The Coherence of Scripture

[Scrawly]

So I read an article by Derek Rishmawy, Ph.D. student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, on the coherence of Scripture (http://derekzrishmawy.com/2015/11/10...-of-scripture/) and thought it was really good. One thing though that stood out as problematic to me was his appeal to Jesus quoting scripture to Satan and His other opponents to correct their "scripture twisting". However, examples abound of the NT author's, and even Jesus Himself quoting OT verses out of context to make their point/case and could therefore likewise be accused of twisting Scripture. Since I haven't spent any time researching the NT's use of the OT, the only response I can muster at this point is: Well, He was God and they were Apostle's so they have the unique right and authority to properly piece together Scripture even if it may seem contextually erroneous to us.

A little help?

[KingsGambit]

This was considered common Jewish exegesis of this time. More details: http://christianthinktank.com/baduseot.html

[Scrawly]

This was considered common Jewish exegesis of this time. More details: http://christianthinktank.com/baduseot.html

Thanks, I briefly skimmed the article and it looks helpful. I won't be able to get around to reading it until later on, however, I have heard that it was "common exegesis" of the time - but that seems to be the problem - common Jewish exegesis seems to be the problem. Jewish exegesis was perhaps worse than proof-texting - it strikes me as having been one big free-for-all.

Midrash sounds fancy but isn't it just:

Person 1: Scripture says..
Person 2: Ah, yes, but Scripture also says..
Person 1: Yes, yes, but this Scripture says..
Person 2: I see that Scripture, but look at this Scripture..
Person 1: But this Scripture can be interpreted this way..
Person 2: Indeed, but it can also be interpreted this way..

We see the above pretty much summed up in Jesus' dialogue with Satan:

Satan: For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
Jesus: It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'

Notice how Jesus didn't accuse Satan of twisting Scripture or even taking it out of context, He just essentially said: Well yeah, but here's another Scripture..

I'll read the article when I get a chance and get back to you.

[Scrawly]

OK, I didn't read the article. (Aside from my limited time to invest) This is because my very brief skimming revealed that this really all boils down to a fundamental point which essentially seems to be something along the lines of:

"Well, yes, the biblical authors played fast-and-loose with their sacred text, but hey, all their contemporaries were doing it too. The Jewish believers/Christian's didn't radically depart from the exegetical methods utilized by the melting pot of other Jewish groups, and were in fact more "conservative" and less "creative" than their contemporaries in their handling of the OT".

This is all well and good, but it seems to bring us full circle to my original issue - that Jewish exegesis was worse than proof-texting and was seemingly one big free-for-all as long as the interpretive methods stayed within certain parameters that, of course, were part-and-parcel with the times. The Jewish believers naturally saw Christ in the OT, but non-believing Jews naturally didn't see Christ in the OT, and the exegetical methods employed at the time certainly weren't going to suffice to decide the issue one way or the other.

In fact, without the work of the Holy Spirit, you simply won't "get it", yes?

"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:44-45).

[Scrawly]

OK, for those interested, here are some remarks by Peter Enns and Craig Keener on this issue:

Enns:Matthew 2:15 (Hos 11:1); 2 Cor 6:2 (Isa 49:8); Rom 11:26-27 (Isa 59:20).

Keener: Some scholars have accused Matthew of quoting Hosea 11:1Enns:

[Obsidian]

He's not interpreting Hosea. He's using Hosea to show a pattern, a truth. If someone quoted a passage about David and applied it to a particular church today, would you automatically say it was error?

There wasn't anything wrong with Jesus's interpretations of the scriptures. If they seem wrong to you, it is only because you haven't thought about the Bible nearly as much as Jesus did.

And there wasn't anything wrong with Satan's scripture interpretation in Matthew 4, either. It was just incomplete.

[Scrawly]

He's not interpreting Hosea. He's using Hosea to show a pattern, a truth. If someone quoted a passage about David and applied it to a particular church today, would you automatically say it was error?

He's not interpreting Hosea? He's usingIsrael was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Matthew is interpreting Hosea in a way that reading Hosea alone would never reveal - yet Matthew still refers to the events surrounding Jesus (not Israel) as a fulfillment of a particular Scripture that referred to Israel in its original context.

There wasn't anything wrong with Jesus's interpretations of the scriptures.

Enns cautioned we ought not bring modern assumptions to the text or else we will wrongly conclude that the Scriptures are in error through deliberate and obvious distortion.

If they seem wrong to you, it is only because you haven't thought about the Bible nearly as much as Jesus did.

Well I find midrash ("a creative appropriation of antecedent Scripture for alien purposes") to be rather freewheeling, how about you?

And there wasn't anything wrong with Satan's scripture interpretation in Matthew 4, either. It was just incomplete.

Then how come Jesus didn't finish it? Jesus just pointed to another Scripture (that was likewise presumably "incomplete").

[Obsidian]

Matthew 2:15 states that the events which were happening were a fulfillment of Scripture

You have a very limited understanding of the word "fulfill," and a very limited understanding of scripture it seems.