The use of the OT in the NT is at the very heart of the ongoing debates between the Dispensational and covenantal systems of theology, and has significance also for Christology, inerrancy, and a host of other topics. One of the essentials of Dispensationalism, as noted by Charles Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism (2007), is that “the essence of Dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church.”[2] Dr. Ed Glenny thus states,

The use of the Old Testament in the New is one of the most fruitful and promising areas of study for evangelical scholars today. It is at the center of current discussion concerning hermeneutics, inerrancy, and the relationship between the Testaments. The application to the church of Old Testament passages that speak of the nation of Israel is also an important factor in the question concerning the relationship of Israel and the church.[3]

This is not simply some esoteric topic only discussed by heady-minded scholars. It is central to the positions and beliefs we hold relative to our understanding of God’s biblical covenants, redemption, fulfillment of prophetic events, doctrine of the church, the two ordinances, kingdom of God, etc. The questions raised by scholars are complex. Is it accurate to claim that the OT quotations in the NT are inexact?  Did the NT authors, who were first-century Jews, utilize contemporary methods such as midrash and allegorical interpretation? Do the NT writers incorrectly identify Christological fulfillments? Does Paul improperly allegorize the Scriptures? In numerous places it seems that the NT writer is giving an interpretation to OT fulfillment passages different from the original intention of the OT writer.[4] Should Jesus’ and the NT writers’ approach to the OT provide the standard and pattern for our own exegesis? To put the question in a different form, “Are we free to reproduce the exegesis and hermeneutical methods of the NT today?” What is the explanation of these NT passages? To such questions, there is no consensus among scholars concerning the use of the OT in the NT. Our interest—and purpose of this article—is to see how the NT used the OT, in terms of attitudes toward and methods of drawing upon, exegeting and applying its methods.

The Range and Authority of OT References in the NT

Range of OT References

The NT contains at least 295 unquestionable separate references to the OT, according to Roger Nicole, as well as many allusions. Nicole observed that the 295 OT references occupy 352 NT verses (4.4% of the entire NT).[5] Michael Vlach has identified approximately 350 quotations. Vlach notes, “If pushed for specificity, I estimate 355-360, which is higher than most scholars would agree. Most agree that there are approximately 300 to 360 quotations of the OT in the NT.”[6]

In addition to the quotations, “allusions” are difficult to determine in number. Some lists count anywhere from 400 to 4,000 allusions of the OT in the NT. Nicole observes, “It can therefore be asserted, without exaggeration, that more than 10 percent of the New Testament text is made up of citations or direct allusions to the Old Testament. Of the thirty-nine books of the OT, only nine are not expressly referred to in the NT.”[7] Consequently, there is a significant body of literature illustrating the interpretive methods of Jesus and the New Testament writers.[8] Thus, deter- mining the exact number of quotations and allusions is not critical for under- standing the issue. How they are used is, which leads us to the matter of authority.

Authority of the OT References

The OT was the Bible of Jesus and the early disciples. They believed it, quoted it, and interpreted it. Several conclusions can be drawn from an examination of Jesus’s use of the OT. The gospel accounts record Jesus consistently treating the OT historical narratives as straightforward records of fact.[9] Jesus often chose as the basis of His teaching those very stories that most modern critics find unacceptable. The allusions to Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, for example, all seem to be intended and were understood as references to actual people and historical events. When Jesus applied the historical record, He drew it from the plain meaning of the text. His way of reading the OT angered the religious authorities. Jesus denounced the caustic methods of certain religious leaders that set aside the very Word of God they claimed to be interpreting and replaced it with their own traditions (Mt 15:1-9; Mk 7:6-13). Yet following His resurrection, Jesus also revealed content throughout the OT, both Moses and the Prophets, spoke truly about Himself (Lk 24:25-27).

