The Narrow Path Ministries

A while back I asked Greg Boyd about how the New Testament interprets the Old. I told him it seemed as though the New Testament writers were really stretching certain prophecies in order to make them fit. He told me those writers were using a form of Hebrew interpretation called Midrash, which was favored by the Rabbis. Since our discussion I've researched this on my own and it seems that Greg is correct.

I've provided a link below which gives a very basic summary of Midrash. Basically, it's not a "prophecy then fulfillment" approach at all. The ancient Jews saw things, not in this manner, but in a cyclical approach using types and symbols. Jesus leaving Egypt as a baby is not a fulfillment of "I called my son out of Egypt" but rather, it's a symbolic gesture. Modern day interpretation seems to favor the fulfilled prophecy approach to this passage, but it seems clear to me that it's Midrash. There are many other examples in the New Testament of writers using this method over the grammatical-historical method. Take a look at this basic explanation:

http://www.shiloah.co.uk/Midrashic%20Hermeneutic.htm

Hello JC,

A while back I asked Greg Boyd about how the New Testament interprets the Old. I told him it seemed as though the New Testament writers were really stretching certain prophecies in order to make them fit. He told me those writers were using a form of Hebrew interpretation called Midrash, which was favored by the Rabbis. Since our discussion I've researched this on my own and it seems that Greg is correct.

I don't know if you realize it or not but seeing the Gospels and/or NT as Midrash is quite popular among very liberal scholars (such as John Shelby Spong: The Gospels as Midrash). Not that a liberal can't be right about a thing or three.

Midrashic interpretation presents problems for evangelicals regarding miracles. To wit: Did they "really" happen...or are they symbolic? As you can see this cuts into the evangelical "literal" view of Scripture and the related issues of biblical inerrancy, inspiration, and so on.

I've provided a link below which gives a very basic summary of Midrash. Basically, it's not a "prophecy then fulfillment" approach at all. The ancient Jews saw things, not in this manner, but in a cyclical approach using types and symbols. Jesus leaving Egypt as a baby is not a fulfillment of "I called my son out of Egypt" but rather, it's a symbolic gesture. Modern day interpretation seems to favor the fulfilled prophecy approach to this passage, but it seems clear to me that it's Midrash. There are many other examples in the New Testament of writers using this method over the grammatical-historical method. Take a look at this basic explanation:

So did Joseph, Mary, and Jesus "really" go to Egypt and back? (if you see what I'm saying).

your link wrote:One way to understand the Jewish concept of prophecy is as thematic recapitulation, where a pattern of events replays the same theme repeatedly. For example one problem that western hermeneutics has never been able to answer satisfactorily is: how can Matthew be justified in quoting Hosea 11:1 ("When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.") out of all reasonable context as connected with his story of the nativity of Jesus in Matthew 2:15?(and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son.") The answer is pattern not just prediction.

Liberal scholars, such as Spong and members of the Jesus Seminar have concluded something different than the author of your link. Namely, that prediction wasn't involved at all (they never "really" went to Egypt, but it is a good literary device).

If I'm reading the link author right, they also see a real prediction involved ("pattern not just prediction"). If this is what they mean, then they would fall under a more conservative (evangelical) theological approach.

JC, your link is okay but not very detailed. Actually, Midrash is quite a bit more complicated than they say. From what I've studied, Midrash was gaining popularity and being used right around the time the NT was written and continued on in (post-Temple) "Rabbinic Judaism" (btw, Jewish people do not like that phrase...I asked them about it @ Beliefnet. It's "Orthodox Judaism" to them but that's another topic).

I concluded a few years ago that the Gospels and/or NT are not, in their entirety, actual Midrash (not in full but possibly in part). Midrash is "interpretation" or "exegesis" from the Hebrew word. And many, if not most, Midrash are in a style like what we would call "commentaries." There is a verse, for example, and a running commentary on its meaning and/or possible meanings.

In the NT we don't have possible meanings. Rather we have the authors using the OT text to provide the actual meaning. Now, would I be right to say, "They provide the actual meaning -- according to their interpretation"? Or to put it in a different light; is the Gospel of Matthew his interpretation...his Midrash? Or was the author of Matthew divinely inspired in a more convervative way ("He wrote God's Word")?

To be sure, the NT authors quoted the OT in ways we would see as very bad hermeneutics. Or: We can't do that! They had no need for historical-grammatical exegesis...as that interprets the original authors intentions and meaning from our point of view looking back. Yet, when they quoted the OT they did it in a way -- a new and strange way -- that is either misguided or divinely inspired. I pick: divinely inspired.

So, for now anyway, I would say the NT has "Midrash-like" elements, and may have real Midrash at times. But when to decide it is a Midrash or not is where it gets tough. Did Jesus really walk on water? or was it a Midrashic, symbolic, interpretation of what Jesus was really like: "On top of all evil" (The waters or "the deep" were seen as the realm of some demons and/or gods, where they dwelt, or came from, in the 1st century. Also, "waters" were viewed as where Israel's enemies attacked them from: the sea).

