Scripture
SCRIPTURE (See Bible; Canon; New Testament; Old Testament)
SCRIPTURE
NT Terminology
Descriptive terms
Focusing on the written form
Focusing on some further quality of the literature.
Τὰ λόγια του̂ θεου̂, “the oracles of God.” This expression, occurring in Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; and 1 Peter 4:11, is usually understood to be a reference to the OT, although in 1 Peter 4:11 it may refer to the inspired utterances of the Christian prophet of NT days. G. Kittel, however, maintained that it concerns rather the salvation-history contained in the Bible, but Doere and Warfield argue cogently for the traditional view (Doere, 111-123; Warfield, 251-407). As used in the classical and Hel. lit., Warfield says that “it means, not ‘words’ barely, simple ‘utterances,’ but distinctively ‘oracular utterances,’ divinely authoritative communications, before which men stand in awe and to which they bow in humility: and this high meaning is not merely implicit, but is explicit in the term” (403).
̔Η πολαιά διαθήκη (“the old covenant,” 2 Cor 3:14) seems to be a reference to the written record of the Mosaic law (cf. v. 15) but it prob. gave rise (through a different rendering of the underlying Gr., reflected in the KJV “old testament”) to the later patristic designation of the two divisions of the Canon as the OT and the NT.
Composite terms.
The Jews employed the terms “the law and the prophets” and “the law and the prophets and the writings” to designate the whole OT. The “writings” are the other Scriptures which are not sufficiently homogeneous for a single title and the third general term was sometimes omitted, so that the OT was known by its two major types of lit. In the NT there are frequent references to “the law and the prophets” (Matt 5:17; 22:40; Luke 16:16; Rom 3:21) or to “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29). In Luke 24:44 “the law...and the prophets and the psalms” are named, the last word pointing to the first and largest of the Writings and, perhaps, the one that spoke most clearly of Christ. Just as we have seen that “the Law” and also “the Prophets” may bear a narrower or a broader sense, so the term “Writings” in the NT usually refers to the whole OT (see esp. Luke 24:27 where the broader sense is prob. intended, but where there is perhaps an allusive glance in the direction of the narrower).
Introductory formulae
Stressing the written form.
In terms suggestive of a living voice.
What of passages where no subject is expressed or clearly implied in the context? Such passages are very frequent, esp. in the Pauline epistles (Rom 9:15; Eph 4:8; 5:14; also in James 4:6). Some would understand them to mean, “God says,” others, “Scripture says,” while still others maintain that they sometimes mean, “It is said,” with the assumption that the source is not important. Warfield has demonstrated in masterly fashion that this last is not a live option (ch. 7). He says at the conclusion of his survey of the evidence, “We may well be content in the NT as in Philo to translate the phrase wherever it occurs, ‘It says’—with the implication that this ‘It says’ is the same as ‘Scripture says,’ and that this ‘Scripture says’ is the same as ‘God says.’ It is this implication that is really the fundamental fact in the case” (p. 348). In line with this, and despite his general difference of approach from that of Warfield, Alan Richardson points to the inaccuracy of the RSV tr. of Ephesians 4:8; 5:14 (“Scripture, Authority of,” IDB [1962], 249). Ephesians 5:14 presents difficulties, for the matter quoted cannot be found in so many words in the OT. It may perhaps represent a grouping of passages, of course, but some modern writers have suggested that it is from a primitive Christian hymn. The introductory formula suggests strongly its inspiration and so, if no convincing OT equivalent is to be found, it is best to view it as a NT prophetic utterance.
In terms of fulfillment.
The Eng. “to be fulfilled” is usually a tr. of πληρωθη̂ναι or τελειωθη̂ναι or one of their compounds. Such lang. occurs widely in the NT but most frequently in Matthew and in John. It shows the unity of the Biblical revelation in terms of prophecy and fulfillment, of type and antitype. John also saw this same principle in operation in relation to the words of Jesus (John 18:9; cf. 2:22).
Summary.
