Fr. Guillermo Miguel "Willy" Viacrucis Villegas, SVD

Today, Dec. 1, 2018, is the 50th Sacerdotal Anniversary of Fr. Guillermo V. Villegas, SVD

"Taken from among men
Ordained for men in the things that pertain to God
Able to have compassion on the ignorant and uncertain because he himself is beset with weakness." (Hebrews 5:1)

Today, Nov. 15, 2018, is the 3rd death anniversary of Fr. W***y. May he rest in peace.

"Born on May 7, 1942, Cabunga-an, Palompon, Leyte.
Cabungaan was a farm of Tatay Venan (grandfather of Fr.W***y) where the Viacrucis clan evacuated during the World War II. Before leaving the place during liberation, the tenants of Tatay Venan, in an assembly, petitioned to make Cabunga-an a barrio. At this meeting, they suggested to change the name of Cabunga-an sincec if one is not carefull in the prnounciation, it would be Cabuangan. They suggested to call it or the proposed barrio to San Guillermo after my son, Guillermo who was born here at Cabunga-an. Thus, barrio San Guillermo was made and called." (from the diary of Maria Viacrucis Villegas, mother of Fr. W***y)

Happy Birthday, Fr. W***y. Today is also the barrio fiesta of San Guillermo, Palompon, Leyte.

Happy 75th Birthday, Fr. W***y.

As a boy I never dreamed of becoming a priest. I have two older brothers who entered the seminary. Their stories about the seminary turned me off (Latin was difficult; food was poor; discipline was strict, etc.) The military career attracted me, having an uncle who was an impressive military general. The idea of “duty”, “honor” resounded inside me. Priests were not attractive. (No details!) After the summer of 1954 which I spent as a delegate to the First National Boy Scout Jamboree in Quezon City, the call to the priesthood came. It was the last Sunday in May. I went to the 9:00 a.m. Mass with my father. On the massive door of our Spanish church, a tiny vocation advertisement was posted: “Leyte needs priests.” Reading it, I shrugged my shoulders and muttered inside me: “What do I care?” (In Spanish, Que ver?) Going to Mass was a duty. It would be “mortal sin” to omit it. If I could, I would usually sit on one of the benches farthest from the altar to be able to leave fast after the “Ite, Missa est”. That particular Sunday I felt restless. Sermons were usually uninteresting. Somehow I listened to the sermon of our parish priest, Msgr. Cipriano Urgel (then vicar general, later Archbishop of Palo). He developed the theme on the vocation flyer: “Leyte needs priests.” For the first time in my life, I had the experience of “the warm heart”. Before I knew it, I was agreeing, consenting to the Lord inviting through Msgr. Urgel. After the Mass, my father mush have wondered why his lively son did not immediately run home. I walked quietly by his side. Before entering the gate of our house, I pulled my father’s shirt. “Tatay, I want to become a priest.” He looked at me, and then said, “Tell you Nanay.” Three days after I was in the Sacred Heart Seminary (then in Tanauan, Leyte).

[G.V. Villegas. Servanthood. The Excellence of Christian Service (Manila: Logos Publications, Inc., 2000) p.132.]

THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A CHRISTIAN BOOK
(A Study of Three Catholic Biblical Scholars)
(Pierre Grelot, John L. McKenzie, Luis Alonso Schökel)

Auctore
GUILLERMO V. VILLEGAS, S.V.D.

Excerpta ex dissertation ad Doctoratum
in Facultate Theologiae
Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae

ROMA 1985

Chapter Five
Conclusion - Synthesis
I. Thoughts to Take Up the Points of the Introductory Chapter
A. The Complexity of the Problem
1. A broad topic
The problem embraces three elements: the OT, the NT, and their relationship. Each of the three elements is admittedly a wide field of study.

2. Various formulations of the problem
Formulations of the problem vary according to the aspect considered, the breadth of treatment which each formulator attempts, and the method used in the consideration.

3. Limitation to three Catholic biblical scholars
Even with this limitation to only three Catholic biblical scholars, the complexity of the problem is not simplified. In varying degrees, as we have seen, the three authors enter or do not fully enter into the argument. Grelot was the one who has taken up the problem and has tried to discuss practically all the aspects which make up the problem.

