Citations of Scripture by Bible Writers
The inspired writers’ confidence in the unity, clarity, and the historical veracity of Scripture (not merely its verisimilitude) underlie their citations of Scripture. A closer look at these citations can help us understand the various interpretative practices employed by Bible writers. Their use of other inspired writings constitute a model for us as we seek a trustworthy method to understand Scripture. The Bible writers’ use of other inspired writings can be categorized under five headings: exegetical, theological, typological, rhetorical, and prophetic fulfillment. We will now look at these uses more closely, illustrating each by means of examples.GOP 107.3
Exegetical
An exegetical use of Scripture can be recognized when it is employed in direct quotation and interpreted in harmony with the original intent of the passage. Thus, later writers within the Hebrew Bible interpret earlier inspired writings. New Testament writers interpret the Old Testament, frequently preceding direct quotations by an introductory formula such as “it is written.” Allusions are more difficult to recognize but can be convincingly established by recognizing the collocation of infrequently used key words in a later passage pointing to the earlier inspired context. The following definitions of direct quotation and allusion and how they differ from scriptural “echoes” will be helpful as we proceed:GOP 107.4
A quotation has a near verbal similarity to the Masoretic Text or lxx; an allusion uses several words or phrases from the Old Testament passage (verbal similarity); and an echo has few verbal parallels, just a word or two or a theme. The first two are conscious allusions, the third may not be intended by the author but implicit in the larger context. GOP 108.1
In the Gospels we find a number of occasions Jesus seems to have cited and interpreted Scripture exegetically. In Matthew 19, for example, some Pharisees ask Him whether it is permissible according to the Mosaic law “to divorce one’s wife for any cause” (verse 3). From the underlying early traditions discernible in Rabbinic sources, we know that the interpretation of the reference to “indecency” in Deuteronomy 24:1 was a controverted issue in the first century. In reply, Jesus points his interlocutors to the broader context of Scripture that is not to be overlooked: God’s establishment of marriage between man and woman at Creation (Matt. 19:4-6; cf. Gen. 2:24). Not satisfied with this apparent finessing of the question, the Pharisees press Jesus as to why Moses “commanded” (entellōmai) a certificate of divorce. Jesus’ answer displays a clear and careful exegesis of Deuteronomy. First, the casuistic form of the Mosaic law indicates that divorce is permitted rather than commanded, and then only in the specific case that the husband “has found some indecency in her.” In going on to say that “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery,” Jesus clarifies the meaning of the word “some indecency” (lit. “nakedness of a thing,” Heb. ’erwat dāḇār) as referring to sexual immorality (porneia).GOP 108.2
Another example of exegetical method is seen in Jesus’ refutation of the charge that His disciples, in plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, were doing “work” and thus transgressing the commandment. In essence Jesus argued that human need took precedence over concerns of holiness, based not only on the precedent set by David in connection with the sacred bread of the Temple but also on the Sabbath’s original purpose—it was “made for humankind” (Mark 2:27, NRSV). In pointing to the Sabbath as the only element of Creation week specifically “made” (egeneto) after human beings and thus made “for” them (Gen. 2:1-3; cf. Gen. 1:26-28), Jesus again exhibits an exegetical sensitivity to the original intention suggested by the text of Genesis. The significance of Jesus’ exegetical example in setting the pattern for the use of Scripture in the apostolic proclamation can hardly be overestimated.GOP 108.3