The use of the terminology considered above is striking testimony to the belief of the NT writers in the OT as a divinely-inspired and authoritative book. This belief can be indicated without the use of such terms, of course, and the Book of the Revelation, which contains no NT quotation with quotation formula, nevertheless shows the most complete dependence upon the OT at every point. It is noteworthy also that the NT writers show some tendency to extend their own technical lang. to the utterances and writings of inspired persons under the New Covenant.
The inspiration of Scripture
The term “inspiration.”
Inspiration as applied to Scripture has been well defined as “a supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon divinely chosen men in consequence of which their writings become trustworthy and authoritative” (C. F. H. Henry, “Inspiration,” BDT [1960], 286). The word θεόπνευστος, G2535, “given by inspiration of God” (KJV), is found only once and means “God-breathed,” i.e. “breathed out by God” (2 Tim 3:16). The Eng. word “inspiration” tends to be misunderstood sometimes because it seems to suggest breathing into or within rather than breathing out. The Eng. word also occurs in Job 32:8 (KJV) but later Eng. VSS have removed it and it is irrelevant for the present subject.
The relation of inspiration to revelation.
These are closely related without being identical. Revelation is concerned with God’s disclosure of truth to men, while inspiration is its communication in verbal form. The term “inspiration” may be properly applied to the spoken as well as to the written Word, as in the Spirit-given utterances of the OT prophets before these were given written form, but spoken and written communication is alike verbal. For revelation to have permanent form it needs to be communicated in writing and thus inspiration is its servant. This does not mean that Scripture is simply the record of revelation (although it is this) for it possesses revelation status in its own right, as one sees from NT quotations of OT passages as “the word of God” (e.g. John 10:35; Rom 3:2). Much modern theology denies the propositional element in revelation and so it is not surprising to find that the return of “revelation” to a central place in the theological vocabulary has not been followed by a renewal of interest in inspiration. The Bible itself is concerned with both, however, for the infrequency of the word “inspiration” in Scripture does not reflect the importance of the idea there.
The inspiration of the OT
The OT phenomenon of inspiration.
Many of the OT channels of revelation exhibit a clear consciousness of their inspiration. Particularly is this true of the line of prophets from Moses onward. In the light of 2 Samuel 23:1-3 it is instructive to note that David is described in the NT as a prophet (Acts 2:30). In general, it would seem that the true prophet was not only an inspired person but conscious that he was so.
An important quality of the word of the inspired man is its divine and objective character. This does not mean that the Word of God included anything from the prophet’s experience—in the case of men like David, Jeremiah, and Hosea, it is clear that it often did—but that it was never simply their own thought and word but always the thought and Word of God. The prophet Nathan was able to distinguish between his own thought and the Word of God (2 Sam 7:3ff.).
This discussion of inspiration in the OT has been concerned chiefly with prophecy, because in the prophets inspiration is conscious. Other writers, such as historians and poets, do not disclose such a consciousness explicitly. Inspiration is not, however, to be equated with the declaration of it nor even with the consciousness of it. There is other testimony to the inspiration of other OT writers.
Christ’s testimony to OT inspiration.
The testimony of the NT writers.
The importance of this phenomenon is that it discloses a psychological fact of great significance for the estimate of Paul’s concept of OT Scripture. A partial parallel from the lips of the Lord may be found in Matthew 19:4f., where it is clear that for Him Scripture and God, as speaking, are to be equated.
The inspiration of the NT
Apostles and NT prophets as men of the Spirit.
Of even greater importance than the prophets, however, were the apostles. The Twelve were specially chosen by the Lord and instructed by Him throughout His ministry. To them He gave special promises concerning the work of the Spirit in them as the Spirit of Truth (John 14:16f., 25f.; 15:26; 16:12-15). He would witness to Christ by declaring to them the things of Christ, by calling to their minds the teaching of their Master, and by showing them things to come. In this way the Spirit would complement and complete the instruction which Jesus had given to them.
Their consciousness of inspiration.