Liberals differ on Jesus walking on the water. Some say it was a mystical vision...that they only thought they saw him. Others take it further and say the story was made-up....

Once again, well, I think I've said enuf on this for now, JC.
Thanks! I haven't looked into this stuff for a while
Rick

Rick, that was a terrific response! I should've clarified my position originally, though a controversial opener tends to bring forth a more fiery discussion!

The form of Midrash I think the NT writers used is the type that deals with the fulfillment of certain prophecies, like "I called my son out of Egypt." Yes, Jesus literally came out of Egypt with his family but how would this be an effective apologetic to a Jewish audience? Yet Matthew certainly thought it fit to include that nugget. A Midrashic interpretation of that passage would seem apt.

The author of the link I sent you is correct to break the scriptures into literary styles. Midrash has it's own style, as does poetry and historical narrative. Although Midrash is a very broad term to describe interpretation, I'm only using it in the specific meaning of "prophecy using symbols and types to make continuity." I don't know that any Rabbis would agree with my definition but that's what I mean.

I think I know what you mean, JC. It may be that these prophecies (OT quotes) are a type of Midrash or are Midrash-like...btw, thanks for your reply.

I don't call it Midrash, but see Matthew's quote of Is 7:14 (Mtt 1:23) as typological fulfillment as opposed to predictive fulfillment or a "double-fulfillment" as some see it.

James M. Hamilton wrote:"Concentrating mainly on the first text cited, Isaiah 7:14, I will argue that when Matthew speaks of the OT being “fulfilled” he refers to typological rather than predictive fulfillment . . .

Predictive fulfillment would require that when Matthew states that something has been fulfilled, he means that the prophet was speaking specifically of the coming of the Messiah in the distant future . . .

Typological fulfillment is neither allegory nor sensus plenior, and in contrast to predictive fulfillment, it does not necessarily maintain that the prophet is looking into the distant future and prophesying about something outside his own historical context. Rather, typological fulfillment in the life of Jesus refers to the fullest expression of a significant pattern of events. Thus, typological interpretation sees in biblical narratives a divinely intended pattern of events. Events that take place at later points in salvation history correspond to these and intensify their significance."

(I got the above from an article):
"The Virgin Shall Conceive: Typology in Isaiah and Fulfillment in Matthew"
by James M. Hamilton

What you are calling Midrash I'm seeing as Typlological Fulfilment.

I ran across an allusion to Midrash last nite on:
C. Michael Patton's Parchment & Pen blog

The serpent’s enticement. The Torah does not say how much time elapsed between the creation of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. The Sages however, tell us explicitly that all the events related here — including the birth of Cain and Abel — occurred on the day Adam was created. He had been given only one commandment: not to eat from the tree, and now his resolve would be tested to see if he could withstand temptation.

The consensus of the commentators is that the serpent of the narrative was literally a serpent. They differ regarding what force it represented: the Evil Inclination, Satan, or the Angel of Death. According to the Midrash, before this cunning beast was cursed, it stood erect and was endowed with some faculty of communication.

The Chumash Travel-Size Edition – With Complete Sabbath Prayers. Nosson Scherman, et al., eds. (New York: Mesorah, 2001), 15, n. 1-14. [bold and italics theirs]

C. Michael's a really nice guy, especially as a 5-Point Calvinist! I used to go to his TTP (The Theology Program) in Paltalk...but my computer won't let me in now...it's too old. His Reclaiming the Mind Ministries has some really good interviews: see "Converse With Scholars").

Anyway, the above is more of what I understand Midrash to be...not to debate it tho
Rick

P.S. I didn't see it till now but James Hamilton's lecture on the Dead Sea Scrolls...I've heard it before! (you should check it out, pretty good).

I just remembered this from the Talmud, Sukkah 52b, from about 200AD:

R. Alexandri said that R. Joshua bar Levi combined the two paradoxical passages; the one that says. 'Behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven' (Dan. 7:13) [showing Messiah's glory] and the other verse that says, 'poor and riding upon a donkey' (Zech. 9:9) [showing Messiah's humility]. He explained it in this manner: If they are worthy, He will come 'with the clouds of heaven;' if they are unworthy He will come 'poor and riding upon a donkey' (bold, mine).

Consider....

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)

And they brought the colt to Jesus and put their garments on it; and He sat upon it.... And those who went before, and those who followed after, were crying out, "Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord;"... And He entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking all around, He departed for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late. (Mk 11:7, 9, 11)

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory" (Mtt 24:30)

Acts 7:54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Rabbi Alexandri and Rabbi Joshua bar Levi didn't know that these things had already come to pass.

Jerusalem as a whole wasn't worthy of its Humble Messiah but he came to them anyway. Later, Stephen was one of the worthy ones who saw the Son of Man (not to mention Saul's blinding light not long after).
Then, 70AD.
Rick