Old Testament as understood by the New Testament

[DanielRB]

Hi All,

One thing that has bothered me a long time is how the New Testament often quotes the Old Testament in a way that seems to be, well something other than using grammatical-historical exegesis.

Of course, we could abandon grammatical-historical exegesis altogether, though I think our interpretations would be a lot more subjective and subject to the whims of the interpreter. However, I'd like to get to the bottom of the issue and really try to wrap my brain about how the New Testament understand the Hebrew Scriptures.

It's all good and well to appeal to Rabbinic methods of interpreting the Bible as a reference, but the fact that Rabbinic Judaism rejects the New Testament interpretations doesn't seem to support the idea that the apostles just reflected this methodology--nor does it say anything about its validity as an approach.

Here's an example to begin discussion, although I'm sure we can look and many different examples. I don't want to get bogged down in the specifics of any particular example--I'd rather talk about the whole approach used by the authors of the New Testament when they use the Old Testament:

Here's the quote from the New Testament, Heb 1:1-5:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father]"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"?

Here are the passages from the Old Testament quoted above:

Psalm 2:1-7

1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.

5 Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,

6 "I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill."

7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
He said to me, "You are my Son ;
today I have become your Father.

And from 2 Sam 7:8-16:

8 "Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. 9 I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. 10 And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning 11 and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders [a] over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
" 'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ; your throne will be established forever.' "

Both passages seem to be talking about the Davidic king, and it makes sense to apply them to Jesus. However, the 2 Sam passage in particular seems problematic if we apply it to Jesus--"when he does wrong..." but Jesus never did wrong. Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews is talking about the "Son of God" as the divine Son in heaven, whereas 2 Sam is clearly about a human being who can (and does) do wrong.

Thoughts about the the topic in general, or the passage specifically?

Daniel

 

[cyberlizard]

the topic in general - you need to familiarise yourself with the biblical interpretative syle known as 'PaRDeS' - hebrew word actually means orchard.

that said though, pardes is the favoured for of rabbinic / second temple period exegesis, and differs greatly from our 'normal' methods.

you could try this link to get you started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

i have actually come to prefer the second temple style of scriptural interpretation as it is not as dogmatic as the greco-western systematised approach) - it allows scripture passages to contain a multi-layered revelation. In the OT it is based on the fact that every letter is inspired, and the words as well, and much is lost in reading a translation - whenever possible get back to the hebrew for the Old Testament and download an LXX for studying it with the NT (the NT writers wrote Greek but thought like Hebrews so an LXX is invaluable)


Steve

p.s. if anyone wants an LXX as a PDF file email me via profile page and I will send you a interlinear greek/english old testament complete with strong numbering (makes finding corresponding hebrew/greek words a doddle.)

 

[wayseer]

One thing that has bothered me a long time is how the New Testament often quotes the Old Testament in a way that seems to be, well something other than using grammatical-historical exegesis.

Hi Daniel - interesting topic as I found myself reaching for Wikipedia.

I would like to know your reason for not staying with the Historical-grammatical approach.

As far as I am aware Hebrews was probably not written by Paul and came later, after his death. It was very Jewish in its approach which seems to indicate that Jewish Christians were the intended recipients.

I'd like to get to the bottom of the issue and really try to wrap my brain about how the New Testament understand the Hebrew Scriptures.

From my limited understanding the issues it would seem that the various NT writers had a number of understandings - I don't see a unified approach - each had a specific agenda.

 

[DanielRB]

Hi cyberlizard, thanks for the post

the topic in general - you need to familiarise yourself with the biblical interpretative syle known as 'PaRDeS' - hebrew word actually means orchard.

that said though, pardes is the favoured for of rabbinic / second temple period exegesis, and differs greatly from our 'normal' methods.

you could try this link to get you started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

I mentioned the "Rabbinic approach" in my OP, and I am somewhat familiar with PRDS. But what makes this especially valid? It seems to me that it can be used to justify practically any interpretation of Scripture.

i have actually come to prefer the second temple style of scriptural interpretation as it is not as dogmatic as the greco-western systematised approach) - it allows scripture passages to contain a multi-layered revelation.

