When the Apostle Matthew writes that Jesus’ family fleeing to Egypt “fulfilled what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son'” (Matthew 2:15), how should we understand this use of Hosea 11:1—a passage that originally referred to Israel’s exodus? Or when Paul describes Adam as “a type of the one who was to come” (Romans 5:14), what interpretive framework best explains this connection?

These questions touch on one of the most fascinating and consequential aspects of biblical interpretation: how the New Testament (NT) authors use and interpret the Old Testament (OT). In this article, we’ll examine three major interpretive frameworks that attempt to explain the relationship between the testaments, evaluate each from a Reformed perspective, and consider which view—or synthesis of views—best honours both the human and divine authorship of Scripture.

 

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The Reformed tradition has always emphasised the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. From the time of the Reformation, with its battle cry of sola scriptura, Reformed theologians have insisted Scripture is self-interpreting—the clearer passages help us understand the more difficult ones. This principle, often expressed as “Scripture interprets Scripture,” is foundational to Reformed hermeneutics.

Yet when we examine how NT authors cite and apply OT texts, we encounter interpretations that sometimes appear to stretch or re-contextualise the original meaning. This has led to significant debate among Reformed scholars about the proper framework to understand these connections between the testaments.

 

NEW TESTAMENT’S USE OF THE OLD: VIEW 1—THE SINGLE FULFILLMENT VIEW

Core Thesis: This view holds the NT authors understood OT passages according to their original, historical-grammatical meaning. This view maintains there is one meaning to each biblical text—the meaning intended by the human author under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Key Principles: According to this view, when NT authors cite OT passages, they’re respecting the original context and authorial intent. What appears to modern readers as creative applications or reinterpretations are actually faithful readings of what the OT authors themselves intended, even if that intention was sometimes implicit rather than explicit.

The Single Fulfillment View insists the meaning of a text cannot change over time. The Holy Spirit, who inspired the human authors, ensured their words carried the full meaning God intended, even if they themselves did not grasp all implications of their writings.

Biblical Examples: Consider Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”). Proponents of the Single Fulfillment View would argue Hosea, though primarily referring to Israel’s exodus, was also consciously speaking of the Messiah as Israel’s representative. Similarly, when Isaiah prophesied about a virgin conceiving (Isaiah 7:14), he was directly predicting the birth of Christ, even though the prophecy had an immediate application in the prophet’s own time.

Reformed Proponents: This view has been championed by Reformed scholars like BB Warfield and EJ Young, who were concerned to defend the precision and clarity of biblical prophecy against liberal critics who denied predictive prophecy.

Strengths and Challenges: The Single Fulfillment View preserves the unity and perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. It guards against subjective or allegorical interpretations by anchoring meaning in the historical context and author’s intent. It also honours the human authors as true authors, not merely passive conduits of divine revelation.

However, the view sometimes requires complex explanations for passages where the NT application seems distant from the original context. Critics argue it can appear forced when applied to certain texts, requiring us to assume the OT authors had more explicit Christological understanding than the texts themselves suggest.

 

NEW TESTAMENT’S USE OF THE OLD: VIEW 2— THE TYPOLOGICAL VIEW

Core Thesis: The Typological View proposes that the OT contains divinely intended patterns—types—that find greater fulfillment in Christ and the New Covenant realities. These types are not merely literary analogies drawn by NT authors but are built into the fabric of redemptive history by God himself.

Key Principles: In this framework, historical OT events, persons, and institutions have their own historical reality and meaning, but also prefigure greater NT realities. David was a real king, but also a type of the greater King to come. The Exodus was a historical deliverance, but also a pattern for Christ’s greater redemption.

Importantly, these typological connections are not imposed on the text by creative NT authors but are divinely intended from the beginning. As Augustine famously put it, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.”

 

Biblical Examples: Romans 5 explicitly identifies Adam as a “type” of Christ. The Tabernacle and Temple rituals are treated as typological in Hebrews. The Exodus becomes a pattern for understanding Christ’s redemption throughout the NT. Even Israel’s wilderness wanderings become “examples for us” according to 1 Corinthians 10:6.

Reformed Proponents: This view has been developed with particular depth by Reformed biblical theologians like Geerhardus Vos, Edmund Clowney, and Richard Gaffin. It aligns well with the Reformed emphasis on covenant theology and the unity of God’s redemptive plan.

