Misusing Old Testament Examples in New Testament Context
Misusing Old Testament Examples in New Testament Context
The New Testament writers frequently referenced Old Testament examples to illustrate theological points or moral lessons. However, the appropriation of these examples was not without controversy, as some interpretations seemed to disregard the original context. One key issue was the potential misapplication of Old Testament narratives in the New Testament context.
The author of Hebrews notes that the Old Testament is not obsolete, but rather, it has been made old by the advent of the New Testament [1]. This perspective underscores the complex relationship between the two testaments. The Old Testament contains examples and narratives that are used to illustrate moral and theological principles in the New Testament.
Augustine addressed the challenge of interpreting Old Testament examples in the context of the New Testament. He argued that the Old Testament's authority agrees with the statements taken from the Gospel and the Apostle, emphasizing the importance of understanding the continuity between the two testaments [3]. In his view, the precepts of charity in the Old Testament align with those in the New Testament.
However, not all early Christian interpreters shared Augustine's optimism about the continuity between the testaments. Some, like the Manichaeans, rejected the Old Testament altogether, arguing that it was incompatible with the New Testament [2]. In response, Augustine and other patristic writers sought to demonstrate the harmony between the two testaments.
The use of Old Testament examples in the New Testament context raises questions about the nature of biblical interpretation. Calvin, for instance, noted that the Old Testament was administered differently than the New Testament, yet both dispensations are in reality one [4]. He emphasized that the Old Testament had regard to the same end as the New Testament, namely, the manifestation of God's favor towards believers.
Rabbinic tradition also grappled with the interpretation of Old Testament examples. The Babylonian Talmud discusses the concept of "misuse" in the context of Temple treasury funds, highlighting the importance of understanding the original purpose and context of sacred resources [5, 6, 7].
In the Reformed tradition, Charles Hodge argued that the Old Testament sacrifices prefigured the work of Christ, illustrating the continuity between the two testaments [8]. The idea that Christ's work is analogous to the Old Testament sin offering underscores the importance of understanding the typological relationship between the testaments.
The New Testament writers' use of Old Testament examples demonstrates that the early Christian community saw the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative and relevant to their understanding of God's plan. However, the interpretation of these examples required careful consideration of their original context and the theological principles they illustrated.
The tension between continuity and discontinuity between the testaments is a recurring theme in patristic and Reformed thought. While some, like Augustine, emphasized the harmony between the testaments, others, like the Manichaeans, rejected the Old Testament as incompatible with the New Testament. Understanding the complex relationship between the testaments remains a crucial task for biblical interpreters.
Sources
- Hebrews “In that he says, “A new covenant”, he has made the first old. But that which is becoming old and grows aged is near to vanishing away. -- Hebrews 8:13”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 6: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius, Julius Africanus, Methodius, Arnobius — WITH THE HERESIARCH MANES. (part 92): either that there are two old testaments, or that there are two new testaments. For you assert that there are two unbegottens(28) belonging to the same time, or rather eternity: and if there are in this way two, there should be either two old testaments or two new testaments. If, however, you do not allow this, but affirm, on the contrary, that there is one old testament and that there is also another new restatement, that will only prove again that there is but one author ”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 4: Augustine — Anti-Manichaean, Anti-Donatist — CHAP. 9.--HARMONY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ON THE PRECEPTS OF CHARITY.[3] (part 1): 14. Come now, let us examine, or rather let us take notice,--for it is obvious and can be seen, at once,--whether the authority of the Old Testament too agrees with those statements taken from the gospel and the apostle. What need to speak of the first statement, when it is clear to all that it is a quotation from the law given by Moses ? For it is there written, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with a”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 46: 368 CHAPTER 10. THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW. 225 225 As to the agreement of both dispensations, see August. Lib. de Moribus Eccles. Lat., especially cap. 28. This chapter consists of four parts. I. The sum, utility, and necessity of this discussion, sec. 1. II. A proof that, generally speaking, the old and new dispensations are in reality one, although differently administered. Three points in which the two dispensations entirely agree, sec. 2–4. III. The Old Testament, as well as the New, had regard to th”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Meilah 44a.37:2: But in fact one is also liable for misuse if he moves an item from the domain of the sacred to the domain of the sacred for another purpose, such as if he spent funds from the Temple treasury and acquired bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons or doves, for zavim (see Leviticus 15:13–15), or the bird nests for zavot (see Leviticus 15:28–30), or the bird nests for women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6–8). Although the individual is using the money of the Temple treasury for a sacred purpose, nevertheless, since these obligatory offerings should be pur”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Meilah 44b.37:2: But in fact one is also liable for misuse if he moves an item from the domain of the sacred to the domain of the sacred for another purpose, such as if he spent funds from the Temple treasury and acquired bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons or doves, for zavim (see Leviticus 15:13–15), or the bird nests for zavot (see Leviticus 15:28–30), or the bird nests for women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6–8). Although the individual is using the money of the Temple treasury for a sacred purpose, nevertheless, since these obligatory offerings should be pur”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Meilah 19a.2: But in fact one is also liable for misuse if he moves an item from the domain of the sacred to the domain of the sacred for another purpose, such as if he spent funds from the Temple treasury and acquired bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons or doves, for zavim (see Leviticus 15:13–15), or the bird nests for zavot (see Leviticus 15:28–30), or the bird nests for women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6–8). Although the individual is using the money of the Temple treasury for a sacred purpose, nevertheless, since these obligatory offerings should be purcha”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 103: the law. The victim bore the sin of the offerer, and died in his stead. An expiation was thereby effected by the suffering of a vicarious punishment. This also determines the nature of the work of Christ. If He was an offering for sin, if He saves us from the penalty of the law of God, in the same way in which the sin offering saved the Israelite from the penalty of the law of Moses, then He bore the guilt of our sins and endured the penalty in our stead. We may not approve of this method of salvation. The idea of the innocent bearing th”