Among the numerous Pauline references to the Hebrew Bible, frequently questioned is his interpretation in Galatians 3:15, 16 of Abraham’s “seed” (sperma, Heb. zera‘), which presses a strict reading of the grammatical singular form despite the fact that the Greek and Hebrew terms, when used of offspring, are normally collective singular (though these can also refer to a single individual as in LXX, Gen. 4:25 and 1 Sam. 1:11). Use of the word later in the chapter in a collective sense (Gal. 3:27-29, as also in several other places) shows that Paul is very much aware of its normal sense. Close examination of Genesis 22:17 being quoted shows that the meaning of “seed” shifts from descriptions of Abraham’s numerous descendants as “the stars of heaven” and “the sand that is on the seashore” to the “seed” (zera‘) that “shall possess the gate of his enemies.” According to Richard Davidson, “the same narrowing of the word ‘seed’ from a collective to messianic singular” can be discerned in Genesis 3:15. As we shall see, this narrowing of collective Israel to a singular messianic figure is evident in other contexts also. A messianic interpretation of the promised seed illustrates how Christ’s advent illuminated the exegesis of the Old Testament.GOP 109.1
While a Christian meaning is not to be artificially superimposed upon earlier texts, exegesis need not so narrow the meaning of the original text so as to exclude a deeper meaning when that meaning may already be comprehended in the earlier passage and comports with the larger context of Scripture. In such cases three criteria have been suggested to help interpreters recognize when a text intends such a deeper meaning: (1) presence of collective singular nouns (e.g. “seed,” “servant,” “branch”); (2) shifts between singular and plural pronouns or pronominal suffixes in an Old Testament passage (e.g., “servant” is collective Israel in Isaiah 44:1 and Messiah in Isaiah 52:13-53:12; reference to the monarchy and to the “final Davidic ruler, Christ,” as seen by alternation between singular and plural pronouns in Amos 9:11, 12); and, most decisively, (3) the analogy of Scripture visible from antecedent theology (e.g., the “seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15 already employs the word as a near-technical term).GOP 109.2
Another example of exegesis seems to be employed by Paul in his quotation of Isaiah 54:1 in Galatians 4:27, despite his oft-cited use of allēgoreō in verse 24. The apostle recognizes that the Isaianic passage, in addressing desolate Jerusalem as a barren woman and its use of linking terms found in Genesis 11:30, alludes to Sarah’s apparent inability to bear children. The fact that the larger context of Isaiah 54 contains apocalyptic-like imagery of a new Jerusalem having foundations laid “in sapphires” and “gates of crystal” (verses 11, 12, NASB) suggests a city built by God (Heb. 11:10; cf. Rev. 21:10-21). Paul, in likening “the present Jerusalem” to Hagar and “the Jerusalem above” to Sarah (Gal. 4:25, 26) as reflective of the old and new covenants, is not allegorizing the passage but rather drawing out the soteriological implications of an analogy already suggested by Isaiah and inherent in the Genesis narrative whereby Abraham attempted “to fulfill God’s promise of descendants by human means.” GOP 110.1
As is evident from the above examples, a close study of the entire context of the passages quoted by inspired writers as well as a comprehensive knowledge of relevant biblical antecedents is necessary in many cases in order to understand the larger picture being indicated by their exegesis.GOP 110.2
Theological
A theological use of Scripture by Bible writers can be recognized when crucial biblical themes are alluded to without an explicit quotation. We have already observed the extent to which the historical record of Creation is affirmed by the Bible writers. So it is not surprising that their theological reflections frequently employ this motif. For example, Israel’s origin is described in terms reminiscent of Adam’s creation (Isa. 43:1; cf. Gen. 2:7). The gospel is predicated on the power of God to re-create (or restore) human beings into the image of their Maker (2 Cor. 4:6; 5:17; Eph. 2:10; Col. 3:10) and, ultimately, to re-create the heavens and the earth in order to restore them to their state of pristine perfection (2 Peter 3:11-13; Rev. 21:1-5).GOP 110.3
Another crucial theological concept permeating Scripture is the Exodus. It was foreshadowed in Abraham’s call out of Ur (Gen. 11:31-12:1; Neh. 9:7-12; cf. Isa. 51:2) and even foretold to him in a dream (Gen. 15:12-16). Throughout the Old Testament, the Exodus event as God’s act of delivering Israel from Egyptian slavery (Ex. 15:22) becomes paradigmatic for describing God’s future acts of salvation—particularly in relation to Israel’s exodus from Babylonian exile and return to the promised land (Eze. 20:33; Isa. 43:16-19; 52:12). “If at the Exodus Yahweh saved His people by making ‘a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters,’ so He promises the children of the exile that when they pass through the waters He will be with them: He will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.” GOP 110.4
