Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture

25 Pages·2003·0.17 MB·English

JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 1 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 3DAB3622
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
WTJ65(2003):263-87
APOSTOLICHERMENEUTICS
ANDANEVANGELICALDOCTRINEOFSCRIPTURE:
MOVINGBEYONDAMODERNISTIMPASSE
PETERENNS
I.Introduction
Thepurposeof thisarticleistoexploretherolethatapostolichermeneutics
(i.e.,themannerinwhichChristandtheNTauthorsusedtheOT)couldhave
onanevangelicaldoctrineof Scripture.Toputthematterthiswayistoimply
thatapostolichermeneuticshasnothadtheinfluenceitshould.AsIseeit,acause
of thisstateof affairsis,ironically,theinfluenceof Enlightenmentthinkingon
evangelicaltheology,specificallyassumptionsconcerningstandardsof ‘‘proper
interpretation.’’ In what follows I hope to approach the matter of apostolic
hermeneuticsnotasaproblemtobesolved,asistoooftenthecaseinevangelical
theology,butasawindowintotheApostles’‘‘doctrineof Scripture’’(however
anachronisticsuchaconceptmightbe).Itismyopinionthatthechurchshould
engagethisphenomenonverydirectlyasitcontinuestoworkoutitsownunder-
standingof Scripture.
InthisarticleIusetheword‘‘evangelical’’tomean,verybroadly,conservative,
traditionalChristianityasithasbeenpracticedatleastinAmerica,particularly
asithasbeenaresponsetotheinfluenceof ‘‘modernism’’inthenineteenthand
twentieth centuries. The words ‘‘modernist,’’ ‘‘modernism,’’ and ‘‘Enlighten-
ment’’arerestrictedintheirusetorefertothehigher-criticalbiblicalscholarship
(largelya-oranti-supernaturalistic)of thatsameperiod.1Despitethefactthat
evangelicalsandmodernistsareonoppositesidesof thedivideonmanythings,
itisstrikingtheextenttowhichtheyhavesharedsimilarassumptions,particu-
larlyastheyaffectbiblicalinterpretation.2Bywayofintroduction,belowaretwo
examplesof wheresuchinfluencecanbeseen.
PeterEnnsisAssociateProfessorof OldTestamentatWestminsterTheologicalSeminary.
1 BydefiningmytermsinthismannerIdonotwishtocreatethefalseimpressionthatthis
historicalperiodcanbesoeasilycapturedbytheuseof suchlabels.Moreover,Idonotwishto
suggestthatdevelopmentsinbiblicalinterpretationduringthisperiodarenecessarilynegative.The
benefitsof ‘‘modern’’biblicalscholarship,suchasdevelopmentsintextualcriticismandbroader
historical/culturalissuespertainingtotheANEandGreco-Romanperiods,arefeltbystudentsof
Scriptureacrosstheideologicalspectrum.
2 Foranexampleofthisphenomenon,seePeterEnns,‘‘WilliamHenryGreenandtheAuthor-
shipof thePentateuch:SomeHistoricalConsiderations,’’JETS45(2002):385-403.
263
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 2 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 58F8997C
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
264 WESTMINSTERTHEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
The assumption that an historical account is true only to the extent that it
describes‘‘whatactuallyhappened’’3mutesthevariedwitnessof Scripturetoa
number of historical events. This varied witness can be seen in the so-called
‘‘synopticproblem’’(ChroniclesandSamuel/Kings;Gospels).Themodernist
assumption that varied accounts of one event constitute faulty information
(error)inatleastoneof theaccountsprovidestheimpulsetoharmonizesynoptic
portions of Scripture, which has been a common practice in evangelicalism.4
The practice of harmonization, although at times legitimate, owes more to
modernist assumptions of the nature of what historical accounts should look
likethantoallowingthevariedwitnessof Scripturetospeak.
Assumptionsconcerningthenecessarilyuniquequalityof divinerevelation
(somewhatunderstandableinviewof criticalscholarship’sconsistentattackon
any positive role of revelation) have muted the proper role that extrabiblical
evidenceshouldtakeinshapingourownideasofthenatureofScripture.Butthe
last150yearshaveintroducedtothedisciplineof biblicalscholarshipawealth
of archaeological,textual,andscientificinformation.Inmyviewtheevangelical
responsehaslargelybeenrestrictedtothemereobservationthattheOTfitsinthe
generalANEcontextortothegeneralrelevanceof science,particularlywhenit
confirmsgenerallyacceptedviews.Butwhenthetopicturnstothedoctrinalimpli-
cationsof suchobservations,particularlywhentheychallengeacceptedpositions,
adefensiveposturebecomesthenorm.Itisnotoftenaskedhowtheseancient
NearEasternparallelsorscientificobservationsconcerningtheopeningchap-
tersof Genesispositivelycontributetoourdoctrineof revelation.5
WhatIseeatworkinthesetwoexamplesarepreconceivednotionsconcerning
(1)the nature of historiography and (2)the relationship between general and
specialrevelation.Andwhensuchassumptionsareadopted,handlingthebib-
licalevidencebecomesproblematic.Wehavethealltoofamiliarsituationwhere
theevidenceismadetofitthetheoryratherthantheotherwayaround.Whatcan
be said for these two examples can be said all the more concerning apostolic
3 Theidealofahistorian’sobjectivityisastandardthatmanyconsidertohavebeensetinplace
bytheGermanhistorianLeopoldvonRanke(1795–1886)inhisfamousdictum‘‘wieeseigentlich
gewesen’’(asitactuallyhappened).SeeLeonardKrieger,Ranke:TheMeaningof History(Chicago:
Universityof ChicagoPress,1977),4.