4. Different solutions offered
The most detailed solution offered is that of Grelot. Beginning with the history of the problem (“Fait”) and the identification of two fundamental elements, he develops in the second part (“Pourquoi?”) the theological element in Christian interpretation; to conclude, he offers a methodology (“Comment?”) to interpret the OT in the light of Christ.
McKenzie has stuck to the historico-critical method and remains with the method. It was shown that an absolutization of this method can be positivistic, and even one’s theologizing smacks of rationalism. McKenzie dose not fully succeed in the process which Grelot calls “dépassement”.
Alonso Schökel, as has been discussed in this thesis, sides with the position of Grelot in being a theological stand. His methodology, symbolic interpretation of the OT, is an attempt to distill, to find out the common factor in the four traditional methods or techniques of reading the OT in a Christian way. He has not offered a detailed elaboration of this method and this thesis has not tried either to go deeper than what the author himself has explained.

5. Several themes included in the problem
Even the discussion of McKenzie, which one may term minimalistic, has about that several themes enter into the problem of the OT as a Christian book.
This fact is brought out best in Grelot’s argumentation and treatment of the problem. As has been done, Grelot’s presentation moved on the historical, theological, and methodological levels. And on each level, problems abound.
To a lesser degree, Alonso Schökel has followed Grelot in discussing the problem on the three levels of history, theology, and methodology.

B. The necessity of a Comprehensive Approach
Since the problem is complex and complicated, a comprehensive approach is necessary, in the hope of an adequate solution.

1. The use of the “hermeneutical triangle”
This device was thought out as the most effective way of presenting the thesis. From similar models and from other considerations, the three points of “Fait”, “Pourquoi?”, and “Comment?” (equivalent to history, theory/theology, and methodology) were presented as adequate to the discussion of the complexity of the problem. A fourth point, practice, is added and presented as a personalized “Fait”, i.e., the author’s continuation of the Christian interpretation of the OT, after his own discussion (or omission) of “Fait”-“Pourquoi?”-“Comment?”. It was emphasized that the “hermeneutical triangle” should be interpreted dynamically, as mutually interpretative. “Pourquoi?” should explain “Fait”, and from both “Comment?” should result or be influenced. A domination of “Comment?” over the other two may be considered anomalous.

2. The study of three authors
The emphasis is on “three”. A study of only one author would have been simpler and could have been carried deeper, going more into the issues brought out by the author. In this thesis, the option was for three authors (although still limited to the Catholic and biblical) to have the positions of the three and comparative purposes. The differences and agreements among the three authors bring out the problem of the OT as a Christian book in better perspective (as both light and shadow accentuate a painting better). The difference between Grelot and McKenzie is extremely instructive. The various and often differing presentations, focalizations, omissions, emphases serve to situate, contextualize, even relativize the issues involved and the arguments offered.

3. The combination of the “triangle” and “three authors”
Ideally, because of the two choices made in this thesis, i.e., to use the “hermeneutical triangle” and to study three authors, an adequate solution should be found.
At least, the issues will come out better from the employment of the “hermeneutical triangle” in studying the three authors. The main lines of the argument should be clearer and false problems should be avoided.
Finally, the combination of these two choices should help in the evaluation of the answers given, and in the formulation of the synthesis.

4. The risks involved in the approach
Any comprehensive approach always risks being merely superficial and general in its treatment. The reader of a work undertaken with a comprehensive approach often asks for a more detailed treatment of a particular point, more proofs for a statement, more argumentation and substantiation.
Reading the reviews of Grelot’s 540-page work, Sens chrétien de l’ Ancien Testament, which is his main statement on the problem, one still meets discontent and suggestions.
In this thesis we have tried to supplement this lack by references to the original works of the three authors themselves or to other authors who could enlighten a certain point.
Nonetheless, it is our conviction that a general overview of the problem, which is better insured by using a comprehensive approach, actually encourages a better focalized and detailed study of the principal elements of the argument. The image that may help here is that of a map, e.g., of the city of Rome. With such a map (on the presumption that one knows how to read and use it) one can find his way around the city, one knows the city, even without actually having walked every street of the city or seen all the sights of the city. This thesis has been an attempt to have such a “map" on the question of the OT as a Christian book. Admittedly, in the drawing up of this “map” Grelot’s suggestions and points have been followed more closely, without however disregarding the valid points of even McKenzie.

C. The Importance of Finding a Solution
Despite the difficulties coming from the complexity of the problem and the comprehensiveness of the approach, the importance and necessity of finding a solution to the problem motivate one to persevere.
1. The importance of the problem itself
As has been often repeated in this work, the Christian Bible is composed of two parts, the OT and the NT. The centrality of the Bible Christian life and teaching argues for the importance of the problem of defining the relationship between the two Testaments. It is a problem one cannot avoid without consequences. The hermeneutical consequences resulting from the relationship influences the way one interprets either of the two Testaments.
Seen from another angle, that of Grelot, what one is concerned about in this problem is the contemporary continuation of a centuries-old tradition of the Church of reading the OT in the light of Christ and his mystery.

