What do you think?
Rate this book
The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New
If Paul and other New Testament authors were publishing today, would scholars accept their exegetical methods? This collection of essays presents various perspectives concerning the hermeneutical issue of whether Jesus and the apostles quoted Old Testament texts with respect for their broader Old Testament context. Each of the contributors debates the interpretive understandings by which Old Testament texts are quoted and applied in the New Testament. Were New Testament teachers and authors simply children of rabbinic midrashic scholarship? Did they revere the original context of passages they quoted or fill them with different meaning? What presuppositions about the Old Testament guided their approaches? As the contributors to this volume wrestle with Old Testament quotation in the New Testament, they offer views from across the theological spectrum to help biblical studies students work through the issues. Contributors include: David L. Baker G. K. Beale C. H. Dodd Francis Foulkes R. T. France Scott J. Hafemann Morna D. Hooker G. P. Hugenberger Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Barnabas Lindars Richard N. Longenecker I. Howard Marshall S. V. McCasland Richard T. Mead Roger Nicole Philip Barton Payne Vern Sheridan Poythress David Seccombe Klyne Snodgrass Albert C. Sundberg Jr.
440 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 1, 1994
44 people are currently reading
264 people want to read
About the author
Gregory K. Beale
31 books198 followersG. K. Beale (PhD, University of Cambridge) is professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is the coeditor of the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament and the author of numerous books, including A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 12, 2021
Variety of scholars whose essays range between terrible trash and excellent. Beale's defence of Sensus Plenior is great and Poythress on the Divine meaning of the Scripture as well. Good articles on typology but not as strong as I hoped. Kaiser's obsession with "one meaning" is not healthy for preachers, the reformers and the puritans did not mean what he does with that phrase.
May 15, 2012
Review of The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? ed. G. K. Beale
One of the liveliest hermeneutical debates in today’s scholarly world is over the New Testament (NT) use of the Old Testament (OT) and whether or not the NT authors were faithful to the context and meanings of the OT texts. Much has been written on the subject but nothing like Beale’s volume of essays. Beale writes, “The purpose of this book is to present various perspectives concerning the hermeneutical issue whether or not Jesus and the apostles quoted Old Testament texts with respect for their broader Old Testament context.” Beale also comments that the perspectives are presented with “no editorial evaluation of the essays. They stand on their own, and the reader has the responsibility of evaluation.” So, he wants to present the topic, the issues, and the different perspectives in an honest fashion so the reader can investigate further and make an informed, convicted choice. Beale does admit that “there is more space devoted to the articles arguing in favor of the New Testament’s contextual approach to the Old… than to the opposing perspective.” He gives three reasons but the main reason is that the majority of NT and OT scholars believe the NT uses the OT without any regard for its original meaning, so the “minority view” is given more time to speak.
This book is composed of seven parts. Part 1 looks at introductory issues and the articles are general in their scope. Part 2 compiles four essays that address the issue of the NT authors’ faithfulness to the OT authors’ intentions. These articles look at authorial intention, meaning, and what the goal of hermeneutics should be. Parts 3-5 look at the issue hermeneutical integrity. Several essays argue that the NT authors were not faithful to the contexts and meaning of OT passages. Several essays argue the opposing view. Then there are a handful of essays that look at specific problem texts or a particular author’s use of the OT, and these essays serve has helpful, practical examples of the issues being debated. Part 6 of the book looks at subject of typology, the NT use of it, and the question of its validity for modern exegetes. Finally, Part 7 addresses the question of whether or not modern exegetes can and should emulate the exegetical methods of the NT authors. In the following pages, we will look at each section a little more closely (though the summaries presented will not replace reading the text itself) and make a few closing comments on the value of this work.
Part 1 presents introductory issues to the overall debate. Roger Nicole discusses the issues of apparent inconsistencies between the NT authors’ uses and the OT authors’ meaning. He argues that there are methods to get plausible explanations for the apparent inconsistencies, if not complete resolution. However, he makes the point that the inspiration of Scripture is not dependent on this debate. If a resolution eludes the modern exegete, it does not follow that Scripture is not inspired. To prove that latter assertion, one would have to show there is no possible solution to the inconsistencies, which is the extremely difficult task of proving a negative. Klyne Snodgrass gives some guidelines to the exegetical use of the OT in the NT and argues that one has to stick to the author’s intent but that does not mean we do not read the texts in the light of the person and work of Christ. We do this by looking at correspondence in history. He argues that the writers of the NT looked for patterns of God’s working in the OT Scriptures, the life of Christ, and their own experiences; then applied the OT Scriptures through such a lens.
