SER:NT Reinterpretation of the OT

The law (torah) … 1 Co 14:21.)

Isaiah 56:3–7 NASB95

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely separate me from His people.” Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD, “To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off. “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath And holds fast My covenant; Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”

The law (torah) is “instruction” or “teaching,” not legislation in the modern sense. It was given through a prophet, and while its commandments were in general “holy and just and good” (Rm 7:12) the Lord can reinterpret the specifics of the law through a word to a later prophet. (In the NT, Paul cited the book of Is as “the law,” 1 Co 14:21.)

Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J. P., & Powell, D. (2007). The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (p. 1069). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

Haggai 2:20–23 NASB95

Then the word of the LORD came a second time to Haggai on the twenty-fourth day of the month, saying, “Speak to Zerubbabel governor of Judah, saying, ‘I am going to shake the heavens and the earth. ‘I will overthrow the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the power of the kingdoms of the nations; and I will overthrow the chariots and their riders, and the horses and their riders will go down, everyone by the sword of another.’ ‘On that day,’ declares the LORD of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I will make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ ” declares the LORD of hosts.

Bruce sees both similarity and dissimilarity between Qumran’s and the NT’s use of OT prophetic materials. They are similar in that they reinterpret OT texts in the light of their own situation. They each believe that the OT prophets were speaking of the last days and that they (Qumran people and NT Christians) were the ones to witness the fulfillment of the earlier prophecies

Smith, R. L. (1998). Micah–Malachi (Vol. 32, p. 179). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Matthew 7:29 NASB95

for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

Jesus only quotes Scripture in this Sermon in order to reinterpret it, not to bolster his case; he was his own authority [NAC].

Tehan, T., & Abernathy, D. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of the Sermon on the Mount (2nd ed., p. 195). Dallas, TX: SIL International.

Matthew 15:18 NASB95

“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.

15:18 What food one may or may not eat is not the issue but the person’s heart (cf. Matt. 12:34; Mark 7:20). By these statements Jesus negated the food laws of Lev. 11! Jesus is usually said to have rejected the oral tradition of the rabbis but affirmed the OT. However, in this instance and His treatment of divorce (cf. 5:31–32; 19:8–9) He changes OT Law. One wonders how much of the OT is affected. It is best to affirm Jesus’ right and inspiration to reinterpret both the OT and rabbinical tradition without turning this into a hermeneutical principle. Modern interpreters are not inspired but illumined. We affirm Jesus’ teachings but dare not follow His hermeneutic technique!

Utley, R. J. (2000). The First Christian Primer: Matthew (Vol. Volume 9, p. 134). Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International.

Mark 1:14–3:12 NASB95

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. Going on a little farther, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who were also in the boat mending the nets. Immediately He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went away to follow Him. They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach. They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him. They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.” Immediately the news about Him spread everywhere into all the surrounding district of Galilee. And immediately after they came out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her. And He came to her and raised her up, taking her by the hand, and the fever left her, and she waited on them. When evening came, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed. And the whole city had gathered at the door. And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was. In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there. Simon and his companions searched for Him; they found Him, and said to Him, “Everyone is looking for You.” He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for.” And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons. And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching Him and falling on his knees before Him, and saying, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away, and He said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but stayed out in unpopulated areas; and they were coming to Him from everywhere. When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.” And He went out again by the seashore; and all the people were coming to Him, and He was teaching them. As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him. And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him. When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. “But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. “No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.” And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there whose hand was withered. They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” And He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. Jesus withdrew to the sea with His disciples; and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and also from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and beyond the Jordan, and the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon, a great number of people heard of all that He was doing and came to Him. And He told His disciples that a boat should stand ready for Him because of the crowd, so that they would not crowd Him; for He had healed many, with the result that all those who had afflictions pressed around Him in order to touch Him. Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, “You are the Son of God!” And He earnestly warned them not to tell who He was.

Taken together, the two panels demonstrate Jesus’ power over illness and demonic oppression and his authority to teach, to forgive sins, and to reinterpret scripture.

Dowd, S. E. (2000). Reading Mark: a literary and theological commentary on the second Gospel (p. 16). Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing.

Mark 2:18–22 NASB95

John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. “But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. “No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.”

