How Then Should We Choose? Three Views on God’s Will and Decision Making

1. Hard cover: 269 pages
2. Publisher: Kregel
3. Date Published: 2009

1. Paperback: 200 pages
2. Publisher: Zondervan
3. Date Published: 2009

1. Paperback: 246 pages
2. Publisher: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
3. Date Published: 1975

Point: The New Testament authors used hermeneutic principles which were available and acceptable at the time of their writing. The Old Testament was not merely a source of proof-texts, but the living Word of God, pointing to Jesus Christ.

Path: Longenecker presents a horizontal view (13) of the first century scenario by walking through several parallel areas of Jewish and Christian exegesis. He first overviews Jewish hermeneutics as a whole with their literal, midrashic, pesher, and allegorical interpretations. He moves from the broad scope of Jewish hermeneutics to Jesus’ use of the Old Testament, demonstrating the wide and varied use of the Scriptures in Jesus’ teaching. He then addresses the early Christian preaching which followed closely the example of Jesus. Next, Paul’s Old Testament use is evaluated. The author then looks at the Gospels, and how each author uses Scripture. Hebrews, arguably the book which relies the most on OT quotations, is discussed, and then other Jewish letters such as James, 1 Peter, etc. The author finishes with an overview of New Testament exegesis.

The Jewish interpreters agreed on four basic points, according to Longenecker. These four points were 1) divine inspiration of the Scriptures. 2) The Torah contained the the entire truth of God for the guidance of mankind. 3) The Scriptures needed to be understood both in their plain meaning and the implied meaning. 4) They saw their role as making the words of God meaningful and relevant to their audience (19-20). The final analysis of the author’s study of Jewish hermeneutics is that “both the Pharisaic teachers and the nonconformists exegetes employed literalist interpretation, particularly in halakic concerns” (48-49).

The reader must understand that the early Christian preachers used a variety of methods including literal interpretation, midrash, pesher, and the application of predictive prophecies. They did not hold to a wooden hermeneutical method, but sought to interpret “the Scriptures from a Christocentric perspective, in conformity with the exegetical teaching and example of Jesus, and along Christological lines” (103).

Paul, although not one of the original apostles, did have contact with the risen Lord, been commissioned by him, and had direct revelation concerning salvation history (132). The Gospel writers, specifically Matthew and John, used Scripture in a way which was divergent from the other writers. There methods were distinct, yet still in line with the Jewish hermeneutics of their time (133).

Longenecker concludes with the observation that 1) the New Testament writers did not have a mechanical process of proof texting their arguments with Scripture 2) nor did they twist or distort God’s revelation (206). Rather, the New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament “1) from a Christocentric perspective, 2) in conformity with a Christian tradition, and 3) along Christological lines” (206).

After addressing the various methods employed by the NT authors, Longenecker offers an answer to the oft asked question, “Should we do as they do?” When the exegesis is claiming revelation, is merely cultural, or circumstantial, the answer is “no.” When, however, it interprets Scriptures more literally with Christ at the center, the answer is “yes” (219). His foundation is the inspiration of Scripture. Could the New Testament writers do it? Yes. Can we do everything they did? Not unless you believe your writings to be inspired.

Longenecker’s primary interest lies in three areas. First, he addresses the specific exegetical practices of the first century. Second, he focuses on the range and use of biblical quotations at the hand of the writers. Third, he traces the “patterns of usage and development that appear in the various strata of the biblical citations…” (12). He addresses these three issues so that the student may understand the hermeneutical procedures themselves, appreciate the objective of biblical revelation, and determine what is descriptive and what is prescriptive in the biblical revelation (217).

I appreciated the author’s multifaceted approach to New Testament hermeneutics. He did not attempt to squeeze the authors and their message into a tight box, but rather sought to allow them to say what they said. The hermeneutics of the NT authors is a topic which deserves much study. Longenecker has provided a valuable resources to help the reader along the way.

If this review was helpful, let me know here

1. Paperback: 61 pages
2. Publisher: David Cook
3. Date Published: 1977

1. Paperback: 336 pages

1. Publisher: Public Domain

Composed of ten scholarly paper, Hearing the OT in the NT provides valuable insight into the hermeneutical methods of the New Testament authors. Each of them provided a different perspective, sometimes complimenting, other times disagreeing.

Stamps addresses the methodological approach to Scripture. His thesis is that the writing of the NT takes place in a “clash of cultures” and therefore current study must recognize the diversity of methods employed. A noticeable flaw in his theory is that the majority of the NT authors were Christian Jews, and therefore would have followed primarily Jewish methods of exegesis (260).

McLay uses Hebrews 1:6 to demonstrate that the Scriptures available to the NT authors were not found in a unified canon, nor biblical text. This fact creates problems in a variety of areas including textual criticism and applicational principles.

Knowles, working through Matthew, reveals that Jesus was the Messiah who had been promised and now stood before them as the “final, authoritative revelation that stands over a complex, contradictory, and otherwise largely incomprehensible situation” (82).

Based on the late dating of Mark, Evans parallels the book of Mark to the controversy which was rising during the time of Vespasian. In many ways, Evans believes that this gospel was a direct attack on the worship of the emperor. This theory is placing great weight on the presupposition that Mark was heavily influenced by the Roman context, one which lacks evidence.

Porter asks the questions, “How is the OT used in Luke/Acts?” and “What does this reflect about the author?” His generalized answers are, OT passages are used throughout the books and are used to “give shape to the narrative.”

Miller argues that “Christ was John’s primary hermeneutical principle in whose light the Scriptures of Israel were to be properly construed” (128). He finds proof in the fact that John the Baptist saw and testified, Moses wrote, Abraham saw, and Isaiah saw and wrote concerning the Christ.

Aageson believes that Paul’s hermeneutic was developing as he went. It was not a static or closed method. This can be seen in his quotations and allusions. His attempts at solving difficulties were not always successful, but later generations have contributed to the clarity. This argument placed the NT Scripture in a questionable light. Paul spoke with authority and did not convey the idea that he was just one voice in a congregation of equals. Paul contributed more than a start to a discussion, he was communicating truth.

Keesmaat develops the idea that Paul challenged the empire in his shorter epistles with his quotations and allusions to Scripture. An understanding of the culture of Paul’s day explains his choice of passages and words.

Richardson takes the book of James and chases the connections to the story of Job, specifically chapter five. James clearly draws many of his points from Job’s exemplary life in the midst of trials of various kinds.

Köstenberger confronts the task of evaluating the use of Scripture in the Pastorals, General Epistles, and Revelation. This broad survey demonstrates that the OT is used in a variety of ways in the NT. They were not confined to a single method, but sought to reveal the unity they saw of salvation history between the history of Israel, the coming of Christ, and the history of the early church.

The final portion of the book contains a helpful response to the afore mentioned papers by Köstenberger. Here he brings in valuable points to the discussion of their individual topics.

This compilation has some valuable contributions for the study of the NT use of the OT. It’s weakness lies in the broadness of topics discussed, and some of the individual arguments. The strengths are found in the responses given at the end.

If this review was helpful, let me know here