Get ready for some surprises!
PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
From The Book by E. Earle Ellis
All Emphasis is by Keith Hunt
|
FROM CHAPTER 0NE.........PAUL AND HIS BIBLE The writings of the apostle Paul reveal a person immersed in the content and teaching of the OT. H.A.A. Kennedy, after a study of Paul's religious terminology, found that practically every leading conception in this field of Paul's thought had its roots definitely laid in OT soil (H.A.A. Kennnedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, London, 1913, pp. 154-60). Whether he is giving a dogmatic proof (e.g. Rom.3:10-18), an analogy (e.g. Rom.2:24), or an illustration (e.g. Rom.10:6-8), or merely using language with which to clothe his own thoughts (e.g. Rom.12:20; 1 Cor.15:32; 2 Cor.10:17; 13:1), the OT appears frequently throughout the Pauline epistles......... The Pauline use of the OT appears in THREE DISTINCT forms: QUOTATIONS PROPER, INTENTIONAL AND CASUAL ALLUSION, and DIALECTIC AND THEOLOGICAL THEMES. The task of defining "quotation" in the Pauline literature is rather difficult, and the decision in the end is somewhat arbitrary. The apostle probably did not have OUR CONCEPT of quotation marks; he certainly did not give it the sanctity which characterises our literary usage. Some references which are introduced with an explicit citation formula echo only the TENOR OF THE PASSAGE (e.g. 1 Cor.14:31); others, not given even the dignity of an introductory conjunction, follow the OT text verbatim ac literatim (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:32). The gradation from quotation to illusion is so imperceptible that it is almost impossible to draw any certain line......... THE NATURE OF THE QUOTATIONS GENERAL ANALYSIS Paul quotes the OT NINETY-THREE TIMES (About one-third of all New Testament quotations are cited by Paul)........ Although the quotations are drawn from SIXTEEN OT books, THREE-FOURTHS of them are from the PENTATEUCH (thirsty-three), ISAIAH (twenty-five), and the PSALMS (nineteen). The citations appear both SINGLY and in COMBINATION........ FIFTY-ONE of Paul's citations are in ABSOLUTE or VIRTUAL agreement with the LXX, TWENTY-TWO of these are at VARIANCE with the Hebrew. In FOUR passages Paul follows the Hebrew AGAINST the LXX; THIRTY-EIGHT times he DIVERGES from BOTH. Combined quotations show a much greater variation than the others....... The PRIORITY of the LXX in Pauline quotations has long been recognised.......Swete affirms that more than HALF of the Pauline QUOTATIONS were taken from the LXX without MATERIAL CHANGE and that, by any test, the LXX "is the principal source from which the writers of the New Testament derived their Old Testament quotations........Affinities with the LXX are not only evident in Paul's quotations but EXTEND to his GENERAL STYLE and VOCABULARY as well........" The careful student of the Gospels and St. Paul," concludes Swete, "is met at every turn by words and phrases which cannot be fully understood without reference to their earlier use in the Greek Old Testament. The quotations show considerable distribution among the LXX TEXT-FORMS, none of them being followed CONSISTENTLY. Sometimes they agree with LXX-B, more often with LXX-A and LXX-F........ In general, LXX-A appears to be more in accord with Paul's quotations than the other manuscripts....... As noted above, there are a considerable number of variations from the LXX in Paul's quotations. To account for them several hypotheses lie at hand: a direct use of the Hebrew or its employment to correct the LXX, citations from an Aramaic Targum or translation, the use of the Greek translations, or free quotations from memory. Paul often gives the impression of quoting from memory, yet the memory which was the storehouse of more than one language, and one trained in Jewish methods of bringing together passages from different books of the OT. From a psychological viewpoint it might be expected that one who knew the Scriptures in several languages would be less ties to any text-form......... One of Paul's quotations shows remarkable resemblance to Greek texts OTHER than the LXX.......It is probable that Paul was acquainted with other Greek texts; however, the evidence is not sufficient to draw any final conclusions......Nevertheless, Aramaic texts of some