Intertextuality and Hermeneutics

Note: This is my senior paper for my Biblical Studies degree.

Introduction

A Holy Book is a considerable aspect of many religions around the world. Considering Christianity and the effects of the Protestant Reformation, a significant interest in perfecting biblical hermeneutics[1] is present in both churches and academic circles. Also, two thousand years of history changed how readers of Scripture see and interpret the text. For example, allegorical reading was a prominent practice in the Patristic Era. Modern hermeneutics, on the other hand, tend to defend that a passage will have only one meaning;[2] examples throughout church history demonstrate that such belief was not always present among bible interpreters.

One of the prominent approaches to biblical interpretation in the Western academy is the Historical-Grammatical Method. Bruce K. Waltke defined this hermeneutical method as an attempt “to recover the author’s meaning and intention[3] by carefully establishing the context — the meaning of his words, the grammar of his language and the historical and cultural circumstances, etc. — in which he wrote.”[4] Such a method is a considerable part of biblical studies and can be helpful when trying to reconstruct what the text might have meant to the original audience. However, some issues exist when biblical interpreters today only follow this methodology. Bruce K. Waltke pointed out three problems with the Historical-Grammatical Method: “(1) prejudgment; (2) biblical criticism; and (3) context.”[5]Considering the first problem Waltke mentioned, prejudgment can be summarized as the idea that “it is impossible for him [the interpreter] to be neutral or presuppositionless.”[6] The second issue, biblical criticism, concerns reconstructing the original biblical text from the different manuscripts people discovered throughout the years.[7] A hermeneutical method wholly dependent on the original text to consider that an interpretation is trustworthy is a route for failure since the original manuscripts were never found. The third problem that Waltke explained regarding context is divided into the different areas that context applies in hermeneutics: “linguistic, literary, cultural, situational, scriptural, and theological.”[8] Finding the best methodology to study the Bible is not an easy assignment.

Interpretation of the Bible faces two different disciplines: biblical studies and theology. Biblical studies “is a collection of various, and in some cases independent, disciplines clustering around a collection of texts known as the bible whose precise limits (those of the Bible) are still a matter of disagreement among various branches of the Christian churches.”[9] Theology, even though it is not separated from Biblical Studies in Christianity, “is the careful, systematic study, analysis, and statement of Christian doctrine.”[10] Therefore, while Biblical Studies focuses on analyzing and understanding the biblical text in its historical setting, theology seeks to take the teachings and build an application.

One of the most fascinating areas of Biblical Studies is intertextuality.[11] Stefan Alkier stated, “The concept of intertextuality therefore involves the task of investigating the relationships that a text can have with other texts.”[12] In Biblical Studies, when an author of the Bible references another book, the study of that passage must pass through an analysis of intertextuality.[13] Considering the necessity of finding a more efficient and less pragmatic way of doing hermeneutics, the biblical text demonstrates how to develop an understanding of God’s commandments and teachings concerning different human realities. Therefore, in the challenging task of making theology based on the meaning of a biblical passage, the New Testament authors’ usage of quotations from the Old Testament, their usage of typology, and their development of themes teach a more faithful process for how to build the application of Scripture.

Intertextuality

When considering the discipline of intertextuality, the first aspect that guides the discussion might be how the New Testament authors use the Old Testament text. In other words, “when NT authors appeal to OT texts to support or validate their arguments, the relationship between their meanings and that which was originally intended by their OT forebears is the central question.”[14] Therefore, one prominent aspect to consider in studying intertextuality between the New and Old Testament is whether the authors even consider the historical context when using a passage from the Hebrew Bible to make a point. If they are not worried about maintaining the original intention of the Old Testament author, the question then becomes if the Historical-Grammatical method carries the correct concerns regarding how to apply the Bible.

The three perspectives regarding whether the New Testament authors were concerned about the Old Testament authors’ intentions or not are: “single meaning, unified referents,” “single meaning, multiple contexts and referents,” and “fuller meaning, single goal.”[15] The first position denies “any distinction between them — what the OT author intends by his words is what the NT author intends.”[16] The second perspective is in accordance “with the first view in affirming the singular nature of the meanings intended by the OT and NT authors when OT texts are cited in the NT,” but “the words of the OT authors frequently take on new dimensions of significance and are found to apply appropriately to new referents and new situations as God’s purposes unfold in the larger canonical context.”[17] The latter response suggests “that the NT writers often perceive new meanings in OT texts that are not necessarily closely related to the meanings intended by the original authors.”[18] For this paper, the third perspective is considered in pointing to hermeneutical teachings from intertextuality.