The apostles followed their Lord in regarding the OT as the inspired Word of God (2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 1:21). In at least fifty-six instances, God is explicitly referred to as the Author of the biblical text. Like Christ, they accepted the historical accuracy of the OT (e.g., Ac 7:9-50; 13:16-22; Heb 11). As Roger Nicole observes,

They appeal to Scripture when in debate; they appeal to it when requested to answer questions, whether serious or captious; they appeal to it in connection with their teaching even to those who would not be inclined to press them for other authorities than their own word; they appeal to it to indicate the purpose of some of their own actions or their insights into God’s purpose in relation to contemporary developments; and they appeal to it in their prayers.[10]

The NT writers ascribe unqualified authority to the OT. By quoting the OT so frequently, the NT writers demonstrated their trust in the absolute authority of the OT. Nowhere does a NT writer question or repudiate the truth of the OT passage he cited.[11] The high esteem with which the NT writers regarded the OT strongly suggests that they would not consciously or intention- ally have misinterpreted the words that they believed God himself had spoken.[12]

It is noteworthy that the whole NT contains not even one explicit citation of any of the Old Testament Apocrypha, which are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church.[13] Such an omission by Jesus in his quotations of the OT or by the authors of the NT canon can scarcely be viewed as accidental.[14]

The Accuracy of the OT References in the NT

Since the writings of the OT and the NT are inerrant (2Ti 3:16, 17; 2Pe 1:20, 21; Jn 17:17), the freedom displayed in the use of the OT in the NT raises many hermeneutical questions. One of the most frequently asked is: When quoting the OT, the NT frequently modifies the original wording. How can that practice be justified hermeneutically?

In some places where the NT authors quote the OT, they appear to modify the original wording. Variations in the OT text quoted in the NT are often used to undermine the Bible’s inerrancy and authority. Furthermore, to some critics, these alterations of the Hebrew text indicate nonauthentic and nonauthoritative uses of the OT by the NT, thus eliminating elements of true prophetic fulfillment. This problem can be answered on the linguistic and conceptual level. Richard Longnecker, Roger Nicole, and John Wenham suggest the following linguistic solutions.

First, there were several Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek versions of the biblical text circulating in Palestine at the time of Christ, not all of which had the same wording. Keep in mind that differences in versions may have been a result of corruption in transmission of the copies of the Septuagint (LXX), although oftentimes the LXX reflects the original text.[15] The NT writers often had to then translate their quotations from these different texts. Although a given quotation from one of these versions might not have the same wording as the texts from which our current translations are made, they still represent a faithful interpretation of the biblical text available to the NT writer. Let’s not forget that the Holy Spirit was guiding these NT authors at this time (2Pe 1:20-21); “The Spirit of God was free to modify the expressions that He inspired in the Old Testament.”[16]

Second, as John Wenham notes, it was not necessary for the writers to quote OT passages word for word unless they claimed to be quoting verbatim, particularly since they were writing in a language different from that of the original OT texts.[17] The NT some- times paraphrased their quotations (as we often do when we preach!). The NT writers often simply allude to the OT passages without trying to quote them, or the writers may have recorded quotations made by others. Furthermore, the NT writers did not have the same rules for quotations as are enforced nowadays in scholarly works.[18]

Third, in ordinary life, freedom from quotations is a sign of mastery of one’s material; the more sure speakers are that they understand an author’s meaning, the less afraid they are to expound those ideas in words that are not exactly those of the author.[19] Hence, the fact that the NT writers sometimes paraphrased or quoted indirectly from the OT in no way indicates that they were using inaccurate or illegitimate interpretive methods.

Approaches to NT Use of the OT

The NT usage of the OT that prob- ably raises the most questions with regard to hermeneutical methodology (the exegesis of OT and NT passages) involves fulfillment passages. In places it sometimes seems the NT writer is giving an interpretation to these verses different from the original intention of the OT author.

It appears that three significant questions are at the heart of the issue of the OT usage in the NT. (1) What effect did noncanonical phenomena such as Jewish intertestamental theology and Jewish hermeneutics have on the apostolic understanding of the OT? (2) What effect did the events of Jesus’s life and ministry, especially His death, resurrection and ascension have on the apostolic understanding of the OT? (3) If former revelation lays the foundation for later revelation (a basic tenet of Dispensationalism), what influence does later revelation (i.e., the NT) have on earlier revelation (i.e., the OT)? Is typology a legitimate hermeneutical answer?