4 Morerecently,harmonizationof synopticaccountscannolongerbeconsideredtobethe
consensusevangelicalposition.SeeRaymondB.Dillard,2Chronicles(WBC15;Waco:Word,1987);
idem,‘‘Harmonization:AHelpandHindrance,’’inInerrancyandHermeneutic:ATradition,AChallenge,
ADebate(ed.H.Conn;GrandRapids:Baker,1988),151-64;V.PhilipsLong,TheArtof BiblicalHis-
tory(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1994),esp.76-87.Thisdevelopmentinevangelicalbiblicalscholar-
shipreflectsthebroaderscholarlyacknowledgementthatallattemptstoreconstructhistoryhavea
localdimension.
5 DavisA.Young,TheBiblicalFlood:ACaseStudyof theChurch’sResponsetoExtrabiblicalEvidence
(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1995);idem,‘‘TheAntiquityof theUnityof theHumanRaceRevis-
ited,’’ChristianScholar’sReview24(1995):380-96.Ontheroleof scienceandtheology,averysuc-
cinctsummarycanbefoundinHowardJ.VanTill,‘‘TheFullyGiftedCreation,’’inThreeViewson
CreationandEvolution(ed. J.P.Morelandand JohnMarkReynolds;GrandRapids:Zondervan,
1999),159-247,esp.173-78.
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 3 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 596F1D79
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
APOSTOLICHERMENEUTICS 265
hermeneutics.AnarticulationofhowtheApostleshandledtheOTanditsimpli-
cationsforaChristianunderstandingofScripturehasalsobeenhinderedbycer-
tainassumptionsofwhatconstitutes‘‘properhermeneutics.’’Withoutwishingto
overstatethecase,howtheApostleshandledtheirScripturehasruntheriskof
being misunderstood in evangelicalism wherever modernist assumptions of
properhermeneuticshavebeenconsideredsupremelynormative.Morespecifi-
cally,theimplicationsof understandingapostolichermeneuticsforwhatitis,a
Second Temple phenomenon, has been in direct conflict with an evangelical
doctrineof Scripture,whichincludesamongotherthingsthenotionthatproper
interpretationmustbeconsistentwiththeauthor’sintention.6
By expecting the Apostles to conform to modern assumptions we run the
dangerofmissingthetheologicalandkerygmaticrichnessoftheApostles’useof
theOT.InanefforttobetterunderstandtheNT’suseof theOT,Ioutlinebelow
thephenomenonof apostolichermeneuticsasafunctionof theApostles’cultural
andeschatologicalmoment.TheculturalmomenttowhichIreferisthehermeneu-
ticalmilieuof theSecondTempleperiod.7Theeschatologicalmomentisthe
apostolicmessagethatChristhascometofulfillonechapterof thehistoryof
God’speopleandtobeginanotherchaptertobecompletedattheconsumma-
tionof allthings.Ihopethatsuchadescriptionof apostolichermeneuticswill
alsocontributetoadiscussionof howthechurchtodaythinksof andusesits
Scripture.Itakeitasfoundationalthatthechurch’sunderstandingof howto
handleitsownScripturemustinteractonafundamentallevelwiththeherme-
neuticaltrajectoriesalreadyinevidenceinScripture.Byreclaimingtheherme-
neuticaltrajectorysetbytheApostles,thechurchmaybeabletomovebeyond
theimpasseimposedbymodernistassumptions.
I want to clarify, however, that I am not advocating a superficial biblicism
withrespecttohermeneutics,thatis,‘‘watchwhattheApostlesdoandthendo
the same thing.’’ What I intend to outline in the concluding section of this
articleisthatapostolichermeneuticssetsatrajectoryforthechurch,atrajectory
thatsetsthechurchonaverydefinitepathbutdoesnotdefineeverystageof the
journey.Moreover,comingtogripswiththephenomenonof apostolicexegesis
6 Itisofinteresttonotethatsuchaproblemismainlyconfinedtoevangelicalisminthatevan-
gelicalshavestoodtolosemorebylocatingtheApostles’hermeneuticalpracticesintheSecond
Templeperiod.Thewaythelineshavebeendrawninevangelicalism,thefollowingobservationby
C.H.Toywouldnodoubtbeperceivedasinadequate:‘‘Wemustacceptthelocalsettingof [the
Apostles’]teachingaspartof theirhumanshape;andbecontenttotakespiritualessenceof their
thought,undisturbedbythepeculiarformswhichitreceivedfromthetimes.Herewearedealingwith
themonlyasinterpretersof theOldTestament;andtheonlyquestiontobeansweredis,howfartheyhave
giventhesenseof thepassagestheycite’’(QuotationsintheNewTestament[NewYork:CharlesScrib-
ner’sSons,1884],xxv;myemphasis).
