Abner Chou. The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles. Kregel Academic, 2018. See here to purchase the book.
Abner Chou teaches biblical studies at the Master’s College and Seminary.
Did the New Testament misinterpret the Old Testament? Was Matthew
1:23 wrong to relate Isaiah 7:14 to the virgin birth of Jesus, when the
context of Isaiah 7:14 was the destruction of the Syro-Ephaimite
alliance in the time of Isaiah? Did Matthew 2:25 err in applying Hosea
11:1 to Jesus’ departure from Egypt as a child, when the passage was
originally about Israel’s Exodus from Egypt? The examples go on.
Christian scholars have proposed various solutions to this apparent
problem. One solution is sensus plenior, the idea that there is deeper
meaning to the Old Testament passages, of which even their authors were
unaware. Another solution is to say that the New Testament approached
the Hebrew Bible like rabbinic Judaism or Qumran: in a manner that
disregarded the passages’ original contexts and applied them to their
own situations. One can then inquire: Is interpreting the Bible out of
context is acceptable, since the New Testament authors did so? Some
Christians claim that it was all right for the New Testament authors,
since they were divinely-inspired, but it is not all right for you and
me.
Chou disagrees with these proposals. He maintains that the New
Testament authors actually were faithful to the authorial intent behind
the Old Testament passages. That does not mean that the Old Testament
authors had a perfect understanding of how their eschatological
prophecies would be fulfilled in the New Testament. It does mean,
however, that the New Testament interpretations of these passages were
consistent with those passages’ authorial intent, even if they built on
it. According to Chou, such an approach to Scripture was not new to the
New Testament authors, for within the Hebrew Bible itself one can
observe a process of passages building on earlier passages or drawing
forth implications from them. An implication to this, for Chou, is that
the New Testament authors did not always have a single passage in mind
when they interacted with a text from the Hebrew Bible, but a network of
biblical texts. Moreover, unlike many historical-critics of the Bible,
Chou contends that the Old Testament authors themselves believed that
their eschatological prophecies related to the future, not merely their
own historical contexts.
A lot of the time, Chou argues his case effectively. There were a
many occasions when I was wondering how Chou would get out of a problem,
then he would present his case and I thought to myself, “Hmm.” To cite
my favorite example in Chou’s book: Isaiah 7:14-16. Many
historical-critics argue that Immanuel was a child in Isaiah’s day, and
that he was a sign that the Syro-Ephraimite alliance that was
threatening Judah would be destroyed before Immanuel reached a certain
age. Chou, by contrast, interprets Immanuel as Jesus. Chou states that
Isaiah 7:14-16 can be translated and interpreted to mean that Jesus
would experience poverty due to the events that were being set into
motion in Isaiah’s day. The Assyrians would destroy the Syro-Ephraimite
alliance, but they would also devastate Judah and mark an early example
of foreign subjugation of Judah, which would last until Jesus’ day. In
the midst of this darkness, Jesus would be light, a la Isaiah 9:1-2.
This interpretation was not entirely new to me, but Chou was the first I
read who presented it in a manner that was lucid, without making it
appear like a convoluted stretch.
Obviously, Chou had his assumptions. He believes that Moses wrote
the Pentateuch, and that the prophets were later than the Pentateuchal
writings. He thinks that David believed in a coming Messiah and that
there would be a resurrection of the dead, whereas many scholars would
place these ideas later in Jewish thought. What Chou says may still be
relevant to how the New Testament authors interpreted the Hebrew Bible,
for the New Testament authors did not know about the historical-critical
method; still, they may have believed that they were interpreting the
Hebrew Bible in accordance with its original meanings. Chou offers
ideas about what may have been going on in their minds when they did
so. Moreover, Chou’s assumptions lead to intriguing possibilities, as
when he argues that Moses in the “Thou shalt not covet” command was
alluding to Eve’s coveting of the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3.
There were some occasions when Chou’s argument was somewhat of a
stretch. In Luke 10:25-28, a lawyer asks Jesus how he can obtain
eternal life, and Jesus asks the lawyer what the law says. The lawyer
quotes the Torah’s passages about loving God and neighbor, and Jesus
replies, “This do, and thou shalt live” (KJV). Chou goes out of his way
to argue that Jesus is not promoting salvation by works, that Jesus has
in mind an intertextual web of texts that includes the idea that God
must graciously circumcise people’s hearts for them to obey God. That
is not explicit in Luke 10, though. Who is to say that, just because a
New Testament author interprets a certain passage, he must have in mind
the intertextual web of the Hebrew Bible’s interpretations of those
passages? Even Chou acknowledges that Second Temple Judaism arrived at a
variety of interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, so the existence of the
intertextual web does not necessitate that an interpreter would make
particular interpretive moves.
There is also the question of whether the New Testament is always
consistent with the Hebrew Bible, as Chou argues. Even if Chou is
correct that Hosea depicts a Davidic king leading Israel in a second
Exodus, is that not different from Jesus leaving Egypt as a child? Chou
perhaps should have been clearer about how Jesus’ fulfillment of Old
Testament prophecies relates to Israel, which is often a key figure in
those prophecies. Moreover, while Chou argues that the Old Testament
itself predicts the nullification of a number of laws in the Mosaic
covenant, in predicting the circumcision of the heart, what about
passages that seem to indicate otherwise? There is Jeremiah 33:21-22’s
promise that the Levites will minister to God perpetually, after Judah
is restored, and Ezekiel 40-48’s picture of an eschatological Temple
with animal sacrifices and the Zadokite priesthood. How can that be
reconciled with what Hebrews says about the nullification of the
Levitical priesthood and sacrifices?
I am still giving this book five stars, though. It is orderly,
methodical, and lucid, even if it requires some concentration to absorb
the author’s arguments. The author has definite views, but he
approaches the topic with a tone of humility.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.