By the end of the two panels, 1:21–45 and 2:1–3:6, the evangelist has established Jesus’ authority to teach, heal, cast out demons and reinterpret both scripture and the boundaries of table fellowship. It is not, however, a cheap victory. It will cost Jesus his life (3:6)

Dowd, S. E. (2000). Reading Mark: a literary and theological commentary on the second Gospel (p. 28). Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing.

Mark 2:25–28 NASB95

And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

2:25–28 This famous statement by Jesus is unique to Mark. It expresses His authority to reinterpret OT traditional understandings and guidelines (cf. Matt. 5:17–48). This was in reality another sign that Jesus was claiming to be God’s Messiah.

Utley, R. J. D. (2000). The Gospel according to Peter: Mark and I & II Peter (Vol. Volume 2, p. 36). Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International.

Luke 6:1–5 NASB95

Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain. But some of the Pharisees said, “Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him, how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread which is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?” And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

The implication is that David had the authority to act as he did, and that Jesus has the same right, but in a higher degree, to reinterpret the law (France, 46f.). This point is expressed more forcefully in Lk. (cf. Mt.) by the omission of Mk. 2:27, so that the statement that the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath stands in direct juxtaposition to the allusion to David.

Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text (pp. 228–229). Exeter: Paternoster Press.

Luke 22:14–18 NASB95

When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.”

Jeremias, Words, 122–125, recognizes that we have two independent traditions, but holds that they represent two stages in the one historical meal held by Jesus, in which he declared his intention to abstain from the meal and then proceeded to reinterpret it for his disciples

Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 794). Exeter: Paternoster Press.

Luke 22:14 NASB95

When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him.

The Passover in the Old Testament represents the liberation of Israel from Egypt, but Jesus now begins to reinterpret the Passover. The bread which he breaks symbolizes his broken body, that is, it represents his sacrificial death which was vicarious in nature (v. 19).

Elwell, W. A. (1995). Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Vol. 3, Lk 22:14). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Romans 11:25–32 NASB95

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.” “THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.” From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

This group reminds us that “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In short, they would rather reinterpret the passages of the Old Testament, and Paul’s comments in this passage of Romans, to see Christians as the new Jewish nation, rather than maintain a literalism that suggests a return to the very law which, Paul argues, cannot save.

Bence, C. L. (1996). Romans: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (p. 185). Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House.

A Response to Marriage Made in Eden: A Pre-Modern Perspective for a Post-Christian World

The New Testament passages excluded from the book lend credence to this interpretation. For example, in his first letter to the church at Corinth, Paul taught that “the head of woman is man” because man was created first: “For man is not from woman, but woman from man” (11:8). Mathews and Hubbard avoid mentioning Paul’s division of roles in his letter to Timothy. There Paul explicitly based his reasoning on the fact that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (2:13). It is difficult to deny the importance of God creating men and women at different times and of creating man first. One has either to ignore New Testament passages which teach that this is important, or to reinterpret these passages by arguing Paul misunderstood the Old Testament, effectively calling into question the inspiration of Scripture.

A Short Primer on Hermeneutics

The imposition of a theological system (Covenant Theology) upon the Bible forces a re-interpretation of prophecy not yet clearly fulfilled (it is difficult to reinterpret a prophecy already literally fulfilled, such as the birth place of Jesus14). The extent of this imposition controls the interpretive outcome. The outstanding characteristic of nondispensational hermeneutics is the inconsistent use of the basic rules, which would yield normal, literal interpretation, especially in the area of prophecy

Baurain, T. (2006). A Short Primer on Hermeneutics. Journal of Dispensational Theology Volume 10, 10(31), 45.

Antioch

Meanwhile, the success of the Gentile mission both pointed the way to the church’s future and created new problems for the Christian reformation of pagans. It was Matthew’s task to reinterpret and synthesize the competing traditions at Antioch

Meier, J. P. (2011). Antioch. In M. A. Powell (Ed.), The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Revised and Updated) (Third Edition, p. 35). New York: HarperCollins.