7 Ofcourse,thereareotherdimensionstothecultureoffirst-centuryPalestine,butinkeeping
withthepurposeof thisessayIlimitmyself tothephenomenonof SecondTemplebiblicalinter-
pretation.Idoacknowledge,however,adegreeof artificialityinseparatingthishermeneutical
phenomenonfromthemyriadofotherfactorsatworkinSecondTempleJudaism,betheypolitical,
sociological,cultural,etc.
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 4 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 52A92669
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
266 WESTMINSTERTHEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
involvesadelicateinterplayof historical,doctrinal,hermeneutical,philosophi-
cal,andtheologicalfactors.Tobesure,thiscomplexityvirtuallyguaranteesthat
thediscussionwillbeongoingandthataconsensuswillnotlikelybereached.
This is of very little concern to me. Variety in interpretation has been a con-
stantcompanionof thechurchthroughoutitshistory,theLordhasseenfitto
honorit,andmyintentionhereisnottobringthishermeneuticaladventureto
anend.Thechurchtodayisnotaninterpretiveisland.Itis,rather,toshiftmeta-
phors, one stage in a stream of interpretive tradition, which has its source
withinthepagesof theOTitself (innerbiblicalexegesis)andwhichIbelievehas
beenguidedbythespiritof Christ.
II.ApostolicHermeneuticsasaCulturalPhenomenon
Evencasualreadersof theNTwillnoticethattheOTiscitedalargenumber
of times.Accordingtoonecount,thereare275directquotationsof theOTin
theNT.8TheratherobviouspointtobemadeisthattheNTwriters,and Jesus
himself, understood the gospel message to be connected in some vital way to
Israel’sScripture.
Thesheernumberof OTreferencesiseasyenoughtoseeinmostmodern
Englishtranslationsof theNT.Butalongwiththisisasecondfactorthatbegins
to address the nature of the problem at hand: the manner in which the Apostles
handled the OT seems unexpected, strange, even improper by modern conventions. The
ApostlesdothingswiththeOTthat,if anyof usweretodolikewise,wouldbe
criticizedasdeviationsfrom‘‘normal’’hermeneuticalstandards.Andthus,ina
nutshell,wehavetheproblem.AsChristianswithahighviewof Scripture,we
aredependenton‘‘thewholecounselof God,’’theentireBible,bothOTand
NT,fordirectingusinallmattersof faithandpractice.Andweareencouraged
in this by observing that the Apostles themselves, by virtue of their recurring
referencingof theOT,clearlysetthechurchinthishermeneuticaltrajectory.
ButwhenwelookmorecloselyathowspecificallytheApostlesactuallyhandlethe
OT—whattheysayaboutparticularpassagesoreventsandhowtheyarriveat
their conclusions—we become aware of the hermeneutical distance between
ancientandmoderninterpreters.
Some of the problems with the NT’s use of the OT are purely textual in
nature.9Thesetypesof problemsmaywellbeexplainedeitherbyappealingto
8 DavidMcCalmanTurpie,TheOldTestamentintheNew(London:WilliamsandNorgate,1868),
267-69.Otherscomeupwithadifferentcount.Forexample,thethirdeditionof theGreekNew
TestamentpublishedbytheUnitedBibleSocietieslists251OTpassagesthatappearintheNT.And,
sincesomepassagesareusedmorethanonce,thereare317NTpassagesthatquoteanOTtext.
9 Forexample,Matt2:23andJohn7:23havenocorrespondingOTreferent,nordoreferences
totheresurrection‘‘accordingtotheScriptures’’inMark8:31,Luke24:46,and1Cor15:3.Some
appeartobeconflationsofOTtexts:Rom9:33(Isa8:14and28:16),Matt27:9-10(Zech11:12-13
and Jer32:6-9[?]).AttimestheNTcitationagreeswiththeLXXoveragainsttheMT,atother
timesthereverseistrue.StillothertimestheNTcitationconformstonoknownLXXorMTtext.
Manyscholarspresentthevariousstatisticsinavarietyof ways,butallillustratethetextualprob-
lemsoftheNT’suseoftheOT.SeeE.EarleEllis,Paul’sUseof theOldTestament(1957;repr.,Grand
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 5 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 65E3C615
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
APOSTOLICHERMENEUTICS 267
thefluidityof texttypesinfirst-centuryPalestine,orperhapsmoresimplytothe
biblical writer’s memory. Such matters are worthy of detailed discussion, but
are not of concern here. Rather, there is another problem that proves to be
moreproblematic,andthatIfeelcanbestatedquiteplainly,despiterecurring
protestationstothecontrary:NTwritersattributemeaningtoOTtextsthatclearlydiffer
from the intention of the OT author.10 This problem can be fleshed out more pre-
cisely:Thecontentof theNTauthors’interpretiveconclusionsontheOTisdirectlytiedto
twoeasilydocumentedphenomena:(1)theinterpretivemethodstheyemployand(2)theinter-
pretive traditions they transmit, both of which locate the Apostles squarely in the
SecondTempleworld.
