How do we explain New Testament writers taking Old Testament prophecies out of context?

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
OOOOOOOOOOOOOR, maybe you could just pick up a copy of the Septuagint (LXX) and find the exact words of the NEW Testament in the LXX version of Amos. Really, it's right there. You don't have to go through all kinds of silly mental acrobatics. The Apostles (and Christ) referred to the text of the LXX multiple times in the New Testament. It's not hard to follow when you know that, and you eliminate a lot of silly idle speculation.
To say that "and find the exact words of the NEW Testament in the LXX version of Amos", ignores the complete extent of the evidence we have and the different facts/variants we need to deal with about both the LXX and Acts. We don't have the original manuscripts and they're absolutely not "right there" as you claim. A person also cannot ignore the political situation in the Roman Empire as it affects the disciples living in Judea at that time as something that is silly. Their day to day life may seem silly to us, but I assure you it wasn't silly to them. The way the Caesar's of Rome enforced their rule of law makes President Trump look like Gandhi.
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To say that "and find the exact words of the NEW Testament in the LXX version of Amos", ignores the complete extent of the evidence we have and the different facts/variants we need to deal with about both the LXX and Acts

What are the variants in this case?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I've wondered why for some time now who gave the authority to apostles to reinterpret old testament scriptures and take them out of context.

For instance, in Amos 9;11-12 the bible says:



However, in the new testament this passage in reinterpreted to mean something completely different by James in the book of Acts. Acts 15:16-18 reads:



As anyone can see the passage is taken completely out of context in certain bits and portions are even added. This isn't the only example of this in the NT but one of the more glaring examples I've come across recently that I just didn't notice much earlier in my Christianity.

So what is the answer for this? Were the apostles given the right to reinterpret scripture? If that's the case is it possible certain prophecies may be fulfilled in an unexpected way?

In the Jewish tradition there is a concept of interpretation often abbreviated as PaRDeS, which stands for:

Peshat - "surface"
Remez - "hints"
Derash - "inquiry"
Sod - "secret"

And there there exists an entire category of material known as midrash that tends to focus on Remez and Derash, often through comparative reading looking which sees, below the plain surface reading of the text, further layers of meaning. The surface reading of Isaiah 7 is most likely talking about the birth of Hezekiah, but St. Matthew the Evangelist sees here messianic promise fulfilled in Jesus' virgin birth; while in Hebrew the word used here is עַלְמָה 'almah "maiden" or "young woman", however the translators of the LXX have translated this as παρθένος (parthenos) "virgin". Matthew sees here a messianic promise.

Debates on this subject go back very early, St. Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho specifically has this debate with Trypho (a Jew), c.f. Dialogue ch. 71 (link)

Fundamentally, are the New Testament writers simply taking these passages out of context as though they don't know how to read them properly, or are they privvy to a particular insight that is only possible when seen through the light of Christ? Because from the very beginning Christians have understood the death and resurrection of Jesus to be the evidence of Jesus' messianic claims, and have thus gone to re-examine the Scriptures with this in mind, with the interpretive hermeneutic that, as we see Jesus say, "You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have eternal life, it is these which bear witness to Me."

In this sense early Christians seemed to be engaging in a type of midrash, a reading of the texts by which to peel back the layers and to behold Christ hidden beneath.

One, of course, might argue that this is a problem; after all Jewish exegetes are quick to point out that a straight exegesis of many of these texts does not necessarily permit the Christian interpretation; and arguments against Jesus' status as Messiah often end up being centered on whether or not Jesus fulfilled certain messianic prophecies (and there are major differences in what the Jews regard as messianic prophecy and what Christians often regard as messianic prophecies). To which I think that becomes the wrong focal point--what matters is whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then all arguments are meaningless, and if Jesus did rise from the dead, then no argument is left. The truth of the Christian religion does not come down to Old Testament exegesis, but on whether Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead or not. If He did not, then our religion is meaningless, and if He did, then we bear the truth of God on our lips.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

BryanJohnMaloney

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
640
364
58
Carmel
✟25,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay, basically, things boil down to people hate the LXX beforehand, so they will make up any old crap to refuse to accept any explanation that boils down to "The Apostles used the LXX". Okay, it's a matter of hardcore dogma. I get it.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Jewish interpretation of the OT was rather different than Protestant historical interpretation. Essentially the question is how you apply historical material to a modern context. Whatever approach you use is going to be some kind of analogy. Seeing similarities between the historical situation and the current situation. ViaCrucis talks about midrash. In other cases people speak of modern events and people as if they repeated the original ones. Jesus is portrayed as a second Adam, David, and a second Moses. John the Baptist is portrayed as Eljiah come again. That doesn't mean that people believed in reincarnation. But the Bible is seen as a pattern for how God works, which can have modern applications.