New Testament authors used Old Testament passages in different ways. Regarding quotations by the New Testament authors from the Old Testament, the different passages do not follow one specific criterion on how to apply Scripture to the intended context. The richness that comes from observing how intertextuality works in the New Testament should liberate Christians today to understand that there are numerous possibilities for learning and benefiting from Scripture.

The most classical and recognized way the New Testament authors quoted Old Testament passages is “to indicate direct fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy.”[19] The four Gospels tend to carry the beginning of Jesus’ ministry with a text structure of pointing to what happened and then quoting an Old Testament passage to indicate why that event occurred. Beale stated, “This category of usage is the most straightforward and, usually, the easiest to understand: an OT passage makes a specific prediction, and an event in the NT is seen as the fulfillment of the prediction.”[20] Some examples of this first use are in Matt. 2:5–6, Matt. 3:3, and Luke 4:17–21.[21] Such an idea of the fulfillment of prediction from the Old Testament in the Gospels narrative makes sense with the expectation of the Messiah’s first coming. Therefore, such a pattern points to a contextual application of Old Testament prophecy.

The second way the New Testament author quoted from the Hebrew Bible is “to indicate indirect fulfillment of Old Testament typological prophecy.”[22] While concluding that Matthew’s quotation from Mic 5:2 in the second chapter regarding Jesus’ birthplace is a fulfillment of a prophecy that talks about the Messiah is correct, some passages from the Gospels seem to be making the same use of an Old Testament verse, but they do not fit the first category. One example is Matt 1:22–23.[23] Matthew mentioned the way the incarnation happened (a virgin getting pregnant by the Holy Spirit and giving birth) and quoted Isa 7:14.[24] The New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition translation of the Isaiah verse is correct by saying “young woman” and not “a virgin.” The translators of the Septuagint[25] made a mistake by translating the Hebrew word ‘almah as a virgin,[26] and most of the time that New Testament authors quoted from the Hebrew Bible, they used the Greek translation.

What Matthew did in verses 22 and 23 of chapter 1 becomes apparent when the difference between direct fulfillment of prophecy and indirect fulfillment is defined. Beale wrote, “The main difference… is that the direct fulfills what was explicitly predicted by the words of the prophet, while the indirect fulfills what was implicitly foreshadowed by historical events.”[27] Another example of indirect typological fulfillment is Matt 2:14–15.[28] Also, considering that the New Testament authors did not use a different textual formula for both uses of prophecy from the Hebrew Bible, to point out which way they use the Old Testament concerning direct or indirect fulfillment depends solely on the context of the Old Testament passage. Such a situation is noticeable in Isa 7:14 and Matt 1:22–23 because, when studied in its own literary and historical context, the fact that the Isaiah verse points to a situation regarding Israel’s history in that time is detectable.

The question then becomes how to understand what the New Testament authors are trying to say when they quote a prophecy that did not directly refer to an event in the life of Christ. In Matt 1:22–23, some parallels should be made to notice the message from the typology that Matthew pointed out. In Isaiah, the person he referred to was a young woman, and Matthew was referring to Mary, who got pregnant with Jesus through the action of the Holy Spirit as a virgin woman. Isaiah is talking about a sign that the king would receive: the child of that young woman called Immanuel, which means “God with us.”

Even though the name of Jesus does not have the same meaning as Immanuel, Mary gave birth to God himself, connecting to the meaning of Immanuel. Regarding Matt 1:23, Craig L. Blomberg wrote, “He [God’s angel] commands them to name the child Jesus (“Yahweh is salvation”), explaining that he will be a savior of his people, not from the physical oppression of the Roman occupying forces but from the spiritual enslavement of their sins.”[29] Matthew was talking about the incarnation when referring to the passage from Isaiah. Therefore, he was trying to claim that what happened in the first century was much bigger than the sign during Isaiah’s time. Not a young woman, but a virgin woman was giving birth to God himself who, through the incarnation, would walk through several years among his people. The message is not about a Messianic prophecy being fulfilled but about how the birth of Christ was a much bigger sign of God being with his people and, especially from that point forward, with all humanity. Also, the aspect that Blomberg pointed out about the type of salvation that Jesus was born to bring demonstrates again how the incarnation was a more giant sign than what happened in the Old Testament. Such use of Scripture presents a theological interpretation rather than a purely historical one.