1. InterpretiveMethods
Therecanbenoseriousdoubtthattheexegeticalmethodsemployedbythe
Apostles bear similarities to the well-documented methods of the Second
Temple period.11 To put it another way, if one knew nothing of the NT but
werewellacquaintedwiththeliteratureof SecondTemple Judaismandthen
Rapids:Baker,1981),150-87;idem,TheOldTestamentinEarlyChristianity:CanonandInterpretationinthe
LightofModernResearch(GrandRapids:Baker,1991),51-74;Moise´sSilva,‘‘OldTestamentinPaul,’’
Dictionaryof PaulandHisLetters(ed.G.F.HawthorneandR.P.Martin;DownersGrove,Ill.:Inter-
VarsityPress),630-34.Foraspecificexample,seeMoise´sSilva,‘‘TheNewTestamentUseof the
OldTestament:TextFormandAuthority,’’inScriptureandTruth(ed.D.A.CarsonandJ.D.Wood-
bridge;GrandRapids:Zondervan,1983),147-65.
10 Thisisnotaprivateobservation.KlyneSnodgrassputsitwell,‘‘Themainproblemformodern
readersintheNewTestamentuseoftheOldTestamentisthetendencyofNewTestamentwriters
touseOldTestamenttextsinwaysdifferentfromtheiroriginalaudience’’(‘‘TheUseof theOld
TestamentintheNew,’’inNewTestamentCriticismandInterpretation[ed.D.BlackandD.Dockery;
GrandRapids:Zondervan,1991]).ThisessayisreprintedinG.K.Beale,TheRightDoctrinefromthe
WrongText?EssaysontheUseof theOldTestamentintheNew(GrandRapids:Baker,1994),34(hereafter
RightDoctrine).Beale’svolumeisavaluableresourceformanymajorarticlesonapostolicherme-
neutics.Insubsequentreferencestoarticlesreprintedthere,Iwillcitetheoriginalbibliographical
informationfollowedbyRightDoctrineandthepagenumberinthatvolume.
11 ThecentralimportanceofunderstandingtheNT’suseoftheOTinitsSecondTemplecon-
textishardlynecessaryofdefense.‘‘AsaChristian,Iam,ofcourse,vitallyinterestedintheexegeti-
calphenomenaof theNewTestament.Butasanhistorian,Iamconcernedtohaveanaccurate
understandingofbothJewishandChristianhermeneuticsduringtheperiodunderstudy,believing
thateachmustbeseeninrelationtotheother’’(RichardLongenecker,BiblicalExegesisintheApostolic
Period [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999], 3); ‘‘... it is obvious that the earliest Christians
employedmanyof theexegeticalpresuppositionsandpracticesthatwerecommonwithinvarious
branchesof Judaismintheirday,andthattheydidsoquiteunconsciously’’(ibid.,187);‘‘Theinflu-
enceofPaul’sgeneralculturalmilieu,andinsomeparticularshisrabbinictraining,onhisstyleand
dialecticalmethodsisquiteapparent’’(Ellis,Paul’sUse,54);‘‘InordertounderstandhowtheOld
TestamentfunctionsintheNew,wemustimmerseourselvesinthewritingsof thetime’’(Steve
Moyise,TheOldTestamentintheNew:AnIntroduction[NewYork:Continuum,2001],7);‘‘Biblical
interpretationintheNewTestamentchurchshowsinaremarkablewaytheJewishnessof earliest
Christianity.ItfollowedexegeticalmethodscommontoJudaismanddrewitsperspectiveandpre-
suppositionsfromJewishbackgrounds’’(Ellis,OldTestamentinEarlyChristianity,121);‘‘Theveryfact
...thatsomanyNewTestamentscholarshaveturnedtotheevidenceof theJewishreligionand
literaturecontemporarywiththeNewTestamentwritersis,orshouldbe,asolidindicationthat
moreisrequiredforanunderstandingof theNewTestamentthantheNewTestamenttextalone,
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 6 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 598AE032
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
268 WESTMINSTERTHEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
readtheNTforthefirsttime,onewouldeasilyunderstandtheNTasaSecond
Templeinterpretivetext.Anycontemporaryinvestigationof apostolicherme-
neuticsthatdoesnottreattheNTinthecontextof itshermeneuticalenviron-
mentwillatbesttellonlypartof thestory,andatworstmisrepresenttheissue.
There is no question that this continues to raise certain doctrinal issues con-
cerningtheroleof theApostlesindefining‘‘properhermeneutics,’’butthese
concerns cannot drive the discussion. The New Testament authors give us
ampleopportunitytoobservetheirhermeneuticalbehavior,anditisuponthese
facts—thefactsof Scriptureunderstoodintheirhistoricalcontext—thatdoc-
trinemustultimatelybebased,particularlyif whatoneisafteristhearticula-
tionof adoctrineof Scripture.