Covenant Hermeneutics

The practice of using the New Testament to interpret the Old is a key factor in understanding the double hermeneutic, or “inconsistent hermeneutic” used by covenant exegetes. Not only does this practice violate the principles that govern a literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic, it gives preference to the New Testament over the Old Testament concerning inspiration and authority. In the end the misuse of the New Testament to translate the Old Testament often results in a reinterpretation of the Old Testament texts by the New.

Covenant theologians (whether premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial) generally emphasize the unity of the Bible by stressing the New Testament’s presumed authority to reinterpret the Old Testament. Ladd, one of the most prominent covenant theologians of our time advocates this position as decreed by Augustine, “Novum testamentum in vetere later; vetus testamentum in novo patet.” Ladd then asserts that:

the Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the Church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm. Therefore our question must be whether the exegesis of the New Testament requires the inclusion of millennial doctrine.38

Johnson, R. M. (1999). Covenant Hermeneutics. Conservative Theological Journal Volume 3, 3(10), 326–327.

Exegesis

Some scholars claim that Psalm titles are among the earliest forms of exegesis. Further evidence for this early process are texts like Deuteronomy and Chronicles, both of which appear to reinterpret and re-present material that we know from other parts of the Bible.

Lyke, L. L. (2000). Exegesis. In D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers, & A. B. Beck (Eds.), Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (p. 438). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

Hermeneutics of Discontinuity

A second important and greatly debated question is whether the NT can change or reinterpret the meaning of the OT. Such a position is more radical than the previous. The sensus plenior view only requires that the meaning of the OT prediction be expanded beyond what is contained in the text; this approach advocates that the meaning of the OT prediction may be changed so that it no longer means what it meant in the OT.

Feinberg, P. D. (1988). Hermeneutics of Discontinuity. In J. S. Feinberg (Ed.), Continuity and discontinuity: perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments : essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (p. 120). Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

Hermeneutics of Discontinuity

Moreover, while historical-grammatical interpretation allows for symbols, types and analogies, I see no evidence that Israel is a symbol for the church, Palestine for the new Jerusalem, et al. If that is the case, then I do not see how the requirements of historical-grammatical interpretation have been met by those who would change or reinterpret the OT predictions.53

Feinberg, P. D. (1988). Hermeneutics of Discontinuity. In J. S. Feinberg (Ed.), Continuity and discontinuity: perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments : essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (p. 124). Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

History of Biblical Theology

The NT Gospels and epistles interpret the Christ event in the light of the OT, but also reinterpret the OT in the light of the Christ event. Paul, it has been suggested, was the first ‘Old Testament theologian’, and the same claim could well be made for the writer to the Hebrews.

Is Psalm 110 a Messianic Psalm?

Does the meaning of any psalm come from its usage or from its words when originally written? The fact that later interpreters “adjust the meaning of” (reinterpret) a psalm does not mean that the psalm originally contained that new thought.

Davis, B. C. (2000). Is Psalm 110 a Messianic Psalm? Bibliotheca Sacra, 157, 171.

Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity

We share the uneasiness of those who raise critical questions with the statement that the OT must be interpreted and often reinterpreted by the new revelation given in the person and mission of Jesus Christ.4 Especially the word “reinterpret” could create the false impression that the OT was not truly teaching what the NT says it is. While it is true that a biblical passage must be understood in the light of the entire Bible—i.e., the two Testaments—this does not mean that one part of the Bible must somehow be seen correcting another part.

Woudstra, M. H. (1988). Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity. In J. S. Feinberg (Ed.), Continuity and discontinuity: perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments : essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (p. 222). Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

Israelology Part 6 of 6

The literal meaning in Hosea 11:1’s context refers to the Exodus. Israel (God’s national son) coming out of Egypt typifies the individual messianic Son of God leaving Egypt. The fulfillment was typical (not prophetic), since Hosea 11:1 was not prophetic. Matthew does not deny, change, or reinterpret the original literal meaning. The literal Old Testament event typifies a New Testament event. This is literal plus typical. Often, the Book of Hebrews cites Exodus and Leviticus similarly.

Fruchtenbaum, A. (2000). Israelology Part 6 of 6. Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 6, 6(3), 62.

