One thing first noticed by the beginner or even casual reader of the New Testament is the frequent recourse by most of its authors to Old Testament sources to substantiate their current interpretations. I do not think I would miss the mark afar to say that I along with many other nominally-trained students of the Bible have never seriously questioned the methodology and theological purpose of New Testament references to Old Testament passages.

Richard Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period "opened my eyes" to a fresh hermeneutical perspective through his logical, comprehensive, systematic (and readable!) treatment that has begun to equip me with new tools to better analyze, comprehend, and finally integrate the Biblical message into my understanding and proclamation.

Longenecker begins his treatise with a concise, understandable defining of Jewish exegetical methods of the First Century. Then in the following chapters he substantiates and illuminates the use of these methods in which Old Testament passages have come to be inserted into the New Testament by speakers and authors according to their purpose, theology, and the cultural traditions of their hearers.

I found most helpful Longenecker's treatment of the four exegetical classifications: literalist, midrashic, pesher, and allegorical (p. 28 ff). Of all these, pesher was most novel to me. Pesher interpretation, the explication and fulfillment of heretofore mysterious texts, is according to Longenecker the "most characteristic employment of scripture" by Jesus (p. 70). Through a thorough study, classification, and analysis of all New Testament quotations of Old Testament passages, Longenecker concludes that pesher exegesis "was distinctive of only Jesus and his immediate disciples, and not of those who merely associated with them or followed them" (p. 211).

The other fascinating find for me was Longenecker's treatise on midrashic interpretation, especially that which involved esteemed Rabbi Hillel's seven "rules of rabbinic exegesis" (p. 34). It then falls into place that Paul, trained in Pharisaic practice, would employ midrashic exegetical treatments to his use of Old Testament passages to bolster his message. The technique of "pearl stringing", that is, to cite numerous supportive scriptures to strengthen an argument (p. 115), although utilized by Paul with care and sensitivity, reminded me of modern day "proof-texters" whose strategy seems to be one of overpowering the listener. I've seen some long, long, "pearl strings".

Another and I believe contemporarily helpful insight was Longenecker's finding that Old Testament citations were chiefly incorporated in works to be circulated by primarily Jewish readers and hearers (pp. 210, 211). For example, in Paul's letters to churches with Jewish influence, Old Testament quotations are common, while letters to Gentile audiences relied upon other strategies than recourse to Old Testament support. Modern-day proclamation might take a similar approach, utilizing biblical texts when communicating to church people while utilizing other, culturally familiar themes for those without biblical grounding. In either case, sound biblically-based theology would be crucial, as was always true with Paul.

Finally, I was intrigued by Longenecker's interest in the source texts of the numerous quotations, whether Masoretic Text or Septuagint. Perhaps more work is yet to be done in this field—no clear pattern could be discerned in some cases, as when an author would use both MT and LXX in the same work.

As I reflect upon this most illuminating book I am struck by a thought and its corresponding antithesis. The New Testament writers of one accord sought to utilize the Old Testament christologically, to point to Jesus as Messiah. The Old Testament was thus incorporated into a strategy to present the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ.

Sadly I am reminded of those (and I suppose at one time I was also one of those!) who use the Old Testament eisegetically for political and philosophical purposes other that which points to the life-giving God. I think, for example, of the Dominion Theology movement (sometimes called Reconstructionism) which seeks to make the Old Testament legal code into the law of the land for contemporary society (ie. North, Rushdooney, Chilton, and to an extent Pat Robertson). On another plane I think of Dispensationalists who interchange literal and allegorical interpretive methodology without systematic approach—again eisegetically. It troubles me to think of sincere Christian people I know who devote exhaustive research into the dispensational eschatological meaning of the 70 weeks of Daniel, etc., who strenuously profess a literalist view of all scripture ("The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"), yet who seem ignorant, even antagonistic to the preponderance of scripture that speaks of economic and social justice, etc. Moreover I am sorely frustrated, inasmuch as to even speak to these Bible misapplications can be as entering a minefield set to explode upon the exegete. I sometimes wonder if for some people an eisegetically "manufactured" Bible becomes a fortress to defend against the Living God who calls into question all our manipulative and self-serving constructs. But first and foremost, I must point the question to myself. How do I manipulate the Bible to justify my own ends?

Longenecker's book opened up for me new vistas of insight. May I use these tools and understandings with wisdom, humility, and service to the glory of God.