-grammatical or socio-rhetorical approaches. Rather, the

contemporary interpreter can acquire information from the Jewish sacred writings by examining

the totality of salvation-history and the entirety of special revelation.73 Sensus plenior aids a

Christian’s understanding of Scripture by alerting the reader to the incompleteness of the Jewish

texts and the need to interpret those texts in light of revelation’s climax in the person and work of

Christ. As Donald Hanger writes, “To be aware of sensus plenior is to realize that there is the

possibility of more significance to an Old Testament passage than was consciously apparent to

the original author, and more than can be gained by strict grammatico-historical exegesis.”74

The Role of Typology

The use of sensus plenior has a direct correlation to biblical types and antitypes. Baker

argues that typology is the dominant method of interpretation in the New Testament, which

identified the historical continuity of God’s purposes throughout salvation-history.75 However,

71 This is what Moo considers the “canonical approach,” which is his way of alleviating the difficulties with an unnecessarily narrow understanding of sensus plenior (see Moo, 201-9). 72 Raymond E. Brown “Sensus Plenior in the Last Ten Years,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25, no. 3 (July 1963): 278. 73 William Sanford LaSor, “Prophecy, Inspiration, and Sensus Plenior,” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 55-56. 74 Donald A. Hagner, “The Old Testament in the New Testament,” in Interpreting the Word of God: Festschrift in Honor of Steven Barabas, ed. Samuel J. Schultz and Morris A. Inch (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1976), 92; italics in original. 75 Baker, 315, 317. Cf. Moo, 209-10.

21

typology appears to be a subset of sensus plenior’s “additional, deeper meaning.” Hagner asserts,

“The tracing of typological correspondences is a special instance of detecting the sensus plenior

of Old Testament material.”76 Thus, if modern exegetes understand typology as persons, events,

and institutions in the Jewish Scriptures that are incomplete expressions of later incidents in

revelation, then a sensus plenior-typology helps modern Christians recognize the deeper, broader

theological themes that create coherence between the Jewish writings and the New Testament.77

As Baker remarks, “Although it is not a method of exegesis, typology supplements exegesis by

throwing further light on the text in question.”78 Thus, modern Christians can employ the same

hermeneutical presuppositions as the New Testament writers without succumbing to the

noncontextual conventions of first century Palestine.

Nine Guidelines for Contemporary Application

In order to permit the same presuppositions as the biblical writers, there must be

guidelines for how modern Christians ought to interpret the Bible in light of the New

Testament’s use of Jewish sacred writings. Specifically, these guidelines apply to the use of

sensus plenior-typology, since it requires moving beyond modern practices. Enns remarks, “A

Christian understanding of its Scripture can never simply end with this [historical-grammatical]

first reading. What makes it a Christian reading is that it proceeds—and this is precisely what the

Apostles model for us—to the second reading, the eschatological, Christotelic reading.”79

76 Hagner, 94. Cf. Brown, who adamantly precludes the possibility of equating sensus plenior with typology, assuming the former finds meaning in the words of Scripture while the latter finds a fuller meaning only in biblical things or objects (see Brown, The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture, 92). 77 Enns, “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal,” 206-7. 78 Baker, 329. 79 Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics And An Evangelical Doctrine Of Scripture,” 277-78.

22

Nevertheless, these hermeneutical presuppositions require certain guidelines in order to avoid the

problematic trappings of modern interpreters imitating the New Testament’s presuppositions.80

To begin, it is important for modern Christians to recognize that Scripture has only one

“meaning,” which is the intended meaning of the human-divine authors in their original socio-

historical context. The use of historical-grammatical and socio-rhetorical methods of

interpretation will elucidate that meaning for the modern exegete. Nonetheless, while the human

authors had a limited application for their original meaning, the divine author intended a larger

“significance” that extends beyond the original context.

Second, a typological interpretation must treat the relationship between persons, events,

or institutions in salvation-history, rather than the minutiae of biblical depictions such as trivial

details, individual words, or letters. Sensus plenior and typology should treat the overarching

themes inherent in persons, events, and institutions rather than the incidental details that

comprise those themes. This is to prevent reading arbitrary or mystical symbols and allegories

into details that do not have a profound impact on salvation-history. For instance, Rahab’s scarlet

cord is not a type of Christ’s blood sacrifice (Josh. 2:18), though the entire episode may be a

typological example “that genuine faith works itself out in actions” (cf. James 2:25).81 Neither

typology nor sensus plenior is concerned with the grammatical meaning of the words or the

rhetoric of the text. Rather, it is concerned with the events recorded in Scripture.