type probably lie behind some of the citations.......The variant in Eph.4:8 may also reflect a Targum, but its immediate source is more probably an interpretive rendering known to Paul and perhaps used in the early Church....... As the above observations indicate, the text behind Paul's quotations is a most DIFFICULT PROBLEM. While the Alexandrian version probably had the character of an official translation for the diaspora in certain areas and plays an important part in Paul's usage, it CANNOT be regarded as the apostle's SOLE textual source. His fluency in Aramaic and Greek might, on first observations, favour an ad hoc rendering. However, affinities with other Greek texts and the familiar manner in which the quotations are often introduced SUGGEST that Paul made use of variant translations or renderings known to his readers. Whether these were independent texts or merely revisions within the LXX family cannot be determined with certainty, but the EVIDENCE DOES NOT point to any great number of independent textual traditions or to a great abundance of Greek Targums. Some of Paul's variants show the influence of the Hebrew; other can to traced to NO TEXT AT ALL - they are Paul's OWN RENDERING in which he interprets and applies as he quotes. The nature of the problem and the incomplete state of the textual ecidence preclude any final adjudication of the matter; the words of Stanley still remain relevant for several Pauline passages: "(There is) not sufficient evidence to say whether this (variation) arises from a reminiscence of the Hebrew text....., or from an Aramaic Targum, or from the use of an earlier form of the LXX text." The inconclusive character of results obtainable from textual criteria leads one to consider a solution, or at least a partial solution, on other grounds. There is always a temptation to relieve oneself of textual difficulties by taking recourse in "free paraphrase" or "interpretive rendering." Nevertheless, several factors, both in the textual analysis and in the overall Pauline hermeneutics, INDICATE that the answer to many of these problems MAY LIE in THIS direction. PAUL'S ATTITUDE TO SCRIPTURE General Considerations Paul's use of the OT cannot be understood apart from his attitude towards it. To him the Scriptures are holy and prophetic (Rom.1:2; 4:3); they constitute the very oracles of God (Rom.3:1-2), and they "were written......for our learning" (Rom.15:4). All his important doctrines are buttressed by an appeal to his Bible; to place the origin of Scripture in God, Paul's phrase "God-breathed" (2 Tim.3:16) could hardly be improved upon. In his view of the OT the apostle is in agreement not only with Christ and the other NT writers but also with the whole of Judaism and the early Church. Although the OT is sometimes referred to by Paul as "the law" (e.g. 1 Cor.14:21 with Isa.28:11-12), "the writings" (Col.2:14; cf 2 Tim.3:15), or "the law and the prophets" (e.g. Rom.3:21), "the scriptures" is the prevailing usage. These designations probably stemmed from the three divisions of the Jewish canon (Cf. Luke 24:44)............ The essential difference between Paul and the Jews in their employment of Scripture was an INTERPRETIVE one......In Paul's eyes the Jews stood ON the Scriptures; though they extolled it, they ERRED because they did not KNOW it (Cf. Matt.22:29)......... In First and Second Corinthians Paul teaches expressly that a correct understanding of Scripture is impossible without the Holy Spirit (Cf. 1 Cor.2; 2 Cor.3:14)......The place of the Spirit does not lesson the authority of the OT for Paul; nor is there any antithesis between the Scripture and the Spirit........ The Relation....To Other Authorities Besides the Scriptures there are several other authorities to which Paul appeals to support his assertions. There are the law of nature, the conscience of the individual, his own revelation from Christ or the Holy Spirit, and the teaching of Christ as received through oral or written apostolic tradition. Although the natural order is the source of many analogies, it is evoked only a few times as an AUTHORITY (Analogies of law - Rom. 7:1-3; Gal. 3:15; 4:1ff, occupations - Rom.9:21; 1 Cor.3:7,24ff, and natural phenomena - Rom.11:16-24; 1 Cor.12:14, are common. The Ot is used in this manner as well, e.g. 2 Cor.4:6,13, as is