2. The influence of one’s interpretation of the Bible
One’s solution or evasion of the problem determines how one interprets the Scriptures. Ignorance of the problem or evasion of it leads to timidity in one’s interpretation of the OT. How often does one read in theological treatises the formula “Innuitur in Vetere Testamento”? What does a theologian think about biblical figures or types in biblical interpretation? Mere accommodation? Good for sermons and homilies, for making one’s preaching sound biblical? This position is actually a “devalorisation” or the OT; the OT is richer than what pure exegetes and positivistic interpretation show it to be.
The difference between Grelot – Alonso Schökel and McKenzie is very instructive. One can understand the minimalistic position of McKenzie, but one cannot suggest his method in the Christian interpretation of the OT. We find the method of Alonso Schökel difficult since we have no background in literary criticism and literature in general, the presuppositions of Alonso Schökel’s method being taken from these fields. Since Grelot has explained his position in greater detail, one tends to follow him. Moreover, it is Grelot who has explicitly employed his position (result from “Fait”-Pourquoi?”-“Comment?”) in his articles and other books. And, in our own opinion, quite successfully. (Grelot defines biblical work as meant to nourish the faith and the religious life of believers.)

3. The solution
In the preceding section (B.4.), the purpose of this thesis has been likened to a drawing of a “map” to guide one in the labyrinth of the problem of the OT as a Christian book. Other images may be: the solution will be a systematization of the valid teachings and elements offered by the three authors studied; it will be a synthesis of the pertinent points they have contributed; it will be an orchestration of the various notes the three authors have sounded. Or, to reflect the rich culture of Rome – the solution hopes to be a mosaic made up of the pieces taken from the three authors.

II. The Difference between Grelot – Alonso Schokel and McKenzie: A Case of the Perennial Problem of the Relationship Between Faith and Reason in the Biblical Work
In treating the three authors – Grelot, McKenzie, Alonso Schökel – this difference was constantly noted. Their basic positions or conclusions are:
Grelot and Alonso Schökel:
The OT is a Christian book;
The OT has to be read as a Christian book.
McKenzie (“later”):
The OT is not a Christian book;
The OT is intelligence on its own.
This fundamental differences is a case of the perennial problem of the relationship between faith and reason, here applied in the biblical work of the three authors. To quote the conclusion of Giuseppe Segalla, after his study of the history of work on biblical theology:

Having reached the end of this panorama, which covers about 300 years of the history of the theology of the New Testament, we return to the problem which accompanies the history of this discipline: the relationship between historico-critical science and theological faith in the construction of a theology of the New Testament.

If the problem exists in the study of the NT, a fortiori it will be encountered in the study of the OT. And, exactly, the study of even only three Catholic authors illustrates this phenomenon in biblical scholarship.

A. The Difference Re-presented
1. Pierre Grelot
Grelot’s interpretation of the OT is fundamentally a faith-reading. His works (books, articles) are explicitly signated as dogmatic, theological, Christian. In the discussion on “Fait”, he describes the “Fait” from the NT and tradition, emphasizing the primacy of the theological element of Christian interpretation. From “Fait” the necessity of reading the OT in the light of Christ was drawn: the example of Christ, the apostolic tradition.
In “Pourquoi?”, the hermeneutical framework used in the explanation are based on faith and doctrine. The two main works, Sens Chrétien de l’ Ancien Testament and La Bible, Parole de Dieu, are dogmatico-theological works of Grelot. The first has the subtitle “Esquisse d’un traité dogmatique”, and the second “Introduction théologique a l’étude de l’Scripture Sainte”. Furthermore, the three main subsections of “Pourquoi?” are theological treatises: Christ, the fulfilment of the OT; the presence of Christ in the OT; the threefold preparation for Christ. The arguments are based primarily on the NT, and secondarily on tradition (apostolic).
The faith-reading, or argument from positions of doctrine and theology, is carried on also in “Comment?”. Grelot indeed insists on the cultural element, and in the present Western culture, on the scientific mentality and the exigence for exegesis to e based scientifically (the fourfold criticism: textual, literary, historical, and philosophical); he emphasizes the indispensability of the literal sense as a consequence of the doctrine on biblical inspiration. In the same breath, he demands the “dépassement” of critical work. This process of going beyond critical work, of surpassing merely scientific results to go further into the field of theology and the apostolate may be called the personal program of Grelot’s biblical work. As he often repeats, exegesis is only one function among several in the ministry of God’s word.
Furthermore, in “Comment?”, Grelot’s theory on sensus plenior is really already a theological reading in itself. While it tries to be a “literal” sense (Grelot prefers to call it “sens littéraire”), it bases itself on a deeper reality, on a profound signification whose justification is theological (the uniqueness of the object of revelation and Scripture, that the mystery of salvation in the OT is actually the mystery of Christ). In other places, Grelot admits that sensus plenior is in the line of the “enlarging interpretation” of the NT, that it is a “charismatic” interpretation.

