THE CHRISTIAN REVIEW.

No. XVI.

DECEMBER, 1839.

ARTICLE I.

NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION.

SUGGESTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE OLD.

THE writer of the present essay is far from being attached to a mystical mode of interpreting the Bible. In his own practice, he has adopted and endeavored to apply those obvious, and, as they may be called, common-sense views, which regard the language of the Bible as resembling other language of human beings, both written and spoken; and therefore not to be tortured to any preconceived opinions of a reader, nor to be embarrassed with a multiform meaning. He has, however, observed, in common with all attentive readers, that the writers of the New Testament make applications of the Old Testament language different from those which we are authorized to make of human productions, and different, it may with truth be said, from those which some modern and, for the most part, good systems of interpretation would justify. This last circumstance should, of course, suggest a modification of the systems; for it is out of the Bible itself that the proper way of interpreting it must be drawn; and any system which does not recognize the peculiarities of the Bible, and is not conformed to them, is, on that very account, to be regarded as defective or wrong.

That there is some peculiarity in the design and the

VOL. IV.NO. XVI.

61

language of the Old Testament, and that the New Testament develops this, is obvious from the use which the evangelists and apostles make of the Old Testament. What were precisely, and in all their extent, the views entertained by the writers of the New Testament in regard to the subserviency of the old dispensation to the new, it may be difficult to tell. After much patient and anxious reflection, the suggestions contained in this article appear to the writer to grow very naturally out of the manner employed by the New Testament writers in using the Old. They are here presented merely as contributions to this subject; not as views which are beyond dispute, certainly not as views which embrace the whole matter.

The inquiry presented for consideration is this: Does not the practice of the New Testament writers in quoting from the Old, show, that the language of the Old Testament was regarded by them as having reference to events and subjects in the gospel dispensation, as well as to the particular events or subjects, to which it was at first applied? Have not the writers of the New Testament proceeded on the principle, that the language of the Old Testament had a recondite sense, as well as the more obvious one; and that while it spoke of men, and things, and topics, of its own time, it did, by those men, and things, and topics, design to give instruction respecting events in the Christian dispensation?

They have, indeed, quoted the Old Testament in reference to matters which, we have reason to think, were not present to the minds of its original writers; and they have quoted in such a manner as would imply that they regarded the language of the Old Testament as referring (besides its original reference) to the times of the New Testament. Nor is this practice confined to the language of prophecy. The language of historical narration, and of description, which, viewed by us in its original connection, would seem to have no reference at all to the Messiah, and to events in the New Testament dispensation, are freely quoted, and directly applied by the writers of the New Testament to him and to those events. Language, in short, pertaining to any subject, if by a more strict view of its meaning, or by a higher application, it can be referred to the Messiah, is thus employed by them, for purposes both of argument and of illustration. They

seem indeed to have regarded the Old Testament as a great storehouse of events and of language, adapted beforehand to the Christian dispensation, and having its designed ultimate use in the events of that dispensation.

That the writers of the New Testament were guided by some principle in their use of the Old, we cannot reasonably doubt; and that the principle, by which they were guided, was acknowledged by those to whom they wrote, we cannot doubt. What that principle was, they have not told us; we are left to gather it from their actual usage.

In the following remarks, it will be assumed, that the writers of the New Testament made a correct use of the Old; and that they were better acquainted with the real nature of the Old Testament than modern critics are. We have inspired guidance, when a New Testament writer employs the language of the Old. Whether the language of the Old Testament was designed to have a fulness of meaning, by which, while it primarily related to persons and things then present to the writer's view, it might also have an ultimate and more exact fulfilment in persons and events pertaining to the New Testament, is a question of fact, the answer to which depends on proper evidence. The manner in which the inspired writers of the New Testament use the Old, seems to proceed on such a principle; and it is, to say the least, very questionable, whether any other principle can so fairly bring under it all the instances of New Testament reference to the Old. We may therefore believe that the Old Testament was designed by its Divine Author as a system of religious instruction, preparatory in its facts and language to the New, foretokening it, previously adapted to it with much minuteness, and having its ultimate design accomplished in the events and doctrines of the New Testament. In regard to this view of the Old Testament, the following considerations are submitted.