Iwouldliketodrawananalogywithgrammatical–historicalexegesis.Gram-
matical–historicalexegesisinsiststhattheinterpretationof textsmustbeginwith
thewordsinfrontof usunderstoodinthecontextinwhichthesewordswere
written.Evenwiththecaveatsthatpureobjectivityisanillusionandthatthe
author’sintentionisessentiallyunrecoverable(orbetter,recoverableonlyonthe
basisofthewordsinfrontofus,whichplacesthemoderninterpreterinaherme-
neutical circle), it is nevertheless a fundamental notion that meaning must be
‘‘anchored’’somehowinsomethingbeyondthemerewillof theinterpreter.Any
writer(includingthisone)whowishestobeunderstoodwillhaveadeep-rooted
sympathyforsuchahermeneuticalprinciple.
Aproblemarises,however,whenweobservehowtheApostleshandledthe
OT.Despiteprotestationstothecontrary,grammatical-historicalhermeneutics
doesnotaccountfortheNewTestament’suseof theOld.Howeverself-evident
grammatical-historicalhermeneuticsmaybetous,andwhateververyimportant
contributionsithasmadeandcontinuestomaketothefieldof biblicalstudies,
itmustbestatedclearlythattheApostlesdidnotseemoverlyconcernedtoput
thisprincipleintopractice.12Ofcourse,itisequallyclearthatattimesNTwriters
interprettheOTsomewhatliteralistically,andIhavenodesiretodisputethis.13
withtheOldTestamentasbackground’’(MartinMcNamara,PalestinianJudaismandtheNewTesta-
ment[Wilmington,Del.:MichaelGlazier,1983],37).JohnLightfootwasofthesameopinionnearly
350yearsago:‘‘...whenallthebooksof theNewTestamentwerewrittenby Jews,andamong
Jews,anduntothem;andwhenallthediscoursesmadethere,weremadeinlikemannerbyJews,
andtoJews,andamongthem;Iwasalwaysfullypersuaded,asofathingpastalldoubting,thatthe
NewTestamentcouldnotbuteverywheretasteof andretaintheJews’style,idiom,form,andrule
of speaking’’(ACommentaryontheNewTestamentfromtheTalmudandHebraica:Matthew–ICorinthians
[1658;repr.,GrandRapids:Baker,1979],3).ThefactthatLightfootwasrestrictedinhiscompara-
tiveworktotheTalmudshouldnotcloudthesignificanceof theobservationmade.
12 Forexample,‘‘...theconvictionthatthegrammatical–historicalmeaningistheentireand
exclusivemeaningofthetextseemstostemmorefrompost-Enlightenmentrationalisticpresuppo-
sitionsthanfromananalysisof theBible’sunderstandingandinterpretationof itself’’(DanG.
McCartney,‘‘NewTestament’sUseof theOldTestament,’’inInerrancyandHermeneutic,103).
13 Forexample,Paul’suseofDeut25:4in1Cor9:9and1Tim5:18.Manycorrectlyaddressthis
issueofthevarietyofwaysinwhichSecondTempleauthorsingeneralandtheNTauthorsspecific-
allyusetheOT,forexample,literalism,typology,analogy,promise-fulfillment,contrast.SeeSidney
Greidanus,PreachingChristfromtheOldTestament:AContemporaryHermeneuticalMethod(GrandRapids:
Eerdmans,1999),69-277;Longenecker,BiblicalExegesis,esp.chaps.1and4;RogerNicole,‘‘TheNew
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 7 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 61927B0E
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
APOSTOLICHERMENEUTICS 269
Butwhenthesmokeclears,theoverallpictureremains:apostolichermeneutics,
apartfromtheexpenditureof significantmentalenergyanddenialof plainfact,
cannotbecategorizedasbeing‘‘essentially’’grammatical–historical.14Aproper
understanding,therefore,of apostolichermeneuticsmustbeginelsewhere,and
that starting point is to engage very directly—with all its attendant doctrinal
implications—the ‘‘hermeneutical–historical’’ context of the New Testament
authors.So,tocompletetheanalogy:inthesamewaythatgrammatical–historical
exegesis is vital for our understanding the words of the biblical authors, a
hermeneutical–historicalapproachisvitalforourunderstandingof thehermeneutics
ofbiblicalauthors.Inotherwords,wemustextendwhatisimpliedingrammatical–
historical exegesis, the principle that original context matters, to the world of
apostolichermeneutics.
Returning, then, to interpretive methods, we see again and again that the
ApostlesapproachedtheOldTestamentinwaysthatareadversetogrammati-
cal–historicalexegesisbutarefirmlyathomeintheSecondTempleworld.What
elsecanbesaid,forexample,of Jesus’argumentwiththeSadduceesoverthe
resurrectionof thedead(Luke20:27-40;Matt22:23-33;Mark12:18-27)?15To
TestamentUseoftheOldTestament,’’inRevelationandtheBible(ed.CarlF.H.Henry;GrandRapids:
Baker,1958),135-51;RightDoctrine,13-51;I.HowardMarshall,‘‘AnAssessmentofRecentDevelop-
ments,’’inItIsWritten:ScriptureCitingScripture(ed.D.A.CarsonandH.G.M.Williamson;Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),1-21;RightDoctrine,195-216;DouglasJ.Moo,‘‘TheProblemof
SensusPlenior,’’inHermeneutics,Authority,andCanon(ed.D.A.CarsonandJohnD.Woodbridge;Grand
Rapids:Zondervan,1986),187-91,209-10;Ellis,OldTestamentinEarlyChristianity,79-101.