The Gospel writers, in describing Jesus’ life and ministry in these terms, show their awareness of this prophetic theme. Mark 1:3 quotes Isaiah 40, linking the preparatory work of John the Baptist with Isaiah’s new exodus. Matthew sees Israel’s exodus “recapitulated in the personal experience of Christ.” His quotation of Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt have I called My Son” (Matt. 2:15) shows sensitivity to the larger context of that book and other eighth-century prophets who describe Israel’s return from exile in messianic terms as a new exodus. The idea originates in the Old Testament; it is not being read into it. Thus Luke also, in referring to Jesus’ approaching death, evokes this expectation through use of the (Greek) term exodos (Luke 9:31). The mention of Christ’s death having occurred at the time of the Passover (John 19:14; cf. 1 Cor. 5:7) and the memorialization of that event in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26) underscore the early Christian understanding of the Jewish festival’s prophetic significance and may reflect Jesus’ teaching concerning it. GOP 111.1
Closely connected to the concept of a new exodus, whereby Israel would return from exile and be reestablished in the land, is the prophetic expectation of God’s reign in the personage of a coming ideal King (e.g., Isa. 32:1, 17), which the Gospels present as a central feature of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43, 17-21; John 3:3, 5; 18:36).GOP 111.2
Another theme woven throughout the biblical narrative is that of the great controversy or war of evil against God and His purposes, reaching its ultimate expression in the book of Revelation, especially chapter 12. The war begins in heaven (verse 7), spreads to the earth (verse 9, alluding to Gen. 3), and includes a final assault on God’s eschatological remnant (verse 17). This description of the conflict as between God (or Christ) and Satan shows its pervasiveness throughout Scripture and its theological importance. Closely related to this theme is that of the judgment which, as the Psalms and Prophets eloquently underscore, serves as the means of deliverance and vindication throughout Israel’s history and ultimately brings sin and death to an end (Dan. 7:26, 27; 8:14; Rev. 20). The judgment is also the means by which God and His purposes are acknowledged as just and true in every respect (Rom. 3:4; Rev. 15:2-4).GOP 111.3
Typological
Another way in which the Bible writers use Scripture suggests that they shared a particular understanding of the relation between the testaments that can best be described as typological. That is, certain persons, events, and institutions are “specifically designed” by God “to predictively prefigure their antitypical eschatological fulfillment in Christ and the gospel realities brought about by Christ.” GOP 112.1
Illustrative of this typological understanding of Scripture by New Testament writers are several occurrences of the word typos (“type”). A type is a divinely ordained prefiguration of a future reality (a person, event or institution) that will be even greater and more complete (the “antitype”). One instance of this use of typos is found in Paul’s description of Adam as “a type of the one who was to come,” referring to Jesus (Rom. 5:14). The surrounding verses (12-21) set up an elaborate set of contrasts between Adam as the original head of the human race but who brought sin, death, and condemnation into the world and Christ, the head of a new humanity, who brought righteousness, life, and justification to those who receive “the free gift” (verse 17). Additional occurrences of typos draw correlations between the testaments in terms of an event (Israel’s rebellion in the wilderness is a warning for the church, 1 Cor. 10:6, 11) and an institution (the earthly sanctuary reflects the heavenly original, Heb. 8:5).GOP 112.2
In addition to the use of this linguistic indicator, there are other ways in which typological relationships are drawn in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, Jesus points to Jonah’s three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish as a “sign” (sēmeion) typifying His coming death and resurrection and that His work is greater (Matt. 12:38-41 parr.). Rather than superimposing a typological understanding on the Old Testament narrative, there is an explicit recognition (verse 40) that Jonah himself poetically describes his harrowing experience in such terms (Jon. 2:1-6), thus enabling the later correlation to be made. GOP 112.3