Part 2 looks at authorial intent. Walter Kaiser argues that there is a single authorial intent and it is the meaning. This is what the exegete should seek, and the only theology that can be taken into account is the theology that existed prior to the texts itself. After exegesis has been done this way, the rule of faith can be employed to see what light the exegesis brings to the larger theological issues. Philip Payne argues that it is a fallacy to equate meaning to the author’s intention. Sometimes authors did not fully understand what they wrote, and the influence of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration process may add levels of meaning to the text because the Spirit “was not something arising from the mental framework of the speaker.” The concern for the exegete should be the original meaning of God’s Word, which may not have been fully understood by the author. This meaning is the meaning that accounts for all of the text in its total context. Therefore, Scripture as a whole should be the guide for interpreting texts of Scripture. Vern Poythress discusses the divine meaning of Scripture. He argues that the grammatical-historical method is a good method and that exegetes should indeed pay attention to the human factor of inspiration. However, this is not all there is to interpretation. They were human authors with human factors, yes, but they intended their words to be read as from God. This means exegetes can take God’s power and presence into account when interpreting Scripture as well as other the interpretations of other biblical authors (who did not confine themselves to the grammatical-historical exegetical method either). Finally, R. T. France gives an example essay, and it looks specifically at Matthew 2 in order to figure out what Matthew was trying to communicate by his selections of quotations and how he introduced them or adapted their wording to bring out the meaning he want to communicate.
Parts 3-5 comprise the bulk of the book and look at the hermeneutical integrity (or lack thereof) in the NT authors’ uses of the OT. (We will look at several of the essays in this section but not all of them because some are less general in their scope and look only at specific passages. These we will leave for the reader to reference when necessary.) Barnabas Lindars argues that the NT authors believed the OT to be referring to their time. This conviction led them to use the OT as a “servant” of the “Christ-event” in an ad hoc manner to defend their purposes. Because of this guiding conviction, the NT authors had little interest in the original meaning of the OT for its own sake. S. V. McCasland looks at Matthew and argues that Matthew “twisted” the Scriptures. Matthew’s use of the OT “indicates how desperately early Christians searched the Scriptures to find proof for the things happening among them.” Richard Mead argues that the NT authors did not respect the context of the OT Scriptures but also that moderns cannot impose their modern notion of respect for context on the NT writers. He says, “In general, therefore, we should expect unrestrained proof-texting to flourish in groups marked by strong inner consensus shielded with an impenetrable parochialism.” C. H. Dodd, the first of those to argue for the integrity of the NT authors, points out that the NT writers quoted from a consistent set of OT passages, which indicates “something belonging to the body of instructions [a testimonia] imparted, orally in the main… to those whose duties in the church led them to Old Testament research; a sort of guide to the study of the Bible for Christian teachers.” He also argues that the manner of their quotation shows they wanted the reader to apply the quote in its context to their theological argument, thus showing they were being faithful to the OT meaning. They also showed remarkable ability to draw together many “Day of the LORD” strands and apply them to Jesus’ work with care given to all of the texts and penetration into their meaning. Albert Sundberg argues against Dodd’s view that there was a testimonia in use by the NT authors. The whole of the LXX was their source and exposition was just accustomed to certain quotes. Howard Mashall takes up Dodd’s view and gives a counter argument. The remaining articles in these sections look at specific passages and argue for or against respect of the context and meaning of the OT Scriptures quoted. While we are not going to summarize these essays, they are a great resource for students and pastors who are studying these texts in greater detail.
Part 6 of this work looks at the NT author’s use of typology. David Baker argues that “typology is not a method of exegesis or interpretation but the study of historical and theological correspondences between different parts of God’s activity among His people in order to find what is typical there.” One does not use typology as a procedure but to take notice of God’s consistent work and draw parallels and show events as patterns of others. He gives guidelines for the use of typology and application to the Church. G. P. Hugenberger gives a general introduction to typology, which we will leave to the reader to reference and simply note that it will be well worth the time. Francis Foulkes argues for the validity of typological study of the OT. He admits that it is reading meaning into the text, in a sense, but it does not read a new principle into the context. Typological interpretation shows that all the OT points forward to Christ and it only reads something into the text in light of the fulfillment of history. It is the way Christians must read the OT if they follow the precedent laid out by the NT authors.