A third way that the New Testament authors use the Old Testament is “to indicate affirmation that a not-yet-fulfilled Old Testament prophecy will assuredly be fulfilled in the future.”[30] The following category of New Testament use of the Old Testament is “to indicate an analogical or illustrative use of the Old Testament.”[31] According to Beale, such a use of the Old Testament “is to emphasize a gnomic, broad, or universal principle.”[32] Two examples are enough to illustrate this type of use of the Hebrew Bible: Rev 2:20[33] and 1 Cor 9:9–10.[34] In the passage in Revelation, “Jesus confronts a problem of sin in the church of Thyatira” by mentioning the figure of Jezebel.[35] The logic of such analogy comes from the fact that “Jezebel incited King Ahab and Israel to compromise and ‘fornicate’ by worshiping Baal,” and “similarly, the false teachers in the church were arguing that some degree of participation in idolatrous aspects of Thyatiran culture was permissible.”[36] In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul intended to argue that “servants of the gospel who ‘sow spiritual things’ among people should benefit materially from those same people.”[37] Therefore, considering that, in Deuteronomy, “the primary intention… is care for animals,” the claim that comes from such an analogy, “going from the lesser to the greater and comparing the two, says that if animals are to benefit from their labor, how much more should humans.”[38] However, more than illustrating such a use of the Hebrew Bible, a reflection on analogy resulting from interpretation and application is necessary in the present context of hermeneutics.

The use of analogy by New Testament authors to apply an Old Testament passage is critical to learning about hermeneutics from intertextuality when considering the Historical-Grammatical method. Peter Enns stated, “To observe how the New Testament authors handle the Old Testament is to conclude that their notions of what constitutes a proper handling of the Old Testament do not always square with our instincts.”[39] Considering the possibility of the first view regarding how the New Testament authors might be using the Old Testament, one might claim that “although it may not be obvious to us, there must be some legitimate trigger in the Old Testament text since no inspired writer would handle the Old Testament so irresponsibly.”[40] Getting to this conclusion regardless of how obvious it is in many passages that the authorial intention of the Old Testament authors was not being respected just to preserve a modern method of hermeneutics is to lose an opportunity to learn from Scripture how to read and understand it.

When using the Hebrew Bible in their context, the New Testament authors were doing a theological exercise. Enns stated, “The New Testament authors were explaining what the Old Testament means in light of Christ’s coming.”[41]Enns explained that as the historical and grammatical context matter when trying to understand what a biblical text was intended to mean, the hermeneutical context is also necessary to understand better what the New Testament authors were doing when quoting the Hebrew Bible.[42] He wrote, “The Old Testament as a whole is about him [Jesus]… In other words, to see how Christ fulfills the Old Testament — is not simply a matter of reading the Old Testament objectively but reading it ‘Christianly,’ which is what we see in the New Testament time and time again.”[43] The crucial aspect to understand is that such a concept of the Old Testament pointing to Jesus should not make Christians try to twist the original intended message from the Hebrew Bible or put Jesus on every page. Instead, Christians should understand what the Old Testament points towards in the new covenant.

Therefore, the hermeneutical context needs to be considered when thinking about intertextuality. Enns stated that “these biblical interpreters [from the Second Temple period][44]… were not motivated to reproduce the intention of the original human author. They were much more concerned to dig beneath the surface to reveal things… that the untrained and impatient reader would miss.”[45] Enns explained that the Second Temple period had a pattern for how to interpret other texts and even though what the New Testament authors were doing was not exactly like other examples from their time, Bible interpreters today should expect them “to behave in a way that would make it recognizable to its contemporaries rather than expecting it to conform to alien, twenty-first-century expectations.”[46] Noticing the difference in hermeneutics methodology in the New Testament authors’ writings is not difficult.[47]