Joshua (Person)

Close reading reveals that the biblical narrative portrays Joshua as more than just a successor to Moses. Numerous passages seem consciously to portray him as an antitype of Moses (cf. Wenham 1971: 145–46; Childs IOTS, 245). The Lord assures Joshua that the divine presence will accompany him as it did Moses (Josh 1:5; 3:7; cf. 4:14). The crossing of the Jordan, led by Joshua, is described as analogous to the crossing of the Red Sea (Josh 4:23). Joshua’s encounter with the commander of the army of Yahweh (Josh 5:13–15) exhibits a striking resemblance to Moses’ encounter with the angel of Yahweh at the burning bush (Exod 3:2–5). Joshua exercises the authority to reinterpret or even suspend divine commands spoken to Moses (Josh 6:17; 8:27; cf. Polzin 1980: 73–145). Joshua 12 juxtaposes a summary of Joshua’s military feats (vv 7–24) to those of Moses (vv 1–6). Joshua’s assignment of the inheritances for nine and one-half tribes W of the Jordan is paralleled to the similar work by Moses for the Transjordanian tribes (Josh 13:8–33 = 14:1–19:51). Joshua’s function as covenant mediator in Joshua 24 resembles that of Moses at Sinai (Exodus 20–24). The note of Joshua’s death (Josh 24:29) assigns to him the epithet “servant of Yahweh,” which was frequently used of Moses (e.g., Josh 1:1; 8:31).

Ramsey, G. W. (1992). Joshua (Person). In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 3, p. 1000). New York: Doubleday.

Luke’s Use of the Old Testament, Part 2

What is important for the purposes of this paper is that the two most viable interpretive options establish that Peter was following Joel’s original intent. As Fruchtenbaum concludes, “Acts 2 does not change or reinterpret Joel 2, nor does it deny that Joel 2 will have a literal fulfillment when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on the whole nation of Israel.”31 Once again, Luke uses the Old Testament in a way that is consistent with a literal-grammatical hermeneutic.

Baker, B. A. (2003). Luke’s Use of the Old Testament, Part 2. Conservative Theological Journal Volume 7, 7(22), 296.

Moral Agency, Community, and then Character of God in the Hebrew Bible

Hauerwas argues that narrative is the most suitable form for the community to remember and reinterpret its own past. In so doing, a community of character is formed. Character refers to the form our moral agency takes through our beliefs and intentions as those are shaped by the remembering and reinterpreting of the biblical story (Hauerwas 1983:39)

Birch, B. C. (1994). Moral Agency, Community, and then Character of God in the Hebrew Bible. Semeia, 66, 27.

Progressive Dispensationalism: An Overview and Personal Analysis

Inseparably bound to the question of New Testament priority is the issue of interpreting predictive prophecy in the Bible. Here, again, progressive dispensationalism diverges from more traditional forms of the method. The question might be stated as follows: should Old Testament predictive prophecy, by presupposition, be interpreted in accordance with, and only in accordance with, a literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual evaluation of the Old Testament prophetic text itself (expecting, then, a literal, future fulfillment of the Old Testament prediction), or is it acceptable if not better to presuppose that the New Testament might reinterpret, resignify, or expand Old Testament predictions (resulting in a meaning and/or fulfillment different than the exclusively literal signification of the Old Testament prediction)? In the end, in contrast to traditional forms of dispensationalism, many interpreters end up with a dual hermeneutic when it comes to predictive prophecy. These interpreters believe that some Old Testament prophetic predictions do involve singular, literal interpretation and fulfillment (a fact impossible to deny), while other Old Testament prophecies may or should be interpreted in a non-literalistic fashion.

Beacham, R. E. (2004). Progressive Dispensationalism: An Overview and Personal Analysis. Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 9, 9, 17.

Prophetic Hermeneutics

Now, the total number of words and meanings that exist at any given time comprise a universal lexicon, or universal dictionary. The Old and New Testament vocabulary is a subset of this lexicon. The lexicon as a whole changes with human growth and experience, losing some words, gaining others, and losing and adding definitions to the words it retains. Such change does not occur, however, with the vocabulary of a written communication. This is because the writer captures the words he uses at the moment of writing, recording his message with the meanings those words have at that time. Thus, the time-sensitive definitions of the words in the biblical subset of the universal lexicon are forever frozen; neither jot nor tittle will change.25 To interpret a historical utterance based on a later lexicon (i.e., to reinterpret the Old Testament promises in New Testament terms) is a flagrant anachronism.26 An interpreter should read an historical utterance based on the lexicon that obtained at the time the author wrote. One of the central problems in doing so is reconstructing the author’s and readers’ shared lexicon at the time of writing. The best way of going about this is to examine the linguistic context: the other written works of that time and culture.

