The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles

by Abner Chou

Learn to interpret the Bible from the biblical writers themselves

A method of interpretation--a hermeneutic--is indispensable for understanding Scripture, constructing theology, and living the Christian life, but most contemporary hermeneutical systems fail to acknowledge the principles and practices of the biblical writers themselves.

Christians today cannot employ a truly biblical view of the Bible unless they understand why the prophets and apostles interpreted Scripture the way they did. To this end, Abner Chou proposes a "hermeneutic of obedience," in which believers learn to interpret Scripture the way the biblical authors did―including understanding the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. Chou first unfolds the "prophetic hermeneutic" of the Old Testament authors, and demonstrates the continuity of this approach with the "apostolic hermeneutic" of the New Testament authors.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Biblical Studies, School, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Christian Non Fiction

256 pages, Paperback

Published February 23, 2018

Reviews

[Emanuel Elizondo · Rating 5 out of 5]

La premisa de este libro es que hay una continuidad hermenéutica entre los profetas y apóstoles. Los apóstoles no reinterpretaron el antiguo pacto, sino que lo interpretaron correctamente en su contexto tanto histórico como teológico. El Dr. Chou defiende su tesis al examinar los pasajes más difíciles donde los apóstoles citan el AT.

Tuve el privilegio de tomar una clase doctoral con el Dr. Chou sobre intertextualidad. Este libro defiende la tesis de que los escritores bíblicos entendían la teología e intertextualidad de la revelación previa a ellos.

Aunque la clase con el Dr. Chou fue fascinante, me parece que este libro es todavía mejor, puesto que se toma el tiempo de desglosar más pausadamente sus argumentos.

No puedo decir que estoy de acuerdo con absolutamente todos los argumentos de este libro. Sin embargo, es de los mejores libros de hermenéutica que he leído, y he leído muchos. Me gusta que el autor demuestra que los profetas no eran tontos (como algunos teólogos, quizás sin querer, sugieren); eran exégetas y teólogos, al igual que los apóstoles.

El libro es un poco técnico, está destinado para estudiantes de teología. Presupone algo de conocimiento de hebreo y griego. Sin embargo, creo que un laico se podrá beneficiar grandemente de una lectura cuidadosa del libro.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

I saw that there was a book on hermeneutics coming out by Abner Chou. I thought his name sounded familiar, looked it up and remembered that I had listened to a message by him a while back, critiquing the Christocentric hermeneutic and thought that it was pretty good. Therefore I wanted to see how Chou would tackle hermeneutics overall in a book.

This book, The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles is written from the perspective that the Bible has a "built-in hermeneutic". We don't have to come up with our own. I loved that Chou points out that we don't need to go searching the hermeneutical methods of the nations in the days that the books of the Bible were written, rather we search the Bible to see how the text interprets itself.

But sadly, overall I did not like the book. Let me explain why.

First, I didn't like how the author keeps saying that the prophets were theological geniuses, they were experts in dealing with the Scriptures, they were experts at developing theology. If he just said it a couple of times I could have overlooked it, but he emphasizes it and seems to make it a major fact/point. Something you need to have fully ingrained in your head: I'll give a few quotations to show you what I mean:

"The prophets were immersed in Scripture. As a result they used it accurately in various situations and developed it theologically. They could apply God's Word to their current situation (e.g., covenant disobedience and failure) as well as advance the theological themes and concepts therein via new revelation. …In sum, the prophets were exegetes who carefully understood the Scripture, as well as theologians who profoundly expounded upon its ramifications."


"The prophets were immense biblical thinkers and writers because they were so accurate in handling the meaning and significance of Scripture. That is what made them good exegetes and theologians."


"The prophets knew post revelation well enough to incorporate sophisticated theological ideas in their texts…the prophets intentionally positioned their writings for later writers to use."

So when it says that "the Word of the Lord came to Micah" that doesn’t mean that God actually gave direct revelation, it just means that Micah had studied previous revelation enough that he was able to formulate what he thought God would want to say to the Israelites, and therefore, the book of Micah is his own commentary on previous texts? At least that's how statements like the above come across to me.

I can almost see some of this somewhat applying to the Apostles, but not with the prophets. I don't doubt that they knew previous revelation very well, but in their case we know they received DIRECT revelation, the words to speak, and visions to describe, directly from God. The majority of the prophets' revelation was directly from God, not their own study of previous texts.

"knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." (2Pe 1:20-21 ASV) Adam Clark explains this verse in this way "- That is, in any former time, by the will of man - by a man’s own searching, conjecture, or calculation; but holy men of God - persons separated from the world, and devoted to God’s service, spake, moved by the Holy Ghost. So far were they from inventing these prophetic declarations concerning Christ, or any future event, that they were φερομενοι, carried away, out of themselves and out of the whole region, as it were, of human knowledge and conjecture, by the Holy Ghost, who, without their knowing any thing of the matter, dictated to them what to speak, and what to write;"

Clark goes on to point out that it sounds like the prophets didn't really do their 'studying' until after they gave their revelation. They didn't have to understand their own prophecies at all, as the One Who actually gave them understood them perfectly. The prophets didn't think up all of this stuff, they didn't imagine their own visions connecting them to previous revelation, God showed them visions that corresponded to previous revelation. They didn't have to study out the previous revelation to come up with their own "Thus sayeth the Lord", God actually did "say" these things. God, who knew exactly how everything connected, was the Prophetic Genius giving the prophecies and intentionally positioning them for the later saints to use.

Second, I didn't like many of the hermeneutics Chou draws from the text. He makes some weird conclusions. For instance, that the prophets intentionally referred back to overall main concepts, for instance, that Daniel's (God-given) vision of the beasts (chapter 7) being subject to the Son of Man is pointing back to creation and man having dominion over the animals, and that this vision signifies that creation will return to its original order? That just seemed really, really weird. Also he talks about the New Testament giving us a hermeneutic of viewing Christ as a new David (going into the wilderness like the Davidic dynasty went into exile, facing same trials as David, born in the same place as David), a new Moses, delivering His people from exile…etc. I don't see that any of these are absolute hermeneutical principles that one should derive from the new Testament. I think the point that we should see from all that Christ did is much simpler than all of that. Isn't the main point about Christ being born in Bethlehem, going into the wilderness, coming out of Egypt, was not to fulfill a picture, that of David or of Israel, was that He was fulfilling direct prophecy about the Messiah, and thus He was the Messiah.

And then also that the prophets made sure that they used illustrations the same way earlier prophets did, like when many of them refer to an Eagle, they use an "Eagle motif", remembering how the "Eagle" picture was used in earlier revelation and going along with that. I'm not sure that that's the point of the illustrations, that they can't be used to picture anything else, they have to somehow be referring back to the original context of the picture's first use. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I’m pretty sure that "yeast", in the New Testament is used as an illustration for various things (without every time being used to refer back to its original use). You can use the same picture to describe vastly different things, and I don't see that it's a hermeneutical necessity to have it refer to the same thing every time it's used.

There were some good things in this book, but overall I didn't find it as useful as I thought I would. Chou rightly says that, "We connect the dots they (Apostles and prophets) established; we do not create new dots. Immense theology is already there, we do not need to (and cannot ) add anything new." I'm just afraid that there were too many dots connected in this book that aren't clearly connected by the Bible itself.

Many thanks to the folks at Kregel Academic for sending me a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable)!

[Libby Powell · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times a little difficult to read. By his own admission, the author speaks much better than he writes - knowing him as a professor, I can attest to that - but the content of this book is no less powerful or necessary because of the writing style. This book has had a significant impact on the way I study the Scriptures, specifically through the author's explanation and defense of the "literal-grammatical-historical" hermeneutic, and the place of authorial intent and inter/inner-textuality when interpreting Scripture . The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers walks the reader through not only the biblical hermeneutic, but also why it's right and trustworthy. Chou's book and the notes from his class are ones I revisit often, due to how practical, thorough, and biblical they are.

[Bob · Rating 3 out of 5]

Summary: An argument for interpreting the Bible in the way the prophetic and apostolic writers interpreted prior texts, using careful exegesis to understand authorial intent, working intertextually, discerning the theological meaning, and its significance for the current day.

Readers of the Bible encounter a puzzling phenomenon when they observe how the biblical writers use and interpret prior biblical texts. It often seems they do not quote and use scripture in the ways we do. They sometimes conflate two or more passages, and we find ourselves wondering how they could apply a passage in the way they do. It seems to defy grammatico-historical exegesis. Some commentators observe a discontinuity between our own reading and interpretive practice, and those of biblical writers, particular apostolic writers. They cite the influence of midrashic interpretation and pesher exegesis, following first century rabbinic practice.

Abner Chou argues for a continuity of hermeneutic practice extending from the prophets to the apostles that ought in turn shape our own hermeneutic practice. He traces how prophets paid careful attention to the words of prior scripture, the Pentateuch, seeking through careful exegesis to grasp the authorial intent, and moved from this theological meaning under inspiration to draw out the theological significance of this truth for their own readers and those to follow. Chou contends, not that they wrote better than they knew but that they knew better than we credit. In turn, the apostolic writers followed a similar practice, as they reflected on the scriptures, and the work of Christ, and their use of these scriptures represents similar careful exegesis, attention to theological meaning, and drawing out further theological significance. Chou considers each of the New Testament writers in turn. What makes for continuity and agreement among these interpreters in their intertextual work is their common approach to interpreting the biblical text within a redemptive historical perspective.

