Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
Having subscribed to the "one plain meaning" of scripture I struggle with the NT use of the OT. It continues to be a sore point with me and I would like to know if anyone out there has put this one to rest.
Paul is the theologian of the NT. He alone seems to have wrestled or wrangled the OT to make sense in the context of the Gospel. I almost weep when I read that after the resurrection Jesus explained everything from the OT starting with Moses. Why didn't anyone write it all down?
Anyway two examples will perhaps give some idea of my angst.
Spring Conference we were reading Hebrews 2 and it's use of Psalm 8. Verse 7 refers to mankind as being made a little lower than the angels and goes on to say that all of creation under our feet. (Psalm 8 in context is referring to our place in the created order) Verse 8 then goes on to speak of not seeing all things in subjection to "him".
The expositor followed the exposition of verse 8 as referring to us, mankind. Why I asked did he not clarify that "him" was a collective noun for mankind? Would it not have been clearer to use a plural "us"? The answer I think I got was that Paul was continuing to use the collective noun (singular) from the passage and that the link and continuity was better reflected in the singular.
I have in the past been tempted to apply this as a Messianic passage, yet it appears not to be that in context either in the OT or Paul's use in the NT.
The other occasion is in reading FF Bruce on Romans 10. On p198 he speaks of Paul reinterpreting Deuteronomy 32 with reference to the new gospel situation. This stands out as a sore thumb to me yet Bruce does not even pause to sooth my ruffled hermeneutics. I don't think he is alone in using such language without explaining the parameters within which Paul can "reinterpret".
The implied message is that the Apostles just quoted what they needed as "proof texts" without due reference to original context! I don't like it, I don't like it a lot!
So pdf files? mp3 sermons? book recommendations?
Paul is the theologian of the NT. He alone seems to have wrestled or wrangled the OT to make sense in the context of the Gospel. I almost weep when I read that after the resurrection Jesus explained everything from the OT starting with Moses. Why didn't anyone write it all down?
Anyway two examples will perhaps give some idea of my angst.
Spring Conference we were reading Hebrews 2 and it's use of Psalm 8. Verse 7 refers to mankind as being made a little lower than the angels and goes on to say that all of creation under our feet. (Psalm 8 in context is referring to our place in the created order) Verse 8 then goes on to speak of not seeing all things in subjection to "him".
The expositor followed the exposition of verse 8 as referring to us, mankind. Why I asked did he not clarify that "him" was a collective noun for mankind? Would it not have been clearer to use a plural "us"? The answer I think I got was that Paul was continuing to use the collective noun (singular) from the passage and that the link and continuity was better reflected in the singular.
I have in the past been tempted to apply this as a Messianic passage, yet it appears not to be that in context either in the OT or Paul's use in the NT.
The other occasion is in reading FF Bruce on Romans 10. On p198 he speaks of Paul reinterpreting Deuteronomy 32 with reference to the new gospel situation. This stands out as a sore thumb to me yet Bruce does not even pause to sooth my ruffled hermeneutics. I don't think he is alone in using such language without explaining the parameters within which Paul can "reinterpret".
The implied message is that the Apostles just quoted what they needed as "proof texts" without due reference to original context! I don't like it, I don't like it a lot!
So pdf files? mp3 sermons? book recommendations?