the example of Christ, e.g. 2 Cor.8:8-9. They serve only as illustrations, however, and not as an appeal to authority; their propriety depends upon the authority of the user or their appeal to the logic of the hearer); in Rom.1:18ff (cf. Rom.2:14ff) God's power and Deity are declared to be taught by nature; distinction between the sexes in manner of appearance and dress is also in the very nature of things (1 Cor.11:14). The authority of the individual conscience plays an important part for Paul: Regarding the eating of food offered to idols, one's own conscience is to be obeyed, and the conscience of others are not to be offended (1 Cor.8:7ff; 10:25ff; cf. Rom.14:23. Also Rom.2:15; 13:5 may be viewed as referring to a sort of universal conscience); by disobeying the voice of conscience the faith of some has been made shipwreck (1 Tim.1:19). Writing to the Galatians, the apostle grounds the very nature of his Gospel in a personal revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12, 16ff; 2:5, but contrast Rom.1:2; cf. 1 Thes.4:15. The instances in Rom. 14:14, cf. 1 Cor.7:40, seem to be more in the nature of a "witness of the Spirit" than specific revelation; cf. Col.3:16); it is only after citing this authority and the witness of their own experience that the evidence of the OT is brought to bear (Gal.3:1-5, 6ff). The condemnation of the Corinthians for their desecrations of the Lord's Supper is founded upon Christ's own words as to the nature of that service (1 Cor.11:23ff); Paul's command against divorce is similarly based upon the known teaching of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:10 with Matt.7:31; cf. 1 Cor.9:14 with Matt.10:10; Gal.6:2 with John 13:34). These appeals to other authorities are not inconsistent with the apostles appeal to scriptural authority (There are authorities inconsistent with Scripture which Paul condemns: any authority contrary to his Gospel - Gal.1:8f - and the wisdom of this world - 1 Cor.1-3; cf. Rom.1:22; Col.2:23. The touchstone for judgment is not to go "beyond that which is written" - 1 Cor.4:6)......... This appeal to different authorities is at times found in close combination though there seems to be no consistent pattern of association. For example, in 1 Cor.9:7-14 Paul proceeds from the analogy of nature to the witness of the OT; immediately he returns to another analogy, the practice of the temple, and clinches the whole argument citing the command of Christ directly bearing on the subject. 1 Cor.15:3-11 is even more noteworthy: Christ's resurrection is grounded in the OT, the apostolic tradition, and Paul's personal revelation........ Paul's OWN authority plays a MUCH LARGER role in his epistles than is usually assigned to it. A few times it is of a very much qualified nature (Cf. 1 Cor.7:12, 25, 40), but for the MOST PART it is ASSERTED with no indication of being anything LESS thanb ABSOLUTE. He does not often state its basis, but it appears to arise from his firm conviction of guidance from the Holy Spirit and from his authority as an apostle. Paul concludes his discussion of GLOSSOLALIA with the words: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord" (1 Cor.14:37. The verse may refer to a teaching of Christ; but the words imply primarily the guidance of the Spirit....). With reticence but firmness he warns the Corinthians in his second letter of the AUTHORITY he has from the Lord (2 Cor.10:8; 13:10). Instructions concerning the Christian's relation to the State are enjoined WITHOUT CITING an authority (Rom.13:1-7 but cf. Matt.22:21), as are his COMMANDS regarding spiritual gifts (1 Cor.12-14). MANY OTHER themes are developed at least in part WITHOUT reference to ANY RULE apart from his OWN. It is true that sometimes OT texts (e.g. Rom.2:13; cf. Rom. 10:5; Gal.3:12 with Lev.18:5), and his former instructions (Former instructions from Scripture or the apostolic traditions appear implied..... 