That's really how many of us use the Bible. We may not refer to modern people and events quite so directly in terms of the originals. But we put ourselves imaginatively into the original situation, and try to learn things about what God wants us to do.

This doesn't mean that the OT was originally about events in the 1st Cent or our time. I think we should translate passages according to the original OT context. But the NT reuse of those passages is perfectly legitimate, and is a precedent for some imaginative approaches to using the Bible today.
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Okay, basically, things boil down to people hate the LXX beforehand, so they will make up any old crap to refuse to accept any explanation that boils down to "The Apostles used the LXX". Okay, it's a matter of hardcore dogma. I get it.
People don't hate the LXX, most people want a deeper understanding of what was going on. They want more than the easy answer of the Apostles used the LXX. It's about what we know and being aware of what we don't know. Being able to point to the written evidence we have in historical documents and seeing that the Apostles certainly weren't quoting Amos from any copy of the LXX we have. It presents us with a challenge and without dialogue and discussion it's certainly not going to prevent any wrong dogma.

In my view what helps a person understand more about what's going on in the scriptures would be becoming familiar with the textual and historical criticism done by men and women who believe in the resurrection. Because if it weren't for them the dogma of Atheists, Islam and numerous other schools of thought would have no opposition and make Christianity look like it's for the uneducated.
 
Upvote 0

Polar Bear Quest

Active Member
Apr 26, 2017
112
59
35
Washington
✟15,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Jewish interpretation of the OT was rather different than Protestant historical interpretation. Essentially the question is how you apply historical material to a modern context. Whatever approach you use is going to be some kind of analogy. Seeing similarities between the historical situation and the current situation. ViaCrucis talks about midrash. In other cases people speak of modern events and people as if they repeated the original ones. Jesus is portrayed as a second Adam, David, and a second Moses. John the Baptist is portrayed as Eljiah come again. That doesn't mean that people believed in reincarnation. But the Bible is seen as a pattern for how God works, which can have modern applications.

That's really how many of us use the Bible. We may not refer to modern people and events quite so directly in terms of the originals. But we put ourselves imaginatively into the original situation, and try to learn things about what God wants us to do.

This doesn't mean that the OT was originally about events in the 1st Cent or our time. I think we should translate passages according to the original OT context. But the NT reuse of those passages is perfectly legitimate, and is a precedent for some imaginative approaches to using the Bible today.
Thank you for the reply.
 
Upvote 0

Polar Bear Quest

Active Member
Apr 26, 2017
112
59
35
Washington
✟15,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
In the Jewish tradition there is a concept of interpretation often abbreviated as PaRDeS, which stands for:

Peshat - "surface"
Remez - "hints"
Derash - "inquiry"
Sod - "secret"

And there there exists an entire category of material known as midrash that tends to focus on Remez and Derash, often through comparative reading looking which sees, below the plain surface reading of the text, further layers of meaning. The surface reading of Isaiah 7 is most likely talking about the birth of Hezekiah, but St. Matthew the Evangelist sees here messianic promise fulfilled in Jesus' virgin birth; while in Hebrew the word used here is עַלְמָה 'almah "maiden" or "young woman", however the translators of the LXX have translated this as παρθένος (parthenos) "virgin". Matthew sees here a messianic promise.

Debates on this subject go back very early, St. Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho specifically has this debate with Trypho (a Jew), c.f. Dialogue ch. 71 (link)

Fundamentally, are the New Testament writers simply taking these passages out of context as though they don't know how to read them properly, or are they privvy to a particular insight that is only possible when seen through the light of Christ? Because from the very beginning Christians have understood the death and resurrection of Jesus to be the evidence of Jesus' messianic claims, and have thus gone to re-examine the Scriptures with this in mind, with the interpretive hermeneutic that, as we see Jesus say, "You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have eternal life, it is these which bear witness to Me."

In this sense early Christians seemed to be engaging in a type of midrash, a reading of the texts by which to peel back the layers and to behold Christ hidden beneath.

One, of course, might argue that this is a problem; after all Jewish exegetes are quick to point out that a straight exegesis of many of these texts does not necessarily permit the Christian interpretation; and arguments against Jesus' status as Messiah often end up being centered on whether or not Jesus fulfilled certain messianic prophecies (and there are major differences in what the Jews regard as messianic prophecy and what Christians often regard as messianic prophecies). To which I think that becomes the wrong focal point--what matters is whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then all arguments are meaningless, and if Jesus did rise from the dead, then no argument is left. The truth of the Christian religion does not come down to Old Testament exegesis, but on whether Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead or not. If He did not, then our religion is meaningless, and if He did, then we bear the truth of God on our lips.