Jewish Background, Hermeneutical Terms and Resultant Issues

It’s helpful to have a little historical background and understanding of a few hermeneutical terms relative to this discussion. At the time of Christ, Jewish methods of interpretation could be classified into four main types: literal, midrashic, pesher, and allegorical.[20]

• The literal method of interpretation, referred to as peshat, apparently served as the basis for other types of interpretation.
• Midrash comes from the Hebrew verb darash, meaning “to search.” Midrash, then, speaks of an inquiry or an exposition. The primary goal of midrash was to highlight and explain the relevance of scriptural teaching in new and changing circumstances. Much of this midrashic interpretation is recorded in the Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic commentaries compiled around AD 200, and in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds. By focusing on the identification of hidden meanings, midrashic exegesis often lost sight of the literal meaning of the text.
• Pesher interpretation was practiced primarily among the Qumran community. This form borrowed extensively from midrashic practices but included a significant eschatological (end-time) focus. The community believed that everything the ancient prophets wrote had a veiled prophetic meaning that was to be imminently fulfilled through their community.[21] Pesher interpretation was often denoted by the phrase “this is that” indicating that “this present phenomenon is a fulfillment of that ancient Prophecy.”
• Allegorical interpretation was based on the idea that beneath the literal meaning of Scripture lay the true meaning.[22] Historically, allegorical interpretation had been developed by the Greeks because the myths about their gods contained much that was immoral or otherwise unacceptable; that is, the myths were to be under- stood not literally but as stories whose real truth lay at a deeper level. At the time of Christ, Jews who wished to remain faithful to the Mosaic tradition and yet adopt Greek philosophy were faced with a similar tension. Some Jews resolved this by allegorizing the Mosaic tradition. Philo (ca. 20 BC – AD 50) is well known for this.

As far as Jewish hermeneutics are concerned, it seems the NT writers employed some of the techniques of Jewish hermeneutics. It is evident that the NT authors, who were first- century Jews, utilized peshat (literal interpretation) in their interaction with the OT. However, the key hermeneutical perspectives found in the NT (i.e., Christological perspective, corporate solidarity, presence of a divine pattern) did not come from Jewish hermeneutics, but rather from the OT or the events of Christ’s life (for example: the expanding picture—through progressive revelation—of the Messiah; He is not just a victorious king but also a sufferer). Apparently, these events gave the apostles a more complete understanding of the OT promises and prophesies concerning Christ. (Note: Jn 2:22; 12:16; 20:9; Lk 24:25-26, 44-45, and esp. Lk 4:18-19; see also Ps 2:1-2 with Ac 4:25- 31, where the use of Lord now refers to Jesus, not YHWH). We should avoid an excessive or unclear identification between the hermeneutics of early Christianity and first-century Judaism.

Non-Dispensationalist Approach

Was Jesus’ and the NT writers’ use of OT quotations and allusions intended to serve as a normative hermeneutical method and give interpreters in the post-apostolic times a pattern for their own exegesis? To put the question in a different form, “Are we free to reproduce the exegesis and hermeneutical methods of the NT writers today?”

We need to recognize that the early church fathers (e.g. the Patristic era), in the main, were chiliasts (premillennial in their eschatology) while at the same time many were supersessionists (that the Church replaces Israel; also known as replacement theology). Today, many non-Dispensationalists believe that the Church has replaced Israel. They arrive at that conclusion by claiming that through typology many of the OT references to Israel are to be understood as typological of the Church.

Many covenantalists claim that they consistently interpret literally. But their understanding of how literal hermeneutics operates is different. When covenantalists claim to interpret the  Bible literally, they mean that they interpret the Bible non-allegorically and in  accordance with the intended meaning of the author, which allows for figurative or symbolic language, opening up  the possibility of a non-literal or spiritual interpretation, especially in regard to OT prophetic texts. They argue that literal interpretation demands that many of the Old Testament references to Israel are to be understood as typological of the Church. Consequently, even on a literal interpretation, given the principle of typology that Dispensationalists certainly accept, many of the Old Testament references to Israel are to be interpreted as referring to the Church. If both systems affirm a historical-grammatical interpretation, what accounts for the differences between them? The answer by most writers is explained as the priority given to either the OT or NT. Benjamin Merkle explains,

