The Relationship of the Testaments: Apostolic Hermeneutic

One of the most complex issues facing the student of biblical hermeneutics today is the significance of how the NT authors quote or allude to the OT in their writings. One popular view is that modern-day interpreters have a mandate not only to understand, but also to imitate the hermeneutics modeled by the NT writers in their handling of the OT.  

According to Moises Silva, “If we refuse to pattern our exegesis after that of the apostles, we are in practice denying the authoritative character of their scriptural interpretation–and to do so is to strike at the very heart of the Christian faith.” In similar fashion, S. Lewis Johnson writes, “We not only can reproduce their exegetical methodology, we must if we are to be taught their understanding of Holy Scripture.” Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn agree, writing, “Anything else than the apostles’ hermeneutic is based on speculative human reasoning.” 

These kinds of assertions raise a significant question: Should we seek to reproduce the hermeneutics of the NT writers? Is this truly the goal of the modern-day interpreter as he approaches various passages of Scripture? As John Walton notes, in considering this question, we find ourselves “torn between following the objective methods that we espouse in theory, or following the lead of the authors of Scripture and utilizing the methods they model.” Although imitating the apostles in this way sounds like a noble path to travel, several difficulties arise when one considers the issue more closely. I would like to suggest three.  

First, patterns are not prescriptions. As John Feinberg points out, “Because something is done a certain way does not mandate it as right or the only way.” Therefore, the example of the apostles is not necessarily the mandate for modern-day interpreters. This is a simple point, but one that is often overlooked in the discussion. 

Second, there doesn’t seem to be any one, clearly discernible “hermeneutical pattern” that the apostles followed in their use of the OT. According to Silva, “the New Testament writers used the Old Testament at different times in different ways for different reasons.” In light of this, the question must be asked: What exactly is the “apostles’ hermeneutic”? What exactly is this pattern that modern-day interpreters are to follow? What specific hermeneutical principles are modeled by the NT writers that should guide contemporary interpretation? Can they be stated propositionally? If so, what are they? 

It seems more accurate to say, along with Feinberg, that “there is no such thing as the NT pattern of OT usage” but rather that “there are varieties of NT uses of the OT.” In his book Basic Bible Interpretation, Roy Zuck lists ten different ways NT writers use the OT, and even those who advocate using the apostles’ hermeneutic recognize a plurality of ways in which the OT is used. With so many varieties, one might legitimately ask which pattern is to be followed, and with which passages they should be followed. 

This difficulty seems to have been recognized by some of those who advocate imitating the pattern established by the NT writers. This recognition manifests itself in warnings to be careful in how one employs the apostles’ hermeneutic. Silva, for example, warns against “indiscriminate imitation” and cautions that we are not to reproduce the exegesis “in all its features.” Douglas Moo writes that “while there is some truth to the assertion that the New Testament practice of interpreting the Old Testament should inform our own interpretation, we should be very cautious about suggesting ‘deeper meanings’ in the text that are not clearly enunciated within Scripture.” Almost always absent from these kinds of discussions, however, are any clear, objective guidelines regarding how to heed these warnings. This poses a major problem for the modern interpreter who is committed to the apostles’ hermeneutic. 

When one recognizes the plurality of ways in which the NT writers use the OT, it becomes clear that the NT writers often referred to the OT without seeking to interpret it. Helpful here are the insights of Moo: “Much like the speech of a person raised on the classics will be sprinkled with terminology and idioms drawn from those texts, New Testament writers often–without intending to provide a ‘correct’ interpretation of the Old Testament text–use Old Testament language as a vehicle of expression.” Silva notes that the NT writers were so acquainted with the Scriptures that they would often make “relatively casual references” to the OT. “If they did,” Silva writes, “these casual references would reveal nothing about their exegetical method.” I couldn’t agree more.  

John Walton takes this a step further. According to Walton, the “NT authors never claim to have engaged in a hermeneutical process, nor do they claim that they can support their findings from the text; they claim inspiration” (more on this below). With this in mind, it is obvious that the modern-day interpreter who seeks to imitate the NT writers’ “interpretations” of the OT will be led astray at times, for often the NT writer is not engaging in the process of interpretation.  

One area where some have gone astray is typology. As Moo notes, the debate regarding typology is whether it is prospective or retrospective: “Does the Old Testament type have a genuinely predictive function, or is typology simply a way of looking back at the Old Testament and drawing out resemblances?” Some have understood typology as possessing a prospective element and have therefore come to some wrong conclusions regarding the apostles’ method of interpretation. They reach this conclusion because, as Walton states, they fail to recognize that the NT typologists “did not get their typological correspondence from their exegetical analysis of the context of the OT.” As a result, the modern-day interpreter seeks to imitate “NT hermeneutic,” but, in doing so, he fails to recognize that the NT typologists are not engaging in a procedure of unearthing a meaning latent in the Old Testament text. A helpful remedy is found in the words of Walton: “Since this correlation is not identifiable until both type and anti type exist, typology is always a function of hindsight. One thing is never identified as a type of something to come. Only after the latter has come can the correspondence be proclaimed.” 

Third, the difference between human interpretation and divine inspiration separates the modern-day exegete from the NT writer in such a way that the former is not able to employ the methods of the latter. As Walton writes, “We cannot speak of reproducing the methods of the NT authors, for the subjectivity of their methods is not allowed to those of us whose interpretation does not enjoy the affirmation of inspiration.” To state it another way, the NT writers were superintended by the Holy Spirit, and modern-day interpreters are not. Therefore, as Walton writes, “We do not wish to reproduce the hermeneutics of NT authors because they, by virtue of inspiration, accrued authority to themselves by means unavailable to us.” 

G.K. Beale challenges this argument, stating that “it is not necessary to claim that we have to have such inspiration to reproduce their method or their conclusions. The fact that we don’t have the same ‘revelatory stance’ as the New Testament writers only means that we cannot have the same epistemological certainty about our interpretation conclusions and applications as they had.”  

While Beale’s distinction between exegetical method and epistemological certainty is a helpful one, his argument fails to address the fact that the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament was a function of divine inspiration, and not simply a matter of human interpretation carried out in accordance with divinely revealed hermeneutical principles. In other words, when the apostle Paul quoted or alluded to the OT in his epistles, he wasn’t applying God-given hermeneutical principles to various passages in the Old Testament; he was being superintended by the Holy Spirit in such a way that he wrote precisely what God was pleased to communicate through him. The NT writers, then, do not claim a superior hermeneutical approach to the OT; they claim inspiration. For those who are not able to claim inspiration, this method cannot be employed.