“To seek to interpret the various Old Testament documents for themselves and apart from the vantage point of the New [Testament] exposes one ultimately to misinterpreting them.” —Richard B. Gaffin Jr. 

Gaffin’s a brilliant man, and I’ve loved a host of things he’s written— but I can think of few concepts in the evangelical theological world that are more erroneous than this. This is the basic claim of “New Testament Priority” hermeneutics, which in the name of Christocentricity opens the door for all kinds of misinterpretation while crowning itself a safeguard against misinterpretation. (It’s also a system that often fuels supersessionism, since it fails to be adequately mindful of authorial intent in the OT.) 

Of course Christ is the τέλος of the law, the One to whom Moses and the prophets pointed, the One to whom belongs the preeminence. Yet we must hold not merely to NT priority, but to the priority of whatever biblical passage is in view. We must revere and hold high the irreplaceable value of authorial intent (both the human and Divine authors), and the God-breathed authority and usefulness of every passage, whether in the Old or New Testament. 

Everyone claims to do that, but who’s really doing it? There are times when the Old sheds light on the New and times when the New sheds light on the Old. The analogy of Scripture is REAL. The NT Priority proponent claims to value the OT (and many do in significant respects), but his hermeneutical system actually fails very often on just this point. Authorial intent is pushed to the periphery, even blacklisted (perhaps unconsciously), and misinterpretations ensue— most often in handling OT texts. And if one twists the meaning of OT texts (which the NT authors revered and were immersed in), how trustworthy is one’s handling of the New? It is worth asking. 

Hebrews 1:1-2: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” 

Yes, “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,” and we are humbled and grateful to see the mystery kept hidden for ages now revealed. All praise to the slain and risen Lamb! Yet and still, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.” The OT authors (just like the New) wrote WITH INTENT, and God spoke through them WITH INTENT. And there were those who heard and read and believed before the NT was written— that is, there were those who understood and felt and obeyed the authorial intent of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

The arrival of the New and better covenant doesn’t mean the belittling or downgrading or redefining of the authority of God’s speaking “by the prophets.” God spoke then. And God has spoken in/by His Son. And to this day He is still speaking through the whole counsel of Scripture. 

The New Testament Priority approach, while held by many sincere believers and many learned scholars, is simply not the view held by Christ or the apostles. “The Scripture cannot be broken”; “all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable.” Let us return to “rightly handling the Word of truth.” Let us return to Christ-exalting exegesis and interpretation, placing hermeneutical priority on the passage before us, 

1. with authorial intent in view— discovering what it meant to them before asking what it means for us, 
2. being mindful of how the immediate text contributes to and harmonizes with the grand revelation of Scripture as a whole, 
3. glorying in all the ways the Scriptures anticipate or articulate the Gospel (which includes the 1st and 2nd advents, by the way), 
4. remembering that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” We need only to give each passage the attention it deserves. Doing so will not make less of Christ, but enable us to get closer to how He and His apostles understood and treasured “the sacred writings.” 

Isn’t that what hermeneutics is all about? - BA Purtle