14 Althoughitiscertainlytruethatthestrangenessof apostolichermeneuticsisoftenacknowl-
edgedinevangelicalliterature,thereisneverthelessasignificantlineof argumentationthattries
vigorouslytomaintainthe‘‘essential’’grammatical–historicalfoundationof theApostles,i.e.,that
theApostles’interpretationof theOTmustremainrelatedinsomedirectwaytotheintentionof
theOTauthor.‘‘[Typologicalexegesis]doesnotreadintothetextadifferentorhighersense,but
drawsoutfromitadifferentorhigherapplicationof thesametext’’(G.K.Beale,‘‘DidJesusand
HisFollowersPreachtheRightDoctrinefromtheWrongText?’’Them14[1989]:89-96;RightDoc-
trine,395);‘‘[TheApostles]staywithintheconceptualboundsof theOldTestamentcontextual
meaning,sothatwhatresultsoftenisanextendedreferencetoorapplicationofaprinciplewhichis
inherenttotheOldTestamenttext’’(ibid.;RightDoctrine,397);‘‘Godcouldhavemultiplereferents
inmind,evenif theprophetmaynothaveknownalltheconstituentdetails.Thisconceptisnota
badone,provideditisclearwhatthehumanauthorsaidandwhatevermoreGodsaysthroughhim
arerelatedinsense’’(DarrellL.Bock,‘‘Useof theOldTestamentintheNew,’’inFoundationsfor
BiblicalInterpretation[ed.D.Dockeryetal.;Nashville:BroadmanandHolman,1994],104-5).See
alsoMoo,‘‘SensusPlenior,’’204,211.Suchastancewillneverbeabletoaccountfortheveryradical
wayinwhichtheNTauthorsre-interprettheOT.Ellisismuchmoresubtleinhisunderstandingof
Paul’sexegesisof theOTas‘‘grammatical–historicalplus’’(Paul’sUse,147-48).McCartney,how-
ever,pointsoutthatthe‘‘plus’’ispreciselywhatmakesapostolichermeneuticsnotgrammatical–
historical(‘‘NewTestament’sUse,’’102).Itisprobablybesttosay,alongwithMcCartney,that
grammatical–historicalexegesisiscompatiblewithapostolichermeneutics,butnomore(ibid.,111).
15 Thisisnottheplacetomultiplyandcataloguethe‘‘odd’’usesoftheOTbytheNTauthors.
Iamassumingthatthereaderissufficientlyfamiliarwiththenatureof theproblem,eitherfirst-
handorbyvirtueofthefactthatthepresenceoftheproblemcontinuestogeneratescholarlyatten-
tion.ForarecenttreatmentseeMoyise,OldTestamentintheNew.Ellisincludeshelpfulbibliographic
informationonscholarlyworksonapostolichermeneuticsfrom1950–1990(OldTestamentinEarly
Christianity,63-66).
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 8 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 5B6A1B02
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
270 WESTMINSTERTHEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
understandExod3:6asdemonstratingthat‘‘thedeadrise’’(Luke20:37),asJesus
does,violatesourhermeneuticalsensibilities,andweshouldnotpretendother-
wise. And it will not do to soften the blow by suggesting that Jesus is merely
‘‘applying’’Exod3:6,apointmadeclearinhisretorttotheSadducees:‘‘Youare
inerrorbecauseyoudonotknowtheScripturesorthepowerof God’’(Matt
22:29).KnowingtheScripturesandthepowerof GodentailsreadingExod3:6
the way Jesus did, and whatever we might think of the persuasiveness of the
argument,thepointisthatthecrowdlisteningwasquiteimpressed:‘‘Someofthe
teachersofthelawresponded‘Wellsaid,teacher!’Andnoonedaredaskhimany
morequestions’’(Luke20:39-40;seealsoMatt2:33).16Inisolationonecancer-
tainlyfindcreativewaysof ‘‘handling’’thisandotherproblematicpassagesin
conventionalways,buttheweightof accumulatedevidence,bothfromtheNT
and its surrounding world, would quickly render such arguments unconvinc-
ing.17Theinterpretivemethodsof ChristandtheNTwriterswerequiteathome
intheSecondTempleworld.
2. InterpretiveTraditions
Whatcanbesaidabouttheinterpretivemethodsof theNTauthorscanalso
besaidof theinterpretivetraditionsthatfindtheirwayintotheirwritings.Not
only did the Apostles handle the OT in ways consistent with other Second
Templeinterpreters,buttheyalsotransmitexistinginterpretivetraditions.Inmy
16 Itisarecurringlineof argumentationamongevangelicalsthattheNTwriterswouldhave
neededtoengagetheOTinsomethingapproximatinggrammatical–historicalexegesisiftheirpur-
posewastoconvincetheircontemporaries.ThisisespeciallytrueforMatthew’sGospel,whichwas
writtenfora Jewishaudience.ConcerningMatthew,WalterKaiser, Jr.,writes,‘‘Thegospelwas
morethanacatecheticalhandbookorevenaliturgicalguide—itwasatractwrittentomovetough-
mindedresisterstoconcludethatJesuswasthepromisedMessiahfromGod.If thatwereso,then
allsuchembellishmentwouldberecognizedforwhatitis:worthlessasanevangelisticorapologetic
toolandsingularlyunconvincing’’(WalterKaiser,Jr.,TheUsesof theOldTestamentintheNew[Chi-
cago:Moody,1985],44;seealso229).Butinfact,theoppositeisthecase.Itispreciselytheemploy-
mentof SecondTemplehermeneuticalstandardsthatgavetheirargumentstheproperhearing.