A third guideline is that sensus plenior requires examining only the Jewish and Christian

sacred writings. This is because the pattern of the biblical writers was to examine older portions 80 The following discussion is adapted from the guidelines presented in Baker, 324-30; Beale, 22-25; Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics And An Evangelical Doctrine Of Scripture,” 281-86; LaSor, 59-60; Moo, 201-11; and Martin Pickup, “New Testament Interpretation Of The Old Testament: The Theological Rationale Of Midrashic Exegesis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51, no. 2 (June 2008): 378-81. 81 D. A. Carson, “James,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 1006.

23

of Scripture and recontextualize those texts to their present situation. The search for typology

was retrospective in nature rather than prophetic. In other words, earlier passages in Scripture

prefigured only future persons, events, or institutions. They did not consider this to be prophecy

but, rather, a correlation between divinely guided historical incidents. The modern exegete

should not consider historical correspondences as future prophecy for the church in the twenty-

first century, since this would confuse the passage’s literary genre and original intention.

Similarly, sensus plenior is only possible when studied in light of further revelation,

which suggests that antitypes exist only in later portions of Scripture and not post-New

Testament activities. Because only events in revelation have the assurance of divine inspiration,

modern exegetes cannot presume to suggest that contemporary headlines or their individual lives

fulfill a divinely intended, larger significance. Modern Christians should make a distinction

between applying Scripture to their personal lives and viewing post-New Testament events as

further revelation in God’s salvation-history. The former is a process of exegetical hermeneutics

while the latter results from an eisegetical reading. This distinction is to prevent specious

interpretations that suggest Scripture prefigured the advent of post-New Testament personalities

or events without the assurance of divine inspiration.82 Legitimate use of typology or sensus

plenior extends only to the explicit revelation of God. The New Testament is the final

explanation of God’s working in Jewish history; it is not another supplier of typological mystery.

A fifth guideline is that a christological hermeneutic must retain an appreciation for the

historical context of the passage by comparing biblical events in history. This implies that

modern exegetes should not attempt to identify arbitrary symbols or concoct fanciful allegories

82 Baker argues that typology is valid for the New Testament, as well, concluding, “It has been shown that the essence of the biblical concept of ‘type’ is ‘example, pattern,’ and one of the primary values of the Bible for the Christian is that it presents examples and patterns of the experience of men and women with God which correspond to the experience of modern men and women” (Baker, 330). However, this is more of a case of expository application derived from standard historical-grammatical hermeneutics than a case of typological fulfillment.

24

that find spiritual meanings behind biblical persons, events, or institutions. The emphasis must be

on historical continuities that find their greater significance in later events, rather than on general

truths or mystical insights. This further implies that sensus plenior need not locate types solely in

relation to Christ or the church. Instead, salvation-history treats issues dealing with creation, the

kingdom of God, and other motifs that are central to God’s working relationship in history.

In addition, the biblical writers who found examples of types and sensus plenior did not

limit themselves to only certain portions of the Jewish texts. Rather, they were concerned with

the entire Bible, thereby making the number of discoverable types and antitypes limitless so long

as they are retrospective in nature. This is because Scripture is inherently teleological or forward-

looking. Everything in the Jewish sacred writings had an eschatological significance that

furthered God’s plan for the eschaton (cf. Acts 3:24; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).

A seventh guideline is for modern Christians to retain the hermeneutical goal of the New

Testament writers while recognizing that their exegetical conventions oftentimes took Scripture

out of context, thus making their exegetical practices inappropriate for the modern exegete. The

Christian’s hermeneutical goal should be to maintain the centrality of Christ in salvation-history.

When examining the Jewish sacred writings, modern Christians should ask how the life of Christ

and other biblical motifs expand the significance of these ancient texts. Contemporary exegetes

should ask how Christ and his church give the Jewish Scriptures its final coherence.

Another guideline is to expect multiple applications of a single passage. The uniqueness

of sensus plenior-typology is that it does not discard historical-grammatical or socio-rhetorical

methods of interpretation nor does it contradict the findings of modern exegesis. Rather, the New

Testament affirmed the historical meaning of the text while identifying a larger historical

significance to the author’s original intention. Given the dual authorship of Scripture, and the

25

enormity of God’s sovereign providence, it should not surprise Christians that certain passages

contain a larger significance in multiple theological, philosophical, and salvific-historical areas.

The final guideline for modern Christians is to retain a canonical context of any sensus

plenior that they discover in the Jewish writings, as opposed to focusing only on the passage’s

immediate literary context. This is to stress the importance of maintaining a contextual basis for

modern interpretation while allowing for more than just the human author’s narrow intentions.