Typology

Another considerable concept related to intertextuality is typology. James M. Hamilton Jr. stated, “Typology is God-ordained, author-intended historical correspondence and escalation in significance between people, events, and institutions across the Bible’s redemptive-historical story.”[48] Hamilton pointed out two critical features of typology: historical correspondence and escalation in significance.[49] “Key terms,” “quotations,” “repetitions of sequence of events,” and “similarity in salvation-historical or covenantal import” are what drive the historical correspondence.[50]While the escalation in significance consists of “when key terms, quotations of earlier material, and similarities in salvation-historical and covenantal import draw our attention to repeated installments in patterns of events, our sense of the importance of those patterns increases.”[51] For Hamilton, such key features of typology are what proves “that the Old Testament authors intended to create the typological points of historical correspondence and escalation for which the New Testament authors claim fulfillment.”[52] Richard B. Hays, on the other hand, argued that “figural reading of the Bible need not presume that the Old Testament authors — or the characters they narrate — were conscious of predicting or anticipating Christ.”[53] Such disagreement might lay on the question of authorial intention.[54] However, whether Old Testament authors knew how a person or an event would point to Christ or a theological truth in the first century, the New Testament authors understood the links they were doing, which is what matters for learning how to do hermeneutics with them.

As in the second section of this paper, some examples will illustrate the definition of typology and settle more the foundation for arguing how the New Testament authors teach how to make theological claims. Hamilton separated his book into three parts to give examples of typological interpretation of the New Testament regarding aspects of the Old Testament: persons, events, and institutions. One example from each part is enough for this section.

For the first type of typology (persons), one of the examples that Hamilton gave is “the righteous sufferer.”[55]Hamilton started explaining the typology of “the righteous sufferer” by mentioning how John referenced Psalms 41 regarding the death of Jesus.[56] Hamilton wrote that, even though the Psalm does not contain a textual structure of a prophecy that predicts an event in the future, “a broader eschatological program at work in the canonical Psalter read as a book joins with the typological pattern of the righteous sufferer seen in David’s experience, and for the program and the pattern John presents Jesus claiming fulfillment when Judas betrays him.”[57] Such a concept demonstrates one aspect of the biblical canon that the use of quotations contains: as history develops in Scripture, biblical theology is also developed by all the biblical authors.

The chapter for the typology of “the righteous sufferer” is divided into three parts regarding the Old Testament. Hamilton wrote a summary for Joseph, Moses, and then David as all three went through a pattern of being rejected and then exalted.[58] Hamilton’s thesis regarding the typology of “the righteous sufferer” in the Old Testament in the person of Jesus is based on Isa 52:13–53:12.[59] He explained that the thesis “is twofold: first, that within the book of Isaiah, what the servant suffers resolves the broader issue in the book, as he bears Yahweh’s covenant wrath against his sinful people, making it so that Yahweh can comfort his people and accomplish for them the new exodus and return from exile.”[60] Hamilton continued, “Second, virtually everything Isaiah says about the suffering servant is informed by earlier Scripture, as Isaiah prophesies a future figure who will suffer as those in Israel’s history had before him.”[61] Even though all the Gospels demonstrate many different aspects of who Jesus is, each one of the four Gospels mainly portrays one of the aspects of who Jesus is as Christ; the Gospel of Mark is the one that pictures Jesus as the suffering Son of God.[62] Therefore, the typology of “the righteous sufferer” throughout the Old Testament has its fulfillment[63] in the suffering of Jesus as the Lamb of God who brought us life.

Regarding events, a typology to consider is creation. Regardless that Christians today misunderstand the point of the Genesis text by trying to make a scientific explanation of how the world was created, as an ancient Near East text, the author of Genesis 1 had other theological claims in mind. John H. Walton informed that the “close connection between cosmic origins and temple building reinforces the idea across the ancient Near East that the temples were considered primordial and that cosmic origins at times were defined in terms of a temple element.”[64] A further development of the typology present in creation has its connection to what Walton explained by saying that “in the biblical text the descriptions of the tabernacle and temple contain many transparent connections to the cosmos.”[65] Hamilton explained the biblical development of the creation typology with the chiasm of (1) “the creation of the cosmic temple,” (2) “the tabernacle and temple as microcosm,” (3) “Christ the fulfillment of the temple,” (4) “the church as the temple of the Holy Spirit,” (5) “the cosmic temple of the new creation.”[66] Therefore, the creation of the universe started the development of a dwelling place for God with humanity.