CharlesR.Taber,whomKaisercitesdisapprovingly,hasitcorrectinmyview:‘‘...theNewTesta-
mentwritersusedahermeneuticinrelationtomanyOldTestamentcitationswhichwasderived
fromrabbinicinterpretationbutwasattheoppositepolefromwhatwewouldconsiderlegitimate
today.Inourterms,someoftheOldTestamentpassagescitedareclearlytakenoutofcontext....
Butthefactof thematteristhatwhattheyconsideredproperhermeneuticswaspartandparcelof
theirculturalheritage’’(‘‘IsThereOneWaytoDoTheology?’’GospelinContext1[1978]:8,citedin
Kaiser,Usesof theOldTestament,234).MyonlycorrectiontoTaber’sobservationistoreplace‘‘rab-
binic’’with‘‘SecondTemple.’’SeealsoMoo,‘‘SensusPlenior,’’203:‘‘...wemustbecarefulnotto
thinkthatmethodsofproofnotconvincingtouswouldnecessarilyhavebeenequallyunconvincing
tofirst-centuryJews.’’
17 If thiswereanisolatedcase,onecouldmaketheargumentthat Jesusheredoesnotmean
whathesaysbutisonlyadoptingtheillegitimatehermeneuticalpracticesofhisopponents.Besides
thefactthatthereisabsolutelynoindicationof thisinJesus’ownwords,if wearewillingtomake
thatargumenthere,wewouldneedtobewillingtomakeiteverywhere.Moreover,onewouldonly
thinkof makingsuchacaseif oneassumedattheoutsetthatJesuswouldnothavehandledScrip-
tureinthisway.Itispreciselysuchanassumptionthatthisessayisaddressing.
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 9 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 4D1D298D
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
APOSTOLICHERMENEUTICS 271
opinion,evangelicalscholarshiphasfocusedalmostentirelyonthequestionof
theexegeticalmethodstheApostlessharedwithotherSecondTempleinterpre-
ters.ButinvestigatingSecondTempleinterpretivetraditionsthatfindtheirway
intotheNTgivesusaddedandvaluableinformationof anothersort,namely,
howNTauthorsunderstoodanumberof OTstoriesandpassages.Thefactthat
NewTestamentwriterssometimessaythingsabouttheOldTestamentthatare
notfoundtherebutarefoundinotherinterpretivetextsof theSecondTemple
periodshouldnotbemarginalizedaswethinkthroughtheApostles’doctrineof
Scripture.
Thisphenomenon,reflectedintheNTaswellasthroughoutmuchof Second
Temple literature, is often referred to as the ‘‘retold’’ or ‘‘rewritten’’ Bible.18
Someprominentandlengthyexamplesinclude:Jubilees(2ndc.B.C.,retellingof
CreationtoSinai),Bookof BiblicalAntiquities(1stc.A.D.,retellingof Creationto
David), Genesis Apocryphon (1st c. B.C., what survives is largely a first-person re-
tellingof theAbrahamstory),1Esdras(2ndc.B.C.,retellingof JosiahtoNehe-
miah).Inaddition,andmorerelevanttothetopicathand,shorterretellingsare
reflectedinmanyotherSecondTempletexts:Wis10:1–11:4(1stc.A.D.,Adam
toWilderness),Sir44:16–49:11(2ndc.B.C.,EnochtoZerubbabel).Thesignifi-
cantexamplesfromtheNTareActs7:2-53(AbrahamtoSolomon)andHeb
11:3-31(CreationtoRahab).Althoughthesearealldistinctliteraryworkswrit-
tenfordistinctpurposes,whattheyhaveincommonisthattheirretellingof the
biblicalstoriesincorporatedexistinginterpretivetraditions,thatis,notionsabout
whatcertainbiblicaltextsmeantthatwerealreadymattersof commonknowl-
edge(atleastwithinparticularcommunities).
The‘‘retoldBible’’isnotmerelyanancientphenomenon.Rather,itisaphe-
nomenon that has accompanied biblical interpretation throughout its history,
includingourownday.If wereflectonourownsituation,weseethatwealso
bring into the interpretive act our own preconceived notions about what the
Bible says. For instance, several years ago I heard a sermon on Moses’ raised
hands(Exod17:11).Thepreachermentioned,somewhatcasually,thatMoses’
handswereraisedinprayer.Thismayormaynotbethecase,butthepointisthat
Exod17doesnotsaythis.Thepreacher,however,gavenoindicationthathe
wasofferinganinterpretationof whatMoses’raisedhandsmeant.Asfarashewas
concerned,thisiswhattheBible‘‘says.’’