Chou supports his case by dealing with difficult instances such as the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 ("Out of Egypt I called my son"). He also traces the use of various words and themes like"seed" through various biblical uses and allusions to show a continuity of interpretation with progressive understanding. The extensive use of this material, though the author apologized for not offering an exhaustive treatment, was a rich study of biblical themes. Like other writers, he argues for "redemptive trajectories" but for him, the trajectory stops at the terminus of the New Testament and further projections, for example, with regard to roles of women in marriage and the church, are not warranted.

While some will object to this, there is much material for fruitful reflection with regard to the unfolding of redemptive history and the continuity between the testaments. His conclusions for our own interpretive and applicative practice offer sound insights in careful exegesis that understands the centrality of Christ. His fourfold framework of application that leads to worship for God's works, learning of theology, moral responses, and a worldview shaped by redemptive history is a helpful rubric for our uses of scripture in the obedience of faith.

I had two criticisms of this work. One is that the author does not address hermeneutical scholarship that does not agree with his proposal. It would seem in an academic text that this would be a given to establish the superiority of his method. There is no discussion of first century rabbinic practice, only the assumption that the apostolic hermeneutic was the prophetic hermeneutic.

Second, I felt the work was excessively repetitious in trying to drum into the reader his thesis. Some skillful editing would have made this a far more readable text. Also, Chou repeatedly misused the phrase "hone in" for "home in" (cf. this Writer's Digest article).

I do hope Chou will address these shortcomings in his future scholarly work. Showing how biblical writers read, interpreted, and responded to scripture, and how the many writers under God the Spirit's inspiration wrote one book with theological continuity is a vital project to answer the skepticism about scripture in many quarters. This will enhance the warm love he evidences for the scriptures in his writing, and I presume, with his students.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Kenny Hilliard III · Rating 2 out of 5]

Having read widely in this field, I feel like this text does not deal with many of the main issues it raises. The writer leaves some key vocabulary un-defined and utilizes "intertextuality" even though the author concedes that there is much debate on the usefulness of the term. The book is not well organized and the use of first person often clouds the line of argument in various chapters. The author also argues that his view aligns with many scholars in the field, even listing them. However, the authors often disagree on large issues in this discipline and it seems that the only thing that the author has in common with all of the names the lists is a sense of conservatism. Ultimately, I would argue that G. K. Beale's Handbook on Inner-Biblical Allusion is a better resource, and if one were to follow it with his New Testament Theology, then one would see the theory in the first and application of the theory in the second.

[Richard LaLonde · Rating 4 out of 5]

God has used and continues to use Abner Chou’s Biblical insight to grow me closer to Him and deepen my love for His Word. Although Chou departs from a Christocentric hermeneutic (especially in the second half), he makes great arguments for the continuity of the Biblical writers’ theology and hermeneutics as they progressively build off of and compliment each others’ writings. He prioritizes progressive revelation and reveals the fallacy of hermeneutical revisionism. I am surprised that after such a studious investigation into the OT’s framework, he easily embraces dispensationalism and holds to an overly literal grammatical hermeneutic in order to stick to a man made system filled with eisegetical insertions within the texts. Regardless of the inconsistencies with the literal interpretations, I think this is a great read and highly recommend for anyone interested in how the Biblical writers used each other’s writing.

[Colby Reese · Rating 3 out of 5]

(3.5 stars) This is a really good hermeneutics book from which all Christians who desire to read the Bible will benefit. Chou’s central claim is that the Bible tells us how we ought to read it through its intertextuality, and we must then submit to its self-defined hermeneutic in our exegesis. He shows how biblical authors read and interpreted earlier revelation, pointing out how they were devoted to the original meaning of texts in forming new revelation and expounding upon those texts’ significance. Additionally, they read texts in light of redemptive history, through which they developed their theology. The prophets not only showed themselves to exegete Scripture in this way, but the apostles followed suit, exampling for Christians today how we might interpret Scripture faithfully. The book is also filled with many examples from Scripture to verify these claims. For a frame of reference, it would be hard to see how John Sailhamer or Michael Shepherd would disagree with Chou’s overall claims and argumentation.