1 Cor.6:3, 9, 15, 16; only the last instance is followed by an OT citation, cf. 1 Cor.3:16; 2 Cor.6:16. It may, however, only refer to their Christian commonsense), underline the words, but they do not account for all of his paragenetic and doctrinal teachings. It is impossible, of course, to know just how much knowledge of the OT and the apostolic traditions Paul assumes on the part of his readers; but his OWN apostolic jurisdiction is UNMISTAKABLE in a number of passages....... But the OT was not one of those things which Paul counted loss for the sake of Christ; indeed, it could be understood ONLY in the LIGHT of CHRIST. There are many explanations for Paul's infrequent use of the OT in the shorter letters.....The use of an authority other than the Jewish Scriptures may well have been more suitable for many questions which arose, especially in a young Gentile assembly. But it DOES NOT FOLLOW that thereby the OT was set aside or subordinated, any more than a citation from Isaiah implies a lower view of Jeremiah........ For Paul, Jesus was ABOVE ALL the CHRIST; to divorce the Messiah from the "book-religion" of the OT was hardly a task for a Jew - even one converted through personal revelation. The Extent.....Paul's Canon ........There are a few quotations in the Pauline epistles which do not appear on first observation to be derived from the OT. The passages most often questioned in this regard are 1 Cor. 2:9.....Eph. 4:8.....Eph. 5:14.....1 Cor. 15:45b.....1 Tim. 5:18b......... 1 Cor. 2:9 has been attributed to: 1. An apocryphal writing; 2. an apocryphal phraseology of the OT texts; 3. a Jewish anthology of OT passages; 4. and a free paraphrase of the OT by Paul. Eph. 4:8 is generally taken to be a Pauline use of a common Jewish interpretation of the OT passage..... Eph. 5:14, older commentators have generally assigned it to an exegetical paraphrase or summary of Isa.60:1, 19ff (cf.Isa.9:2; 26:19; 52:1).......Recent writers have suggested a verbum Christi or, more often, an early Christian hymn giving a messianic paraphrase of several OT passages....... The quotations in 1 Cor. 15:45 and 1 Tim. 5:18, both cited as Scripture, suggest another answer to the whole problem (Cf. also 2 Tim.2:11-13, 19; 2 Cor.6:2; 1 Tim.3:16). The latter clause in each of these passages seems logically and grammatically within the quotation (e.g. the argument in 1 Cor.15 partly rests on that portion of the "quotation"), yet neither is from the OT. 1 Tim. 5:18b is a saying of Jesus (Matt.10:10; Luke 10:17; cf. Acts 20:35); the former passage (1 Cor. 15:45b) is of undetermined origin........ Christ was regarded as the Word of God by Paul, and 2 Peter 3:16 appears to equate the Pauline writings WITH SCRIPTURE; furthermore, the exercise of the gift of prophecy was no less from the Holy Spirit than the oracles of the OT prophets (Cf. Acts 2:17ff; 19:6; 21:4, 9ff; 1 Cor.14. These Spirit-inspired utterances evidently included hymns as well; cf. 1 Cor.14:15). If these observations are correct, and if Eph.5:14 does not find its ultimate source in the OT, the most probable alternative source is a saying either of Jesus or of a Christian prophet....... So I end quotations from chapter one. Chapter two is titled "PAUL AND JUDAISM" and contains a large amount of instructive wealth for those wanting a full study on that part of Paul as it pertains to his background in Judaism. For our purposes in this article the following few passages will be enough for the average reader. Quote: .......... Without doubt the apostles understanding of the OT was completely REVOLUTIONIZED after his conversion; nevertheless his Jewish heritage remained of fundamental IMPORTANCE for his understanding and use of the Bible. His reverence for and study of the Scriptures LONG PRECEDED his knowledge of Christ.......Having recognized the place of Judaism in Paul's thought, a note of CAUTION should be added. From that day on the Damascus road, the home of Paul's heart and of his mind NEVER AGAIN lay in Judaism.......The commonly used fragmentary quotation, with the continuance of given portion sometimes implied (e.g. 1 Cor.2:9.....), the insertion of hortatory, ethical sections, and other procedures more distinctively Jewish, were probably acquired by Paul in his training as the rabbinate. It is most natural, and not in the least derogatory, to find these methods in his epistles. As Prat well states, "the interests of truth did not require him to unlearn all that he had been taught." .......In Rom.9-11 and Gal.3 Paul employs the ancient MIDRASHIC form of commentary; but his incisive manner and compact, integrated treatment is quite at odds with the rabbinic system. Often to support an opinion the rabbis quote the Law, Prophets