NT use of the OT: Fuller Meaning, Single Goal

NT Use of the OT — Test Your View!
Fuller Meaning, Single Goal view

You seem to be most closely aligned with the Fuller Meaning, Single Goal view, a view defended by Peter Enns in the book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). Since the NT writers held a single-minded conviction that the Scriptures point to and are fulfilled in Christ, this view suggests that the NT writers perceive this meaning in OT texts, even when their OT authors did not have that meaning in mind when they wrote. It should be noted, however, that advocates of this view are careful not to deny the importance of the grammatical-historical study of the OT text so as to understand the OT authors on their own terms. For more info, see the book, or attend a special session devoted to the topic at the ETS Annual Meeting in Providence, RI (Nov. 2008); Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Darrell L. Bock, and Peter Enns will all present their views.

Fun quizzes, surveys & blog quizzes by Quibblo

HT: Several, but I came across it first in Jeff’s Scripture Zealot blog.

The folks at Zondervan recently developed a short quiz that tests “your view of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” and ties the answer to their new book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about this book and this post should not be read as an endorsement of such.

In any event, I was scored as having the “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal” view. As I noted in TC’s blog a few days ago, I believe that everything in the four gospels was recorded in the context of Jesus’ post-resurrection explanations of his fulfillment of scripture, cf. Luke 24:27, 44-47. We should not read through the gospels as if we were getting “daily dispatches from the front”; instead, these texts were crafted after Jesus’ physical resurrection and reflect careful thought and discernment in light of his entire ministry on earth.

For me, this aligns with the quiz result that “the NT writers held a single-minded conviction that the Scriptures point to and are fulfilled in Christ […] even when their OT authors did not have that meaning in mind when they wrote.” Their single-minded conviction came from Jesus himself who “opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.” (Lk. 24:45)

I agree completely with the result summary that we should be “careful not to deny the importance of the grammatical-historical study of the OT text so as to understand the OT authors on their own terms.” Since the OT authors were not necessarily writing about Jesus, it’s important to understand their original context, to better see how Christ is the fuller fulfillment, in both word and deed.

Looking at Peter Enns’ published works on Amazon, his book “Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament” looks interesting – anyone want to recommend it?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

4 Comments

  1. Posted September 20, 2008 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    Enns’ book is great! Although I disagreed with some of his conclusions, the book is a must-read for anyone interested in better understanding the Scripture through the lens of the ancient Hebrews.

  2. Posted September 20, 2008 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    BTW, here’s the result of my quiz:

    Fuller Meaning, Single Goal view
    You seem to be most closely aligned with the Fuller Meaning, Single Goal view, a view defended by Peter Enns in the book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). Since the NT writers held a single-minded conviction that the Scriptures point to and are fulfilled in Christ, this view suggests that the NT writers perceive this meaning in OT texts, even when their OT authors did not have that meaning in mind when they wrote. It should be noted, however, that advocates of this view are careful not to deny the importance of the grammatical-historical study of the OT text so as to understand the OT authors on their own terms.

  3. Posted September 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

    I agree completely with the result summary that we should be “careful not to deny the importance of the grammatical-historical study of the OT text so as to understand the OT authors on their own terms.” Since the OT authors were not necessarily writing about Jesus, it’s important to understand their original context, to better see how Christ is the fuller fulfillment, in both word and deed.

    This is good. I believe in the perspicuity of the OT.

  4. Posted September 20, 2008 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

    I rated the same as Jeff, but this is not an area of expertise for me. So I took my best guest as I understand things to be.

3 Trackbacks

  • […] Old Testament. This quiz is presented by Zondervan in connection with a forthcoming book. Thanks to ElShaddai for the link. I score a bare majority of 51% for the Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and […]

  • By New Leaven on September 20, 2008 at 5:08 PM

    Check out What Professor Darrell Bock and I have in Common: NT Use of the OT…

    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 Meanin…

  • By My New Testament Use of the Old « BRYON’S WEBLOG on September 21, 2008 at 1:37 AM

    […] to three views being covered in a book. A few of my fellow bloggers have already taken the quiz, here, here, here, and […]