The key problems I had with the book were few, but significant enough to bump it down to 3.5 stars. First, the book is saying a lot to say a little. It’s 232 pages long, and the pages are filled with text. Granted, much of this space is spent on biblical examples to strengthen the argument, which are necessary. However, there were several points where it felt repetitive, even within a single paragraph. Second, Chou’s writing style is extremely choppy at times. The halted meter combined with the repetition sometimes made the book a headache to read. Third, he rightly uses Carson and Vanhoozer for some methodological points at the beginning of the book, specifically in regard to speech-act theory and the distinction between the meaning and significance of a text. However, he is extremely shallow with speech-act theory, making its mention nearly useless in his own book if you hadn’t read Vanhoozer or Ward before. Also, he makes too big of a distinction between the meaning and significance of a text at certain times in the book, which makes some of his argumentation about the relationship between the NT and OT cloudy. His dispensationalism shines through here a bit, as he seems to want to steer clear of saying that the NT has bearing on how we read the OT. He even goes so far as to reject “reading on the level of the canon” as incorrect, saying that one must only read a text in light of antecedent revelation - which contradicts other things he says about intertextuality and how the NT authors progress revelation. Meaning and significance are intimately related, and, more times than not, when a NT author says something about a text’s significance, he is evidently saying or assuming something about its meaning.

Overall, this is a great book that I recommend to anyone who is serious about reading the Bible well.

[Patrick Lacson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Abner Chou has made a powerful argument about hermeneutics. In the never-ending quest for hermeneutical methods, Chou makes the case that the method of the biblical writers is the one we should follow. Chou argues that the biblical writers employed a grammatical-historical approach that pursued authorial intent and preservation of single-meaning.

In the field of hermeneutics, one of the more challenging problems is how the New Testament's use of the Old. How did the NT authors interpret OT texts? Rather than begin there, Chou asks a more fundamental question which is, how did the OT authors intepret OT authors? He carefully shows how the OT prophets were precise exegetes who employed a grammatical-historical method in treating antecedent revelation. He then moves to how the NT authors interpreted the OT and demonstrates that no deeper sense, double meaning, extreme typlogy were employed but a straight forward grammatical-historical method.

The reading is very dense with a vast number of examples where a Scripture Index would serve later editions. I would highly recommend this book for the intermediate to advanced student of hermeneutics who wants to understand the competing theories of hermeneutics and understand how fundamental concepts of authorial intent, meaning, corporate singularity, intertextuality, and canonical context are employed in the process of interpretation.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book for considering how to understand the Bible as a whole book. We need to understand how the writers of Scripture read Scripture and wrote Scripture. This in turn teaches us how to read Scripture and that we are not writing Scripture. The issue of intertextuality is vital to properly understanding Scripture. I highly recommend this book.

[Todd Bryant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding read. The Bible is one book with one theme and it should be read that way. There is a tendency in our day by many to read the New Testament first and then interpret the clear meaning of the Old Testament in a way that no Old Testament saint would ever have understood. The problem with that is that New Testament writers didn't use (or misuse) the Old Testament that way. They understood that their message agreed with the Old Testament and was simply a continuation of the Old Testament redemptive storyline.

Chou's argument in this book is that our hermeneutic - the Christian hermeneutic - should be the same as the writers of Scripture. This is a fantastic read for church leaders and teachers and, perhaps, even laypersons.

Enjoy!

[Neil Kruger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chou argues that there is a consistency between the prophetic hermeneutic and apostolic hermeneutic that enables faithful Christian Bible reading and study, as well as justifies the discipline of biblical theology.

Chou largely succeeds, especially in carefully showing how the biblical authors employ intertextuality, corporate solidarity and evidence intentional directionality.

Hermeneutical theory is a complex field of study. A drawback in Chou's approach is the strict adherence to the Hirschian distinction between meaning and significance (i.e. application), which rules out the possibility of further meaning (not hidden meaning), explains why Chou largely sidesteps typology and discounts canonical readings, and does not explore to what extent the death and resurrection of Christ impacted the apostolic reading of earlier revelation.

[Drake · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is now one of my favorite books on biblical interpretation. I don't necessarily land with Chou on every conclusion, and there are still several important areas of hermeneutics he doesn't address (e.g., the role of church tradition or systematic theology in exegesis), but his deep dive into intertextuality is both enjoyable and eye-opening. His exegesis of so many difficult passages helps make this a resource that I will likely return to repeatedly in the future. This is the first book on hermeneutics I've read in its entirety that continually caused me to feel a deeper love and reverence for the Scriptures themselves.

[Drew Brads · Rating 3 out of 5]

Two stars off for the repeated use of "with that" as a conjunction. Otherwise, decent book.

[Andy Dixon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book for a class and I remember enjoying it, but would like to give it a second read before reviewing.