Once again, one needs to remember that a writer’s failure to refer to his being inspired is no indication that it is lacking, just as the claim to inspiration does not furnish logical proof of it. Paul was conscious that his word was accepted as the Word of God by the Thessalonians through faith (1 Thess 2:13) and as the Holy Spirit wrought a conviction of its truth in their hearts (1 Thess 1:5). It is important also to remember that the only form in which we have the inspired utterances of the men of the NT as well as of the OT is the written form.
The character of Biblical inspiration
The Spirit as the ultimate Author of all that is rightly called “Scripture.”
The Bible is not merely human lit., and all that is rightly called “Scripture” is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). This v. in its context refers primarily to the OT, but its principle is equally applicable to other lit. to which one may apply this term. The precise delimitation comes under a study of the Canon of Scripture, but we may note that the claim to inspiration occurs in the NT as well as in the OT, and that Peter regarded the epistles of Paul as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15f.).
All Scripture of full and equal inspiration.
The statement of 2 Timothy 3:16 concerns “all Scripture.” It is not permissible to tr. these words as “every scripture inspired of God” (ASV, cf. RSVmg.) if this is understood to distinguish Scriptures which are inspired from those which are not. Whether the adjective πα̂σα, “all” or “every,” is attributive or predicative is a matter of little consequence. It is the interpretation of the statement that matters. The NT knows nothing of “Scripture” which is not divinely originated.
This passage gives justification for the use of the term “plenary” (“full”) in reference to Scripture and the rejection of the concept of degrees of inspiration. Revelation certainly admits of degree, for a disclosure of truth may be small or great; but a book either is Godbreathed or it is not. Scripture passages may even differ in their value, but they do not differ in their inspiration, and so must all find a place in the Word of God.
The control of the writers by the Spirit.
2 Peter 1:21 affirms, “No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Commenting on this, Warfield says, “What is ‘borne’ is taken up by the ‘bearer’ and conveyed by the bearer’s power, not its own, to the bearer’s goal, not its own” (p. 137). Inspiration is not the mere heightening of the powers of the writers but their control by the divine Spirit.
The Spirit’s use of the individuality of the writers.
Inspiration did not override or suppress the individuality of any particular writer but employed it. The Word of God came into existence through many different human channels and the evidence of stylistic variation bears testimony to the reality of the human factor. This is true even of the OT prophets where the form in which the word was often received—in a vision or dream—testifies most strongly to the objectivity of it. It is even more evident in writings like the epistles. Paul’s letters, for example, show signs of his own individuality. A great deal of research went into the production of a book like the gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-4). Hodge wrote concerning inspiration from God: “When He ordains praise out of the mouths of babes, they must speak as babes or the whole power and beauty of the tribute will be lost” (C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I [1872], 157). When the Reformers used the term “dictation” in relation to Scripture, as they occasionally did, they seem to have employed it simply to lay stress upon the divine origin of Scripture and not to define its invariable method.
The “verbal” character of inspiration.
On the other hand, one must not fall into the opposite error of imagining that the words of Scripture have importance apart from the meaning which they convey. It is the sense which is all-important, and it is for this reason that the inspired writers of the NT sometimes employed a free rendering of some OT passages when it could bring out more forcibly the point which they were making. The matter would be a problem only if the sense of the original passage were violated. This raises the whole question of the use of the OT by the NT writers, which belongs to the subject of interpretation.
Inspiration as a finished work.
Inspiration, which is a completed work of the Spirit, is not to be confused with illumination, which is continuous. Between the original inspired MSS and ourselves lie one or two processes. If the original languages are known to the reader the only process is the transmission of the text. The science of textual criticism of the Bible is a very refined and exact one, and the study of it shows that the text, although not preserved completely from the normal processes of corruption which affect all transmission, has been wonderfully protected so that the message disclosed in Scripture has been available to each successive generation. Translators have a duty to reverence the wording of the original and to seek to convey in another lang. the thought of the Heb. and Gr. The extensive use of the LXX (a Gr. VS of the OT) by the NT writers shows that tr. is legitimate and it may be laid down that a tr. may be—indeed must be—treated as the Word of God insofar as it conveys faithfully the thought of the original.