The last article of Part 6 leads the reader into the final part. Part 7 examines the question of whether or not exegetes can and should emulate the exegetical patterns of the NT authors when they study the OT. Richard Longenecker argues for the negative. He argues that Christians should be committed to receiving, defending, and proclaiming the doctrine of the NT, not its practice of exegesis. The NT authors themselves present their exegesis as more circumstantial than normative, and we cannot possibly reproduce the revelatory stance of their exegesis anyway. So, Christians today should stick to contextualizing the gospel for our own audiences. G. K. Beale (the editor of this work) proposes the positive answer to this question. He gives five hermeneutical presuppositions that the NT writers used when reading the OT Scriptures and argues we can emulate their method. Just because exegetes are not inspired as the NT authors were, does not mean they cannot reproduce their method. It simply means the exegete cannot have the same level of certainty about his conclusions. Furthermore, it remains to be proven that the NT writers really were non-contextual in their method. Arguments in this work have shown that it is probable they were. Finally, Christians should be concerned about descriptive vs. prescriptive interpretation but the burden of proof is on those who would say their method is not normative for contemporary exegetes.
This is an excellent work. We greatly appreciate Beale’s effort to present the multiple sides of the issue without adding editorial comments. One could perhaps argue that Beale’s closing article is such a comment but even then, he lets the articles stand on their own. Any student of Scripture would benefit from reading this book, however, many of the articles assume a certain scholastic knowledge that the average Christian does not generally have. That does not mean they could not enjoy this work and get a lot out of it but it does mean they might have to put in extra research while reading it. Whichever side of the argument one lands on, the book is very helpful because it presents both views. One can learn about the view they oppose and, if one is so moved, formulate arguments against the position. Furthermore, the handful of articles that are text-specific are excellent examples of the various views applied to the nuts and bolts of Scripture and provide a great resource for teaching or preaching through these texts. Finally, the bibliography is excellent and provides 10 pages worth of resources for further study on various topics. All these things combined make this book a resource worthy of any library, especially the student, scholar, and/or pastor.
One of the liveliest hermeneutical debates in today’s scholarly world is over the New Testament (NT) use of the Old Testament (OT) and whether or not the NT authors were faithful to the context and meanings of the OT texts. Much has been written on the subject but nothing like Beale’s volume of essays. Beale writes, “The purpose of this book is to present various perspectives concerning the hermeneutical issue whether or not Jesus and the apostles quoted Old Testament texts with respect for their broader Old Testament context.” Beale also comments that the perspectives are presented with “no editorial evaluation of the essays. They stand on their own, and the reader has the responsibility of evaluation.” So, he wants to present the topic, the issues, and the different perspectives in an honest fashion so the reader can investigate further and make an informed, convicted choice. Beale does admit that “there is more space devoted to the articles arguing in favor of the New Testament’s contextual approach to the Old… than to the opposing perspective.” He gives three reasons but the main reason is that the majority of NT and OT scholars believe the NT uses the OT without any regard for its original meaning, so the “minority view” is given more time to speak.
This book is composed of seven parts. Part 1 looks at introductory issues and the articles are general in their scope. Part 2 compiles four essays that address the issue of the NT authors’ faithfulness to the OT authors’ intentions. These articles look at authorial intention, meaning, and what the goal of hermeneutics should be. Parts 3-5 look at the issue hermeneutical integrity. Several essays argue that the NT authors were not faithful to the contexts and meaning of OT passages. Several essays argue the opposing view. Then there are a handful of essays that look at specific problem texts or a particular author’s use of the OT, and these essays serve has helpful, practical examples of the issues being debated. Part 6 of the book looks at subject of typology, the NT use of it, and the question of its validity for modern exegetes. Finally, Part 7 addresses the question of whether or not modern exegetes can and should emulate the exegetical methods of the NT authors. In the following pages, we will look at each section a little more closely (though the summaries presented will not replace reading the text itself) and make a few closing comments on the value of this work.
Part 1 presents introductory issues to the overall debate. Roger Nicole discusses the issues of apparent inconsistencies between the NT authors’ uses and the OT authors’ meaning. He argues that there are methods to get plausible explanations for the apparent inconsistencies, if not complete resolution. However, he makes the point that the inspiration of Scripture is not dependent on this debate. If a resolution eludes the modern exegete, it does not follow that Scripture is not inspired. To prove that latter assertion, one would have to show there is no possible solution to the inconsistencies, which is the extremely difficult task of proving a negative. Klyne Snodgrass gives some guidelines to the exegetical use of the OT in the NT and argues that one has to stick to the author’s intent but that does not mean we do not read the texts in the light of the person and work of Christ. We do this by looking at correspondence in history. He argues that the writers of the NT looked for patterns of God’s working in the OT Scriptures, the life of Christ, and their own experiences; then applied the OT Scriptures through such a lens.