Though modern exegetes can appreciate the noncontextual conventions of the first century, they

do not have to replicate them. As Beale remarks, “If we assume the legitimacy of an inspired

canon, then we should seek to interpret any part of that canon within its overall canonical context

(given that one divine mind stands behind it all and expresses its thoughts in logical fashion).”83

Thus, sensus plenior allows modern Christians to explore the historical continuities between

Jewish and Christian incidents while acknowledging the overall context of salvation-history.

Conclusion

In the end, modern Christians should acknowledge the validity of the New Testament’s

christocentric hermeneutic while appreciating that the divine author worked through the context

of first century exegetical conventions. Because of the dual authorship of Scripture, the divinely

intended significance often transcended the immediate socio-historical intentions of the human

authors. This distinction results in observing a sophisticated coherence to the canonical context

of Scripture and God’s providence in salvation-history. However, it is unlikely that the original

human authors applied the type of sophistication or intentionality required to create this

phenomena. Thus, contemporary Christians today should not imitate the noncontextual practices

of the New Testament writers. Rather, they should apply the standard methods of historical and

83 Beale, 24.

26

rhetorical criticism when elucidating the meaning of Scripture while approaching the texts with

the same christological presuppositions as the New Testament. When examining the Jewish

writings, Christians can move beyond the literary meaning of the text to observe an added

dimension of divine significance through the practice of sensus plenior and typology.

27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, David L. “Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament.” In The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, edited by G. K. Beale, 313-30. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994. Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Bock, Darrell L. “Response to Enns.” In Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde. Counterpoints: Bible and Theology, 226-31. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Brown, Raymond E. “Sensus Plenior in the Last Ten Years.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25, no. 3 (July 1963): 262-85. ———. The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture. 1955. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008. Carson, D. A. “James.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 997-1013. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God's Word: A Hands-on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. Ellis, E. Earle. The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen 54. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Enns, Peter. “Apostolic Hermeneutics And An Evangelical Doctrine Of Scripture: Moving Beyond A Modernist Impasse.” Westminster Theological Journal 65, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 263-87. ———. “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the Old in Its First-Century Interpretive Environment.” In Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde. Counterpoints: Bible and Theology, 165-217. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

28

Hagner, Donald A. “The Old Testament in the New Testament.” In Interpreting the Word of God: Festschrift in Honor of Steven Barabas, edited by Samuel J. Schultz and Morris A. Inch, 78-104. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1976. Hays, Richard B. Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. Hirsch, E. D. Jr. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967. Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Studies in Religion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004. LaSor, William Sanford. “Prophecy, Inspiration, and Sensus Plenior.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 49-60. Lindars, Barnabas. “The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology: Prolegomena.” In The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, edited by G. K. Beale, 137-45. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999. ———. “Can We Reproduce The Exegesis Of The New Testament?” Tyndale Bulletin 21, no. 1 (1970): 3-38. ———. “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? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, edited by G. K. Beale, 375-86. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994. Lunde, Jonathan. “An Introduction to Central Questions in the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.” In Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde. Counterpoints: Bible and Theology, 36-37. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Moo, Douglas J., ed. “The Problem of Sensus Plenior.” In Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 175-211. Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books, 1986.

29

Moule, Charles Francis Digby. The Birth of the New Testament. 3rd ed. Black's New Testament Commentaries. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1981. Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction. New York: T&T Clark, 2001. ———. Paul and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. Payne, Philip B. “The Fallacy Of Equating Meaning With The Human Author’s Intention.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 3 (September 1977): 243-52. Pickup, Martin. “New Testament Interpretation Of The Old Testament: The Theological Rationale Of Midrashic Exegesis.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51, no. 2 (June 2008): 353-81. Poythress, Vern Sheridan. “Divine Meaning of Scripture.” Westminster Theological Journal 48, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 241-79. Snodgrass, Klyne “The Use of the Old Testament in the New.” In The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, edited by G. K. Beale, 29-51. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994. Snyman, Gerrie. “Identification and the Discourse of Fundamentalism: Reflections on a Reading of the Book of Esther.” In Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 195, 160-208. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Stamps, Dennis L. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as a Rhetorical Device: A Methodological Proposal.” In Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 9-37. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. ———. “‘Pearls Before Swine’: Did Paul's Audiences Understand His Biblical Quotations?” Novum Testamentum 41, no. 2 (April 1999): 124-44. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Jonah. Vol. 31. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1987. Witherington, Ben III. What’s in the Word: Rethinking the Socio-Rhetorical Character of the New Testament. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009.