2. Luis Alonso Schökel
In his own way, Alonso Schökel’s reading of the OT as a Christian is deeply theological. Some would even say “ecclesiastical”, since his two main articles on the subject are commentaries on the Vatical II document, Dei Verbum, on chapter four (“The Old Testament”).
The main category used by Alonso Schökel is Christ as the proto-symbol, and his explanation, like Grelot’s, is basically a Christology.
His explanation of the method is based on a study of the four techniques used in the tradition of the Church: allegory, theoria, typology, and sensus plenior (the most recent theory). And in his theory of the symbolic interpretation, the fifth stage (glorification) is a return to the thoughts on the proto-symbol, Christ.
The author fights for a deeper reading of the OT, for an “intrinsic” reading, based on theological considerations – which he himself has done.
His thoughts on the incorporation of the OT into the gospel preaching, and its consequence as becoming a Church book, are worth remembering.

3. John Lawrence McKenzie
One is dealing here with the “later” McKenzie.
McKenzie’s work and theory give the impression of a rationalistic tendency. In fairness to him, it must be remembered that he has never written a work explicitly on the problem of the OT as a Christian book, as Grelot and Alonso Schökel have done. Nonetheless, his position has been defined and his thought on the problem has been described.
In the consideration on “Fait”, McKenzie has presented the early Christian interpretation (Patristic-Origen) of the OT in negative terms. While de Lubac and Grelot see exemplary work, McKenzie emphasizes the negative aspects like allegorism and what he calls “subjectivism” in the work of the Fathers.
McKenzie’s concern (to express it in the terms of the “hermeneutical triangle”) Is “Comment?”, and in particular, the historico-critical method. He insists that the literal sense is the only genuine biblical sense, and in McKenzie’s practice, the literal sense is arrived at using the historico-critical method. Even his concept of “theological sense”, consistently based on the literal sense as the resuly of work done using the historico-critical method, is to all intent rationalistic. His insistence and concern to avoid the excesses of patristic interpretation make him fall into making objectivity and controllability almost absolute norms in interpretation. To his own question, “What is a Christian (adjective) reading of the OT?”, he answers: “A Christian (noun/substantive) reading the OT.” If he earlier reprimanded Patristic interpretation as subjective, what would one call such an interpretation as describing by McKenzie?
In the description of McKenzie’s “Pourquoi?”, it was seen that the author refuses to admit or employ any theologically constructed hermeneutical category or framework. His bidding “adieu” to the concept of Heilsgeschichte was described as his turning point. He constantly avoids and even derides the traditional concepts or preparation, promise, fulfilment, etc. In considering Christ and the OT, the most he would assert is that Christ can only be truly understood as the Jewish messiah. In his understanding of the OT as a Church book, he finds the OT as a disturbing heritage bequeathed to the Christian Church by the apostolic period.
When one observes McKenzie’s practice, one becomes aware of the author’s reluctance to trace a theme from the OT to the NT. If he does it at all, the description becomes rather superficial, showing that the previous problem of showing the unity and continuity of the two Testaments has not yet been personally solved by the author. When McKenzie tries to actualize OT themes or to see problems against the OT, the NT reality does not influence the consideration. To put it differently: he jumps from the OT to the contemporary world, bypassing the NT.

B. The Issues Involved
From a lengthy consideration of the difference between Grelot and Alonso Schökel on one side, and McKenzie on the other, the following issues surfaced as connected problems.
1. The literal sense
From the discussion on Grelot and McKenzie, the main issue seems to be the literal sense of the Bible. What really is the literal sense? What is its definition? Is there a common definition at all? McKenzie’s position is that the literal sense is the only genuine biblical sense; Grelot accepts the literal sense but seen or considered on a deeper level. To bring out this reality, Grelot proposes to call his sense “sens littéraire”.
Is biblical sense to be equated with literal sense? If so, what then is literal sense? In what context is it found, what presuppositions serve as background for an adequate consideration and definition of literal sense?
An interesting observation was written by Raymond E. Brown on Karl Rahner:
What would K.Rhahner think of the SP (sensus plenior) in view of his own theory of inspiration? We spoke with him about it for an hour in Rome recently, and one problem that bothered him was the connotation of “sense”.
This problem has been confronted in recent years, but this discussion is beyond the scope of this work.

