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

Zondervan; Kaiser, Walter C.

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0310273331 ISBN 13: 9780310273332

Verlag: Study Resources, 2008

Inhaltsangabe

Three approaches to questions about the theological connection between the Old and New Testaments.

The relationship between the Testaments is not as simple and straightforward as it sometimes appears. When New Testament authors appeal to Old Testament texts to support their arguments, what is the relationship between their meanings and what was originally intended by their Old Testament forebears?

Leading biblical scholars Walter Kaiser, Darrel Bock, and Peter Enns present their answers to questions about the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, addressing elements such as:

• Divine and human authorial intent.
• Context of passages.
• Historical and cultural considerations.
• The theological grounds for different interpretive methods.

Each author applies his framework to specific texts so that readers can see how their methods work out in practice. Each contributor also receives a thorough critique from the other two authors.

Three Views on the New Testament Use of Old Testament gives readers the tools they need to develop their own views on the meaning, contexts, and goals behind the New Testament citations of the Old.

The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

 

Über diesen Titel

Über die Autorinnen und Autoren

Stanley N. Gundry is executive vice president and editor-in-chief for the Zondervan Corporation. He has been an influential figure in the Evangelical Theological Society, serving as president of ETS and on its executive committee, and is adjunct professor of Historical Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. He is the author of seven books and has written many articles appearing in popular and academic periodicals.

Kenneth Berding (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is associate professor of New Testament at Talbot School of Theology of Biola University. He is the author of "Polycarp and Paul, "What are Spiritual Gifts" and "Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Ken and his family reside in La Mirada, California.

Walter C. Kaiser Jr. (PhD, Brandeis University) is distinguished professor emeritus of Old Testament and president emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. Dr. Kaiser has written over 40 books, including Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching; The Messiah in the Old Testament; and The Promise-Plan of God; and coauthored An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Dr. Kaiser and his wife, Marge, currently reside at Kerith Farm in Cedar Grove, Wisconsin. Dr. Kaiser’s website is www.walterckaiserjr.com.

Darrell L. Bock (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is senior research professor of New Testament studies and Executive Director for Cultural Engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary. Known for his work in Luke-Acts, Dr. Bock is a Humboldt Scholar (Tubingen University in Germany), is on the editorial board for Christianity Today, and a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society (2000-2001). A New York Times bestselling author, Bock has written over forty books, including Luke in the NIV Application Commentary series.

 

Dr. Peter Enns (PhD. Harvard University) is a biblical scholar and teaches at Eastern University. He is author of several books including Exodus (NIV Application Commentary), Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, and The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins. 

Von der hinteren Coverseite

To read the New Testament is to meet the Old Testament at every turn. But exactly how do Old Testament texts relate to their New Testament references and allusions? Moreover, what fruitful interpretive methods do New Testament texts demonstrate? Leading biblical scholars Walter Kaiser, Darrel Bock and Peter Enns each present their answers to questions surrounding the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.

Contributors address elements such as Divine and human authorial intent, the context of Old Testament references, and theological grounds for an interpretive method. Each author applies his framework to specific texts so that readers can see how their methods work out in practice. Each contributor also receives a thorough critique from the other two authors.

A one-stop reference for setting the scene and presenting approaches to the topic that respect the biblical text, Three Views on the New Testament Use of Old Testament gives readers the tools they need to develop their own views on this important subject.

The Counterpoints series provides a forum for comparison and critique of different views on issues important to Christians. Counterpoints books address two categories: Church Life and Bible & Theology. Complete your library with other books in the Counterpoints series.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

Zondervan

Copyright © 2007 Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-310-27333-2

