Three Views on the New
Testament Use of the Old Testament: Bock & Enns
It is easy to claim
improper usage of Old Testament (O.T.) texts in the New Testament (N. T.) if
there is not a seemingly logical flow. Bock debunks this idea with his “Single Meaning,
Multiple Contexts and Referents” method. He makes very persuasive
points, taking both an historical-exegetical and a theological-canonical
approach to the reading of Scripture. The strength of his argument is found in
the appeal to an “inherent futureness” found in the texts.[1] Bock agrees with Kaiser’s
“Single Meaning, Unified Referents”
adding that N.T authors authoritatively used O.T texts with “the presence of
new factors in the progress of revelation within the movement of the history of
salvation, factors not obvious at the time of the original production of the
text.”[2]
Closely associated with Sensus Plenior, “While God used human
authors, they did not understand all… God knew, even if they did not.”[3] This accounts for the
apparent mis-application of a text. Bock suggests the need to consider
historical factors. Most often these were Jewish writers using common methods
of that day to appeal to their audience. Therefore, three elements to consider
in reading into a text are “symbols, sense level meaning and referents.”[4] This is key to
understanding N.T. usage of Old Testament texts that may seem farfetched. Using
the theological-canonical method, a N.T. text may be a refraction of an O.T.
passage. Bock’s systematic approach makes the case that “the N.T. meaning tells
us what the O.T. author meant, even though in the original context that meaning
was not apparent.”[5]
In Genesis 3:15, the revelation of Jesus as the “seed” is a refracted meaning
with progressive revelation. A single meaning, multiple contexts, that may have
changed or having additional referents. Bock’s example of
Deuteronomy 30:12-14/Romans 10:6-8, also supports his evaluation. What was
previously not understood by the original audience in Deuteronomy was given
clarity by the apostle Paul in Romans. This was an excellent hermeneutical
response. Bock states, “What was missing in Deuteronomy “is how and through
whom” the details of the text would be fulfilled.[6] The first use of the text
(Deuteronomy) laid the foundation for the revelation of Christ as given later
in the Romans text. The weakness to Bock’s approach is a bias toward “Midrashic
techniques and a limited commitment to “stability of meaning.”[7]
Peter Enns advocates a simple
“Fuller Meaning, Single Goal” approach to the use of O.T. texts by N.T.
authors. Rather than claim the authors arbitrarily used O.T. texts, he proposes
considering the interpretative contexts of that time – use of Second Temple
hermeneutics. It is an hermeneutical-historical method which “brings an
understanding of ancient interpretive practices.”[8] While the N.T. text may
not objectively contain say a predictive/prophetic value, the author would not
be bound to a contemporary interpretive approach as all of Scripture was seen
in light of the fulfillment of Jesus Christ. Enns extensively appeals to the
historical use of Second Temple methods and admits the approach may not seem
convincing (his weakness). He makes the point that present day studies “run the
risk of assuming universal normativity of our own culturally-embedded
hermeneutical expectations.”[9] He is objective (strength)
and brings a valuable approach to the subject. The example of Matthew
2:15/Hosea 11:1 clearly supports his case for a fuller meaning that is gained
after the fact. “Even though both authors were inspired, the later brings the
ultimate meaning of the text in the reality of Christ.”[10] Of the three views,
Bock’s “Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts
and Referents” method is the best approach as outlined above.
[1]. Darrell L. Bock, “Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts And Referents: The New Testament’s
Legitimate, Accurate and Multifaceted Use of the Old,” in Three
Views On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament, ed. Kenneth Berding,
Stanley N. Gundry, and Jonathan Lunde (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 124.
[2]. Ibid., 124.
[3]. Ibid., 112.
[4]. Ibid., 113.
[5]. Ibid., 116.
[7]. Walter C. Kaiser, “Response To Bock,” in Three
Views On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament, ed. Kenneth Berding, Stanley N. Gundry, and
Jonathan Lunde (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 160-61.
[8]. Peter Enns, “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, Stanley N. Gundry, and
Jonathan Lunde (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 174.
[9].
Ibid., 172.
[10]. Ibid. 201.
No comments:
Post a Comment