I'm not looking for a dogmatic/non-dogmatic approach. I'm looking for interpreting the Scriptures according to what God actually intended--and whether that's dogmatic or non-dogmatic to me is a secondary issue.

On that note, I find an approach like Karaite Judaism to be more in line with the historical-grammatical approach of most Evangelicals. That's not saying it's right or wrong, but keep in mind that Rabbinic exegesis is not the only game in town.

In the OT it is based on the fact that every letter is inspired, and the words as well, and much is lost in reading a translation - whenever possible get back to the hebrew for the Old Testament and download an LXX for studying it with the NT (the NT writers wrote Greek but thought like Hebrews so an LXX is invaluable)

I agree on both. I do have the LXX and when possible I study it. (My Greek is rusty, though I took three years of it in college. Unfortunately, my Hebrew is non-existent.)

Steve

p.s. if anyone wants an LXX as a PDF file email me via profile page and I will send you a interlinear greek/english old testament complete with strong numbering (makes finding corresponding hebrew/greek words a doddle.)

The link is http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com

Peace,

Daniel

 

[DanielRB]

Hi wayseer, thanks for the post

Hi Daniel - interesting topic as I found myself reaching for Wikipedia.

I would like to know your reason for not staying with the Historical-grammatical approach.

See my OP. I don't find the NT writers as often using the Historical-grammatical approach. Indeed, some very key interpretations in the NT are not supported by a strictly grammatical-historical approach.

As far as I am aware Hebrews was probably not written by Paul and came later, after his death. It was very Jewish in its approach which seems to indicate that Jewish Christians were the intended recipients.

I agree that the style is far different than Paul. I'm not sure if it came after his death--that makes it a very narrow timeframe in composition (Paul died ca 64 AD, the Temple destroyed 70 AD, and it seems to have been written before the destruction of the Temple.) I agree it's "Jewish", in that it heavily uses the Old Testament and a non-grammatical-historical approach to it.

From my limited understanding the issues it would seem that the various NT writers had a number of understandings - I don't see a unified approach - each had a specific agenda.

Can you illustrate how these different understandings are used by various authors? In my study, it seems as though a non-literal approach is nearly universal. (By "literal" I mean "according to grammatical-historical exegesis").

Peace,

Daniel

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

p.s. if anyone wants an LXX as a PDF file email me via profile page and I will send you a interlinear greek/english old testament complete with strong numbering (makes finding corresponding hebrew/greek words a doddle.)

I have found this interlinear invaluable in my harmonization of the Bible. Click on a hebrew or koine greek word and it will show where exact form of the words are used and it parses the words. I have used it for over 3 years now.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Reve 11:3 and I shall be giving to-the two Witnesses of Me and they shall be prophesying days a thousand, two hundred, sixty having-been-about-cast/peri-beblhmenoi <4016> (5772) sackcloth.

Reve 7:13 And answered one out of the elders saying to me "these, the ones having-been-about-cast/peri-beblhmenoi <4016> (5772) the robes, the whites, who-any they-are and whence they came"? [Revelation 11:3]

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
The 3 major Greek texts can be viewed here

TexRec) Revelation 11:3 kai dwsw toiV dusin martusin mou kai profhteusousin hmeraV ciliaV diakosiaV exhkonta peribeblhmenoi sakkouV

http://mikeblume.com/symbrev.htm

One man studied and found 348 allusions (not illusions, Light) in Revelation from the Old Testament. You see the similarity in wording and the context mirrored in Revelation and the particular Old Testament story, and immediately can recognize the reference source! That&#8217;s, IF you know the bible well enough to even notice that.

95 of the 348 plain references used in Revelation as taken from the Old Testament are repeated in Revelation. That makes about 250 Old Testament passages are cited. How many chapters are in Revelation? 22. That makes about TEN OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES FOR EVERY CHAPTER!

 

[cyberlizard]

everyone knows about e-sword - the LXX refererred to by myself and the link above is that it is already keyed to strongs tags, unlike the LXX available for e-sword.

Steve

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

everyone knows about e-sword - the LXX refererred to by myself and the link above is that it is already keyed to strongs tags, unlike the LXX available for e-sword.