Part 2 looks at authorial intent. Walter Kaiser argues that there is a single authorial intent and it is the meaning. This is what the exegete should seek, and the only theology that can be taken into account is the theology that existed prior to the texts itself. After exegesis has been done this way, the rule of faith can be employed to see what light the exegesis brings to the larger theological issues. Philip Payne argues that it is a fallacy to equate meaning to the author’s intention. Sometimes authors did not fully understand what they wrote, and the influence of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration process may add levels of meaning to the text because the Spirit “was not something arising from the mental framework of the speaker.” The concern for the exegete should be the original meaning of God’s Word, which may not have been fully understood by the author. This meaning is the meaning that accounts for all of the text in its total context. Therefore, Scripture as a whole should be the guide for interpreting texts of Scripture. Vern Poythress discusses the divine meaning of Scripture. He argues that the grammatical-historical method is a good method and that exegetes should indeed pay attention to the human factor of inspiration. However, this is not all there is to interpretation. They were human authors with human factors, yes, but they intended their words to be read as from God. This means exegetes can take God’s power and presence into account when interpreting Scripture as well as other the interpretations of other biblical authors (who did not confine themselves to the grammatical-historical exegetical method either). Finally, R. T. France gives an example essay, and it looks specifically at Matthew 2 in order to figure out what Matthew was trying to communicate by his selections of quotations and how he introduced them or adapted their wording to bring out the meaning he want to communicate.
Parts 3-5 comprise the bulk of the book and look at the hermeneutical integrity (or lack thereof) in the NT authors’ uses of the OT. (We will look at several of the essays in this section but not all of them because some are less general in their scope and look only at specific passages. These we will leave for the reader to reference when necessary.) Barnabas Lindars argues that the NT authors believed the OT to be referring to their time. This conviction led them to use the OT as a “servant” of the “Christ-event” in an ad hoc manner to defend their purposes. Because of this guiding conviction, the NT authors had little interest in the original meaning of the OT for its own sake. S. V. McCasland looks at Matthew and argues that Matthew “twisted” the Scriptures. Matthew’s use of the OT “indicates how desperately early Christians searched the Scriptures to find proof for the things happening among them.” Richard Mead argues that the NT authors did not respect the context of the OT Scriptures but also that moderns cannot impose their modern notion of respect for context on the NT writers. He says, “In general, therefore, we should expect unrestrained proof-texting to flourish in groups marked by strong inner consensus shielded with an impenetrable parochialism.” C. H. Dodd, the first of those to argue for the integrity of the NT authors, points out that the NT writers quoted from a consistent set of OT passages, which indicates “something belonging to the body of instructions [a testimonia] imparted, orally in the main… to those whose duties in the church led them to Old Testament research; a sort of guide to the study of the Bible for Christian teachers.” He also argues that the manner of their quotation shows they wanted the reader to apply the quote in its context to their theological argument, thus showing they were being faithful to the OT meaning. They also showed remarkable ability to draw together many “Day of the LORD” strands and apply them to Jesus’ work with care given to all of the texts and penetration into their meaning. Albert Sundberg argues against Dodd’s view that there was a testimonia in use by the NT authors. The whole of the LXX was their source and exposition was just accustomed to certain quotes. Howard Mashall takes up Dodd’s view and gives a counter argument. The remaining articles in these sections look at specific passages and argue for or against respect of the context and meaning of the OT Scriptures quoted. While we are not going to summarize these essays, they are a great resource for students and pastors who are studying these texts in greater detail.
Part 6 of this work looks at the NT author’s use of typology. David Baker argues that “typology is not a method of exegesis or interpretation but the study of historical and theological correspondences between different parts of God’s activity among His people in order to find what is typical there.” One does not use typology as a procedure but to take notice of God’s consistent work and draw parallels and show events as patterns of others. He gives guidelines for the use of typology and application to the Church. G. P. Hugenberger gives a general introduction to typology, which we will leave to the reader to reference and simply note that it will be well worth the time. Francis Foulkes argues for the validity of typological study of the OT. He admits that it is reading meaning into the text, in a sense, but it does not read a new principle into the context. Typological interpretation shows that all the OT points forward to Christ and it only reads something into the text in light of the fulfillment of history. It is the way Christians must read the OT if they follow the precedent laid out by the NT authors.
