I was speaking speculatively.
I will consider the prior comment accordingly
.
I'd have to think a while to come up with an example to suit you.
The thread's not going anywhere any time soon. Let me know when you think of one.
To me, the fact that one might treat a source symbolically, does not necessarily mean that the source is not literal, but that it is useful symbolically also. When I read Revelation, I think much that is symbolic might be very literal, (but then, what I call literal is not necessarily temporal —but I digress.)
We would certainly want to avoid any false dichotomies. Events in the OT are real, factual history but the NT makes it clear many of them foreshadowed non-literal futures. For example, all the Law testifies to and about Jesus. So too do all the sacrifices and festivals.
1 Corinthians 10:1-12
For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play." Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore, let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.
Paul claims those past events were written for the instruction of his first century readers (and by extension all the rest of those in Christ upon whom the ends of the ages had fallen. It's quite a remarkable statement. Paul is saying the record of those ancient events was eschatological in nature. Does that mean the OT record is meant ONLY for those in the NT era? Probably not. My answer would be, "
No." But something intended to have a specific application at a point of time can co-exist with a spiritual/moral understanding for later generations. One of the most fundamental distinctions between those on the preterist end of the spectrum (whether full-pret, amil, postmil, or idealist) and those on the modern futurist end (dispensationalist, Zionists, etc.) is that the former believes God because he
has kept His word, whereas the latter believes hoping God
will keep His word. To read Paul's words literally does not preclude anyone living after the ends of the ages had come from accepting, believing, applying, and abiding those words. Likewise, knowing actual Jews literally practiced a bunch of laws, and rituals does not preclude us from either doing the same or understanding and applying a larger deeper meaning kept from the original practitioners. Paul's allegorizing real history is actually Paul revealing what had always been there for any to understand had they not been kept from doing so due to God, sin, the places in Judaism where they were misguided, and their own ignorance. As I believe I posted previously, if you're a Jew who believes a person lives only once and then life permanently ends, the grave is nihilistic, then it's going to be nearly impossible for that person to grasp a promise of an eternal throne is a reference to resurrection. Only those with a belief there might be something more than rot and decay is even going to entertain that prospect. The former hears a promise of an eternal throne and naturally (no pun intended) things about a wooden chair clad in gold. The latter might well grasp the transcendent nature and go beyond a mere physical chair, even if s/he does not know exactly the substance or nature of the promise. To those God had revealed the gospel in part or whole (like Abraham and David) their knowledge is greater, but the truth still veiled and hidden.
Then along comes a newer revelation, one so vast and substantive that it took more than a dozen writers to explain what had preceded in the older revelation it in its depth and complexity. Reading the OT as the NT writers did is neither simple nor simplistic. It can be quite complicated. Not only would we want to treat the OT text literally where they treated the text literally AND treat the OT text figuratively/allegorically/spiritually where they treated it figuratively/allegorically/spiritually, but we'd want to understand how and why they did so. What, if any, precepts did they possess that we could apply? If it's all a matter of divine revelation absent any structure, then we're not going to grasp it and that's a sure recipe for every reader claiming divine revelation and then millions of interpretations all claiming to have legitimacy.
(No doubt, to you this is a red herring, but, when in the NT, a source quoted is the LXX...
Who uses the LXX anymore?
We live in an age when the original languages can be called up and read within seconds. We don't need second-hand translations. I'm not saying that the Septuagint is useless, but it's not where we should first look. I will, for the sake of your observation make note of a valuable fact giving us some insight: When the Jews translated Tanakh into Greek the word they used for "
the assembly" (
qahal) was ecclesia, the word we render as "
the church." The NT writers used this word when they could have used others. There is, conceptually, a single line from the OT to the NT in which the assembly of God's OT people is contiguous and consistent with those called out in the NT.
Soteriologically and eschatologically (since this op has chosen a pairing falling into those doctrines) this is quite important because there are some in Christendom who don't see the continuity and they deny it.
But anyhow, when any NT writer speaks of OT events or poetry or whatever else, I don't see them even giving a complete treatment of it, but only drawing from it what is relevant to a point they wish to make.
Sure, but on any occasion when an NT writer
defines something for his reader (first his original audience and then, by extension, those of us reading the NT today) then two things become necessity: 1) That is the definition we are to apply, and 2) we are not to apply any definition conflicting with or contradicting the inspired definition. For example, once Peter states the promise of an eternal throne was about the resurrection and Christ's body noy seeing decay, then we can't say the throne is NOT about the resurrection but a physical chair instead (embellishing the chair with an earthly reign does not resolve the underlying fundamental contradiction). Could the promise be about
more than the resurrection? Maybe. Can it be
different than the resurrection? No.
In John 10:34, Jesus says, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’?” This I take to be from the books of poetry, specifically Psalm 82:6, where God says, “I said, you are gods!” Now, poetry bears some different hermeneutic approaches from literal works. Was Jesus treating this as literal? It doesn't sound like he is treating it as poetic. I do think he was using scripture as his Jewish opponents were wont to do, against them.
I'm reluctant to depart from the example specified in the op but reason gets us a very long way on this occasion. It's great and commendable that you noted Jesus was referencing the OT. How then are we to understand the
elohim? The Jews had a cosmology that looked one way, a way that was much different than their surrounding paganisms, and much different than the larger cosmologies of the Greeks and Romans. They cannot all be correct. Especially since Jesus radically altered what had long been believed. Are we, as Christians, supposed to Judaize our belief? Are we to maintain a view consistent with Judaism where correct, avoiding the problem of Judaization?
In ancient times God (if we were Jews) and gods (if we were pagans) were completely different beings than humans. God did not become a human and humans did not literally become gods. That humans had divine attributes was accepted but the actual attributes varied from religion to religion. You picked John, and one of the things John was repudiating throughout his gospel was Hellenism and the notion logos (the ability to reason and think rationally) was a gift from the gods, with some men having more logos than others. If it is not known that one of John's purposes is to attack the influence of Hellenism in Judaism common in his day then Jesus words - Jesus' use of Psalm 82 - won't be grasped. Furthermore, the gospel writers don't quote Jesus exhaustively. It's quite likely Jesus said a bunch more on that occasion and there's no reason why we should think only verse 6 of Psalm 82 is relevant. What his Jewish audience would have known and understood was the larger context,
Psalm 82:1-8
God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah. Vindicate the weak and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, "You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless, you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes." Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.
It's important to remember the males in Judaism were taught the whole of Tanakh beginning at a very young age. When the larger text is examined, what Jesus is saying is both troublesome and exciting. God judges, and in Jesus' day it was the Jewish leaders and their supporters being judged, not the Lawless goy. These "gods" die; they live in darkness and die like men (not the light, not like an actual God).
Jesus said that to a crowd that was about to stone him!
The original Jewish understanding of Psalm 82 was different than the Hellenized view of Psalm 82, and Jesus showed up to teach what was originally intended. What was always intended was Christological, soteriological, eschatological, and Judaism doctrines were much different.
But, as a general principle, I agree that we should consider something OT in the way the NT writers did.
....and not the other way around
. Generally speaking, the OT informs the NT and the NT explains the OT. That's no more simple or simplistic than treating the OT the way the NT authors did, but having these principles helps. The question becomes, "How well do we apply them?" Consistency matters. I would venture to say wherever we err it is because we weren't consistent.