[Darryl Burling · Rating 5 out of 5]

Abner Chou’s book is refreshing. So many hermeneutics books seem to draw on external theories and theological presuppositions and insist on using these presuppositions in their hermeneutics. The problem with this is that the presuppositions they use come from reading scripture with a different hermeneutic than they prescribe. So if I can get my understanding of Christ without a Christ-centered hermeneutic, why change my hermeneutic approach?

Chou’s framework starts with Authorial intent. The purpose of hermeneutics is to understand what the original divine author intended (and the intent of the human and divine authors are the same). He then explains the difference between meaning and significance. This is important, there is just one meaning of scripture but significance for the original recipient, and later recipients can be different or better, more expansive. Third, he explains and demonstrates the importance of intertextuality. Christ-centered hermeneutics has a tendency to spend too little time on intertextuality, which as Chou ably argues, is because we don’t know our Old Testaments well enough.

Chou then traces these three principles throughout the entire Bible demonstrating how authors build on previous revelation in conjunction with new revelation from the Lord.

This is an important book. If the text of scripture does have its own hermeneutic, as I believe Chou demonstrates, then there are moral implications for ignoring or rejecting that hermeneutic and applying alternative theological or presuppositional frameworks as a hermeneutical lens.

Having said that, I would also add that this book is textually rich, and if the reader lacks sufficient depth of the theological background, or hasn’t spent enough time in the history of the Old Testament, they will struggle to understand some of his articles (demonstrated in some of the other reviews). This simply reinforces Chou’s point, that we need to know our Old Testaments better.


I bought this book (how I wish Kregel sent me free books!) and read it to help me prepare for PhD exams, and it was a helpful resource to center me in the text again after reading a dozen other hermeneutics books (oh the irony).

I strongly recommend this book.

[Lucas Bradburn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pleasantly surprised by this book. I learned to embrace the "apostolic hermeneutic" in seminary (per the influence of James Hamilton, who endorses this book). I am convinced, though, that if readers follow the model presented in this book they will arrive at non-dispensational conclusions. This explains why I am both surprised and pleased by the subject matter (and argument) advanced by the author. He is a Master's Seminary graduate and professor (and the book is endorsed by Dr. MacArthur!). I am hoping this signals a shift in dispensational thought (at least the version that TMS articulates). It will be interesting what the next 50 years will yield if the TMS students continue down this trajectory. Are we on the verge of a consensus?

[Matt Crawford · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel like I have to give this book a good score. It’s not really exciting and doesn’t hold the attention very much. He spend more time in examples and not in application. What little application he gives, he says “I don’t have the space to go into it here.” But he states his purpose and technically builds a case for the necessity of intertextuality. Which honestly is not a hard sale. I suppose it would be good to reinforce what we already know, Scripture interprets Scripture. There is continuity between the prophets and the apostles. Continuity exists where they quoted their predecessors. Obviously. He builds a case for biblical theology, but is that something that the target demographic for a book like this really needs?

[James Hogan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting and encouraging read. Hermeneutics is one of those tricky subjects that everyone has an opinion on, if they know it or not. In the context of Scripture and understanding what God has said, it is absolutely vital to seek to know and understand how one ought to read and interpret the Bible, even with the understanding that one will never fully understand it in this life (or even the life to come - we Christians will spend eternity drawing closer towards perfect knowledge and communion with our Lord!). But if one does want to know how God communicates to us, would it not behoove us to seek to understand how we ought read and understand the written word that He has given us? That is why a proper hermeneutic matters. If God wants us to know Him and has given us a word that we might know him by, then we absolutely should seek to understand how we might read and understand this word. Long intro. Sorry.

But anyway - this book. Abner Chou writes an interesting (if at times overly repetitive and dense) book attempting to prove that there is a singular hermeneutic underlying all of Scripture. The apostles and authors of the New Testament books do not engage in a different hermeneutic compared to the Old Testament prophets and writers. This is important because it is all too common (even - especially? - in these days) for one to read the New Testament and feel that it has wiped out everything from the Old Testament - it is only the New Testament that matters. The Old Testament writers didn't really understand how God works and hence we can safely place their writings aside and focus on the books in the NT. Also, don't the NT authors use the OT in rather odd ways sometimes? Clearly they have a different way of looking at Scripture that we can't really understand. The Bible is just a bunch of different authors writing in hyper-local contexts engaging with their own local community, correct? Abner Chou writes this book to prove the negative to the above. Instead of understanding the Bible as a mishmash of tribal laws and oral traditions, he recognizes the Bible as ultimately inspired by God, as a book with a common message and common theme. And as an outflow, he recognizes that the prophets and apostles worked out this common theme as they engaged with the writings that were available to them. Instead of a bunch of texts standing alone, the writers are engaging with one another in ways that a proper understanding of intertextuality reveals. These authors were not primitives making it up as they went along - oh no. Instead, the authors of Scripture were highly intelligent and very deliberate (and yes, divinely inspired) in how they crafted their writings to communicate and proclaim the redemptive plan of God. Understanding the redemptive-historical framework of Scripture enables one to more fully grasp the way the writers of Scripture (in progressive fashion) engage with other Scriptures as God's written revelation continues throughout the ages.

