Dr. Couch, are you familiar with the four Jewish ways that the New
Testament interprets the Old Testament? I just finished reading your
excellent book An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics,
and I was wondering why these principles were not included. Will they be
included in a revised version?
ANSWER: Thank you for your kind comments on my hermeneutics volume published by
Kregel. I will probably not include the "four" ways the OT was
interpreted in the NT, though that in itself is not a bad idea. To add
to an existing book is very costly for the publishers, would be the main
reason not to.
The rabbinical ways of interpreting (that some think are partly used in
the NT) are: 1. Allegorically, 2. Illustratively, 3. Metaphorically, and
4. Literally.
While I have Jewish/Christian friends that believe Peter in Acts 2 was
quoting Joel 2 illustratively, I do not believe that is the case. They
hold this because they think it solves a problem as to how to interprete
Joel's prophecy as quoted in Acts 2. I believe Peter for the most part
is quoting Joel 2 to show that the New Covenant had begun, as evidenced
by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Everyone can see that, while he
quoted the larger Joel context, verses 19-21, while quoted, are still
yet future with the far-off tribulation from Peter's time-frame. I
differentiate between the fact that Peter is saying the New Covenant was
launced as over against saying the New Covenant is here in Acts 2 being
fulfilled. "Launching" and "fulfilling" are two different things!
I am blessed by having the classic Soncino Jewish commentary on the
entire OT. I also own the rare book I purchased in Israel entitled:
"Jewish Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period" published by
outstanding Israeli scholars. The book deals with the interpretation of
the orthodox Jews. The Soncino set, and the Jewish Society volume shows
that, far more often, the rabbis interpreted the OT, and surprisingly
even the NT, in a literal fashion.
The Jewish rabbi Hillel (70 B.C. - 10 A.D.) interpreted the OT with
about seven different guidelines, not simply four. They are (1)
Inference from the least to the greatest, and vice versa, (2) Inference
by analogy, (3) construcing a family of "like" passages (something like
systematic theology), (4) is the same as the third, except it is
confined to only two passages, (5) the relation to the general to the
specific, (6) exposition by means of another similar passage, (7) and
finally, deduction from the context.
In my opinion, while some of my friends may disagree, the only allegory
in the NT is found in Galatians 4:21-28 where the apostle Paul "makes"
an allegory, and tells us he is doing so, in order to make a point. He
takes the historical and literal story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, to
make a point about "the Jerusalem that is above that is free" and that
is not bound by the law (v. 26). Paul plainly writes: "This is
allegorically speaking" (v. 24).
In my opinion the Jews listening to Peter in Acts 2 would have taken
what he said in quoting Joel 2 in a very "actual" or literal way.
Otherwise Peter would have had to say to this great big crowd of Jews he
was speaking to: "I am only quoting Joel 2 as a great big
illustration!" There are no signs whatsoever in the Acts 2 context that
Peter is quoting Joel 2 as an "illustration" only of the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit!
Another reason I would probably not add the "four" ways the OT is
interpreted in the NT is that in my book I deal with the various ways
passages ARE indeed interpreted, whether quoting OT sources or not.
Your suggestion is well taken but I am afraid it is too late for this volume.
Thanks for asking, and for your kind comments.
Dr. Mal Couch