Response to Professor Greg Beale

For example, the well known cases of Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:2 in Matthew 2:15 and Paul’s seed/seeds exegesis in Galatians 3:16, 29 are two instances of New Testament authors ‘widening’ the Old Testament passage they employ. How do they accomplish this? Matthew turns Hosea’s retrospective observation into a prophetic utterance. Paul exploits a grammatical point to reinterpret the promise in Genesis of countless offspring to refer to one person, Christ.

Enns, P. (2007). Response to Professor Greg Beale. Themelios, 32(3), 10.

Review of Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology by Gary M. Burge

For example, Matt 5:5 is laden with language from the OT concerning the land of promise. Whereas the geographical land had a concrete application for most Jews, Jesus and his followers reinterpret the promises that come to those in his kingdom. Hence, the reward is no longer tied to a geographical plot in the Middle East; rather, it is tied to heaven. Likewise, in Luke 12:13–21, Jesus’ kingdom will be anchored to heaven and therefore will not be a kingdom that values struggle and conflict. Jewish identity, therefore, that struggles solely to hold onto the land may miss their more important place with God.

Martin, O. R. (2011). Review of Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology by Gary M. Burge. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 54(1), 215.

Review of Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash by Mary Callaway

some NT passages (like Luke 1) actually reinterpret parts of earlier Scripture (Hannah’s prayer—a matter unaccountably not pursued by Callaway; cf. p. 102)

Fishbane, M. (1988). Review of Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash by Mary Callaway. Critical Review of Books in Religion, 121.

Systems of Discontinuity

Moreover, if the NT reinterpretation becomes the OT passage’s meaning, how can one determine what the OT passage means since the NT may reinterpret it several different ways? And what remains constant for the meaning of OT passages which are reapplied in the NT?

Feinberg, J. S. (1988). Systems of Discontinuity. In J. S. Feinberg (Ed.), Continuity and discontinuity: perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments : essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (p. 77). Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

The End of the ΓΗ (Acts 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision?

The guiding assumption behind the usual interpretation of Acts 1:8 (“world”) is that this verse means the same as Luke 24:47 and Acts 13:47, which clearly refer to the missionizing of Gentiles.15 However, this assumption is not a necessary one. The former passage, indeed, has obvious links to ours: both refer to witnessing to Christ, starting in Jerusalem.16 Precisely because of this similarity, however, the differences regarding our topic become significant: whereas Luke refers explicitly to Gentiles (panta ta ethnē) but does not say who shall preach to them (kērychthēnai in the passive), Acts speaks only of the sites, but not the addressees, of the witnessing and says that the apostles shall do it (esesthe mou martyres). Similarly, Acts 13:47 indeed seems to hark back to 1:8: it programmatically quotes Isa 49:6, which too refers to “the end of the earth.” However, this full quote in Acts 13 explicitly states that the Gentiles are to be the recipients of this mission, whereas such is missing from Acts 1.17 Moreover, this same sermon by Paul, in a clear reference to the apostles’ mandate of 1:8,18 states that they are Jesus’ witnesses “to the (Jewish) people” (13:31), which corresponds better to a limited understanding of “the land” than the universal one (“the earth”). In short, although there are obvious links between Acts 1:8, Luke 24:47, and Acts 13:47, their relationship is not necessarily one of simple correspondence. Rather, just as Luke 24 compresses details of the Ascension which Acts 1 recounts in greater detail, one might also wonder if the mandate in 24:47 is not meant as a summary of the Christian mission, the details of which are brought in Acts: the apostles were to evangelize Palestine, while Paul—using Isa 49:6 to reinterpret the scope of the mandate of Acts 1:8—evangelized the rest of the world.

Schwartz, D. R. (1986). The End of the ΓΗ (Acts 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision? Journal of Biblical Literature, 105, 671–672.