I feel as if I cannot do this book justice, but I will simply say that this book was worth the read. It is pretty dense and scholarly and many, many footnotes and likely this won't be worth it for many. Not an easy read. But it was worth it for me. There were a few slight (but veiled) references to the dispensational convictions of the author, but I do not feel as if these interfered with the overall message of the book. I could be wrong here (my low theological education showing, I suppose), but I believe both fully reformed and dispensational camps could read this book and come away nodding their heads in agreement with the vast majority. This book did my soul good and I came away with two major takeaways. Firstly, understanding the full depths of Scripture is a hard and challenging task, one that takes hard work and will never end in this life. Secondly, seeking to understand what God is communicating to us in his word is worth the effort. If we understand who God is (Creator) and who we are (creation) and recognize that there is a crack in the world and that all is not as should be and that there is a distance between us and God - what else should be our response than to ask - how might I be with God? If we see the Bible as God's message revealing the answer, then ought we not then seek to read and plumb the riches of the Bible in order to more fully know and appreciate and be overcome by God and all He is and all He offers? Yes and forever yes. For at the end of the day, we read this Bible and we see all roads pointing to the cross, that fateful day when the God-who-became-man died upon a cross that all who look to him in humble desperation and simple faith shall be united to him in this death and in his resurrection rise to life everlasting in the presence of the God who is.

[Doug Hibbard · Rating 4 out of 5]

I greatly enjoy getting to read extra books for the blog. One of my favorite publishers is Kregel Academic and Ministry, because they seem to have a standard of taking the text seriously in all their publications. The authors may not always be in line with my opinions, but they are serious about the work. That is what keeps me striving to keep up with the free ones Kregel Academic sends, so they can send more. Today’s book was provided by them, and features a scholar I’ve been reading bits of for some time now.HBWChoucover

Abner Chou’s The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers attempts to understand how the writers of Scripture, specifically the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New, understood the parts of Scripture which they read. For example, how does Isaiah interpret the Pentateuch? How does Peter interpret the Psalms of David, or the author of Hebrews (Luke, per David Allen, see Lukan Authorship of Hebrews) involve the narratives of the Books of the Kings?

It is important, is it not, to consider that question? We can spend hours upon hours of study and reach our own conclusions, but is it not valuable to consider this question? I know that I have, at times, read Matthew’s application of prophecy in the Gospels and wondered where it came from.

Now, a simplistic response would be to say that the Apostles and Prophets were inspired, so they didn’t have a hermeneutic, or method of Bible understanding, at all. But that’s making the answer more of a spiritual problem, as if God was not working through people in the writing.

Chou’s work is definitely more of an advanced studies work than an introduction to hermeneutics. He delves into debates about intertextuality and raises scholarly divisions like the difference between a “redemptive movement hermeneutic” and a “hermeneutic sensitive to redemptive history.” In all, you’ll want to have your academic mind ready.

The example given of tracking “seed” from Genesis on to the Messiah is a useful tool. Chou shows how one word gets used, reused, and how the meaning gets integrated into other texts.

In all, I like this work. Chou’s writing style is dense, and at times a bit of a challenge to follow, because he does tend to circle back onto points. But it’s not impenetrable. Just a bit challenging late at night!

Do I recommend this for everyone? Not really. This is an academic study, not a casual read. Still, if you want to start into the debate about hermeneutics and intertextuality, both the work and the included bibliography will make a great start.

[Nick Carrico · Rating 2 out of 5]

Chou rightly realizes the difficulty of the historical grammatical hermeneutic in dealing with the apostles use of the prophets. He attempts to alleviate this by saying that the prophets often left their messages open-ended for the apostles to build upon. But he cannot go so far as to say That what they wrote about was really about Christ. Especially in the case of Hosea 11 and talking about “out of Egypt I called my son”. I think he puts forward a case that is the best that you can do, but it ultimately will fall short because historically what the prophets were writing about in their view could not be about Christ because they were writing about Israel. This is where the redemptive historical hermeneutic Would be much more sufficient. He has to alter the meaning of the word fulfill so that it doesn’t contradict the hermeneutical conclusions of Israel.