For the typology in institutions, marriage will be the example. The typology of marriage follows the description of marriage as a covenant in Genesis 2. Hamilton then mentioned how “Moses uses imagery drawn from human marriage to speak figuratively about the relationship between Yahweh and his people.”[67] The classical prophets[68] further developed the typology by discussing spiritual adultery, considering Israel practicing idolatry and not living according to God’s Law, the Torah.[69] Following the consequences of Israel not repenting from their evil ways, they suffered the consequences of their sins, and the typology evolved to “divorce and remarriage: exile and new covenant return.”[70] In the New Testament, many biblical references exist to the development of the marriage as typology, such as Christ preparing a place for his bride (the church) as a reference to the Jewish costume for wedding in Jesus’ time. Therefore, the Church waits for the coming of Christ as a bride would wait for the coming of her groom for the wedding to happen.

What Is [the Nature of] Scripture?

When thinking about hermeneutics, the question of what Scripture is usually tends not to be something Christians ask. As Enns pointed out, “To ask questions about the identity and purpose of the Bible might appear to be a bit over the top, not only at the end of a book[71] but in general.”[72] However, a lack of a considerable understanding of Scripture and its function seems present in churches. Allowing for a personification, Scripture talks about itself as “inspired by God and [is] useful to teaching, for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”[73] Unfortunately, a view of the Bible as a life manual is widespread, regardless of whether someone would use such an expression.[74] The Historical-Grammatical method, even with its qualities, deals with Scripture purely methodically.

The idea that Scripture is a bunch of text combined (passages) and each needs to be understood separately as it contains a recipe for how to live life might take its complexity and richness from Scripture. Enns mentioned a professor he had in graduate school who stated, “For Jews, the Bible is a problem to be solved. For Christians, it is a message to be proclaimed.”[75] In hermeneutics classes, the unity of Scripture is constantly mentioned.[76] Such unity exists not just in intertextuality but with biblical theology. However, theological diversity (very present in the Old Testament) is rarely a remembered subjection. Conservative Christians might tend not to endorse the idea of diversity in Scripture for relating such a concept with contradiction. Also, systematic theology attempts to make everything in Scripture fit pragmatically and in a black-and-white way.[77] Enns wrote, “The Bible itself, precisely because of its inherent ambiguities and tensions, is believed to invite problem-solving.”[78] Recognizing the diversity in Scripture is as crucial to a mature hermeneutics as admitting its unity.

The Bible’s unity is well present in the concept of biblical theology. Geerhardus Vos explained that “in Biblical Theology both the form and contents of revelation are considered as parts and products of a divine work… Biblical Theology applies no other method of grouping and arranging these contents than is given in the divine economy of revelation itself.”[79] Regarding Systematic Theology, “these same contents of revelation appear, but not under the aspect of the stages of a divine work; rather as the material for a human work of classifying and systematizing according to logical principles.”[80] Rather than trying to make every theological subject fit in a box, Bible readers should try to understand what theology the Bible defends (biblical theology) and use it as a lens to read the rest. In a fast attempt to point to a Biblical Theology, the Bible traces how God united back to humanity after the entrance of sin: “the story of redemption.”[81]

The question of what the function of theology concerns biblical studies is crucial to understand an efficient hermeneutical approach to Scripture. Gustavo Gutiérrez defined theology as “critical reflection on Christian praxis in the light of the Word.”[82] A hermeneutical approach that attempts not to undermine the complexity of Scripture must comprehend that developing a modern application to the biblical text is not just a matter of some adjustment regarding cultural differences. Joel B. Green stated, “Hence, our task is not simply (and sometimes not at all) to read the content of the message of (say 1 Peter) into our world, as though we were (merely) to adopt its attitudes toward the state or its counsel regarding relations among husbands and wives. We are interested rather (and sometimes only) in inquiring into how 1 Peter itself engages in the task of theology and ethics.”[83] In other words, the Bible is not merely a manual for copying and pasting but a theological book that teaches how to make theology by demonstrating how God taught his people regarding ethics in their cultural reality. Understanding why God gave a specific instruction is how to understand the biblical text’s teaching.

Conclusion

The New Testament authors were not following a hermeneutical method similar to the Historical-Grammatical method. To recognize that the New Testament authors were not using the Old Testament with the same intentions as the Old Testament authors does not mean denying their knowledge and respect for the original meaning. However, their appreciation of analogy demonstrates how Bible readers should try to read Scripture in a more theological way rather than purely historical. Understanding that Scripture is a theological text means recognizing that God inspired the authors by teaching them how to make theology with God’s principles. The Bible’s unity and diversity in light of Scripture’s whole story are vital when respecting the complexity of the biblical text. Therefore, Christians today must approach Scripture not simply to adapt the instructions but to learn how to live in the contemporary world from God’s commandments (to love him and one’s neighbor).