The Song of Songs

But why has it been thought necessary to reinterpret the explicit references in the Song to lovemaking, caressing, kissing, beauty, breasts and passion? The western church has been influenced by a Greek philosophical worldview in which the spiritual realm is on a higher moral plane, eternal and substantial, while the created order is on a lower level, impermanent, subject to corruption and under judgment.

Gledhill, T. D. (2000). The Song of Songs. In T. D. Alexander & B. S. Rosner (Eds.), New dictionary of biblical theology (electronic ed., pp. 215–216). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

The מַשָּׂא (MAŚŚĀʾ) as a Type of Prophetic Book

I will try to show that this is precisely what we find in Nahum, Habakkuk, and Malachi, and that the two additions to Zechariah reinterpret the preceding sections of the book similarly so as to make claims about Yahweh’s involvement in later situations and give directives regarding how Yahweh’s people should respond to these developments.23

Floyd, M. H. (2002). The מַשָּׂא (MAŚŚĀʾ) as a Type of Prophetic Book. Journal of Biblical Literature, 121, 411–412.

12C

Similarly the Chronicler was pursuing a programme of dehistoricizing essential elements in the community’s previous history because he considered those elements relevant to the people’s contemporary situation. For example, the Davidic Jerusalem tradition became central to his work because he considered it necessary to reinterpret it for the post-exilic community; thus it became what has been called ‘the central moment’ of his theological interpretation.

Jones, G. H. (1999). 1 & 2 Chronicles (pp. 112–113). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

BCBC Mk

Would it not be better to take a middle position between “prophetic clarity” (Caird) and “prophetic error” (Ambrozic)? Why not simply call it “prophetic method”? Imminent historical events foreshadow final events that may or may not find their fulfillment in the immediate future. Statements of imminence should be understood as statements of certainty. If Israel’s prophets could pick up and reinterpret previous prophetic words without considering them in error, why could they not intend their own words to be treated in the same way? The prophets had no difficulty renewing prophecies that had once been given and had seemed to go unfulfilled. Since they were convinced God would come in ultimate judgment and salvation, it did not matter that earlier prophets had been uncertain which historical developments would lead to the final judgment and salvation.

Geddert, T. J. (2001). Mark (pp. 321–322). Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

CTJV8

Psalm 16 consists primarily of first-person testimony, therefore it is David that is speaking. The question upon which an accurate exegesis turns involves verse 10: “You will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.” While commentators disagree concerning how much David knew when he wrote, and whether or not he was conscious of a resurrection, Peter settles the argument by stating that he did know about the resurrection and that he knew that it applied to the Messiah. We do not, however, have to take the New Testament’s statements and reinterpret this Psalm to come to that conclusion. The text itself in Psalm 16 supports such an exegesis.

(2004)., 8(23), 34.

CTJV8

Covenant premillennialism appears to teach that the Church has replaced Israel for now, but there will be a distinction between them during the Millennial Kingdom.21 Like all debates concerning theology or the Bible, this one boils down to hermeneutics.

Covenant premillennialist George Ladd declares that the New Testament should be used to reinterpret some passages in the Old Testament.

Paul’s use of the Old Testament is not so much to seek a one-to-one equating of prophecy and fulfillment as to place the new redemptive events squarely in the stream of Old Testament redemptive history. This leads him to find in the Old Testament meanings that do not readily appear in the quotations in their Old Testament setting. Thus he can apply to the church quotations that in the Old Testament refer only to Israel (Rom. 9:25–26; cf. Hos. 2:23; 1:10). This cannot be labeled a manipulation or misuse of the Old Testament. … Jesus … is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, and

CTJ 8:24 (August 2004) p. 175

that the people of the Messiah are the true people of God, continuous with the Israel of the Old Testament. The church is in fact the true Israel of God.

Therefore the Old Testament must be read in the light of its fulfillment in Christ with the illumination of the Holy Spirit … the Spirit enables the believer to understand from the Old Testament the meaning of the redemptive event wrought in history in Jesus Christ. The new understanding of the Old Testament is controlled by the event of Jesus Christ.22

(2004)., 8(24), 174–175.