He also begins the book by pointing out that he automatically doesn’t assume Christ in the OT. This was to be expected, but to actually say you don’t look for Christ when He said He was there is weird.

He also doesn’t allow the Bible to be a commentary of itself. His understanding of an OT text has to precede what the NT says. He doesn’t allow the Bible to speak for itself.

I think the biggest issue with the book, is that you’re trying to lay a framework for reading the Bible and I can’t recall a time when the Spirit was an emphasis on the writing process. Much of the book is dedicated to the prophets and apostles and their theological understandings, but the Spirit’s work is absent. All scripture is breathed by God.
There was an over emphasis on the perceived authors intended meaning. There is one consistent author over scripture and that’s the Spirit. The Spirit can (and did) write with the true Israel in mind when talking about the assembly of Israel. That gets lost when focusing so much on the human authors. I think this is probably the biggest reason dispensationalists have a pharisaical understanding of much of the OT. The Pharisees were looking for an earthly king, when they should’ve expected something better. Just like the land. Just like the people.

[Peter Krol · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book. Chou embarks on a quest to see whether there is a consistent interpretive logic among the biblical authors. Or, being divinely inspired, could they deal with earlier Scriptures any way they chose in order to make their points? Should we have a reasonable expectation of being able to imitate how the New Testament uses the Old Testament?

In other words, is Paul crazy for reading Hagar and Sarah as an allegory of Jews and Gentiles? Or was Matthew using his divinely inspired prerogative to "re-write" Hosea 11:1 to make it about Jesus' infant flight (Matt 2:15)? Were the apostles simply products of their times? Did the prophets write better than they knew?

Chou begins with the prophets, examining how they handle earlier revelation, especially the Torah. Then he looks at how the apostles use prophetic texts.

In the end, Chou affirms our confidence in grammatical-historical methods of interpretation, and he sends us off with a set of tools to make sense of the deep interconnectedness of Scripture. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

Some great quotes:

"The apostles show us how thoroughly they understood the Old Testament. They were immersed in the content and interconnectedness of prior revelation. They indeed were men of the book. That should convict us about how familiar we should be with that part of our Bible" (154).

"The New Testament can say a lot with a little because it pulls and develops information from the repository of the Old. If you want to be a better reader of the New Testament, then you need to be a better reader of the Old" (198).

"What we have done in the New Testament's use of the Old is walked into the tail end of essentially over a millennia of conversation...and accused everyone except ourselves of being hermeneutically awkward" (213).

[Amelia and John · Rating 3 out of 5]

A critical, evangelical perspective -

Chou argues that the way the apostles and prophets interpret and explain Scripture is continuous, and consistent with the hermeneutics of contemporary evangelical interpreters of the Bible.

For such a short volume, the argument is ambitious. The strongest support is that Chou addresses various "problematic" instances in which some have questioned whether the apostles (e.g., Paul) have misinterpreted texts in the Old Testament. Another support is Chou's demonstration of the intertextuality (how passages draw from other passages) between biblical texts.

This proposed apostolic-prophetic hermeneutic is of immense value to the Church, because Chou offers what in my opinion is a much more effective and edifying hermeneutic as opposed to the contemporary, popular, evangelical hermeneutic. The latter is the attempt to read Christ into every passage of Scripture. This has led to more than a few evangelicals questioning whether there are some passages wherein Christ can be found at all. It is a view of Scripture prone to eisegesis and mistreatment of the text.

The flaw of the apostolic-prophetic method from my perspective is that Chou sees the contemporary evangelical interpretive project as simply learning what the prophets and apostles had for us to begin with. This sort of primitivism - originalism, if you will - might not useful for today's Church. There are many issues that we cannot easily extrapolate from the Bible. E.g., questions regarding AI, extraterrestrial life, multiple religious orientation, cloning, etc. The Church must surge forward, guided by the Holy Spirit, and sometimes this means that we must go "further" (but not beyond) what the prophets and apostles try to tell us.

[Chase Soares · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Chou shows his expertise in crafting this outstanding work. His logic is easy to follow, his examples make sense, and his section breaks all aid the reader in being able to follow his train of thought. While the writing is extremely well done, it is a very dense book and would not be recommended for ‘light reading’ and is definitely focused more on seminary students or those who enjoy theology. The expanse of examples given prove the validity of Dr. Chou’s arguments, but can also produce a catastrophic brain fog. Additionally, there were a couple editorial issues I found in reading and the one graphic included was not beneficial personally. All of this to say this book was incredibly fruitful to read. Already subscribing to a LGHH it was edifying to see all of the justification and pedigree of the system, and reinvigorates excitement in delving into the intertextuality of the Word. I look forward to re-reading this book many times and continuing to gain new insights for years to come.