2. The role and function of theological concepts and constructs in biblical work
Again, from the consideration of Grelot’s and McKenzie’s positions, this issue emerges. Should interpretation be limited only to what the texts explicitly state (as McKenzie would hold), or should it be allowed to go beyond the limits of critical work into broader horizons (as Grelot insists with his concept of “déspassement”). McKenzie fears that extraneous dogmatic propositions would prejudice biblical work; Grelot, especially with his theological treatise “The Significance of Biblical Realities”, contends that such a framework is necessary to put the results of exegetical work in place; more, even enhance the value of the work.
A connected issue here is the concept of “biblical theology”. How does one do “biblical theology”? Should one who attempts to write a biblical theology follow McKenzie’s model, or that of Grelot; should one merely stick to the statement of the biblical texts and at most find the pattern in them (as McKenzie dose), or should one bring in larger hermeneutical frameworks (as Grelot does)?
One who would follow McKenzie would perhaps call Grelot’s position as a “hermeneutically sophisticated fideism” (a criticism levelled by D. Tracy against A. Nygren’s work). Another who would agree to Grelot would term McKenzie’s position as a retrogression to the work of the “history-of-religions” school (as several of his reviewers do).

3. The process of actualization
How does one actualize the biblical message? One has objected to McKenzie’s “jump” from the OT right into the contemporary times, without taking the NT into consideration. Would one who utilizes this method still be called a Christian? Or, again: is this just another case of embarrassment before an unsolved problem, i.e., as stated often in the preceding pages, that if a biblical scholar or theologian has not met the problem and at least found a personal position for himself on the question of the OT as a Christian book, his work definitely suffers?
The problem of actualization enters the broader issues of the hermeneutical process, and of hermeneutics in general. With this, one stops and refers to further study.

4. The nature of biblical work
This thesis has been limited to three Catholic biblical scholars. One has studied their work. Grelot’s program of biblical work is threefold: exegesis, theology, pastoral. As has so often now been repeated, Grelot integrates (fully accepts) the full range of critical work (textual, literary, historical, philosophical – in all their contemporary expressions), but at the same time never ceasing to insist that the work of criticism should always be “depassé”, be carried further into the broader horizons of theology and finally pastoral/apostolate. Grelot himself is a consummate biblical critic, but he too is a Catholic theologian able to make the word of God alive and life-giving for the contemporary times.
McKenzie himself is concerned that the OT speaks to modern man. His efforts to bring out the manifold values of the OT have been many. What makes us uneasy is whether one is doing the contemporary world a service by explaining the OT without the NT, which is tis fulfilment. Methodologically or pedagogically, one can understand specializations also in the biblical field, that one can take the OT as one’s specialization. But this specialization should not make one forget that the NT is the fulfilment of the OT, that Christ has already come, that his reality is a hermeneutical principle (if not the primary hermeneutical principle in Christian biblical interpretation).
What then is the nature of biblical work? What is biblical scholarship meant and expected to do? What is the full context of biblical work? What relationships and coordinates make up to describe and delineate biblical work?
The following is a suggested framework for biblical work; it points out the coordinates which should enter (ideally) in biblical work:
- literal sense – other sense(s)
- meaning of text – significance of reality
- OT - NT
- Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium (Dei Verbum)
- exegesis, theology, apostolate (Grelot’s program)
- theology - the human sciences
- Church - the world
In this suggestion, the view is espoused that biblical work is as comprehensive as the ministry of the word of God, which has been entrusted to the Church for the life of the world.