Inspiration and the difficulties of Scripture.
The Christian receives God’s Word on His own testimony. This does not mean, of course, that the reverent reader of Scripture encounters no problems. Difficulties in Scripture are a spur to seek divine enlightenment and to diligent study. They are not a call to abandon a high doctrine of Scripture. The scientist’s conviction of the unity of the universe is not overturned when he encounters problems. Likewise, the Christian’s conviction of the unity of Scripture is not surrendered in the face of Biblical difficulties. It is sometimes maintained that the doctrine of Scripture should be based on all the phenomena of Scripture, including its difficulties. It is questionable whether this is practicable, for the evaluation and harmonization of all the phenomena is considerably more than a lifetime’s work. Moreover, the Bible itself contains clear statements concerning its own inspiration. It is on these that the doctrine of inspiration should be based. The acceptance of Scripture as divinely-given on this basis implants the conviction of its unity, and the problems can now be approached, and progressively solved, in the light of this.
The authority of Scripture
Its relation to inspiration.
The inspiration and the authority of Scripture are distinguishable but inseparable. Matters of religion are of such great importance that merely human authority is insufficient. It is not the human authors as such who give the Bible its authority, but its divine Author. It is because it originates from Him that its message is to be received and trusted. Accordingly, inspiration is rightly discussed before authority, and there can be no stable doctrine of Biblical authority where there is no stable doctrine of inspiration.
The authority of the OT
Its recognition within the OT period.
The law was obviously intended for posterity and not just for the generation to which it was first given, and evidence is not wanting that this is true of the prophetic revelations also (Isa 30:8; Jer 30:1ff.; 36:1ff.; Hab 2:2ff.). Daniel 9:1f. states, “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans—in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.” Daniel’s prayer, which immediately follows this, makes it clear that he regarded the Word of God through Jeremiah as completely authoritative. Psalm 89 also shows the psalmist pleading the promises of God given to David (2 Sam 7) in such a way as to show his acceptance of their divine authority.
Its recognition by Christ.
Jesus treated the OT as authoritative even for His own life. The whole point of the temptation narratives (Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) is that it was the Lord’s duty, as true Man, to listen to the voice of God through the OT and not to the voice of Satan.
The Lord assumed the reliability of even small details in the OT. He referred to many events the historicity of which is called into question by many today: the marriage of Adam and Eve (Matt 19:4f.) and the stories of Abraham (John 8:56), Noah, and Lot and his wife (Luke 17:26-32). It may be objected that fictitious stories may be employed to convey spiritual truth. Yet such an argument cannot be consistently applied to the Lord’s use of the OT. He was speaking to people who believed in the literal truth of the OT stories. There is no hint that He took them in any other way, and there are some passages where the whole point would be destroyed if they were not historical. It is impossible to defend His lang. in Matthew 12:41 and Luke 11:50f. unless the OT events He refers to are absolutely historical and factual. How can men who are represented as repenting in a fictitious story rise at an actual judgment to condemn actual men? (see Wenham, 12-14).
Its recognition by the NT writers.
The authority of the NT
The nature of apostleship.
The Lord evidently regarded the selection of the original apostolic band as a matter of great moment, for He prepared for it by an extended time of prayer (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12ff.). Matthew 10:1-11:1 gives the terms of their commission during the period of His earthly ministry. Jesus concentrated on these men, giving far more time to their instruction than to the instruction of others. Whether they were right in appointing Matthias after the defection and death of Judas has been the subject of some debate, but in any case, they realized that it was the divine choice which mattered supremely (Acts 1:24f.).
The Apostle Paul often associated another Christian or Christians with him in the writing of an epistle, but it is noteworthy that for such a person he never used the term “apostle” (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1). The words “we might have made demands as the apostles of Christ” (1 Thess 2:6) are prob. not an exception to this but simply the literary employment of “we” in a sing. sense (cf. 3:1: “we...alone”!).