[1] Anthony C. Thiselton explained that “hermeneutics explores how we read, understand, and handle texts, especially those written in another time or in a context of life different from our own. Biblical hermeneutics investigates more specifically how we read, understand, apply, and respond to biblical texts.” Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), chapter 1, e-book, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[2] The concept of sensus plenior becomes part of the discussion. This term became part of a theological debate regarding the interpretation of Scripture as a “contribution to the long Church tradition of talking in terms of different ‘senses’ of Scripture.” The concept of sensus plenior is part of the topic because it points to “a sense of the scriptural text that goes beyond the clear intention of the human author, and yet constitutes an objective understanding of the text intended by God.” Kevin Duffy, “The Sensus Plenior of Scripture: A Debate and Its Aftermath,” Louvain Studies 38 (2014): 229, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[3] Bruce K. Waltke, “Historical Grammatical Problems,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1984), 73. Even the aspect of authorial intent brings its challenges to biblical interpretation. Stephen E. Fowl explained that people who have spoken against such a method “have focused on two main issues,” the first one being “whether and how one might uncover the intentions of the author.” The second concern is “whether and how authors might be thought of as having some claim or control over how their works are interpreted.” Stephen E. Fowl, “The Role of Authorial Intention in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Cambridge, 2000), 71. John Goldingay, while going through an introduction in “what is involved in understanding a passage from the Bible,” mentioned as “a third implication for interpretation” that “although their human and historical origin demands that we interpret them in accordance with their meaning as it would be understood by (…) contemporary readers such as God was originally addressing (…), their divine origin opens up the possibility that God might have meant by these words more than their human author or original reader would have understood.” John Goldingay, Key Questions about Biblical Interpretation: Old Testament Answers (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 9. Such a point by Goldingay connects with the concept of sensus plenior. When analyzing some examples of quotations by New Testament authors from the Old Testament, the concept of more than one meaning becomes more accessible to visualize. Trying to argue for what was the author’s intention is not an issue, and sometimes, the biblical text points to the purpose behind its words.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 74.

[7] The problems related to biblical criticism are full of details to fully explain in this article. The problems are not related to the importance and quality of such an area of study but to different aspects that typically scholars need to remember when trying to create theology, for example. For more information: Norris C. Grubbs and Curtis Scott Drumm, “What Does Theology Have to Do with the Bible? The Call for the Expansion of the Doctrine of Inspiration,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53, no. 1 (March 2010): 65–79. http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[8] Waltke, 99. The whole explanation is very long to be covered here. However, a summary is that “not only do ancient texts rework their historical ‘reality’ within their own symbolic registers, texts also shape the minds of author and material contexts according to their own symbolic universes.” B. H. McLean, “The Crisis of Historicism: and the Problem of Historical Meaning in New Testament Studies,” The Heythrop Journal (2012): 228. http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[9] J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), xvii.

[10] Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, ed. L. Arnold Hustad (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 4. Erickson defined Christian doctrine as “statements of the most fundamental beliefs the Christian has, beliefs about the nature of God, about his action, about us who are his creatures, and about what he has done to bring us into relationship with himself.”

[11] Intertextuality, as a term, “first coined in French by Julia Kristeva [over] forty years ago.” Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds., Reading the Bible Intertextuality (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), xi.

[12] Stefan Alkier, “Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts,” in Hays, Alkier, and Huizenga, 3.

[13] Hermeneutical methodologies must consider the particularity of intertextuality passages when trying to build the meaning of a biblical passage to its original audience.

[14] Jonathan Lunde, “An introduction to Central Questions in the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. Stanley N. Gundry, Kenneth Berding, and Jonathan Lunde (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 10–11.

[15] Ibid., 40.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 56.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 56–57.

[22] Ibid., 57.

[23] “All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’.” All Scripture references will be from NRSVUE.

[24] “Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.”

[25] Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (between 300 B.C and 100 B.C).

[26] Robert Alter explained that the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָ֗ה means “young woman.” He stated that “the sign here [Isaiah 7:14] is the name she [the young woman] gives the child, which means ‘God is with us.’” Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, vol. 2, Prophets (W. W. Norton & Company, 2018), 645.

[27] Beale, 58.

[28] “Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’”

[29] Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 3.

[30] Beale, 66. Not much explanation is necessary in this category of quotation. However, an example that illustrates such use of the Old Testament is 2 Peter 3:11–14 for referring to the new heavens and the new earth promises from Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22.