Strengths and Challenges: The Typological View accounts for the NT seemingly creative use of OT texts while maintaining their historical meaning. It preserves the Christ-centred nature of all Scripture, showing how the entire Bible tells one unified story. It also acknowledges progressive revelation—God revealing more of his plan over time.

The main challenge for this view is determining legitimate types from forced parallels. Without careful controls, typology can become subjective, seeing “types” wherever one wishes. Reformed proponents of typology have therefore emphasised the need for textual warrant from the NT itself when identifying types.

 

NEW TESTAMENT’S USE OF THE OLD: VIEW 3— THE SENSUS PLENIOR VIEW

Core Thesis: The Sensus Plenior (“fuller sense”) View proposes OT texts contain meanings intended by God but not necessarily fully understood by the human authors. These deeper meanings become clear only in light of further revelation, particularly in Christ.

Key Principles: This view emphasizes the dual authorship of Scripture—human and divine. While respecting the human author’s intended meaning, it recognises that God, as the ultimate author, may have embedded meanings that transcend what the human authors consciously intended.

The NT, according to this view, does not impose new meanings on OT texts but reveals meanings that were always there in God’s mind, even if not in the human author’s understanding.

Biblical Examples: Psalm 22 contains detailed descriptions of crucifixion centuries before this Roman execution method existed. Isaiah’s Servant Songs find their fulfillment in Christ in ways that seem to transcend what Isaiah himself could have fully understood. Peter suggests this reality when he writes that the prophets “searched and inquired carefully” about the salvation they prophesied, indicating they did not fully grasp all they wrote (1 Peter 1:10-12).

Reformed Proponents: While sensus plenior has been most explicitly developed in Catholic circles (notably by Raymond Brown), aspects of this approach can be found in Reformed interpreters as well, including elements in Calvin’s commentaries and in the writings of Herman Bavinck.

Strengths and Challenges: This view honours God’s omniscience and sovereignty over Scripture and explains how NT authors can find meanings that modern historical-grammatical analysis might miss. It emphasizes the unity of God’s redemptive plan across both testaments and affirms that God’s understanding transcends that of the human authors.

From a Reformed perspective, the greatest concern with sensus plenior is its potential tension with the doctrine of Scripture’s perspicuity (clarity). If texts contain meanings not accessible through normal historical-grammatical interpretation but requiring special revelation to uncover, this could undermine the Protestant principle that Scripture is clear in its essential meaning to ordinary readers guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

NEW TESTAMENT’S USE OF THE OLD: A REFORMED SYNTHESIS

Despite their differences, the three views share significant common ground from a Reformed perspective. All affirm Scripture’s divine inspiration and authority. All recognise the centrality of Christ in biblical interpretation. All acknowledge the unity of God’s redemptive plan throughout Scripture.

Many contemporary Reformed scholars have therefore sought a synthesis that incorporates the strengths of each approach while remaining faithful to Reformed hermeneutical principles.

Points of Agreement: Reformed interpreters across the spectrum affirm:

1. The Bible is fully inspired by God yet written through genuine human authorship
2. Scripture has a fundamental unity based on its divine authorship
3. Christ is the focal point of all Scripture
4. The meaning of Scripture is not fluid or subjective

Frameworks Proposed for Synthesis: A balanced Reformed approach may look like this:

• We begin with careful attention to the historical-grammatical meaning of the text in its original context (honoring the Single Fulfillment emphasis on authorial intent)
• We recognise legitimate typological patterns established by God in redemptive history and identified by Scripture itself (embracing the Typological View’s insights while avoiding arbitrary connections)
• We acknowledge God’s omniscience means he foresaw applications and connections beyond what the human authors could have fully grasped, though these fuller meanings are consistent with rather than contradictory to the human author’s intent (incorporating the valid insights of sensus plenior while maintaining Scripture’s clarity)
• We distinguish between the Holy Spirit’s role in inspiration (giving the text its meaning) and illumination (helping believers understand that meaning)

 

CONCLUSION: THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW

So which view best fits the evidence? Perhaps all three capture important aspects of the truth. The Single Fulfillment View rightly insists on respecting the human author’s intent and the historical context. The Typological View correctly identifies God-ordained patterns that find their fulfillment in Christ. The Sensus Plenior View validly recognises that God’s understanding transcends the full comprehension of the human authors.