1. We are not able to judge, a priori, whether the Old Testament would be constructed on such a principle, or not. That it could be so constructed, is plainly possible, because God is its Author, and his resources are boundless. Besides, there are human productions, which are throughout capable of a double meaning, and designed to express such a meaning. Reference is here made to double

entendres, to witticisms, and to compositions purposely enigmatical. What hinders, then, as a matter of fact, that on the most serious of all subjects, respecting which God judged it proper to unfold his designs gradually, the book which he inspired should have a compound reference, and that that compound reference should be fully indicated long after the book was written, and perhaps occasionally shine out during the progress of events detailed in the book?

2. As we have no personal experience in regard to the nature of divine inspiration, and of the prophetic influence, our experience is not adequate to guide us on this question. A person under divine inspiration, and particularly under the influence of the prophetic spirit, might view many things in a manner different from that in which we should view them; and the Divine Being, who inspired them, might have so affected their minds that their language, even beyond their own apprehensions, might have had a fulness of application, which would not be wholly known till certain developments of divine providence should have taken place.

There is, then, no valid objection, from the nature of the case, against considering the Old Testament as having, throughout, a designed reference to the new dispensation, not only in its direct prophecies, but in the structure of the Mosaic system of worship, in various historical facts, and in the very forms of expression which the language employs.

Let us now consider certain views which may help us to discover the fundamental principle on which the New Testament writers proceeded in quoting from the Old.

The Christian dispensation is the grand point to which all preceding arrangements of God had reference. Every thing, then, particularly of a religious character, may be considered as having been preparatory to the New Testament dispensation. Especially was this the case with the whole Mosaic institution, both in its leading features and in its details. That dispensation and the Christian were to be counterparts; the Christian to be the completion of the other-the Christian, that to which the other should conduct, and for which it should be preparatory. All the divine arrangements in the Jewish nation were of this character. Moses and the Messiah were striking coun

terparts; the priests were typical of the Messiah, as the great high priest; the sacrifices were emblematical of him, as the appointed Lamb of God; the Jewish kings were remote resemblances of the Messiah, as the great king; the whole nation was typical of the Messiah's spiritual subjects. Thus all the arrangements, appointed or permitted of God among the Hebrews, were remarkably adapted to prepare a reflecting and pious worshipper for the Messiah's dispensation; and in that dispensation he could not fail to discover a complete, a remarkably exact and elevated fulfilling of the Mosaic dispensation. Hence, language pertaining to arrangements and events in the Mosaic dispensation, would be found unexpectedly fitted to persons and events in the new dispensation; and it would come to be seen that the Divine Mind, which arranged that dispensation, and led to the use of that language, was contemplating persons and events far down in the vale of time, as well as those that were immediately concerned. A writer, under the inspiring influence of that same Mind, might fully perceive this and express it; and readers, accustomed to those arrangements and to that language, would, when the resemblance was pointed out and traced to a divine purpose, at once subscribe to the correctness of the view. And when numerous instances were found, in which the language of the Old Testament was far more exactly and happily applicable, than to the subjects first spoken of in the Old Testament; this preparatory character, both of divine arrangements and of inspired language, was discerned, and the language was quoted as having a reference to the events in the New Testament dispensation. The original application of the language would by no means be denied; but the ultimate design of God in that language had perhaps been so far gradually disclosed, and had come now so to engross the mind, that its primary, inferior design was lost sight of; 'it was no longer remembered, nor came it into mind.'

This view of the preparatory character of the Old Testament, as to its histories, its religious appointments, its forms of expression, is conformed to the current use which is made of the Old Testament in the New. And in making this use of it, the hand of God is devoutly acknowledged as carrying out a great system, which he had been contemplating from the earliest time, and which was