[31] Ibid., 67. An observation is that “sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between analogy and typology since typology also includes analogy within itself” (70). A definition and more detailed explanation regarding the concept of typology will be presented in the next section of this paper.

[32] Ibid.

[33] “But I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to engage in sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.”

[34] “For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop.”

[35] Beale, 69.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 67.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 104.

[40] Ibid., 105.

[41] Ibid., 106.

[42] Ibid., 107.

[43] Ibid., 110.

[44] “that is, the centuries between the completion of the Second Temple in 516 BC and its destruction by the Romans in AD 70.” Enns, 106–107.

[45] Ibid., 121.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Beale also mentioned many other ways the New Testament authors used the Old Testament. Therefore, even though analyzing all of them will bring insightful reflections regarding biblical interpretation, these are not as important for this paper’s purposes as the others.

[48] James M. Hamilton Jr, Typology — Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns: How Old Testament Expectations Are Fulfilled in Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2022), 26.

[49] Ibid., 25.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018), 2. However, even if Hays is correct to some degree regarding authorial intent on Typology, as Hamilton wrote, “the patterns are noticed and recorded by the biblical author for two reasons: first, they saw something significant in the patterns.” Hamilton, 23.

[54] A middle ground might be that the Old Testament authors, in their majority, did not know that what they were living would point to Christ or another New Testament truth in the future. One example is Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. Such an event became a typology regarding the sacrificial death of Christ. However, claiming that Abraham, Isaac, and the author of that section in Genesis knew the significance of God asking Abraham to kill his son is a considerable jump of a conclusion. Furthermore, a considerable debate regarding the authorship of the Old Testament exists in the academic circle. Some textual structure throughout the Hebrew Bible points to multiple authorship for most books and late editing when building the canon. Therefore, saying that it is possible to know the original text of any Old Testament book is a delusion. Such a reality demonstrates how the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, relying its whole defense on hermeneutics through the Historical-Grammatical method of the original biblical text, cannot be sustainable. Such a claim does not aim to argue against the idea of inerrancy of the original text but to say that pointing out what was the original text of Old Testament books is impossible.

[55] Hamilton, 174.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid., 177–200.

[59] Ibid., 200.

[60] Ibid., 200–201.

[61] Ibid., 201.

[62] Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 30.

[63] In this context, the word “fulfillment” does not have the same connotation of the fulfillment of a prophecy.

[64] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 78.

[65] Ibid., 80.

[66] Hamilton, 224.

[67] Ibid., 307.

[68] Prophets with Old Testament books named after them.

[69] Hamilton, 307.

[70] Ibid., 310.

[71] Enns, 157. In this case, at the second to last part of a paper.

[72] Ibid.

[73] 2 Tim 3:16–17.

[74] “Roughly, one-third of the Old Testament is poetic in form.” Jeffrey G. Audirsch, “Interpreting Hebrew Poetry,” Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry 13, no. 2 (Fall 2016): 32, http://search.ebscohost.com/. Even in hermeneutical methods like the one present in Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, a specific type of approach is necessary to interpret poetic texts since they are not doctrinal and very subjective compared to other types of literature. Therefore, considering that a considerable part of Scripture is poetic, understanding its nature must share its complexity.

[75] Enns, 61. Enns furthered explained on pages 61 and 62 how “within the Old Testament itself we see later authors interpreting earlier ones, a phenomenon usually referred to as ‘innerbiblical interpretation.’ (…) A look at the major Jewish texts that engage in biblical interpretation… reveals an approach to biblical interpretation that, among other things, expends tremendous energy in engaging these tensions and ambiguities.”

[76] “Scripture interprets Scripture,” they say.

[77] One initial example of ambiguity in the Old Testament might be the debate invitation in the book of Job. One of the main theological discussions inside the book of Job is regarding suffering by the righteous. Job’s friends are frequently seen with criticism by supposing that Job was living in sin and all his pain was a punishment for not walking according to God’s teachings. The readers know that Job’s friends are wrong and that Job is righteous, but his friends do have a ‘biblical’ theology, at least in part. They were applying the retribution principle present in the book of Deuteronomy. For more information: Jiseong James Kwon, “Divergence of the Book of Job from Deuteronomic/Priestly Torah: Intertextual Reading between Job and Torah,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 32, no. 1 (2018): 49–71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2017.1376522. One considerable aspect of wisdom literature is its subjective aspect. The nuance between Proverbs and Ecclesiastes/Job illustrates such complexity. Proverbs deals with how life is when it is working how it should. Ecclesiastes and Job deal with life when it does not work according to some expectations (expectations that might even be according to Scripture).

