Introduction

It is evident by Darrell Bock’s article, “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New”, that there is a debate going on in the Theological community concerning this topic and covers a wide range of issues. According to Bock there are four schools of thought within the evangelical circles to how one approaches such a subject, and is compounded by the various issues within the schools. Bock lists these schools as: “The Full Intent School”, represented by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.; “The Divine Intent-Human Words School”, represented by James I. Packer and Elliot E. Johnson; “The Historical Progress of Revelation and Jewish Hermeneutic School”, represented by Earle E. Ellis, Richard Longenecker, and Walter Dunnett; and “The Canonical Approach and New Testament Priority School”, represented by Bruce K. Waltke.[1] Within these schools Bock describes the following issues:

In the interaction between these schools of thought four tension points will be raised in this article concerning dual authorship, language-referent, the progress of revelation, and the problem of the differing texts used in Old Testament citations by their New Testament fulfillment(s). In isolating these four concerns, it is important to recall that in any passage being discussed all these concerns interact with one another.[2]

Because of the complexity of this subject there must be some starting point or understanding to how one should proceed. After reviewing all of the required reading for this paper I have decided to pursue this subject through three concepts: the true origin of Scripture, the progression of revelation, and the rules used for interpreting Scripture. From this foundation we will look at Scriptural examples of how it all works together.

The Source

It has always been my belief that if you don’t ask the right questions you will not get the right answers. Throughout the reading and reviewing the thoughts of many individuals on this subject the same statement comes up in various forms, “Is this what the author intended”? “Was this understood by the author”? Did this fit into the author’s hermeneutics? It is this type of reasoning that requires us to review the real question. What does the inspiration of God really mean?

From the vary beginning God’s statements are clear concerning this matter as we read:

Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman); and they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?" And the LORD heard it. (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.) And suddenly the LORD said to Moses and Aaron and to Miriam, "You three come out to the tent of meeting." So the three of them came out. Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the doorway of the tent, and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward, He said,

"Hear now My words:

If there is a prophet among you,

I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.

I shall speak with him in a dream.

"Not so, with My servant Moses,

He is faithful in all My household;

With him I speak mouth to mouth,

Even openly, and not in dark sayings,

And he beholds the form of the LORD.

Why then were you not afraid

To speak against My servant, against Moses? "

So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed.[3]

We can observe from this passage that it is God who reviels to us his thoughts and desires and used man as a conduit to proclaim his message. If John Sailhamer’s view holds true concerning the question of whether the NT interpretation of an OT text is, in fact, the meaning intended by the OT author,[4] than we should see his view of this concept amplified throughout Scripture. One of John Sailhamer’s propositions is that the Hebrew Bible serves both as text and commentary for self interpretation. It is a brilliant concept and as we shall see, does in fact play out in Scripture.

The Prophets and the Writings are not intent on giving us a new vision for the future. Their aim is to help us understand the messianic vision that has already been laid down in the Pentateuch and repeated in their own writings. God told the prophet Habakkuk, for example, to “write the vision” and also “to explain it” (Heb 2:3).[5]

We continue to find God’s intentions on this matter spoken of in the following Scriptures:          

Now these are the last words of David.

David the son of Jesse declares,

And the man who was raised on high declares,

The anointed of the God of Jacob,

And the sweet psalmist of Israel,

"The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me,

And His word was on my tongue.[6]

Surely the Lord GOD does nothing

Unless He reveals His secret counsel

To His servants the prophets.

A lion has roared! Who will not fear?

The Lord GOD has spoken! Who can but prophesy?[7]

Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets Who lead my people astray; When they have something to bite with their teeth, They cry, "Peace, "But against him who puts nothing in their mouths, They declare holy war. Therefore it will be night for you-- without vision, And darkness for you-- without divination. The sun will go down on the prophets, And the day will become dark over them. The seers will be ashamed And the diviners will be embarrassed. Indeed, they will all cover their mouths Because there is no answer from God. On the other hand I am filled with power--With the Spirit of the LORD--And with justice and courage To make known to Jacob his rebellious act, Even to Israel his sin.[8]

It is evident that inspiration is not a New Testament concept but carries over to the New Testament as the Apostles write:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.[9]

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. [10]

In light of these Scriptures how should we view inspiration? Is it God using man’s talents and education to convey God’s wishes? Or is it God dictating to man God’s wishes? Or is it both of these concepts combined? Think about the Scriptures the Apostles Peter and John wrote. Would you consider these writings solid, theologically sound works? Were these writings based on the education and wit of the authors? It is my contention that they needed to know how to write a letter, put thoughts on paper, but is the content based on their educational abilities, there formal theological training? To this line of reasoning I would say no. Consider the following statement by Dr. Luke:

let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-- by this name this man stands here before you in good health. "He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very corner stone.” And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply. [11]

The statement that they have been with Jesus means that all of their understanding of spiritual and theological things came to them through the teaching of God Himself. Then after Jesus was not with them any longer He sent them the Holy Spirit to do the following:

"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.   "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.[12]

           The concept of inspiration originated in the Old Testament and was continued throughout history until the completion of the original documents we now know as the canonized Scriptures. If we look back in time God spoke directly to Moses giving us the bulk of the Pentateuch. Jesus lived, discipled, and taught the twelve disciples. The Apostle Paul states that he spent three years in the mountains with Christ after having direct contact with him on the road to Damascus. Adding up all these encounters, one could contribute 32 books of the 66 as a direct result of God personally speaking and spending one on one time with those that struck a pen to write.

The question of these men’s style, hermeneutics, understanding what they wrote is all academic when thinking through the concept of direct contact with the true author of the Scriptures. Sometimes I get the impression that we in the world of academia believe that it is not possible for God to dictate to man what to say, that some how God must use our talents and abilities, or else, what man puts on paper is not authentic or justified in its existence. I am not advocating that God does not give ability to man, then uses that ability for His Glory, only that we should not put God in a box and say that God must operate this way or it’s not allowable.

The true source of Scripture is meaningless with relationship to how the New Testament relates to the Old unless we factor in the next concept.

. Page 1 of 3