Not only are we progressive in our eschatology, but professor Bock and I share the same view of the New Testament use of the Old Testament:
Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents view
You seem to be most closely aligned with the Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents view, a view defended by Darrell L. Bock in the book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). This view affirms the singular nature of the meanings intended by the OT and NT authors when OT texts are cited in the NT. In spite of this essential unity in meaning, however, the words of the OT authors frequently take on new dimensions of significance and are found to apply appropriately to new referents and new situations as God’s purposes unfold in the larger canonical context. Often, these referents were not in the minds of the OT authors when they penned their texts.
This result goes with the fact that I do believe in the perspicuity of the Old Testament. This view is also held by Jeff and Peter Kirk.
A Word about the Quiz Itself:
1. Some of the options appear the same.
2. Some of the options assume too much of the one taking the quiz.
3. Some of the options were so short that you just dismissed without further consideration.
But I’m looking forward to this new book from Zondervan!
I received the same result . . . and yet from what I know of Bock, I would say we are not on the same page when it comes to this issue (but probably in the same book).
I think the answers to some of the quiz questions were not entirely adequate for the way I would answer them . . . but that’s nothing new!
Stuart, at least we all use the same grid but would definitely get different results.
Yeah, some of the questions could have been better.
I seem to be in agreement with Dr. Bock’s view of NT Use of the OT, which most folks I hang around with would call “compromising with the text”.
Douglas, most people it seems read back the NT into the OT, and in a real way, deny the perspicuity of the OT.
I came out as:
Fuller Meaning, Single Goal view, a view defended by Peter Enns.
I haven’t read the book so I don’t know what each view entails in full.
Kevin, I believe we are all on the same plain on this one. I’m looking to it.
[...] September 21, 2008 by Bryon The koinonia blog has posted a quiz that tests your view of the New Testament use of the Old Testament, also known as the Tanakh. This is all leading to three views being covered in a book. A few of my fellow bloggers have already taken the quiz, here, here, here, and here. [...]
most people it seems read back the NT into the OT, and in a real way, deny the perspicuity of the OT
Perhaps unsurprisingly I would have to disagree that reading the NT into the OT denies the perspicuity of the OT.
You are progressive in our eschatology prehaps you can now move to be progressive in your understanding of revelation, that is, the NT is the best interpreter of the OT. After all we are not Marcionites, there is really only one revelation of God but that revelation has been progressively made known.
Graeme Goldsworthy’s work on hermenutics is a must read IMO.
I have been pondering this actually and I realised that my methodology has actually changed. So the NT writers took OT themes and reworked them around Jesus and his story.
An example; Psalm 2 was used by Israel as a coronation liturgy. It contains the verse where Yahweh would say to the king that he is now Yahweh’s son. This is embedded into the culture of Israel, so much so that when the line of David is removed through the exile the Psalm becomes a hope of a future king and in time it becomes eschatological and messianic.
Jesus comes, enacts the drama of Deutero-Isaiah and ascends to heaven.
The NT writers then tell the story of Jesus using what they know, the Jewish hope as shaped by their festivals especially the feast of Tabernacles in Autumn (of Fall if you are Stateside). Hence St. Paul, reflecting upon the resurrection of Jesus discovers it being Jesus’ being declared to be the son of God hence he finds the parallel when he looks in his hymnal to Ps. 2, this is picked up by St. Luke in Acts 13 as well.
So I think I will have to ponder on these things.
I have been pondering this actually and I realised that my methodology has actually changed. So the NT writers took OT themes and reworked them around Jesus and his story.
Richard, now that I’m going through the gospel narratives and seeing Jesus as the New Israel, I’m really appreciating the reenactment of Israel’s history in the life of Jesus.
But Ps 2 is not yet done. We are still awaiting Ps 2:9 as seen in Revelation 19.
You are progressive in our eschatology prehaps you can now move to be progressive in your understanding of revelation, that is, the NT is the best interpreter of the OT. After all we are not Marcionites, there is really only one revelation of God but that revelation has been progressively made known.
Marcion, by not means!
Richard, Jesus makes the difference (Luke 24:44). But outside of Jesus, I believe they appreciate their context of living.
Revelation is only seen as progressive because of the multiple referents to Messiah.
tc,
a suggestion for what I think would be an interesting experiment in this area . . .
why not post an OT passage that is used in the NT . . . and then ask for comments on how your blog readers would interpret both OT and NT passages.
If you choose to do this, I believe we will see not only some interesting differences in the general approach taken by different interpreters, but we will also see some stark contrasts in some of the specific ways we interpret the Bible.
Just a suggestion for what might spark a fascinating look into the practice of hermeneutics (not simply theory, but the actual practice).
Just a suggestion for what might spark a fascinating look into the practice of hermeneutics (not simply theory, but the actual practice).
Stuart, this is indeed a great suggestion, from theory to practice. I love it!
Let me think through it. Thanks.