and Hagiographa in succession and Paul also adopts this custom on occasion (Cf. Rom.11:8- 10; 15:9-12......The custom is evident in Christ as well; cf. Luke 24:44; Mark 12:3-8; Luke 16:16,29). It is not HABITUAL with the apostle, however, and probably represents only an incidental reminiscence. Hillel's principles of a fortiori and analogy are implicit in MANY Pauline passages (e.g. Rom.4-5. Paul's exposition in 1 Cor.7 is an example of NT Halacha; the allegory in Gal.4 is Haggada)....... .....certain other Pauline practices may be compared with Jewish usage; his INTRODUCTORY FORMULAS (IF), his COMBINED QUOTATIONS, and his use of ALLEGORY......... Warfield's words are apropos: "There is probably not a single mode of alluding to or citing Scripture in all the NT which does not find its exact parallel among the Rabbis. The New Testament so far evinces itself a THOROUGHLY JEWISH book" (Warfield, op. cit., pp. 118f) Combined Quotations .........The apostle never introduces his haraz in the explicit rabbinical manner, i.e. The Law says....., the Prophets say......, the Writings say..... However, the rationale behind the Jewish usage, "not as though the words of the Law need confirmation, but to show how the Scriptures emphasises the lesson by iteration," IS EVIDENTLY operative also in Paul's mind....... Examples of the haraz, so frequent in Rom.9-11, 15, are NUMEROUS in the TALMUD.......In the haraz, then, Paul follows the PRACTICE of the rabbis, but for the SOURCE of his frequently used MERGED quotations one must look elsewhere. Allegory .......the method is employed by the apostle in connexion with a DIVINELY DESIGNED type (e.g. 1 Cor.10:4: "The Rock was Christ") or with the ILLUSTRATIVE use of an OT passage (Cf. Gal.4:25: "this Hagar is Mt.Sinai"......) .......The whole of Paul's TYPOLOGICAL exegesis has more in common, as a method, with the Alexandrian school than with the rabbis....... .......In conclusion. Paul's treatment of the OT often finds much in common with the methods of his day as reflected in Jewish literature; his IF and haraz are especially to be noted in this regard. In other respects Pauline methods find FEW parallels in contemporary Jewish writings. The use of MERGED quotations is LITTLE found in the rabbis. In contrast to PHILO, Paul's use of ALLEGORY is VERY MINOR and its character altogether DIFFERENT from that of Alexandrian writers; and his TYPOLOGICAL view of OT history is a RARE, if not unknown, element in contemporary Jewish exegesis. In all things but allegorical interpretation, Paul's Jewish methodology reflects a Palestinian milieu, and even in that the Alexandrian contact does not appear to be close or direct. The apostle is NOT averse to using methods from his Jewish training as they suit his purpose; ON THE OTHER HAND, some of his methods seem to arise from a Christian hermeneutic and from the practice of the apostolic community and CANNOT be explained by his Jewish background....... Messianic Consciousness .......In the rabbis it was a standing principle to refer to the predictions of the prophets as to the "days of the Messiah," and this principle is almost always in evidence in Paul's interpretations.......Almost a century ago Westcott examined the question and found that of NINETY-FOUR passages quoted messianically in the NT only FORTY- FOUR were interpreted in the same manner in Jewish writings; there are FEW revisions of that estimate to be made today.......the main sources for Paul's messianic interpretations of the OT are the principles and emphases received from the apostolic tradition and his own exegesis of the OT as a Christian, One would find it hard to root this element of his thought immediately in Judaism........ The Beggarly Elements When Paul warned Timothy and Titus to beware of Jewish FABLES and commandments of MEN (1 Tim.1:4; Titus 1:14; 3:9), NO DOUBT HE HAD IN MIND MANY OF THE THINGS exemplified in the rabbinic literature. Although some of their exegesis is praiseworthy.....nevertheless its essential character is indeed "weak and beggarly." Prat has well summarised it: "In the slough of Apocryphal and rabbinical writings a few particles of gold can sometimes be met with, but with how much dross they are combined." To realize the GREAT GULF which separates Paul's use of the OT from that of the rabbis, one need only observe a FEW examples from talmudic literature: 1. "The dust of the first man was gathered from all over the earth because Ps.139:16 says God saw the unformed substance, and Zech. $:10 says the eyes of the Lord run to and fro through the whole earth" (Sanh. 38b; SBT, p.241). 