III. The OT as a Christian Book: The Meaning of the Statement
As part of the Conclusion, a summary of the meaning of the formula “the OT as a Christian book” should be presented.
A. “Fait”
1. Grelot
a. The OT is a Christian book. (fact)
b. The OT has to be read as a Christian book. (necessity)
2. McKenzie
a. (“earlier”) The OT is a Christian book.
b. (“later”) The OT is not a Christian book.
3. Alonso Schökel
a. The OT is a Christian book. (fact)
b. The OT has to be read as a Christian book. (necessity)
B. “Pourquoi?”
1. Grelot
The OT is a Christian book, a book of Christ:
The OT was fulfilled in and by Christ;
The OT witnesses to Christ’s presence;
The OT prepared (in many ways) Christ’s coming.
2. McKenzie
He has his own meaning and explanation for the following relatinships:
The OT and Christ;
The OT as a book of the Church;
The OT as a Christian book.
3. Alonso Schökel
The OT is a book of Christ:
He is the proto-symbol already speaking in the OT;
The OT prepares for Christ;
The OT is fulfilled by Christ.
The OT is a book of the Church.
C. “Comment?”
1. Grelot
literal sense – “dépassement”, sensus plenior
significance of biblical realisties
program: exegesis, theology, apostolate
2. McKenzie
The OT is intelligible in itself;
Formula: “A Christian (noun/substantive) reads the OT”
3. Alonso Schökel
Symbolic interpretation in Christ, the proto-symbol

The OT is a Christian book because it is the book of Christ, the whole Christ.
“Fait” has shown that Christ himself “owned” the OT as his book, as referred to himself in various ways. The apostolic Church continued in this line drawn by Christ, their Master. The same Church already had three fundamental principles to show or describe the relationship between the old and the new economy of the OT and the NT.
“Pourquoi?” explained (according to analogous terms in Grelot and Alonso Schökel) the Christian character of the OT. Grelot used the themes of Christ as the fulfilment of the OT, his presence in the OT, and the OT as a threefold preparation for Christ. Alonso Schökel used principally the concept of Christ as the proto-symbol. McKenzie refuses to use theological concepts, categories, and constructs in his interpretation of the OT, has his own explanations of the usual formulas used to define the Christian character of the OT.
“Comment?”, in the case of Grelot and Alonso Schökel, follows or results from their accounts of “Fait” and “Pourquoi?”. The presence of Christ already in the OT is the profound reality that Grelot searches in the sensus plenior, a reality finally revealed in the fullness of revelation (NT). The OT, being now a Church book, i.e., entrusted to the Church, has to bring out the riches of God’s message for the entire world. Hence, the broader program of Grelot. Alonso Schökel, true to his literary background, proposes the symbolic interpretation of the OT, which is a reading of the OT in the light of Christ, the proto-symbol. The process of symbolization fully respects the results of critical work, but like Grelot’s work, demands a “dépassement”, or precisely, a Christian interpretation.
“Comment?” as presented by McKenzie has its own particular explanation. He refuses to read Christ back into the OT (“regressive reading”). This would be “scientific”, this would be unwarranted by the OT texts themselves. Hence, he had to come up with his own explanations of the formulas traditionally book, the OT biblical theologian should not even worry about the problem.

IV. The OT-NT Relationship: Dynamic Reciprocity and Interpretative Mutuality
Or: How to Read the OT as a Christian Book:
A proposal for an Adequate Valorization of the OT

This final part of the thesis is its synthesis which is simultaneously a proposal for a Christian reading of the OT as drawn from the elements proposed by the three authors studied here.
Throughout this work, one has encountered scattered indications and considerations on the problem of the OT as a Christian book. Everyone of the three authors has his valid points to contribute; it is time to gather them together into a working synthesis.
The title given it “Dynamic reciprocity and interpretative mutuality”. First of all, one is before a “relationship” (of the two Testaments). Given the two terms of the relationship, one can ask where the relationship has begun, and whether the relationship is merely one-way. Any relationship ideally is an inter-action, a reciprocity, a mutuality, never only one-way. One would like to call this relationship “dynamic” (not static) to emphasize and insist exactly on the inter-action of the two terms of the relationship. The adjective “interpretative” is present to bring attention to the hermeneutical consequences of the relationship. Briefly: The OT interprets the NT, and the NT interprets the OT. The considerations which follow will further substantiate these claims.
The lapidary formula coined by St. Augustine which has become the universally repeated formulation of the OT-NT relationship (“Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet, Novum in Vetere latet”) itself indicates the inter-action present between the two Testaments. But all formulas, also this of St. Augustine has to be fleshed out.
The fourth chapter of Dei Verbum, “On the Old Testament”, in its formulation of the relationship between the two Testaments, has officially stated what is being discussed here:
…books of the Old Testament wholly taken up in the preaching of the Gospel acquire and show their complete meaning in the New, and they in turn enlighten and explain it.
The blessed word “vicissim”: The OT is fulfilled in the NT, its complete meaning is found in the NT; but, “in turn”, the OT books “enlighten and explain” the NT. There is an inter-action, the direction of the relationship is not merely one-way, a regressive reading is possible. The relationship between the OT and the NT is dynamically reciprocal and mutually interpretative. This will be shown in the scheme which follows.