Jesus also insists that the expected messiah (ho christos) is not merely the son of David but David’s “Lord” (Mark 12:35-37, quoting Ps. 110:1) and that His own work is greater even than Solomon’s (Matt. 12:42). This seems to recognize the fact that in certain psalms David poetically describes his experience in language that goes beyond what could be applied solely to the historical king as God’s “son” (e.g., Ps. 2; 22). In view of God’s solemn promise to David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; cf. 23:5) and later prophetic announcements that God would raise up a New David (Isa. 11:1-5; Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:20, 21; Eze. 21:25-27; Hos. 3:4, 5; Amos 9:11, 12; Mic. 5:2-4; Zech. 8:3; cf. Gen. 49:10; Ps. 132:11), the New Testament writers identify Jesus as the messianic personage prefigured by the Israelite king and anticipated by the prophets. Adding further to the Old Testament passages presaging the coming of Messiah, Jesus, in describing Himself as Israel’s “shepherd” (Mark 14:27 par; John 10:1-16), hints that, through His gathering of God’s “sheep” (Eze. 34:23, 24; 37:24, 25; Jer. 23:1-4) and through His approaching death (Zech. 13:7), prophecy is being fulfilled.GOP 113.1
Allusions made by Bible writers can also suggest a typological relationship. For example, several references to the final fiery judgment (Ps. 50:3, 4; 97:2-5; Mic. 1:3, 4; 1 Cor. 3:13; 2 Thess. 1:8; 2 Peter 3:12), and particularly to “the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:9, 14; cf. Ps. 46:6; Nahum 1:5, 6), seem to identify the Noachian flood as a type of the ultimate destruction of the world at the eschaton. There even seems to be at least one example of a future event being used as a type that anticipates and correlates with an even greater event further into the future. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus describes the impending destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:15 parr; cf. Dan 9:26, 27) and then proceeds to use this future event as a type of the destruction that will occur at the end of the world (Matt. 24:27, 28/Luke 21:25, 26).GOP 113.2
Rhetorical
Rarely, there may be cases where Bible writers allude to or quote the language of Scripture but seem to apply it differently than what we might be able to conclude from a study of its original setting or context. One possible example of this is Paul’s reference in 1 Corinthians 9:8-11 to the Mosaic command, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain” (Deut. 25:4). The apostle seems to be using the language of the Old Testament passage but applies it differently from its Old Testament setting. However, Paul defends his (and Barnabas’) right to financial support from the churches for gospel work, citing not just “human authority” but “the Law of Moses” (verses 8, 9). Then Paul asks, “Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak certainly for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop” (verses 9, 10). While some feel constrained to make the rather obvious point that the Deuteronomic law was directed to people in order to lessen the apparent tension between it and Paul’s application of it, the original intent of the law is clearly for the sake of oxen. Yet Paul seems to deny this. GOP 113.3
Perhaps implicitly there is an analogous principle operating that if animals deserve such care then human beings deserve more. However, Paul does not actually argue this way, and, even in this case, the meaning of the text that is quoted must shift somewhat in order to accommodate the different Pauline application, which must rely on an extended theological sense for this law in harmony with the merciful thrust of the Mosaic legislation as a whole.GOP 114.1
Another and perhaps more likely possibility, suggested by Paul’s reference to what “the Lord commanded” (verse 14) and his other citation of this law (1 Tim. 5:18), is that the apostle is following Jesus’ interpretative application of it to gospel workers (“the laborer deserves his food” [Matt. 10:10]). In this case, the language of the law, while specifying the ox as a typical example, would be applicable to “any labourer, of any species of animal, including human.” In this case, it would not be merely a rhetorical use but an exegetical application of the passage based on the way it was literally understood in the first century.GOP 114.2