The nature of apostolic tradition.
The apostles were completely at one as transmitters of authoritative teaching from Jesus Himself (1 Cor 15:9-11). Does Galatians 2:11ff. constitute an exception? It should be noted that this passage does not refer to Peter’s teaching but to an event in his life in which, as Paul indicates, he acted against his own convictions (not just against Paul’s!) and so presumably against what he would have taught others. The veracity of his teaching is not in question at all. Galatians 2:1-10 shows that Paul and the earlier apostles agreed completely on matters of doctrine.
Apostolicity and the authority of the NT.
There is no suggestion in the NT that one is to look to successors of the apostles for authoritative teaching. The apostolic office would seem, in a personal sense, to have been a temporary one, although it is a permanent gift of Christ to the Church because of the inscripturation of the apostolic testimony in the writings of the NT. It is only through the NT that their teaching is now available so that men may believe on Him through their word (John 17:8, 14, 20) and continue to devote themselves to their teaching. The common idea that the apostles did not realize that they were writing inspired and authoritative lit. is not true to the facts, for they placed considerable emphasis upon the authority of their written words (1 Cor 14:37; 1 Thess 5:27; 2 Thess 3:14; Rev 22:18f.).
The Canon of the NT lies outside the scope of this article, but it should be noted that, according to the NT itself, there were other inspired persons in NT days besides the apostles, i.e., the prophets. The test of prophetic utterance was apostolic truth. The harmony between the non-apostolic writings of the NT and those that are clearly apostolic can be shown. The NT as a whole presents a marvelous unity of teaching, which is the perfect complement to the earlier inspired books collected together in the OT.
The use of Scripture
The practical ends for which Scripture was given.
It is highly significant that one of the most important Biblical passages exhibiting the Biblical doctrine of inspiration links this most intimately with the practical use of Scripture. “From childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15-17). The function of Scripture is instructional (“instruct you,” “profitable for teaching”) and its end salvation and sanctified service. The fourfold profit indicated shows Scripture’s use to be both theological and ethical, for it instructs the mind in divine truth and directs the reader in the right way; and both positive and negative, for “reproof” and “correction,” imply that errors in thought and in life are attacked by it.
The instructional function of Scripture is never merely intellectual but practical. Its aim is to produce not merely knowledge but wisdom and personal application. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29; cf. 32:46f.; Josh 1:7f.; James 1:25ff.; Rev 1:3).
Scripture and spiritual illumination.
The interpretation of Scripture
The importance of interpretation.
If the Bible is an inspired and authoritative revelation of God, then it is of great importance that it be properly understood. It is possible for a man to twist the Scriptures to his own destruction (2 Pet 3:16; cf. 2 Cor 4:2; 1 Tim 1:3-11). Satan applied Scripture in a way that violated the context when he was tempting the Lord (Matt 4:6). Jesus and the Pharisees were united on the inspiration and authority of the OT, but at variance frequently concerning its interpretation. Matthew, in particular, often showed Him rebuking the Jewish leaders for their failure to understand the significance of certain OT passages (Matt 9:13; 12:3-8; 21:42; 22:23-32).
The divine interpreter.
The purpose of Scripture.
The interpretation of any book must, of course, be related to its purpose, and the purpose of Scripture is frankly practical. It is given so that the people of God may be perfected in the life of godliness. The classic evangelical position is that when the Bible touches on matters of history, science, etc., it does so in conformity to truth, but in popular, non-technical language. There is a considerable amount of history in the Bible, but matters of science are usually touched upon only incidentally. It is right to maintain the inerrancy of Scripture in such matters, for it is “God-breathed” and the product of the Spirit of truth, but it is wrong to lose sight of the fact that the great purpose of the Bible is to teach men the things of God. All else is incidental to, and ministers to, this end.
Scripture as self-interpreting.