The last article of Part 6 leads the reader into the final part. Part 7 examines the question of whether or not exegetes can and should emulate the exegetical patterns of the NT authors when they study the OT. Richard Longenecker argues for the negative. He argues that Christians should be committed to receiving, defending, and proclaiming the doctrine of the NT, not its practice of exegesis. The NT authors themselves present their exegesis as more circumstantial than normative, and we cannot possibly reproduce the revelatory stance of their exegesis anyway. So, Christians today should stick to contextualizing the gospel for our own audiences. G. K. Beale (the editor of this work) proposes the positive answer to this question. He gives five hermeneutical presuppositions that the NT writers used when reading the OT Scriptures and argues we can emulate their method. Just because exegetes are not inspired as the NT authors were, does not mean they cannot reproduce their method. It simply means the exegete cannot have the same level of certainty about his conclusions. Furthermore, it remains to be proven that the NT writers really were non-contextual in their method. Arguments in this work have shown that it is probable they were. Finally, Christians should be concerned about descriptive vs. prescriptive interpretation but the burden of proof is on those who would say their method is not normative for contemporary exegetes.
This is an excellent work. We greatly appreciate Beale’s effort to present the multiple sides of the issue without adding editorial comments. One could perhaps argue that Beale’s closing article is such a comment but even then, he lets the articles stand on their own. Any student of Scripture would benefit from reading this book, however, many of the articles assume a certain scholastic knowledge that the average Christian does not generally have. That does not mean they could not enjoy this work and get a lot out of it but it does mean they might have to put in extra research while reading it. Whichever side of the argument one lands on, the book is very helpful because it presents both views. One can learn about the view they oppose and, if one is so moved, formulate arguments against the position. Furthermore, the handful of articles that are text-specific are excellent examples of the various views applied to the nuts and bolts of Scripture and provide a great resource for teaching or preaching through these texts. Finally, the bibliography is excellent and provides 10 pages worth of resources for further study on various topics. All these things combined make this book a resource worthy of any library, especially the student, scholar, and/or pastor.
August 9, 2024
Lots of great content in this book! The chapters by Poythress, Beale, and Foulkes are excellent and well worth reading. Removed one star because the opposing essays in this book, while from reputable scholars (e.g. Longenecker), were simply not very well written or argued.
April 15, 2021
This book is a solid read with great general information. It covers a number of pressing topics on the issue of whether or not the New Testament authors 'abuse' the Old Testament when utilizing it. All in all, the content will help you critically think about issues as the articles will often posit differing positions on some particulars. This all said, it gets three stars from me because of its lack of accessibility. The book is a dry read, which gets into the weeds, while being a little dated. Additionally, while the book moves you to critically think, it can leave you with more questions than answers on the subject. It is good all the same, but not at the top of my list.
January 21, 2025
I agree with many of the reviewers in the four star camp. Same essays are excellent, others are such a waste of time that the brain space it collected angers me.
Read Kaiser, Poythress, France, Dodd, Beale, Seccombe, and Foukles. Read Kaiser with a bit more nuance. Otherwise, don’t waste your time.
Read Kaiser, Poythress, France, Dodd, Beale, Seccombe, and Foukles. Read Kaiser with a bit more nuance. Otherwise, don’t waste your time.
January 15, 2019
Very informative volume on the subject. The Typology essays are most important. Finally, read Beale's essays along with your Bible.
March 25, 2019
Important collection of articles for this field. A must read.
April 5, 2016
Beale has brought together a wide range of essays, ranging from Barnabas Lindars to Roger Nicole, masterfully: the various essays within give the reader an introduction to many of the different issues and different perspectives on the New Testament use of the Old. The proficiency of the editing is clearly displayed in the perfect juxtaposition of opposing views, allowing the reader to evaluate the respective positions and see the differing biases that produce drastically different results in this area of study. Some of the more memorable and helpful essays were Beale's on Revelation, the two essays (one by Poythress) on the nuances of authorial intent, and the last three chapters on typology.
April 11, 2012
Essays on the use of the OT in the NT. Very well done and I liked the point, counterpoint, and polemical nature of some of the essays. They made you think. The section on Typology is excellent.
April 16, 2013
This is definitely a great book to read for those desiring to learn more about how the authors of the New Testament used Old Testament Scripture.
December 21, 2016
Good essays from different perspectives on the NT use of the OT. I found Francis Foulkes' study of the Acts of God as the basis of Typology very helpful
July 18, 2013
Must read status for understanding the intertexuality of Scripture.
Read
April 6, 2015read a couple of chapters for my school and they were really good.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews