Intimations of Exegesis

[Scrawly]

Source: Peter Enns

Paul quotes the Old Testament a lotour

© Copyright Original Source

Let's look at two examples Pete provides:

1) Romans 10:4-13 citing Lev. 18:5/Deut. 30:11-14

Scripture Verse: Leviticus 18:5

You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord

© Copyright Original Source

2) Rom. 11: 26-27 citing Isa. 59:20-21

Scripture Verse: Romans 11: 26-27

Out of Zion

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 59:20-21

And he will come to Zion

© Copyright Original Source

Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course Peter Enns' approach isn't the only view out there.

So, what are your thoughts on the NT author's appropriation of OT texts?

[Scrawly]

If I could sum up my view on this complex issue: I would have to say the NT is here represented by Naruto Uzumaki and the OT by Hinata Hyuga:

[mikewhitney]

I see an odd approach here by Peter when he says
The scriptures spoke of the kingdom coming. There is no need to read scripture in some "particular way," as if Paul's ideas were somehow foreign to the message of scripture.

The important point to recognize in Rom 10 (as I would summarize it) is that Paul has shown the audience that the gospel message has been made freely to the Jews. The gospel has been near to them through the preaching that has gone on. The focus is shown in 10:1-4 wherein Paul shows his concern for his people. Now he wishes to explain 1) what has gone wrong, 2) the availability for them to repent and 3) that the gospel has been available to them through preaching (10:14-15).

I think Lev 18:5 was fair usage. There was a blatant interrelation between obeying the law and having life. Paul merely removed the emphasis of this verse being a command.

Then the Deut 30 quote possibly was used as a metaphor. This is okay since the Deut 30 passage was being used not as a proof text but rather as a description of the proximity of the message of the gospel ... and the sufficiency of the gospel ... for the hearing and responsiveness of Paul's fellow countrymen.

Concerning the 'end of the law', Enns is possibly correct -- if he is saying that the law was to culminate in the arrival of Jesus and be fulfilled by Jesus. However, apart from Paul's description of a shift of attention from law to faith (via the gospel), there was no proof of the concept of an end to the law being argued.

For Rom 11:26, the inclusion of Isa 59 seems to be used fairly. I've not examined Isa 59. But I wonder if Enn's reference to Babylon are warranted for this passage. Paul appears to use this passage as expressive of the parallels between Jesus and Isa 59:20-21. Jesus was the one through whom their sins were forgiven. The people needed to turn from their sins to enjoy this.

[Adrift]

Seems to me that what Enns describes as Paul "winging it" is simply him practicing standard 2nd Temple Jewish Midrash, likely as taught to him by Gamaliel or through his vocation as a Pharisee. Imbuing Old Testament passages with a fuller meaning is Midrash 101.

Anyhow, N.T. Wright deals with the "issue" Enns raises in his book Paul and the Faithfulness of God. It's very deep and lengthy, but a decent summary can be found on a blog post here. The following is a snippet:



Enns, in usual Enns fashion, is simply making the Bible harder to read, and finding discrepancies where there really aren't any. I'm not looking forward to the day he apostates, and I pray that he doesn't, but I have a hard time seeing how he can remains in Christ if he continues to undermine scripture in this fashion over and over again. What you cited from him was written in 2016, here he was in 2017. Only God know where his heart is today, but I hope the Holy Spirit moves in him heavily, and that God brings helpful friends and peers into his life to help answer his questions and get him back on track again.

[mikewhitney]

I can't see any clear response to Enns in the comments by Wilren/Wright. Wright highlights some important doctrines (like our ultimate resurrection) but his metanarratives often seem off the mark. For example, I don't remember any passages which suggest Israel to be tasked with the effort of bringing salvation to the nations.

More specifically, I don't see Deut 27 to 30, as a whole, being brought into focus from Paul's mention of Deut 30 in Romans 10.

[mikewhitney]

[cite=Peter Enns]

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 59:20-21

And he will come to Zion

© Copyright Original Source

Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course Peter Enns' approach isn't the only view out there.

So, what are your thoughts on the NT author's appropriation of OT texts?

I missed the statement about differences in reference to Zion between "out" and "to." This seems a trivial distinction. If we equate Jerusalem and Zion, then we can say that Jesus both had gone to Zion as Redeemer, in order to reach people with the gospel, and he had come out of Jerusalem -- as a critical aspect of his identity.

[KingsGambit]

You've started so many threads about stuff that Pete Enns says over the years. Why are you seeking out his material? I can't speak as to his expertise (Old Testament) but he's clearly not a good scholar outside of that field, and reading him seems to undermine your faith based on what you've posted in the past.

[mikewhitney]

Commonly, claims of Paul making errors or writing badly or Paul "winging it" tend to occur by people who misunderstand what Paul is saying. Paul often seems to be quoting scriptures which he has seen as having fulfillment in his lifetime. This is true of the gospels too. In many situations, Paul would be providing scriptures to establish the background or context of his discussion -- such as the testimony of scripture (in Rom 3) emphasizing the unrighteousness status (contrasted against the idea that the law can justify people).

[lee_merrill]

You might be interested in Carson and Beale's (editors of) "Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament".

The authors go into detail on each OT quote in the NT, categorizing and explaining each quote.

"Finally a volume that surveys the use of the Old Testament in each book of the New Testament. Written by top-tier scholars with unsurpassed expertise in New Testament exegesis, these essays model sound engagement with Scripture that quotes Scripture. This excellent collection is a must-read for all who wish to understand how the New Testament writers understood and used their Bible."
--Karen H. Jobes, Wheaton College

NTOT.jpg

Blessings,
Lee

[mikewhitney]

You might be interested in Carson and Beale's (editors of) "Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament".

The authors go into detail on each OT quote in the NT, categorizing and explaining each quote.

"Finally a volume that surveys the use of the Old Testament in each book of the New Testament. Written by top-tier scholars with unsurpassed expertise in New Testament exegesis, these essays model sound engagement with Scripture that quotes Scripture. This excellent collection is a must-read for all who wish to understand how the New Testament writers understood and used their Bible."
--Karen H. Jobes, Wheaton College

[ATTACH=CONFIG]37455[/ATTACH]

Blessings,
Lee

The Google books site has an extensive preview of this book. I was looking at some passages throughout Romans. Pretty much, the text provided nearly standard commentary content.
One point that is expected but still interesting... He notes that Paul 'speaks of the human being as a doer,"the person who does these things," and then goes on to say "unlike the LXX ... 'doing which things, a person shall live.'" And he gives a few more details about the changes from the LXX.

It seems Paul respected the original wording yet sought to highlight the corresponding dependence on the law for having life. (This would depend on what exactly is meant in the ESV translation, for example, saying "he shall live by them." Does this mean the person keeps living or does 'life' anticipates relationship with God? or maybe this means "this is what his focus of living is ... viz. keeping the law" Maybe the meaning is that God would not have reason to take their lives away -- if they follow the law. I think this latter option works well.)

[Adrift]

I can't see any clear response to Enns in the comments by Wilren/Wright. Wright highlights some important doctrines (like our ultimate resurrection) but his metanarratives often seem off the mark. For example, I don't remember any passages which suggest Israel to be tasked with the effort of bringing salvation to the nations.

How about,



Or,

More specifically, I don't see Deut 27 to 30, as a whole, being brought into focus from Paul's mention of Deut 30 in Romans 10.

I'm not sure I get your point. Paul seems to be framing Deut 30 as a prophetic word from Moses concerning the return from Exile (and to be clear, Paul's reading is not unique in this regard, as other 2nd Temple writings make clear).

[mikewhitney]

We know, based on first century events, that the blessing was through the offspring Jesus. The English translation conveys the sense that this blessing was passively brought to nations -- not that the Hebrew people would actively do this. There was no task by the Hebrew people which could ever have made them active in creating salvation for the nations.
Wright has improperly proposed this metanarrative.

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 66:18-20 ...

Isaiah 66 seems to point to the era of the Messiah. So this passage doesn't qualify as a description of a task assigned to the whole Hebrew people.


Concerning Deut 27-30...
Paul's use of Deut 30 didn't address any return from exile. And why not extend the Deut 30 to incude Deut 32, which spoke of the people lacking faithfulness? Paul wasn't obligated to the 2nd Temple writings ... and these writings would be of minimal benefit to understand Paul's doctrines since the Messianic message was significantly different from the Jewish cultural expectations of that era.

[Adrift]

We know, based on first century events, that the blessing was through the offspring Jesus. The English translation conveys the sense that this blessing was passively brought to nations -- not that the Hebrew people would actively do this. There was no task by the Hebrew people which could ever have made them active in creating salvation for the nations.
Wright has improperly proposed this metanarrative.




Isaiah 66 seems to point to the era of the Messiah. So this passage doesn't qualify as a description of a task assigned to the whole Hebrew people.


Concerning Deut 27-30...
Paul's use of Deut 30 didn't address any return from exile. And why not extend the Deut 30 to incude Deut 32, which spoke of the people lacking faithfulness? Paul wasn't obligated to the 2nd Temple writings ... and these writings would be of minimal benefit to understand Paul's doctrines since the Messianic message was significantly different from the Jewish cultural expectations of that era.

I don't think Wright is saying the whole Hebrew people were going to accomplish salvation for Pagans/Gentiles. Rather, God's Law was going to prepare Israel (generally) for the Messiah's coming. Or else, why bother with making Jesus born to the Jews? He could have simply done Melchizedek 2.0.

[mikewhitney]

I recall Wright saying that Jesus accomplished what the Jewish people were supposed to do.

It is almost okay to say that the law was to prepare Israel for the coming of the Messiah. But the law cut both ways. In some ways, the law kept Israel from falling too quickly into bad behavior. In the other way, the law brought forth wrath (Rom 4:15).

It seems that God brought forth Jesus through the Hebrew lineage so that the Messiah would be well-identified through the scripture ... that the identity of the Messiah would be clear through the historical writings.

[Mountain Man]

Seems to me that what Enns describes as Paul "winging it" is simply him practicing standard 2nd Temple Jewish Midrash, likely as taught to him by Gamaliel or through his vocation as a Pharisee. Imbuing Old Testament passages with a fuller meaning is Midrash 101.

This is how I've always understood it, that the New Testament writers were engaging in a widely used and accepted style of Old Testament interpretation that looked for parallels rather than overt predictions, and that none of it would have been seen as unusual or suspicious by the contemporary audience.