Merle

I am in a debate where I contend that Paul misrepresented the Old Testament. I chose as my example Romans 1:17 where Paul quotes Habakkuk, "The just shall live by faith." Paul claims that Habakkuk is supporting faith in "the gospel of Jesus Christ." But of course, if I turn to Habakkuk 2:4, I find nothing there about Jesus Christ, salvation from hell, or eternal life. Paul is just pretending that Habakkuk supports him.

As I look at Habakkuk, it appears to me that he is not even asking how a man gets life or becomes just. Rather, he is dealing with the question, "How shall the just live when faced with adversity." And his answer is that he should live "by faith", or "by faithfulness" to the Jewish tradition. Habakkuk is telling the Jews to be faithful in spite of captivity. The verse has nothing to do with salvation by faith.

So Paul appears to take a passage commending faithfulness to the Jewish tradition, and uses it to teach departing from Judaism to embrace a new gospel.

Comments?

Kosh

Eh, you should try reading Mathew!

John Kesler

Paul and other NT authors employ a loose, but at the time accepted, form of exegesis in which original authorial intent need not be upheld. As Kosh said, Matthew utilizes this method of interpretation frequently. See here for a good introduction.

Merle

Sorta like creationists, huh?

Even if it is true that the ancients commonly quoted while ignoring the original intent, why would we now honor a book that uses such deceptive pracitces? If the Bible quotes out of content, doesn't that show there is something very wrong with that book?

John Kesler

Since such interpretive methods were an accepted form of exegesis in biblical times, I would not call them "deceptive practices." However, a realization that NT authors felt free to disregard OT context to affirm later beliefs and events mitigates against claims of miraculously fulfilled prophecies.

Diogenes the Cynic

This technique is also known as "begging the question." The fact that it was accepted by those who wished to accept it does not actually make it valid.

John Kesler

As I said in my last post, "a realization that NT authors felt free to disregard OT context to affirm later beliefs and events mitigates against claims of miraculously fulfilled prophecies." What question have I begged when I make this concession?

Diogenes the Cynic

I didn't mean to imply that YOU were begging the question, I was saying THEY were (those who felt that disregarding authorial intent was a valid form of exegesis). I was actually agreeing with you.

pharoah

I'm not so certain that it was accepted more in Paul's time than now. It's clear that Paul got a lot of flak from Jews who were opposed to his interpretation of scripture. And surely you not implying that modern-day apologists are overly concerned with authorial intent?

Here Paul turns the tables on those who accuse him of "handling the word of God deceitfully" by accusing them of being blinded by Satan.

Merle

Why is it not a deceptive practice to ignore the author's original intent, and to pretend an author was saying something when he was actually saying the opposite? That sounds deceptive to me.

Suppose someone quoted you out of context and pretended you were sayiing something you were not. Wouldn't you call that a deceptive practice?

Even if everybody was doing it--and I have not seen the evidence that everybody was--that doesn't make this an honest practice, does it?

The fact is that Habakkuk most likely meant nothing close to what Paul says the phrase means.