Steve

I never have used e-sword or the LXX
These are the 3 main sites I use and have been for more than 4 yrs. But to each their own I always say.

http://www.scripture4all.org/
Greek/Hebrew/English interlinear with strongs and parsing of the Hebrew and Koine greek words. Uses the W-H Ms for the greek though.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
Great if you want to view/use the 3 major greek texts

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

 

[DanielRB]

Hi There, thanks for the post

everyone knows about e-sword - the LXX refererred to by myself and the link above is that it is already keyed to strongs tags, unlike the LXX available for e-sword.

Steve

Agreed; having the strongs tags helps, even if one is unfamiliar with Greek. Of course, like any language, context is key in understanding the translation of any word or phrase--one word can be translated a variety of ways depending on context. Wooden adherence to word-for-word translations, always translating a Greek word into the same English word will result in a distortion of the meaning.

Daniel

 

[Simonline]

Post deleted

 

[cyberlizard]

Hi There, thanks for the post



Agreed; having the strongs tags helps, even if one is unfamiliar with Greek. Of course, like any language, context is key in understanding the translation of any word or phrase--one word can be translated a variety of ways depending on context. Wooden adherence to word-for-word translations, always translating a Greek word into the same English word will result in a distortion of the meaning.

Daniel

I would tend to agree, but if you compare every verb tense in the greek book of Hebrews against every verb tense in almost every english translation, you'll find the translators have in some instances altered the verb tenses completely to make it 'make sense' in english. Personally I don't think the tenses should be changed, and if it doesn't make sense in english, it just doesn't make sense (languages cannot always be translated properly from one to another - that's just the way it is).


Steve

p.s. the concordant approach to translation is the most accurate as it reduces translator bias (and this really does exist - if it didn't we'd only have one translation). Take this verse as an example.... because its discussing Torah/Law the word is translated 'require' rather than 'ask or desire as it is in every other case, this is purely a reaction against the content (torah) -

He has shown all you people what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly a with your God. (NIV)

there is no consistency.

 

[DanielRB]

That's because these passages have a dual application. They apply firstly (historically) to Solomon (hence the reference to 'when he does wrong') but ultimately (prophetically) they apply to the Messiah (except, of course, the reference to 'when he does wrong').

In the same way 'Out of Egypt I have called my son' (Hos.11:1; Matt.2:15) is another statement having a dual application. Historically it applied to the Israelite nation whom YHWH lead out of Egypt at the Exodus but prophetically it applied to the Messiah who, along with his human parents, Joseph and Mary, were called by YHWH out of Egypt and back to Nazareth once Herod the Great (and all who were trying to kill the Messiah) were dead.

This is a ligitimate way of interpreting the Scriptures, such is the mind-blowing spiritual depth of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures that are the Divine Revelation of He Who alone is Absolute Infinite Truth.

Simonline

Hi Simonline, thanks for your post

I've often heard the "dual application" or "dual fulfillment" (when regarding prophecy) theory. I don't have issue that the writers of the NT generally believed this. However, it does seem to be a significant departure from grammatical-historical exegesis. The question is, then, is what justifies this departure? Simply because the Rabbis before did it? Also, if we can depart from grammatical-historical exegesis on occasion, where are the limits of that departure?

If one presupposes that Jesus is the Messiah, then of course it makes sense. But speaking to one who wants to objectively find what the Scripture means, and how we can support the idea of Jesus' Messiahship from the Hebrew Scriptures, invoking "dual application" does little--it's based upon a presupposition (that Jesus is the Messiah.)

An analogy would be how certain gnostic groups look at "hidden" meanings of Scripture to support their unorthodox ideas.

Peace,

Daniel

 

[EricLBess]

Hi Simonline, thanks for your post

I've often heard the "dual application" or "dual fulfillment" (when regarding prophecy) theory. I don't have issue that the writers of the NT generally believed this. However, it does seem to be a significant departure from grammatical-historical exegesis. The question is, then, is what justifies this departure? Simply because the Rabbis before did it? Also, if we can depart from grammatical-historical exegesis on occasion, where are the limits of that departure?