ESJ

Joel demonstrates an ability to reinterpret or reapply passages of earlier prophets [Mariottini]. Moroever, his citation of Obad. 17a in 3:5 (2:32) allows Joel to be dated after the mid-fifth century b.c., for Obadiah cannot date from before that time [Wolff].

Pohlig, J. (2003). An Exegetical Summary of Joel (p. 4). Dallas, TX: SIL International.

GTJ

The experience of Christ so transformed the understanding of the NT authors that they were confronted with the need to reinterpret their theology in the light of him. So then, typology is one method of interpretation that brought a deeper and clearer understanding (a sensus plenior) of the OT Scriptures to the people of God. And it is grounded in more than just the historical continuity between type and antitype. It is grounded in the very perspective and understanding of the inspired writers and in the literature they produced

Grace Theological Journal. (1998). (electronic edition.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

GTJV7

If the human writers wrote beyond what they knew, then has not divine revelation ceased to be a disclosure or unveiling? What should the author and the first readers of their texts have known and believed by the words of those texts? If the meanings of those texts were somehow incomplete due to the need for the revelation of later fuller meanings, did the author and his contemporaries hold to erroneous ideas foisted upon them by divine revelation given in their day? If NT quotations of the OT do reinterpret or supercede the original meaning of the OT writer, does this not break the doctrinal continuity between the testaments in the progress of God’s revelation? Does not the doctrine of inspiration guarantee that God and the human authors meant exactly what texts said? If more was meant than what was said, is there not the danger that this “more”

GTJ 7:2 (Fall 86) p. 227

that needed to be said might turn out to be a corrective to the earlier revelation? What are the implications of this for inerrancy?

(1986). Grace Theological Journal, 7, 226–227.

GTJV9

The experience of Christ so transformed the understanding of the NT authors that they were confronted with the need to reinterpret their theology in the light of him. So then, typology is one method of interpretation that brought a deeper and clearer understanding (a sensus plenior) of the OT Scriptures to the people of God. And it is grounded in more than just the historical continuity between type and antitype. It is grounded in the very perspective and understanding of the inspired writers and in the literature they produced

(1988). Grace Theological Journal, 9, 121.

JETS 26

In particular, dispensationalists have complained that nondispensationalists do not use literal hermeneutics but rather spiritualize, for they take many of the prophecies in the OT given to Israel and reinterpret them as having a spiritual fulfillment in the Church, thus canceling any distinctive future for ethnic Israel as a nation.3 On the other hand, some non-dispensationalists say that they are interpreting literally and that they are merely following the practice of the NT writers’ handling of the OT as evidenced in the use of Joel 2:28–29 in Acts 2:16–17, the use of Amos 9:11 in Acts 15:15–16, etc.4

(1983). Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 26(1), 19.

JETS 36

One of the striking features of the book of Revelation is its adaptation of OT imagery to its Christocentric proclamation. We frequently find in its pages imagery hauntingly familiar to us from the OT but different in form or application from its OT setting.1 Do

(1993). Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 36(3), 306.

LT:EL

in the first chapter we established the principle of biblical hermeneutics: the Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the new revelation given in Jesus Christ. What then does the New Testament teach about Israel? If the Old Testament sees the future salvation of Israel, does the New Testament reinterpret these prophecies so radically that they are to be fulfilled spiritually in the church? Is the church the new and true Israel? Or does God still have a future for his people Israel?

We are fortunate to have in the inspired Scripture a lengthy discussion of this theme in Romans 9–11.

Ladd, G. E. (1978). The last things: an eschatology for Laymen (p. 19). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

REV95

One factor in this openness of the Jewish Scriptures seems to have been the concept that the prophet’s words were more realistically the words of Yahweh and, as such, continued to live and speak outside of any physical limitation (such as death) the prophet might experience. David Meade has argued that a process developed within the Jewish prophetic, wisdom, and apocalyptic traditions whereby “previous revelation was actualized to meet the needs of a new generation.”6 This openness to new and re-applied revelation seems to have been adopted by the early Church, represented particularly by a willingness to reinterpret the prophecies of Jewish Scripture so that they applied to Jesus and apostolic revelation. The move toward a limited Jewish canon at the end of the first century C.E., though, seems to have been matched within the Christian community, as the traditions of Jesus and the apostles became fixed within a particular historical period.7

(1998). Review and Expositor, 95(4), 514.

