Unique Name
Puritan Board Freshman
Hello. I am currently reading Zondervan's NT Use of the OT debate book. The three views represented are as follows.
Single meaning, unified referents: accurate and authoritative citations of the OT by the NT (Walter Kaiser JR.)
Single meaning, multiple contexts and referents: The NT's legitimate, accurate, and multifaceted use of the old (Darrell Bock)
Fuller meaning, single goal: A Christotelic approach to the NT use of the old in its first-century interpretive environment (Peter Enns)
I started with Enns (being drawn to the title) and his views resonate with me. His hermeneutical-historical approach offers the counterweight I was looking for to 'historical-grammatical' interpretation. I find that the latter method is lacking the spiritual depth on display in the NT author's use of the OT. Furthermore, I understand 'Christocentric' (i.e., Christ in nearly every verse) and 'historical-grammatical' methods somewhat incompatible. This is not to say that the historical-grammatical method is crud; Enns himself points out, historical-grammatical method entails the study of historical context, which includes second temple literature; NT authors use of LXX and thus LXX criticism; second temple interpretive lenses, etc. The point, however, is that historical-grammatical method is not a principle that the NT authors kept in the back of their mind most likely, rather a Christotelic one (possibly an outgrowth of second temple creative exegesis). And that is significant for me, and a refreshing take on the subject; instead of working out perceived 'tensions' (a possible result of being a Westerner with Western methods of interpretation), we should let the text speak organically on it's own terms. I know that last point is fuzzy, but you get the point.
I am aware of Enns' unorthodoxy leanings, and I am not endorsing him outright. I am deeply curious as to what the Reformed take is (if there is one) on the NT use of the OT. Is there a way to adopt Enns' view without becoming a heretic? Please chime in, even if it's just to pick one of the above three views. Thank you!
Single meaning, unified referents: accurate and authoritative citations of the OT by the NT (Walter Kaiser JR.)
Single meaning, multiple contexts and referents: The NT's legitimate, accurate, and multifaceted use of the old (Darrell Bock)
Fuller meaning, single goal: A Christotelic approach to the NT use of the old in its first-century interpretive environment (Peter Enns)
I started with Enns (being drawn to the title) and his views resonate with me. His hermeneutical-historical approach offers the counterweight I was looking for to 'historical-grammatical' interpretation. I find that the latter method is lacking the spiritual depth on display in the NT author's use of the OT. Furthermore, I understand 'Christocentric' (i.e., Christ in nearly every verse) and 'historical-grammatical' methods somewhat incompatible. This is not to say that the historical-grammatical method is crud; Enns himself points out, historical-grammatical method entails the study of historical context, which includes second temple literature; NT authors use of LXX and thus LXX criticism; second temple interpretive lenses, etc. The point, however, is that historical-grammatical method is not a principle that the NT authors kept in the back of their mind most likely, rather a Christotelic one (possibly an outgrowth of second temple creative exegesis). And that is significant for me, and a refreshing take on the subject; instead of working out perceived 'tensions' (a possible result of being a Westerner with Western methods of interpretation), we should let the text speak organically on it's own terms. I know that last point is fuzzy, but you get the point.
I am aware of Enns' unorthodoxy leanings, and I am not endorsing him outright. I am deeply curious as to what the Reformed take is (if there is one) on the NT use of the OT. Is there a way to adopt Enns' view without becoming a heretic? Please chime in, even if it's just to pick one of the above three views. Thank you!
Last edited: