Skip to main content

NT Quotations of the OT and Cultural Context

As a follow up to my previous post I would now like to ask the question, 'must we interpret OT texts that are referred to in the NT the same was as the NT author?' This is a difficult question, but when placed in the larger framework of the interpretation of the New Testament use of the Old Testament, it becomes easier to handle.

When the NT cites an OT passage, are we required to say that the original meaning of the OT passage includes the sense given it by the NT author? In Three Views on the NT Use of the OT both Darrell Bock and Peter Enns (in my opinion) successfully argue, 'no.' One can think of Paul's usage of Genesis 13:14-16 in Galatians 3:16, 29. There he plays on the fact that 'zera (offspring) is a collective noun in the Hebrew interpreting the word in two different senses 13 verses apart. In Paul's cultural context this type of exegesis was acceptable. In ours it typically isn't. This doesn't in any way invalidate Paul's theological point, it's just that the way Paul argues and the way we might argue if we didn't have Galatians would probably be different due to different cultural settings.

Does this help us out in Romans 5? The difference between Paul's understanding of Adam as a literal historical figure and mine, which does not see him as a specific historical figure is not a question of exegetical method per se. I would suggest that the difference in outcome is based on my worldview inherent in my cultural setting. I live in the age of science, Paul didn't. That's not to say that Paul would have agreed with me if he lived today, he may or may not have, we'll never know. However, Paul's understanding of Adam as an actual person is grounded in his cultural setting as a Jew and this is part of the incarnational aspect of Scritpure. I'm not questioning the theological point Paul makes, I'm just suggesting that we are not bound to the exact form of argument, when the argument is steeped in a 1st century Jewish worldview. Similarly we're not bound to an identical method of usage of the Old Testament. We need to use the OT in a way that makes sense in our current cultural setting.

I was going to deal with the issue of inerrancy in relation to Romans 5 and not understanding Adam and Eve as literal people, but Jeremy Pierce has handled it wonderfully in his comment dated 9/22/2009 at 6:04pm. If you're interested in that issue I refer you there.


Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…