In the end, whichever interpretive framework we adopt, our purpose must be the same as that of the Emmaus road disciples who discovered that all of Scripture—both OT and NT—speaks of Christ (Luke 24:27). The right view is the one that best helps us see Him more clearly.

 

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW: RELATED FAQs

Did the Reformers have a consistent approach to how the NT uses the OT? The Reformers, while united in their commitment to Scripture’s authority, exhibited some variety in their interpretive approaches. Calvin often recognised typological connections while remaining cautious about allegorical interpretations that strayed from the historical meaning. Luther sometimes embraced a more expansive Christological reading, yet both insisted Christ is the centre of all Scripture and that the OT must be read in light of its fulfillment in Him.

• How does the “Already/Not Yet” framework of NT eschatology affect our understanding of OT fulfillment? The “Already/Not Yet” framework recognises Christ’s first coming inaugurated the kingdom promises of the OT while their complete fulfillment awaits His return. From a Reformed perspective, this two-stage fulfillment helps explain why NT authors could claim OT prophecies were fulfilled in Christ while still anticipating a future consummation. This approach particularly strengthens the typological view by demonstrating that biblical patterns often find multiple fulfilments across redemptive history, with ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s return.
• What is the “Redemptive-Historical” approach and how does it relate to these three views? The Redemptive-Historical approach, pioneered by Reformed scholars such as Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos, interprets the Bible as a unified narrative of God’s progressive revelation centred on Christ’s redemptive work. This approach integrates elements of typology by tracing theological themes and patterns through Scripture while honoring the historical-grammatical meaning emphasized in the Single Fulfillment view. It provides a coherent framework that explains how NT authors could find Christ in the OT without imposing arbitrary meanings on the text.

How do these interpretive approaches affect our understanding of OT promises to Israel? Reformed covenant theology typically understands the church as the fulfillment of promises made to Israel, with Christ as the true Israel who incorporates believers into Himself. This perspective aligns with the typological view, seeing Israel as a type that finds its antitype in Christ and the church, while recognizing continuity between the covenant people of both testaments. However, Reformed scholars differ on whether certain land promises and national blessings retain a future fulfillment for ethnic Israel alongside their spiritual fulfillment in Christ.

• What role does the Holy Spirit play in biblical interpretation according to Reformed thought? In Reformed theology, the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical authors, ensuring the truthfulness of their writings while respecting their human personalities and contexts. The Spirit now illuminates readers’ understanding of Scripture’s meaning but does not reveal new meanings beyond what is contained in the text itself. This distinction between inspiration and illumination helps Reformed interpreters navigate between the Sensus Plenior view (which can risk subjective readings) and the Single Fulfillment view (which can underestimate the Spirit’s work in connecting the testaments), maintaining that the Spirit helps us recognise connections the human authors may not have fully grasped but which are genuinely present in the text.
• How does the Reformed emphasis on covenant theology influence these interpretive approaches? Covenant theology, central to Reformed thought, sees Scripture as revealing one covenant of grace progressively unfolded through various historical administrations. This framework naturally aligns with typological interpretation by recognizing patterns and anticipations across covenant administrations while maintaining their historical distinctiveness. The covenant framework helps explain how NT authors could interpret OT passages in light of Christ without imposing alien meanings, since both testaments reveal different stages of the same covenant relationship and redemptive plan.

What is the “Canonical Approach” advocated by Brevard Childs, and how might Reformed interpreters evaluate it? The Canonical Approach, developed by Brevard Childs, emphasises reading individual biblical texts within the context of the completed canon, recognizing that earlier texts may take on expanded meanings when read in light of later revelation. While not exclusively Reformed, this approach resonates with Reformed emphasis on the unity of Scripture and offers a middle way between strict historical-grammatical interpretation and sensus plenior. Reformed interpreters would affirm Childs’ emphasis on the final form of Scripture and canonical context, while maintaining that expanded canonical meanings must remain anchored in the text’s historical foundation rather than floating free from authorial intent.

 

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW: OUR RELATED POSTS

• The Masoretic and Septuagint: How Ancient Texts Shaped the Bible
• Bible Manuscripts: Why Earlier Isn’t Always Better
• Do Textual Variants Undermine Bible Reliability?
• Biblical Textual Criticism: Unveiling the Reliability of Scripture
• Bible Inerrancy Explained: Answering Today’s Toughest Challenges