Contents

An Introduction to Central Questions in the New Testament Use of the Old Testament JONATHAN LUNDE........................................................................71. SINGLE MEANING, UNIFIED REFERENTS: Accurate and Authoritative Citations of the Old Testament by the New Testament WALTER C. KAISER, JR................................45Response to Kaiser DARRELL L. BOCK.......................................................................................................................................90Response to Kaiser PETER ENNS............................................................................................................................................962. SINGLE MEANING, MULTIPLE CONTEXTS AND REFERENTS: The New Testament's Legitimate, Accurate, and Multifaceted Use of the Old DARRELL L. BOCK............................105Response to Bock WALTER C. KAISER, JR....................................................................................................................................152Response to Bock PETER ENNS..............................................................................................................................................1593. FULLER MEANING, SINGLE GOAL: A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the Old in Its First-Century Interpretive Environment PETER ENNS.....................167Response to Enns WALTER C. KAISER, JR....................................................................................................................................218Response to Enns DARRELL L. BOCK.........................................................................................................................................226An Analysis of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament KENNETH BERDING.................................................................................233SCRIPTURE INDEX...........................................................................................................................................................244SUBJECT INDEX.............................................................................................................................................................250

Chapter One

SINGLE MEANING, UNIFIED REFERENTS

Accurate and Authoritative Citations of the Old Testament by the New Testament

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

One of the key debates of the past four decades has been the problem of identifying the meaning of Scripture for our day and times. Should that meaning be limited to what the human writer of Scripture obtained as a result of standing in the revelatory counsel of God, or were there additional, or even alternative, meanings to be found that God somehow quietly incorporated into the text in some mysterious way, thus hiding them from the author, or perhaps even new meanings that the audience brought to the text on their own? This whole debate has been no small tempest in a teapot, for it is also tied in with several contemporary philosophical and literary movements of our own day and age, affecting the entire theological community, including, of course, many of the evangelical scholars.

Early in my career of teaching the Bible I ran across this assessment of the problem by Bishop J. C. Ryle (1818-1900):

I hold it to be a most dangerous mode of interpreting Scripture, to regard everything which its words may be tortured into meaning as a lawful interpretation of the words. I hold undoubtedly that there is a mighty depth in all Scripture, and that in this respect it stands alone. But I also hold that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it. I believe that, as a general rule, the words of Scripture are intended to have, like all other language, one plain definite meaning, and that to say words do mean a thing, merely because they can be tortured into meaning it, is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture.

I could not agree more heartily; for this has become the standard by which I not only interpret the text as a biblical teacher, but it is the same view I urgently press other evangelicals to adopt.

More frequently, however, there has emerged a strong consensus running in evangelical work in this area that tends to regard the majority of the OT quotations in the NT as "hav[ing] no semblance of predictive intention." Donald A. Hagner continued:

All of this leads us to the recognition of what has been called the sensus plenior, or "fuller sense," of the Old Testament Scripture. 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. Such is the nature of divine inspiration that the authors of Scripture were themselves often not conscious of the fullest significance and final application of what they wrote. This fuller sense of the Old Testament can be seen only in retrospect and in the light of the New Testament fulfillment.

It is this wide acceptance of various versions of sensus plenior among contemporary evangelicals that renders this discussion so crucial for our day.

But there are several other important issues that relate in some way to this central question-issues such as (1) the extent to which the NT authors also used ancient Jewish exegetical and interpretive methods in their use of the OT; (2) the NT authors' awareness or disregard of the larger OT context of the passages they quote; (3) the appropriate understanding of the function of typology; and (4) the question of whether contemporary interpreters may replicate the NT writers' techniques of appropriating and applying the OT Scriptures. After an initial discussion of sensus plenior, therefore, I will move to discuss each of these related areas in turn. I will conclude with my perspective on the legitimacy of contemporary Christians employing the same interpretive approach to the OT as was employed by first-century Christians.

CAN WE APPEAL TO SENSUS PLENIOR?

Father Raymond E. Brown published his dissertation in 1955, in which he gave a fixed definition as to what a sensus plenior meaning was. Brown defined it this way:

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

Later he clarified matters further by candidly instructing interpreters:

Let us apply the term sensus plenior ["fuller sense"] to that meaning of his [the author's] text which by the normal rules of exegesis would not have been within his clear awareness of intention, but which by other criteria we can determine as having been intended by God.

