NT use of OT

[Scrawly]

I've been attempting to study the fascinating subject of how the new testament uses the old testament. Unfortunately, time hasn't permitted me to make much progress. I came across a helpful article that broadly lists seven approaches to the subject. Please share which approach you take on this matter:

1) NT Adherence to OT Meaning Approach (or Single Meaning Approach)

2) Sensus Plenior (Fuller/Deeper Meaning) Approach

3) The Contemporary Judaism/Second Temple Judaism Approach

4) NT Reinterpretation of OT Approach

5) Canonical Approach

6) Inspired Subjectivity Approach (or Inspired Sensus Plenior Application)

7) Eclectic Approach

Source: http://theologicalstudies.org/resour...nt-uses-the-ot

[Jedidiah]

2 and or 6

[psstein]

Combination of 3, 4, and 5. 6 is appealing, though I'm not totally convinced.

[Scrawly]

Combination of 3, 4, and 5. 6 is appealing, though I'm not totally convinced.

Could you elaborate where you stand on this issue then?

[Scrawly]

2 and or 6

Interesting, thanks. Is this a position you feel inclined towards or is it a conclusion you've reached after much study?

[Jedidiah]

Interesting, thanks. Is this a position you feel inclined towards or is it a conclusion you've reached after much study?

Just an inclination, based upon my general understanding. No heavy studying involved.

[psstein]

Could you elaborate where you stand on this issue then?

Sure. I think #3 is completely uncontroversial, especially among scholars. It's almost universally agreed upon that the evangelists used OT passages in order to support their belief that Jesus was the Messiah, occasionally in ways that the passages were not meant to be used. The infancy narratives, for example, provide excellent examples of midrashic usage.

#4 is more of a theological position, but one I partly subscribe to. I think that some passages in the OT make better sense in the light of NT interpretation. I'm hesitant to say "must be interpreted," though.

#5 is another, at least in my opinion, relatively uncontroversial position. I think there's a good argument to be made that certain OT passages were made sense of in later events (e.g. what Abraham is promised in Genesis is made sense of through Ezra).

#6 seems relatively straightforward, but I'm not sure that the NT writers didn't believe that these events were literal. I think they did, at least in some cases.

[mikewhitney]

The NT usage is eclectic.

It seems that ...

Historical accounts are largely just historical accounts. These can however provide the background to understand the situations addressed within prophecies.

Lots of prophecies were straightforward.

Many OT prophecies were understood only upon the arrival of the Messiah. These prophecies were then useful as a confirmation of the Christ at the time of Christ's arrival on earth.
o- the Abrahamic covenant was understood as the essential covenant to reach the world, the Mosaic covenant was intended to
designate a people through whom the Messiah would be identified.
o- especially, for example, where the forerunner was prophesied
(possibly option 1 lesser so 4. This is an odd one since Moses would have written what was said to Abraham)

In the NT, many temple concepts were interpreted as a copy or analogy of Christ, possibly based on Jesus identifying the raising of the temple in 3 days. (options 2 and 6 over against option 4)

Some passages were possibly used for memorization of Christian doctrines or be used for just similarity of concepts -- "because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Gal 2:16, Ps 143:2)

Probably there were some cases where the NT presented a Pharasaic understanding of the text while showing a completion of the Pharasaic expectation. (maybe the passage about being 'called a Narazeth' passage, as option 3? )

The quotes on wrath, as related to the OT, appear to be used according to option 1, in the cases that would come to mind.

[Obsidian]

"Typology" is apparently included in Method #1, but Method #1 claims to only use the scriptures in the way that the authors originally intended. To me, this seems like a contradiction because no author ever intends for his writings to be used typologically for something different in the future.

Other than typology, I think it seems reasonable to assume that the original authors understood their own points in basically the same way that their writings were later used in the NT.

[Scrawly]

Sure. I think #3 is completely uncontroversial, especially among scholars. It's almost universally agreed upon that the evangelists used OT passages in order to support their belief that Jesus was the Messiah, occasionally in ways that the passages were not meant to be used. The infancy narratives, for example, provide excellent examples of midrashic usage.

#4 is more of a theological position, but one I partly subscribe to. I think that some passages in the OT make better sense in the light of NT interpretation. I'm hesitant to say "must be interpreted," though.

#5 is another, at least in my opinion, relatively uncontroversial position. I think there's a good argument to be made that certain OT passages were made sense of in later events (e.g. what Abraham is promised in Genesis is made sense of through Ezra).

#6 seems relatively straightforward, but I'm not sure that the NT writers didn't believe that these events were literal. I think they did, at least in some cases.

So what are you "not totally convinced" of? Also, based on the above, why don't you just take an eclectic approach?

How would you answer the charge that the NT authors were blatantly playing fast-and-loose with the OT in some instances?

[psstein]

So what are you "not totally convinced" of? Also, based on the above, why don't you just take an eclectic approach?

How would you answer the charge that the NT authors were blatantly playing fast-and-loose with the OT in some instances?

I'm not totally sure that #6 provides a coherent approach to the NT use of the OT. I don't think you can make a good argument that at some of the NT writers didn't think that OT events were literal.

I suppose I do take an eclectic approach? I find #3 and #5 the most interesting from a scholarly point of view. I think #4 may be correct theologically.

How would I answer the charge? I would look at it in two ways: one as a form of interpretation (midrash, which was very common in 2nd Temple Jewish thought and work), as well as a question of historical events. I believe that the historical figure of Jesus actively attempted to fulfill Messianic prophecies, perhaps casting himself as a new Elijah. This is a controversial point in scholarship, but it seems that a very strong case can be made. See, for example, how the feast of fishes and loaves recalls a similar account in 2 Kings with (I think) Elisha.

[Scrawly]

How would I answer the charge? I would look at it in two ways: one as a form of interpretation (midrash, which was very common in 2nd Temple Jewish thought and work), as well as a question of historical events.

So Jewish interpreters during the second temple period creatively handled their texts, which at times included piecing together halves of texts that had nothing to do with one another in their original context and applying it for alien purposes. This method of creative interpretation was referred to as midrash. The NT authors were apart of this world, and they too engaged in midrash. Would this be a fair characterization?

I believe that the historical figure of Jesus actively attempted to fulfill Messianic prophecies, perhaps casting himself as a new Elijah. This is a controversial point in scholarship, but it seems that a very strong case can be made. See, for example, how the feast of fishes and loaves recalls a similar account in 2 Kings with (I think) Elisha.

OK, thanks.

[Obsidian]

I think it just looks like they were being creative because today, we're not as smart about the OT as they were.

[mikewhitney]

I was being careful to hold to the question in the OP about how the NT writers used the OT text. If I were to describe how the New Testament era ought to interpret the OT prophecies, I would say that approach #1 is the primary way. It seems that the prophecies were pointing to the first century arrival of the Messiah and to the ensuing events. In a sense, Acts implies that the Bereans would find the same conclusions as the apostles about the timing of the Messiah, albeit the Bereans studied in light of the start of the Church.
In some further agreement with Obsidian, I think various problems have arisen due to subsequent loss of understanding about the OT.

[One Bad Pig]

Just picked up The Emmaus Code by David Limbaugh after seeing it in the new books section of my local library.