The multiple authorship of Scripture shows itself in great variety of style, vocabulary, and emphasis. Beneath this variety is a basic unity of doctrine. Modern studies of the κήρυγμα, G3060, (“the thing proclaimed”) in the NT have tended to underline the oneness of the preachers and writers of the Early Church in the Gospel they declare in their preaching and assume in their writing. Similar studies of the OT can show that it finds its unity in the revelation of an all-sovereign righteous God who has redeemed His people Israel from Egypt and brought them into the land of promise. Moreover, the oneness of the two Testaments is the constant presupposition of the writers of the NT. This unity is, of course, the product of the inspiring work of the Holy Spirit, the ultimate Author of Scripture. This means that a true interpretation of Scripture will demonstrate the harmony of the Bible with itself, not in any artificial or strained manner, but by seeking to do justice both to the natural sense of each passage and the unity of the whole. This does not mean that the interpreter comes to the text with a ready-made system of dogmatics, but it does mean that he keeps always in mind the fact that behind all the human authors is the divine Spirit, for this is what the Bible itself claims. It is important to remember also that the Bible contains many examples of interpretation, for the NT writers themselves interpret the OT, and the principles they apply have the authority of their inspiration behind them. Here is the Holy Spirit’s own guide in the understanding of Holy Writ.
The grammatico-historical principle.
The theological principle.
Bibliography
F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (1886); L. Gaussen, Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (1888); J. Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (1910); J. R. Harris, Testimonies (Vol., I 1916; Vol. II, 1920); C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (1936); B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (1948); L. Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (1950); B. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (1950); A. Richardson and W. Schweitzer (edd.), Biblical Authority for Today (1951); B. F. C. Atkinson, The Christian’s Use of the OT (1952); C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (1952); O. Cullmann, “Scripture and Tradition,” Scottish Journal of Theology (1953); J. W. Doere, “Some Notes with Reference to ΤΑ ΛΟΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ in Romans 3:2,” Studia Paulina (1953); J. N. Geldenhuys, Supreme Authority (1953); N. B. Stonehouse and P. Woolley (edd.), The Infallible Word (1953); R. V. G. Tasker, Our Lord’s Use of the OT (1953); J. W. Wenham, Our Lord’s View of the OT (1953); K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the OT (1954); R. V. G. Tasker, The OT in the NT (1954); E. C. Blackman, Biblical Interpretation (1957); E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the OT (1957); A. G. Hebert, Fundamentalism and the Church of God (1957); G. W. H. Lampe and K. Woolcombe, Essays in Typology (1957); R. M. Grant, The Letter and the Spirit (1957); J. F. Walvoord (ed.), Inspiration and Interpretation (1957); E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (1957); R. L. Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (1957); J. K. S. Reid, The Authority of Scripture (1957); R. Abba, The Nature and Authority of the Bible (1958); J. I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God (1958); J. D. Wood, The Interpretation of the Bible (1958); C. F. H. Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible (1959); H. D. McDonald, Ideas of Revelation (1959); L. Hodgson, et al., On the Authority of the Bible (1960); E. J. Carnell, The Case for Orthodoxy (1961); J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit OT Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the NT,” NTS (1961), 297-333; T. Hewitt, et al., The Word of God and Fundamentalism (1961); B. Lindars, NT Apologetic (1961); J. D. Smart, The Interpretation of Scripture (1961); W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder (edd.), Current Issues in NT Interpretation (1962); B. W. Anderson (ed.), The OT and Christian Faith (1963); A. B. Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (1963); H. D. McDonald, Theories of Revelation (1963); G. Schrenk “γράφω, γραφή, γράμμα” in G. Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the NT (Eng. tr. 1964), Vol. I, 742-773; A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the OT (1965); J. Barr, Old and New in Interpretation (1966); E. E. Ellis, “The Authority of Scripture: Critical Judgements in Biblical Perspective,” EQ (1967), 196-204; R. H. Gundry, The Use of the OT in St. Matthew’s Gospel (1967).