Beyond the Book with Dr. Echevarría: “Engaging the New Testament”

In the following Q&A, Dr. Echevarría takes the time to answer a few questions regarding his new textbook:

What is the scope of the book, and what motivated you to write it?

My “Engaging the New Testament” is an introductory textbook that interprets the 27 books of the New Testament in their canonical order. I argue that each book’s location makes a significant contribution to a cohesive understanding of Scripture. As a result, we must wrestle with the location of New Testament writings to understand their contributions to the redemptive message of Scripture.

How does this book differ from other New Testament introductions?

New Testament introductions usually emphasize historical critical matters like authorship, sources, and dating of documents rather than the interpretation of the text. That is, they spend more time explaining what lies “behind” the text than interpreting what is “in” the text of Scripture. That’s why I chose to write an introduction that focuses on interpreting the 27 New Testament books in their canonical context. I discern, for instance, the hermeneutical significance of the position of Matthew at the head of the fourfold Gospel corpus and Romans at the head of the Pauline letter collection.

I chose to write an introduction that focuses on interpreting the 27 New Testament books in their canonical context.

What features of the book make it uniquely beneficial to students and ministers?

The book includes sidebars that discuss the application of texts to various ministry contexts. The sidebars also include explanations of exegetical debates like the interpretation of pistis Christou phrases in Paul’s letters and the relationship of faith and works in the letters of Paul and James. Another unique feature of the book is that all critical matters related to sources, authorship, and the like are placed at the end of the chapters or in the appendixes. This allows readers to focus on the interpretation of Scripture without getting bogged down by critical issues.

In the introduction, you note that many evangelicals prioritize historical criticism in their study of the New Testament. Why do you think that is, and why is it important for readers to value historical criticism without deprioritizing the final canonical forms of the text?

I think evangelicals can get caught up in justifying the historicity of events and sayings and miss out on interpreting the final form of the text. I think that the biblical authors assumed the historicity of the events about which they write — and we should too. That does not mean that matters such as authorship and dating of texts are unimportant. It is certainly beneficial, for instance, to know the arguments for Luke’s authorship of Acts or Paul’s composition of the Pastoral Epistles. Such concerns, however, should not overshadow the interpretation of the texts in their canonical contexts.

How does approaching New Testament books in their canonical contexts add value, insight, and reliability to the interpretative process?

Here’s an example. Most scholars argue that Mark was written first. I would agree with this. However, what is more significant for interpretation? That Mark was written first? Or that Matthew is the first book in the New Testament canon? I would argue that the latter is more significant. Matthew begins, after all, with one of the most consequential affirmations in Scripture: Jesus Christ is the “son of David” and “son of Abraham” (1:1). This one verse — the very first one in the entire New Testament — immediately claims that Jesus is the promised Davidic ruler (2 Sam 7) who will bring blessing to the nations in the promised new creation (Gen 12; 15). Matthew makes a far stronger connection to the Old Testament promises than Mark does. That’s why (in my opinion) Matthew is at the head of the canon. This canonical approach makes for a more valuable, insightful, and reliable understanding of the First Gospel. However, what is more significant for interpretation? That Mark was written first? Or that Matthew is the first book in the New Testament canon? I would argue that the latter is more significant.

However, what is more significant for interpretation? That Mark was written first? Or that Matthew is the first book in the New Testament canon? I would argue that the latter is more significant.

How does this book help readers to better serve the Church and fulfill the Great Commission?

Interpreting books in their canonical contexts gives readers a better understanding of the calling of the people of God to take the good news of Jesus’ cosmic reign to the ends of the earth.

How has writing this book shaped you spiritually?

Writing this book was a spiritual exercise in discerning how the shape of Scripture points to God’s redemptive work through Jesus Christ and my responsibility to share and live out this good news. I pray it has a similar effect on readers!