Since Brown takes it out of the hands of the human authors who stood in the counsel of God, the question is: In whose hands now does the final court of appeal rest for discovering the authoritative meaning of a biblical text? Roman Catholic scholars, of course, can fall back on the magisterium of the church, to the ecclesial tradition. But to what can Protestants appeal that matches such additional grounds of appeal?

Norbert Lohfink, a Jesuit scholar, tried to find a way to get at this additional divine meaning that was free of the writer's understanding, which ordinarily was to be found in the grammar and syntax of the author's words. At first he went to the "final redactor" of Scripture, the one who had allegedly placed the books of the Bible in their present canonical shape, but then he shifted his ground to appeal to that which the whole Bible taught. Thus, above, behind, and beyond that which grammatico-historical exegesis established as the author's original meaning of the text, there was another meaning: the one that the whole Bible taught.

But what was there in the whole Bible that could not be found in its individual books or in the exegesis of individual passages using the standard tools such as grammar, syntax, and the like? Trapped by his own logic, Lohfink turned, as so many evangelicals now tend to do, to the theory of sensus plenior in an attempt to get beyond the writer of Scripture. Whereas the older form of literary criticism had tried to sort out the sources that allegedly were used by the writers of Scripture in an attempt to get behind the biblical text, now the goal was to go beyond the text as it was written. God, who is viewed in this analysis as the principal author, is depicted as supplying to later interpreters of the text additional and subsequent meanings, thereby relegating the human authors of Scripture to, at best, a secondary level, if not a nuisance for getting at the really deep things of God.

But in a rather brilliant review of this theory, coming from the same Catholic side of the aisle, Bruce Vawter recognized sensus plenior as abandoning the old scholastic analogy of instrumental causality. He explained:

... if this fuller or deeper meaning was reserved by God to himself and did not enter into the writer's purview at all, do we not postulate a Biblical word effected outside the control of the human author's will and judgment ... and therefore not produced through a truly human instrumentality? If, as in scholastic definitions, Scripture is the conscriptio [writing together] of God and man, does not the acceptance of a sensus plenior deprive this alleged scriptural sense of one of its essential elements, to the extent that logically it cannot be called scriptural at all?

The effect of Vawter's argument was to declare that the sensus plenior meaning (despite its high claims for being a deeper meaning from God himself to the interpreter) simply was not "Scripture" in the sense that it came from what was "written." That is to say, if the deeper meaning was one that was not located in the words, sentences, and paragraphs of the text, then it was not "Scripture," which in the Greek is called graphe, "writing" (i.e., that which stands written in the text)! Moreover, if this "fuller sense" opened up new vistas for the interpreter, how did it also escape the sacred writers of Scripture? Could not the same process that, according to this theory, aided the interpreter likewise have aided those who were writing the words declared to be from God? As Vern S. Poythress also noted (even though he admitted his view had "certain affinities" with the idea of sensus plenior), this theory left "an opening for the entrance of later Church tradition," and the addition of new dogmas, rather than just the development of the biblical canon. That, of course, is precisely the point noted here thus far.

On the evangelical side of the aisle, it is interesting to see how a slipperiness in interpretation developed-one that slides from a search for "more significance" to eventually seeing this "significance" as one of the meanings, albeit a deeper one, of the text. Graeme Goldsworthy, for example, was most candid in summing up his view on this matter. He opined:

The sensus plenior of an OT text, or indeed of the whole OT, cannot be found by exegesis of the texts themselves. Exegesis aims at understanding what was intended by the author, the sensus literalis. But there is a deeper meaning in the mind of the divine author which emerges in further revelation, usually the NT. This approach embraces typology but also addresses the question of how a text may have more than one meaning. While typology focuses upon historical events which foreshadow later events, sensus plenior focuses on the use of words.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament Copyright © 2007 by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Details zur Ausgabe

• Verlag: Study Resources
• Erscheinungsdatum: 2008
• ISBN 10: 0310273331
• ISBN 13: 9780310273332
• Einband: Tapa blanda
• Sprache: Englisch
• Anzahl der Seiten: 256
• Kontakt zum Hersteller: Nicht verfügbar