2. "Why did Obadiah hide fifty prophets in the cave" (1 Kings 18:4)? "Because the cave would only hold fifty" (Sanh. 39b; SBT, p.253). 3. "The first man had two faces because Ps.139:5 says, 'Thou hast formed me behind and before' " (Ber.61a; SBT, p.381). 4. "The first man reached from earth to heaven because it says (Deut.4:32), 'since the day God created man upon the earth and from one end of the heaven' " (Sanh. 38b; SBT, p.243). 5. "Whoever places his bed north and south will have male children because Ps. 17:14 says, 'Whose belly thou fillest with treasure, who have sons in plenty' " Treasure, also means north (Ber. 5b; SBT, p.22). Although there are exceptions, and the above examples are graphic, they are by no means UNTYPICAL or EXTREME and can be adduced AD INFINITUM ET AD NAUSEAM from almost any section of the Talmud. The ruling principle of rabbinic exposition of Scripture is well expressed in Sanh. 34a (SBT, p.214): "A verse is capable of as many interpretations as splinters of rock crushed by a hammer, for Jer.23:29 says, 'Like a hammer that breaketh a rock in pieces.....' " Their SPLINTERING, purposeless, speculative musings....have not the REMOTEST kinship with Paul's theology or hermeneutical principles........ The rabbis worshipped the LETTER and sought to justify their TRADITIONS by arbitrary exegesis; Paul's usage, on the other hand, is NOT arbitrary or AGAINST the LITERAL sense if the typological usage be granted. Toy sums up the rabbinic exegesis in the principle "that EVERY SENTENCE and EVERY WORD of the Scripture was credited with ANY MEANING that it could possibly be MADE TO BEAR......" Concerning Paul's relation to Jewish thought Kennedy has given a better evaluation than most: "........His writings reveal every here and there affinities with his native environment. But the remarkable FACT REMAINS that these affinities are largely SUPERFICIAL, that they disclose themselves at the CIRCUMFERENCE rather than at the CENTER of his thought" (H.A.A.Kennedy, St.Paul's Conception of the Last Things, London, 1904, pp. 43ff). Paul's Use of Non-Canonical Literature General The question of Paul's knowledge and use of Jewish Apocrypha has been debated since.....1795, and it continues to be a matter of dispute. His knowledge of Palestinian writings in general circulation may be presumed; as for the literature of the diaspora the problem becomes more complex......What writings were in general circulation? Which ones would be seen and used by a student of the rabbinate? To what extent does the extant literature represent the really "important" literature of Paul's day, and for his party? Paul's ONLY non-canonical citations are from GREEK literature........ Paul's relation to Philo is best explained.......as mutual dependence upon a common tradition........Philo arrives at a position regarding the law which approximates to that of St. Paul.....Each in his own manner has come to realize the accomplishments of Jeremiah's epoch-making utterances: "I will put in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts" (Jer.31:33). Philo also resembles Paul in making salvation totally dependent upon the word of God........serves to strengthen the hypothesis of a common tradition underlying certain Philonic concepts which appear in CLEARER LIGHT in the NT, but there is NO GROUNDS for assuming a DIRECT connection. Jowett's essay on "St.Paul and Philo" sums up the relation of Christianity to Alexandrian Judaism: "(Alenxandrianism) was MYSTICAL and dialectical, NOT MORAL and SPIRITUAL......it was a literature not of LIFE......It spoke of a Holy Ghost; of a Word; of a divine man; of a first and second Adam; of the faith of Abraham; of bread which came down from heaven; but knew NOTHING of the God who had made of one blood all nations of the earth; of the VICTORY over SIN and DEATH; of the CROSS of Christ. It was a picture, a shadow, a surface, a cloud above, catching the rising light ere He appeared. It was the reflection of a former world, not the BIRTH of a NEW ONE. It lifted up the veil