Preliminary Explanations
In the scheme proposed below, the following points should be remembered:
1. The inter-action, which is dynamic, moving, will be “stopped”, as in a slow-motion picture.
2. The element encircled is the one emphasized in the discussion.
3. The arrow indicates the direction, the motion, of the dynamic inter-action. In the later stages of the description, the arrows become two or more, to indicate the greater dynamism of the inter-action.
4. At times the consideration may involve two points or elements simultaneously. For example: Christ as the fulfilment of the OT necessarily involves the two points of the OT and NT. This is an example of reciprocity:” …he (Christ) explained himself in light of them (OT figures) at the same time that he explained their true content.”

A. OT
This is the study of the OT in itself, the study of the “letter” of the OT, the work of pure criticism. Grelot makes this study in his book Sens chrétien de l’Ancien Testament when he considers the OT as Law and as history. This is the author’s insistence on the indispensable preliminary critical study before attempting “dépassement”. In the study of the biblical figures, he equally insists on the solidity of a critical study to avoid the pitfalls of allegorism, which does not respect the literal/historical sense of the text. Equally in the search for the sensus plenior, the literal sense has first to be discovered and firmly established before one can speak of looking for the sensus plenior.
McKenzie is strong on this point, since his method is the historico-critical. In the same vein of thought, one can place here his insistence on the study of the intrinsic intelligibility of the OT, i.e., that the OT is intelligible even when unrelated to the NT. Nobody argues with him on this point; what one would disagree with him is whether one should remain only with the OT, without even mentioning that it has already been fulfilled in Christ/NT.
Alonso Schökel admits the intelligibility of the OT in itself. “The books of the OT…made sense, were understood…” Most of his own works are such studies of the OT in itself, without explicit mention of the NT. Still, in the notes, he seldom fails to relate the thought contained in an OT text to the NT, how, for example, an OT theme is transposed in the NT.
Under this points, one may also include the strict biblical theological studies of the OT. It should never be forgotten that the OT in itself does make sense. What one objects, from a Christian point of view, is whether Christ does not/should not make a difference in the interpretation of the OT.

B. OT →
The “intentionality” of the OT is under consideration. Even a literal reading of the OT makes one aware of the reality of prophecies, of promises made in the OT.
In Grelot’s book Sens Chrétien, this is studied in the OT considered as promise, where the author treats of eschatology. In other works of Grelot, he expresses this “intentionality” as openness of the text for further content, as a “virtualité” of a text or a formula. One may consider this point, too, as a first expression of “dépassement”, so dear to Grelot. Furthermore, when Grelot talks of “philosophical criticism”, he considers the same point of openness of the OT, that the OT is pointing to something more than itself.
Since this point remains still within critical work, McKenzie has treatments of OT prophecy. But, without bringing the discussion to the NT, without stressing the basic openness of the OT text or material as Grelot does.
Alonso Schökel, in the two commentaries studied in this work, treats of this under “prophecy”. He is the author of two thick commentaries on the prophets.

C. OT → P / NT
The main category here is “fulfilment”.
The OT is fulfilled in Christ. Grelot has considered this point in several occasions, in considering Christ as the fulfillment (multiple) of the OT. The concept and reality of the OT fulfillment in and by Christ is admittedly broader and deeper than has been treated within the pages of this thesis, which do not even claim to have presented the full thought of Grelot. Here, too, the process of “dépassement” should be remembered: from the letter to the Spirit, from the Law to grace, from figures to the Reality. The considerations of the fundamental principles given by the apostolic Church should brought in again.
In the presentation of Alonso Schökel, his explanation of the incident on the road to Emmaus should be remembered. Christ had to fulfil the Scriptures in order to enter into his glory.
In this third point, then, the main consideration and category is fulfillment. But as one has said earlier, this category is broad and comprehensive. As the inter-action continues, the category will re-appear.

D. OT ← P / NT
Grelot: “…they (OT books) were now looked upon in a different light, from the exclusive point of view of the gospel, and as witnesses to Christ.” In the light of Christ, the fulfillment of the OT, in the light of Easter, the OT begins to be re-read. In Grelot’s presentation, this is an amount of sensus plenior:
Conversely, the search for the fuller sense suppose a regressive reading of the Bible, one that begins with the New Testament and goes back in order of time. When read with Jesus Christ as their starting point, the texts take on their definitive dimensions. Then it becomes clear what aspects of the mystery of salvation are there sketched in groping and imperfect expressions.
In Alonso Schökel’s presentation, this again is an aspect of the Emmaus incident: Christ reads the OT is the light of his resurrection.
This fourth point, then, may be termed a re-reading of the OT in the light of Christ and the NT.