SI

In general, uncertainty about date and authorship is one of the greatest problems attending the study of the prophetical books. Almost every book contains material composed at a variety of times and added to an original body of prophecy in order to elaborate, modify or reinterpret its message.

Whybray, R. N. (1995). The Second Isaiah (p. ix). London; New York: T&T Clark.

S48:RPNT

2.6 The use of the Old Testament in narrative material, such as the Gospel of Matthew, points to the importance of intertextual competence of the reader in the text. In the Gospel of Matthew, the knowledge of the reader in the text concerning the Old Testament is used to bring about a new understanding of the story of Jesus and also to reinterpret the Old Testament. In this manner, an interaction takes place between the texts that are quoted and Matthew’s text. The reader in the text is presented as a reader who knows about other texts and who can use his intertextual competence to interpret the story of Jesus in the light of a reinterpretation of other texts which are quoted (cf. Rabinowitz). The same happens in the other Gospels, in Acts, and also in the Revelation of John.

McKnight, E. V. (Ed.). (1989). Semeia, 48, 34.

Ladd NTT

In other words, the new redemptive events in the course of Heilsgeschichte (“salvation history”) have compelled Peter to reinterpret the Old Testament. Because of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, Peter transfers the messianic Davidic throne from Jerusalem to God’s right hand in heaven. Jesus has now been enthroned as the Davidic Messiah on the throne of David, and is awaiting the final consummation of his messianic reign. This is one of the meanings included in Peter’s final summary proclamation, that God has made the crucified Jesus both Lord and Christ.

Ladd, G. E. (1993). A Theology of the New Testament. (D. A. Hagner, Ed.) (Rev. ed., pp. 372–373). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

TOT

But Jesus, better than anyone else, could reinterpret the scriptures to show that his coming and his suffering were the natural fulfilment of God’s work in preparing the Jews for his incarnation.

Hinson, D. F. (2001). Theology of the Old Testament (Vol. 15, p. 169). London: SPCK.

THSBD

This doesn’t mean we can’t go to the Old Testament to find points of correspondence for our Christian lives today. It means that we’re not free to take a New Testament idea back to the Old and reinterpret the Old Testament to teach the New Testament idea

O’Brien, D. E. (1990). Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties (p. 149). Minneapolis, MN: David E. O’Brien.

UDNT:ICEC

We see this happening with Jesus, where Jesus clearly sets his own revelation and insight into God’s will over against the Torah—not just the oral Torah (see above §16.2) but even the written Torah itself. Thus in Matt. 5:21f., 27f. he sets himself up as the determinative interpreter of the law, proposing a very radical interpretation of the sixth and seventh commandments. And in other passages gathered together in the Sermon on the Mount he does not merely reinterpret the law, he radically qualifies it; in Matt. 5:33–37 he in effect sets aside the regulations about swearing (Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21), and in 5:38–42 he abolishes the ius talionis (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). In Mark 10:2–9/Matt. 19:3–8 he devalues the Mosaic permission for divorce (Deut. 24:1).

Dunn, J. D. G. (2006). Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Third Edition, p. 106). London: SCM Press.

UDNT:ICEC

The new generation must not confuse the hope for the future with the particular expression of earlier generations; it must not abandon the hope because a particular expression of it was too much bound up with events and personalities now past. Rather it must recognize the relativeness of any expression of apocalyptic hope, it must reinterpret the present in the light both of the past (the already) and the future (the not yet), and it must reaffirm the future as God’s and hope afresh.

Dunn, J. D. G. (2006). Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Third Edition, p. 370). London: SCM Press.

WNT

If the experience is granted, then Paul can begin to reinterpret Torah in the light of it. His first appeal to Scripture takes the form of a balanced series of propositions. He uses two statements about Abraham in Genesis: that all nations would be blessed in him (Gen. 12:3*) and that his righteousness came by faith (Gen. 15:6*).

Johnson, L. T., & Penner, T. C. (1999). The writings of the New Testament: an interpretation (Rev. ed., p. 335). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.