Beale's book is an edited compilation of essays by people with a wide variety of views, so he did not explicitly commend or condemn it.
I haven't read Morna Hooker's article (she taught at Cambridge, so it's fair to infer that her view is unlikely to be as conservative as ours). The point she seems to be making is that just as (what she takes as given) we shouldn't assume that the New Testament writers had the fully worked out Trinitarian theology of Chalcedon in mind when they wrote, so too the NT writers are using the OT sources in creative ways.
To which I would reply (and I think Greg would say something similar), "It all depends what you mean by creative". From my perspective, when Paul reads the Chalcedonian formulations in heaven, his response is "Yes! That's exactly what I meant, even if I didn't work it all out like that". Not "Huh? What? What are you guys talking about? I never meant you to define God like this!"
In the same way, we can all agree that the OT authors didn't have a full understanding of exactly what the NT reveals. To use Warfield's image, in the OT the authors are bumping around in a darkened room, while the NT turns on the lights. But the lights merely reveal with stunning clarity the furniture that was there all along, not some entirely different room.
By the way (pet peeve), her comments about not muzzling oxen and paying pastors are a classic example of what happens when you abandon the classic threefold description of the law as moral, civil and ceremonial, as NT writers often do because "The NT doesn't ever divide the law up like that". You then lose the category of "General equity", which helps us to apply civil laws to different cultural contexts. Of course the Mosaic law about oxen isn't thinking specifically about pastors, any more than the law about helping your neigbor's ox out of a ditch is thinking about a broken-down motorist beside the road. But it is embodying a general principle of God's wisdom in a specific form that fitted that cultural context, from which we are intended to draw wider applications of the same principle in our own context. So Paul is absolutely not "being creative" in applying that OT text to the NT context. He's doing exactly what we should do with Civil laws: learning from them how God wants us to behave in analogous contexts.