E. OT ← P / NT
In this fifth point of the relationship and inter-action between the two Testaments, one reaches the consideration of Christ’s presence and activity consideration derived from the Fathers. Grelot bases his contention for Christ’s presence and activity in the OT on the doctrine that the mystery of salvation in the OT is the same as the mystery of Christ; in other words, that there is only one/unique object of revelation, of both Testaments. Christ is already the object of faith of the OT faithful, and source of their sanctification because he is the sole Mediator between God and humanity.
Alonso Schökel holds this point himself. Christ is already present in the OT:
Christ encounters them (the two disciples on the road to Emmaus), the bearer of the great Paschal message which is he himself risen. To prepare the acceptance and comprehension of the message, Christ goes through the Scriptures, from Moses to the prophets, explaining what refers to himself. Christ uncovers his presence in the OT.
In his “Pourquoi?” the author bases this doctrine on Christ, the proto-symbol.
This point or doctrine of Christ’s presence and activity in the OT substantiates the next considerations on the OT as a preparation for Christ.

F. OT ↔ P / NT
On this sixth point, the strongest and clearest statement is that of Alonso Schökel:
If this relationship is not true, then the NT alone would be sufficient for the Christian Church.
Chapter four of Dei Verbum expresses this point in similar terms:
… the books of the OT… acquire and show their complete meaning in the NT, and they in turn enlighten and explain it.
After point E, this point is the preparation (multifold) of the OT for Christ. Grelot enumerates: the historical preparation for Christ, pedagogy (or preparatory instruction), and prefiguration (which includes promise). Alonso Schökel has a similar list (following the one given in Dei Verbum): preparation, prophecy, types.
A consideration which both Grelot and Alonso Schökel emphasize is the continued validity of the OT considered under these categories even in the New Statement economy. The OT texts still function as preparation: consider the Advent liturgy and the preparation of neophytes for Christian initiation. The category of pedagogy still remains valid. And prefiguration more so, since there are many eschatological promises which will only be fulfilled at Christ’s second coming in glory.

G. OT ↔ P / NT
For this seventh point, one can quote Dei Verbum:
… books of the Old Testament taken up in the preaching of the Gospel…
What is considered here is the apostolic Church’s re-reading of the OT in the light of Christ (following in the Lord’s example), finding more Christological elements in the OT, illuminating and explaining the mystery of Christ and the Church from the OT.
At this point, the earlier points are expanded. The concept and category of fulfillment becomes more and more used by the NT writers to explain the reality of Christ. The categories of preparation, pedagogy, and prefiguration are taken up and fulfilled in Christ. Fulfillment and these categories become correlatives. Christ is described as the fulfillment of history, of the Law, of the promises, of the prefigurations in the OT.
Another but analogous consideration is the use of the OT (prepared) language by the NT writers.
Still another point is Alonso Schökel’s discussions on how the Church becomes the new “context” for the books of the OT.

H. OT ↔ P / NT
In this final point, the OT is placed in its fullest context, in all its functions, with the other points included. The full dynamism of all the inter-actions is allowed full play.
The first consideration is the unity of the two Testaments. For Catholics, this has been described in paragraph 16 of Dei Verbum:
God, the inspirer and author of the books of both Testaments, in his wisdom has so brought it about that the New should be hidden in the Old and that the Old should be made manifest in the New. For, although Christ founded the New Covenant in his blood (cf. Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25), still the books of the OT, all of them caught up into the Gospel message, attain and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (cf. Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27; Rom 16:25-26; 2 Cor 3:14-16) and in turn, shed light on it and explain it.
This unity of the two Testaments should become functional and become a hermeneutical principle. The reality and doctrine that the Christian Bible is composed of two Testaments should not remain merely on the theoretical level.
Secondly, the OT is now a book of the Church. Expressed in similar words, the OT should be read in the light of the full revelation of the mystery of Christ, which includes the mystery of the Church. This further means that the OT should be read within the full Christian tradition. The OT should become more present and alive in the Church life and ministry; this in the centuries-old tradition of the full valorisation of the OT in the Christian Church.
In short, the OT should be valorized to the maximum by respecting and vivifying its manifold relations to Jesus Christ, the New Testament, and the entire Church.
This is the purpose of this proposal.