-CryptoLutheran
Thank you for the detailed response. Much appreciated.
 
Upvote 0

Polar Bear Quest

Active Member
Apr 26, 2017
112
59
35
Washington
✟15,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The Amos of the Apostles was the Amos found in the Septuagint (LXX). The LXX has Amos 9:11-12 (LXX) as the following:

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

Look familiar? It's the specific text of the New Testament. This is the case many times in the New Testament. The Apostles and even Christ's renderings were closer to the LXX than to the Masoretic text, which is now accepted as the "Hebrew Bible". Interestingly, the Masoretic Text was compiled centuries after the Apostolic era, perhaps allowing for some selection among different manuscripts.
Thank you for this excellent response.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BryanJohnMaloney

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
640
364
58
Carmel
✟25,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
People don't hate the LXX, most people want a deeper understanding of what was going on. They want more than the easy answer of the Apostles used the LXX. It's about what we know and being aware of what we don't know. Being able to point to the written evidence we have in historical documents and seeing that the Apostles certainly weren't quoting Amos from any copy of the LXX we have. It presents us with a challenge and without dialogue and discussion it's certainly not going to prevent any wrong dogma.

In my view what helps a person understand more about what's going on in the scriptures would be becoming familiar with the textual and historical criticism done by men and women who believe in the resurrection. Because if it weren't for them the dogma of Atheists, Islam and numerous other schools of thought would have no opposition and make Christianity look like it's for the uneducated.


It looks like the Apostles WERE quoting the LXX. Look at the similarities. I'd say that a far better explanation is that Protestants worship the Masoretic text for some irrational reason.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
You might find that this sermon of mine below bears on the topic:

THE BIBLE AS MIDRASHIC LITERATURE

In Mark 12:38-40 we read: As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the scribes. They like to walk around in flowing robes, and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues, and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widow's houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished severely."

In his gospel, Mark makes 21 references in all to the scribes and 19 of these, like this one, were hostile. We really do not know who wrote this or any of the other three gospels since the names were only given to them about a century after they were written. It is pretty obvious that the early Christian community for whom Mark wrote held the scribe in very low esteem. Was this opinion shared by the other evangelists? When Matthew wrote his gospel some 10 years later, he had a copy of Mark open on the desk in front of him as he wrote. We know this because of the 664 verses in Mark, Matthew included 606 of them, in one way or another, into his gospel. Of the 19 negative references to scribes in Mark, Matthew dropped 7 completely, kept 6 intact and altered 6 so as to remove the negativity. Matthew's community obviously regarded the scribe in higher esteem. I wonder why?

First, what was a scribe? In the Jewish communities of the first century, the scribe filled two important offices. In synagogue services, he acted as the "sophar" or worship leader. He also was the school teacher to the Jewish children in the community. There is a very strong possibility that Matthew himself was such a scribe. It has been suggested that Matthew left us with an autobiographical clue in Matthew 13:52 which says, "…Therefore every scribe who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." This rather puzzling statement gives the gentile reader (that's us!) a clue as to how the Jewish scriptures were written.

The Jewish scriptures, our Old Testament, were written in a literary style known as midrashic literature. In this style of writing every effort was made to incorporate and interpret new events in terms of events that were already in scripture. In doing so historical accuracy was not nearly as important as meaning. This was what Matthew was speaking of when he wrote that the scribe "…brings out …new treasures as well as old" (Matt 13:52). An example will illustrate this. In Exodus 14 we read that Moses parted the waters of the Reed Sea to lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt. In Joshua 3, we read that Joshua parted the waters of the Jordan River to lead the Hebrew people into the promised land. Did this event actually happen exactly as described? I suspect not. Certainly the river was crossed but the "parting of the waters" has it's most important meaning as a literary device linking Joshua to Moses. God's plan was being carried forward. This midrash of the parting of waters was used again in the Old Testament in 2 Kings 2 when the waters of the Jordan were parted by both the prophet Elijah and the prophet Elisha. This midrash is carried into the New Testament in Mark 1 when at the baptism of Jesus the heavens were parted to permit the descent of the Holy Spirit and God's words of benediction. The meaning is obvious…Jesus becomes the new Moses leading his people from an old life to a new. But Jesus is also portrayed as greater than Moses. For Moses, God only parted waters, but for Jesus, the very heavens were parted. When read for meaning, the historical accuracy of the event assumes little importance. It is when we of the twenty-first century read these stories without knowing their literary background that the mistake is made of assuming that the stories are historically true exactly as written.