If one presupposes that Jesus is the Messiah, then of course it makes sense. But speaking to one who wants to objectively find what the Scripture means, and how we can support the idea of Jesus' Messiahship from the Hebrew Scriptures, invoking "dual application" does little--it's based upon a presupposition (that Jesus is the Messiah.)

An analogy would be how certain gnostic groups look at "hidden" meanings of Scripture to support their unorthodox ideas.

Peace,

Daniel

We shouldn't hold the authors of the NT to modern standards. Their methods of exegesis were perfectly acceptable in their day, so one couldn't accuse them of dishonesty.

However, that's as far as that goes. Nothing objective justifies the use of these 'spiritual' methods of exegesis, and outside of these 'spiritual' methods there's no way to support Jesus' messiahship.

Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[DanielRB]

We shouldn't hold the authors of the NT to modern standards. Their methods of exegesis were perfectly acceptable in their day, so one couldn't accuse them of dishonesty.

However, that's as far as that goes. Nothing objective justifies the use of these 'spiritual' methods of exegesis, and outside of these 'spiritual' methods there's no way to support Jesus' messiahship.

Thanks,
E.L.B.

Thanks for your post, Eric.

I wasn't thinking of accusing them of dishonesty per se; but since truth doesn't (or shouldn't) change with the era, then if the methods are inaccurate today, they were inaccurate then as well. (But you probably agree with me on that).

Daniel

 

[Standing Up]

The LORD didn't do wrong, except in the sense that He became sin for us who knew no sin and was flogged etc.

See
2 Cor. 5:21.
Isaiah 53

Thus the rest of the quote still applies: 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ; your throne will be established forever.' "

 

[DanielRB]

The LORD didn't do wrong, except in the sense that He became sin for us who knew no sin and was flogged etc.

See
2 Cor. 5:21.
Isaiah 53

Thus the rest of the quote still applies: 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ; your throne will be established forever.' "

That's a good point, Standing Up. However, the "when he does wrong would imply that the King himself does wrong, not that he suffers vicarously for others. If it had said "when the nation does wrong" or "when his people do wrong" (implying his responsibility for what the nation and people do), it would make more sense.

Peace,

Daniel

 

[Noxot]

That's a good point, Standing Up. However, the "when he does wrong would imply that the King himself does wrong, not that he suffers vicarously for others. If it had said "when the nation does wrong" or "when his people do wrong" (implying his responsibility for what the nation and people do), it would make more sense.

Peace,

Daniel

2 Samuel 7:14(nkjv) I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.

2 Corinthians 5:21 (nkjv) For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


it seems correct since Jesus Christ was "made sin for us"

But i would really love a PERFECT translation of 2 samuel 7:14... or even better would be to read the hebrew (an more ancient hebrew text, not the Masoretic Text). I trust the Septuagint more than the masoretic because the septuagint was translated from better hebrew manuscripts.

 

[Noxot]

An analogy would be how certain gnostic groups look at "hidden" meanings of Scripture to support their unorthodox ideas.

Peace,

Daniel

my signature says "By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions."

that is what wicked people do. but:
Romans 8:5-9(esv)


5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

the ones that live according to the Spirit and set their minds on the things of the Spirit know the spiritual meaning of the Bible since they are spiritual.

 

[visionary]

NT is light shining on OT. OT has not changed.. the light helps give depth to OT. Adultery is not just the legalistic view or understanding... because with NT light lust is included... so that it helps to see that the law is spiritual.

 

[DanielRB]

2 Samuel 7:14(nkjv) I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.

2 Corinthians 5:21 (nkjv) For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


it seems correct since Jesus Christ was "made sin for us"

I have no dispute that Jesus was "made sin for us", but it is clear from Isaiah 53 that it was not his sin, but others sin for which he was punished. However, the 2 Samuel passage doesn't read like Isaiah 53; it sounds more like when the king himself sins.

But i would really love a PERFECT translation of 2 samuel 7:14... or even better would be to read the hebrew (an more ancient hebrew text, not the Masoretic Text). I trust the Septuagint more than the masoretic because the septuagint was translated from better hebrew manuscripts.

mmmm....That's debatable. But a good source of the LXX is found here: http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/

Peace,

Daniel