of the temple, to see in a glass only dreams of its own creation" (p.454). Conclusion The importance of Paul's Jewish heritage cannot be ignored if his writings are to be fully understood........The significant conclusion, however, is the great CHASM separating the writings of Paul from the rabbis. The apostle's OT exegesis was not just an adoption of current traditions but reveals a VITALITY and UNDERSTANDING totally FOREIGN to rabbinical literature. If Paul used Jewish interpretations, he CULLED and MOULDED them to a Christological understanding of the OT; if he was a "child of his times," they were for Paul the times of the MESSIAH, His CROSS and RESURRECTION, and His REVELATION of the TRUE meaning of Scripture. Paul was a disciple of Christ NOT of Gamaliel...... The Pauline use of the OT cannot really be understood in terms of his Jewish contemporaries. This is ESPECIALLY true where principles of INTERPRETATION are involved. The affinities which occur are in PERIPHERAL areas and never reach the HEART of his thought. After his conversion the OT became a NEW book for Paul; all that went before now stood only as a prelude - a prelude set QUITE APART from all that was to follow. Although echoes of the prelude remain, the REAL MEANING which the OT has for him lies at a DIFFERENT source. And to find it one MUST GO to Christ and to the apostles. The end of quotes from chapter two. Chapter three covers in some depth Paul and the Apostolic Church. The author spends some interesting time with the NT parallels between Paul and the teachings of Christ. And in a second section some parallels of Paul with other NT writers. The FOURTH and last chapter of the book is titled "PAUL'S EXEGESIS." The author lists the various topics Paul expounded upon, which include: The fall of mankind into sin and its effects. The Universality of sin. The Coming of Christ and the Gospel. Justification by Faith. Forgiveness of sin. Faith and Works. Divine Election. Calling of the Gentiles. The Gifts of the Spirit. Christian Conduct. The Resurrection of Christ and the Saints. The Return of Christ. The Final Overthrow of Death. Covered in this chapter is the very important Pauline subject of the Jew and the Gentile, and the NT Israel of God, and how Paul ties it all in with the OT. Then there is the often used "Typology" of Paul. And Earle Ellis shows that Paul chiefly used THREE OT period with his use of typology, they are: the Creation, the Age of the Patriarchs, and the Exodus. This fourth chapter also expounds on Paul's exegesis with regards the NEW Covenant. Mt. Ellis gives a reasonably lengthy discourse on what may be some of the answers to the quotations by Paul that vary from the LXX and the MT texts. Towards the close of this chapter the author has some interesting and very true comments about Paul in how he understood the "historial" aspects of the OT. Quote: ......The apostle does not ignore the historical significance of the text......Paul would probably begin by saying, "The OT Scripture has a wider meaning than its IMMEDIATE historical application (Cf. Rom.15>4; 1 Cor.10:11); even OT history is God-moulded history whose significance does NOT LIE MERELY in the event but in the MEANING of the event FOR ITS LATER FULFILMENT.......If Paul's presuppositions as to the nature of the OT and of its history are accepted, little fault can be found with his handling of the individual texts........ In conclusion, the significance of the OT for Paul's theology can hardly e OVERESTIMATED......Rather, his knowledge of Christ opened to him a NEW WAY in which he found the true meaning of the Scriptures....... End of quote. The APPENDIX of the book is very useful as a reference to the OT as used by Paul. There is a list of quotations as pertaining to the agreement or not with the LXX and Hebrew. All the ALLUSIONS and PARALLELS used by Paul as listed. There is a list of all the COMBINED quotations that Paul used. And there is a list of Paul's PARALLEL quotations. The book "PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT" by Earle Ellis, published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, is well worth having in your personal library, especially if you are an elder or leader in the Church of God. .......................... Written February 1998 by Keith Hunt |
No comments:
Post a Comment