use of OT in NT (my recent posts)
Dan.Wagner at datastream.net
Fri Mar 2 19:52:16 EST 2001
I have no intention of digressing into endless discussion of this issue, but
felt like the various complaints against my statement deserved a response,
and that i should be allowed to defend my view on the subject when it was
attacked (thus these 4 posts). My view remains the same--that no NT writer
changes, perverts, or misunderstands the sense or meaning of the OT/HB.
Careful study of both the OT and NT texts, and the OT and NT theology are
necessary to understand a few of the difficult passages. However, in my own
study i do not find any evidence making it necessary to give up my view, and
i am certain that for every difficult passage one gives me, i can supply a
few dozen where it's evident that the NT writer had a good grasp of the
obvious meaning of the OT text.
I am not claiming that i can answer every objection to everyone's
satisfaction, nor do i really want to spend more time on this subject here.
There is currently only one NT passage (that i'm aware of) concerning which
i'm not yet completely satisfied with my personal understanding of what is
going on in the writer's use of the OT, but i have seen enough now to simply
attribute that to my own insufficiency. (i've also not studied that text in
several years, perhaps will go back again to it soon; and no, i'm not
revealing the identify of that text here! :-)
More information about the b-hebrew