[78] Enns, 62. One prominent example that illustrates such ambiguity is regarding diversity in the Law on the freedom of enslaved people. See also pages 79–80.

[79] Geerhardus Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writing of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2001), 7.

[80] Ibid.

[81] Sandra L. Richter, The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 21. One example of using what the Bible is telling (the story of redemption) in other theological themes is tracing what the biblical text is pointing regarding “otherness” (for example, gentiles as part of the people of God). Even though the official entrance of the Gentiles as part of the covenant with God happens in the New Testament, speeches regarding the inclusivity of all people are already present in the First Testament. See Ananda Geyser-Fouche and Carli Fourie, “Inclusivity in the Old Testament,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 73, no. 4 (2017), http://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i4.4761.

[82] Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983), 13.

[83] Joel B. Green, “Scripture and Theology: Uniting the Two So Long Divided,” in B. Green and Turner, 41.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alkier, Stefan. “Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts.” In Reading the Bible

Intertextuality, edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009.

Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary. Vol. 2, Prophets. W. W.

Norton & Company, 2018.

Audirsch, Jeffrey G. “Interpreting Hebrew Poetry.” Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry

13, no. 2 (Fall 2016): 32–58. http://search.ebscohost.com/.

Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:

Baker Academic, 2012.

Blomberg, Craig L. “Matthew.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old

Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Castelo, Daniel, and Robert W. Wall. The Marks of Scripture: Rethinking the Nature of the

Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019.

Duffy, Kevin. “The Sensus Plenior of Scripture: A Debate and Its Aftermath.” Louvain

Studies 38 (2014): 228–245. http://search.ebscohost.com/.

Duvall, J. Scoot, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to

Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Zondervan Academic, 2012.

Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Erickson, Millard J. Introducing Christian Doctrine. Edited by L. Arnold Hustad. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Fowl, Stephen E. “The Role of Authorial Intention in the Theological Interpretation of

Scripture.” In Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, edited by Joel B. Green and Max Turner, 71–87. Grand Rapids: Cambridge, 2000.

Geyser-Fouch, Ananda, and Carli Fourie. “Inclusivity in the Old Testament.” HTS Teologiese

Studies/Theological Studies 73, no. 4 (2017). http://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i4.4761.

Goldingay, John. Key Questions about Biblical Interpretation: Old Testament Answers. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

Green, Joel B. “Scripture and Theology: Uniting the Two So Long Divided.” In Between Two

Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, edited by Joel B. Green and Max Turner, 23–43. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

Grubbs, Norris C., and Curtis Scott Drumm. “What Does Theology Have to Do with the

Bible? The Call for the Expansion of the Doctrine of Inspiration.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53, no. 1 (March 2010): 65–79. http://search.ebscohost.com/.

Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1983; London:

SCM, 1984.

Hamilton, James M., Jr. Typology — Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns:

How Old Testament Expectations Are Fulfilled in Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2022.

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press,

2018.

Hays, Richard B., Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds. Reading the Bible

Intertextuality. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009.

Kwon, Jiseong James. “Divergence of the Book of Job from Deuteronomic/Priestly Torah:

Intertextual Reading between Job and Torah.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 32, no. 1 (2018): 49–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2017.1376522.

Lunde, Jonathan. “An Introduction to Central Questions in the New Testament Use of the Old

Testament.” In Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Stanley N. Gundry, Kenneth Berding, and Jonathan Lunde. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

McLean, B. H. McLean. “The Crisis of Historicism: and the Problem of Historical Meaning

in New Testament Studies.” The Heythrop Journal (2012): 217–240. http://search.ebscohost.com/.

Richter, Sandra L. The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament. Downers

Grove: IVP Academic, 2008.

Rogerson, J. W., and Judith M. Lieu, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. New

York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Strauss, Mark L. Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

Thiselton, Anthony C. Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. E-

book. http://search.ebscohost.com/.

Vos, Geerhardus. “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological

Discipline.” In Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writing of Geerhardus Vos, edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg: P & R, 2001.

Waltke, Bruce K. “Historical Grammatical Problems.” In Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the

Bible, edited by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, 71–129. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1984.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.