Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Bock & Enns

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 misapplication 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 have 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 of 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 – the use of Second Temple hermeneutics. It is a hermeneutical-historical method that “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 latter 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.

References:

[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.  

[6].  Ibid., 136. 

[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.  

Written by Dr. Kevin A. Hall (Wednesday, August 15, 2018).