While Dispensationalists and covenantalists agree that the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament, the latter [covenantalists] tend to emphasize that the New Testament has priority for understanding the Old Testament, and the former [Dispensationalists] start with the Old Testament and move to the New Testament but caution against reinterpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. . . Since covenantalists tend to emphasize the priority of the New Testament, they allow later revelation to shape their understanding of the Old Testament.[23]

The issue of NT priority over the OT has been espoused by non-Dispensationalists for decades. This thinking appears in George E. Ladd’s work when he writes,

The fact is that the New Testament frequently interprets the Old Testament prophecies in a way not suggested by the Old Testament context… The main point… is that many Old Testament passages which applied in their historical setting to literal Israel have in the New Testament been applied to the church. The Old Testament did not clearly foresee how its own prophecies were to be fulfilled. They were fulfilled in ways quite unforeseen by the Old Testament itself and unexpected by the Jews… The Old Testament is interpreted by the New Testament. … Here is the basic watershed between a Dispensational and a non-Dispensational theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A non-Dispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament.[24]

Similarly, Ken Gentry, representing a traditional covenant approach, believes that “the Christian exegete must allow the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament. . .. This approach to biblical interpretation allows the conclusive revelation of God in the New Testament authoritatively to interpret incomplete revelation in the Old.” This would be a sound statement if Gentry meant that Scripture was expanded down through history (progressive revelation) as more details and explanation are added in such a way as not to change the meaning of an original OT passage through reinterpretation in the NT (i.e., the Church replacing Israel in the OT passages). But that is not what Gentry means. His approach is a so-called “grammatical-historical-theological” hermeneutic, whereby it is believed that the New Testament gives a theological basis for changing the original meaning of the Old Testament.[25]

The assumption by non-Dispensationalists is that the NT must interpret/reinterpret the OT. The failure of non-Dispensational interpretation at this point is that its view of typology (or better, its misunderstanding of typology) ignores or minimizes the meaning of the OT passage in its own context. Conversely, they misrepresent the hermeneutic of Dispensationalism by claiming it gives priority to the OT over the NT. Such is not the case. Michael Vlach, in his defense of Dispensationalism, explains:

Dispensationalists hold to “passage priority” in which the primary meaning of a passage is found in the passage at hand and not in other passages. Dispensationalists do not believe in the priority of one testament over the other (although the New Testament is more complete), they just ask that the integrity of each passage in each testament be honored without overriding its meaning in other passages. The New Testament will offer newer revelation, but it will not contradict or override the meaning of previous passages in the Old Testament.

Non-Dispensationalists often state that the real meaning of Old Testament passages is found in the New Testament. Allegedly, the New Testament and the “broader canon” give the real meanings of Old Testament texts, which can be different from the original meaning.

Dispensationalism asserts “passage priority.” This means that meaning of any Bible passage is found in that passage… That is why God placed that text in the Bible. Later revelation might comment on a passage, draw principles or significances from it, or connect a promise in the Old with fulfillment in the New, but later revelation does not reinterpret or change the meaning of earlier revelation…Divine inspiration guaran- tees this…The unity of Scripture applies to the relationship between the Old and the New…All Scripture is inspired and contributes to God’s story. And since God is the Author of all Scripture, there is cohesion and harmony inherent in all Bible texts. Since God got it right with all Scripture the first time, there is no need for later Bible passages to reinterpret earlier Bible texts…If later revelation overrides the meaning of earlier revelation, what was the purpose of the earlier revelation? …Practically, this means when you are studying a text, no matter where it is, you can study it in its own context knowing its meaning is found there and that meaning contributes to God’s purposes. Plus, that meaning harmonizes perfectly with later revelation and the Bible’s storyline as a whole.[26]

The Various Approaches Put Forward Today

Within the evangelical world, there is no consensus on the proper approach, though several books and articles have attempted to categorize the various approaches. Readers may be familiar with a few of these. In 1985/86, Darrell Bock published a two-part series in the journal Bibliotheca Sacra, which was later reprinted in Rightly Divided (1996), edited by Roy Zuck. Bock identified four approaches to the use of the OT in the NT. Over the next decade, Douglas Moo put forward articles dealing with his view. Robert Thomas issued his book, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, in 2002. Then came Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde in 2008.