At this point we know, or at least suspect, that Matthew was a scribe and that the Jewish scriptures, and possibly the Christian as well, were written in a style known as midrashic literature . We're leading up to something here but we don't yet have the whole picture. The next step is to look at how Jewish worship services were conducted in the synagogues of the first century.

I'll content myself with just one more remarkable example from the gospel of Matthew. Fifty days following Passover, the ancient Jewish lectionary called for the Feast of Pentecost. This feast remembered Moses at Mount Sinai and celebrated the wonder and virtues of the Torah. This celebration took the form of a vigil. The day was broken into eight segments of three hours each and, just like a vigil in a modern Christian church, the congregation would divide themselves up in such a way that there was always a group in the synagogue for each of the eight portions of the vigil. The principle reading was Psalm 119.

At 176 verses, this is by far the longest of the psalms. It is broken into 22 stanzas each marked by a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The first stanza, Aleph, was the meditation for the first segment of the vigil. The entire congregation was probably present at this point and a full worship service was likely held. The remaining 21 stanzas were broken into seven groups of three each, one group for each of the remaining seven portions of the vigil. The second portion of the vigil, for example, would meditate on stanzas Beth, Gimel and Daleth. The remarkable organization of the psalm strongly suggests that it was written specifically for use in the vigil. There are other clues to that as well, for example: verse 62: "At midnight I rise to praise thee." and verse 147: "I rise before dawn and cry for help." and a number of other similar verses as well.

Let us now investigate how the Christian scribe, Matthew, used the midrashic technique to introduce Jesus into this Jewish feast of Pentecost. As mentioned earlier, Pentecost honored Moses and the Law received on Mount Sinai. Matthew portrayed Jesus as the new Moses delivering a new law on a new mountain. I refer of course to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:17-29). The sermon is organized to fit the vigil format that we've already examined. The Sermon begins with an octave of eight blessings or beatitudes, and in typical Jewish literary style, the eight blessings are bracketed by making the first and the last reward identical. Thus both "the poor in spirit" and those "persecuted for righteousness sake" are promised the Kingdom of God. The remainder of the Sermon is divided into eight sections, each of which is an exposition of one of the beatitudes. Again in typical Jewish literary style, the last beatitude is explained first and so on working backward through the list. It also goes, almost without saying, that these eight expositions on the new Law of Jesus fit perfectly into the eight portions of the vigil of Pentecost.

What does this tell us about the Sermon on the Mount? Was it an actual historical event in the life of Jesus? There is of course a remote possibility that it actually was. However, in light of the very artificial arrangement of the Sermon to fit neatly into the Feast of Pentecost, I would suggest that there was no one event in the ministry of Jesus that could be classified as the Sermon on the Mount. Should we therefore throw it out as unhistorical? NEVER! What is important here is not whether the Sermon on the Mount was an historical event but that the content of the Sermon reflects the authentic teaching of Jesus. The fact that this teaching was probably done over a period of time in many different teaching situations is not nearly as important as the basic truth of these teachings. To put it a different way, the authority of scripture does not rely upon the details of its historicity but rather upon its ability to instruct us spiritually and point us in the direction of God.

What I have introduced here is a new insight into the way in which the gospels came into being. They were arranged to fit into the pre-existing Jewish lectionary and they were written in the Jewish tradition known as midrashic literature. This is a new point of entry into biblical truth. To anyone who clings to the notion of literal truth, I can only say that it is the content of the teaching that is important and not the literal historicity of the biblical story. The Jewish people had a "God experience" in the life and teachings of Rabbi Yeshua Bar Miriam. To them this God experience was so real and so powerful that they were unable to speak of it easily in the ordinary, everyday language of human beings.

The Jews who wrote the gospels knew they were not history, the Jews who first read them knew they were not history, but they also knew in the depth of their being that the Jesus experience was true. It was not literally true --- it was profoundly true. It was of God. It is we gentiles, centuries later and in total ignorance of the Jewishness of our scriptures, that have said in essence , "We know best.", and have read them as if they were literal history.

I will close with a quote from a prominent Jewish biblical scholar. Joseph Klausner wrote of Jesus: "In his ethical code there is a sublimity, distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other Hebrew ethical code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of his parables. The shrewdness and sharpness of his proverbs and his forcible epigrams serve, in an exceptional degree, to make ethical ideas a popular possession. If ever the day should come and this ethical code be stripped of it's wrappings of miracle and mysticism, the Book of the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest treasures in the literature of Israel for all time."

I commend these thoughts to you in the name of Jesus of Nazareth our brother and our teacher.
 
Upvote 0