[David Meiklejohn · Rating 3 out of 5]

You need to work quite hard at this one as there’s quite lot in it for the number of pages, but it’s not too hard to read for an in-depth look at the subject.
Chou examines how we read the Bible, by looking at how the writers of the Bible read the scriptures written before them. He looks at how they used words and phrases already existing in the scripture and used them carefully and consistently, starting with the Old Testament prophets and then moving on to the New Testament writers. He wants to show that they understood what they were quoting, that they remained true to its meaning in its context and that they added to it without changing what came before.
He rejects the notion that the writers just wrote stuff down not realising that God would link it all together. The Bible is intertextual in nature and builds on ideas and types as it goes.
An interesting read that might affect how you would preach a passage.

[Kevin Megill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good book -- my ratings are always low compared to others.

This was what it said it was -- a careful explanation of how Biblical New Testament authors used the Old Testament. The main thesis is that they read the Old Testament as strongly "intertextual" -- i.e., that the Old Testament is full of sophisticated connections between passages, so that early texts are used later in the OT to develop a trajectory of meaning aiming towards the Messiah (and other prophetic themes). The New Testament writers were trying to show that these threads were consistently fulfilled by Jesus.

I found it convincing.

I disagreed with the defn of interpretation in the first chapter because I think the meaning we seek is not the meaning in the mind of the author but the meaning the text would have had to a reasonable reader at the time.

Worth keeping around as a resource, but not essential. I probably won't need to reread it since I already agree with the basic idea.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Certain observations of this book were great. Specifically, demonstrating how NT authors quote OT texts in a way that develop their contributions further (Matthew's use of Hosea instead of Exodus for Jesus coming out of Egypt as an example). I was very hopeful for this book, and this one aspect was helpful.

Criticisms: 1.) Denying sensus plenior is a gateway drug to deconstruction. We must always hold the divine authorial intent above the human authorial intent, otherwise we read out Bibles like atheists. 2.) Minimizing typology runs against many uses of the NT of the OT. 3.) I cringe every time I see "Revelations" in the plural instead of "Revelation". 4.) Covenant theology should have played a larger role. I knew this was not by a reformed author, but still. CT is possibly the single largest way the NT uses the OT.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book about reading. The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers can neatly be divided into three sections. Section one describes how the authors of the Old Testament viewed and used the Scriptures. Section two describes how the apostles approached the Scriptures. Section three provides practical conclusions and counsel on how modern readers of the Bible should approach the Scriptures. Large portions address the New Testament use of the Old.

This is not a step-by-step book about how to do hermeneutics. Instead, it is an argument for Christians to practice a hermeneutic that is grounded in the Bible itself. A hermeneutic driven by the intent of the biblical author to arrive at both meaning and application. A hermeneutic practiced by the prophets, the apostles…and should be practiced by Christians today.

[Simon Field · Rating 5 out of 5]

This a fascinating read on how the Biblical authors understand each others writings. Read this if you've ever wondered why NT authors quote the OT seemingly inaccurately. Or if you've ever wondered how revelation functions- is it new information given by the Holy Spirit or is it the biblical authors seeking to understand the prior inspired writings or a mixture of both?

Essentially Abner Chou concludes that the prophets and apostles have the same hermeneutic that we should be employing today. This grammatical-historical approach makes authorial intent paramount. Helpfully, Chou analyses texts in scripture that on the surface don't seem to fit this pattern.

This book is very clearly written with appropriate repitition throughout to highlight the key concepts. Highly recommend!

[William Barrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

The New Testament author's use of quotations from the Old Testament offer many potential problems as well as a wealth of significant theological information. Chou provides a careful analysis of how and why biblical authors refer to biblical materials other than their own. One key concept to incorporate into the reading of Scripture is intertextuality, the use of or appeal to major themes running throughout biblical revelation. The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers should be read by every Bible teacher in order to adequately instruct students of the Bible in the proper source for interpretive methodology (hermeneutics) leading to appropriate development of doctrine (theology) and application (living the biblical truths).

[Jonathan Klimek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal! Enlightening! Clarifying! Convicting! Edifying! Helpful! Beneficial!

Dr. Chou shows us how Scripture prescribes the Literal-Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic (LGH); the Biblical writers, the prophets and apostles used a LGH Hermeneutic, therefore we as the reader, who seek to understand the author's intent must use a LGH Hermeneutic--Scripture requires it!

Dr. Chou also shows us how the New Testament writers used the Old Testament to build on the theology which they had already provided years early--and so we see Biblical Theology developed and provided over the years--progressive revelation.

Every Bible preacher or teacher needs to read this book.