Of course,thisisonlyoneexample,butmanymorecouldbeadduced.And
itshouldbeself-evidentthat,forvariousportionsof Scripture,wehaveinour
mindspre-existinginterpretationsof theBiblethatreflectwhatwehavecome
tothinktheBiblecontains.So,whenoneisaskedtotalkaboutthebattlewith
theAmalekitesinExod17,onemayverylikely‘‘retell’’thatstoryandincludein
18 SeeJamesKugel,Traditionsof theBible:AGuidetotheBibleAsItWasattheStartof theCommonEra
(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1998),23.KugelattributesthetermtoGezaVermes(Scrip-
tureandTraditioninJudaism[Leiden:Brill,1961],67-126).
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 10 SESS: 8 OUTPUT: Thu Oct 23 09:13:51 2003 SUM: 55B6A9DF
/cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2003/8ùnns
Printer:Positionpagespercropmarksprovided.
Marginshavebeenadjustedintentionally.
272 WESTMINSTERTHEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
thatretellinginterpretivetraditionsthataroseatamuchearliertime19butthat
havecometobeincludedas‘‘part’’of thebiblicaltext,notasaconsciousalter-
ationof thebiblicaltextbutasanunconsciousaddendumtoit.Theseviewsare
sometimesheldsodeeply(andunwittingly)thatitisonlythroughconsiderable
argumentationthatsomeonecanbeshownthatwhattheymayconsiderpartof
theBiblereallyisnot.20
NewTestamentauthorsalsobearwitnesstotheirparticipationinthephe-
nomenon of the ‘‘retold Bible,’’ not only in the longer examples cited above
(Acts7,Heb11)butbyreproducinginterpretivesnippetsthataddverylittleif
anythingtotheargumentbeingmade.Theysimplyrepresent,byvirtueof their
Second Temple setting, the biblical author’s own understanding of what the
OTsays.Someexamplesarethefollowing:
1.According to Gal 3:19, Acts 7:53 (and very likely Heb 2:2), the law was
mediatedthroughangels.ThishasnodirectsupportintheOTbutisreflected
inthegeneralnotionthatangelswerepresentwithGodonMt.Sinaiinsuch
places as Jub. 1:27-29. There the Angel of the Presence is instructed to write
downforMosesthehistoryof Israelfromcreationtothebuildingof thesanc-
tuary.Infact,theentirecontentsof Jubilees(whichspansfromCreationtoSinai)
ispurportedtohavebeenspokentoMosesonMt.SinaibytheAngel(Jub.2:1).21
2.In 2 Tim 3:8, Paul refers to the magicians of Pharaoh’s court as Jannes
andJambres.ThesenamesdonotcometousfromtheOTbutfromtheSecond
Templeinterpretiveworldof whichPaulwasapart.ThenameJannesisfound
inCD5.17-19.BothnamesarefoundinTg.Ps.-J.toExod1:15.
3.PeterreferstoNoahasa‘‘preacherof righteousness’’in2Pet2:5.Nosuch
activityisattributedtoNoahintheOTbutasimilardepictionof Noahasone
whoattemptedtopersuadehiscontemporariestorepentisfoundin Jos.,Ant.
1.74;Sib.Or.1.125-95;22andb.San.108a.
4.ThedisputeoverMoses’body,mentionednowhereintheOT,ismentioned
somewhatmatter-of-factlyinJude9.Theoriginalsourceof thisstoryremainsa
19 The‘‘Mosesraisedhishandsinprayer’’traditiongoesbackatleasttoTargumPseudo-Jonathan,
anearlymedievalTargumbutwhosetraditionsmaygobackmuchearlier,perhapseventothepre-
Christianera.
20 Anothercommonexampleisthetraditionthattherewerethreewisemen.Justwhatconstitutes
aninterpretivetraditionwilllikelydependontheinterpretivecommunityof whichoneisapart.
Frompersonalexperience,IcansaythatIstumbledabitwhenseveralyearsago,Iwaschallenged
toshowwhereintheearlychaptersofGenesisIsawa‘‘fall’’or‘‘Satan.’’Ofcourse,asChristianswemake
suchdeterminationsinthecontextof thewholeof Scripture,whichincludestheNT.Thepoint,
however,remainsthesame:myunderstandingoftheGardennarrativeisverymuchinformedbythe
interpretivetradition(inthiscasetheNT)of whichIamapart.
21 Tobeclear,IamnotsuggestingthattheNTauthorsreadJubileesandderivedtheirtheology
fromitdirectly,butthatthenotionofangelsmediatingthelawisnotintheOTbutreflectsSecond
Templeinterpretiveactivity.OnecouldderiveateachingthatangelsareassociatedwithSinaionthe
basisof Deut33:2-3,particularlyinthetranslationof thispassageinLXX,butthisishardlya
‘‘plainreading’’of thetext.
22 TheSibyllineOraclesareactuallyadiversecollectionof writingsof Jewishoriginwithexten-
siveChristianreworking.Bookoneisconsideredtobeof Jewishorigindatingtothesecondcentury
B.C.Forasummaryof thearguments,see J. J.Collins,‘‘SibyllineOracles,’’inTheOldTestament
Pseudepigrapha(ed.J.Charlesworth;2vols.;GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1983),1:331-32.