Something I meant to mention in my last post.

In Luke 10:28 - does Jesus really think that if the man does these things he will live? Is this an overlap-of-the-eras problem? If anyone knows what's going on I'd love to hear from you.

But the point is that Jesus' application of Leviticus 18:5 is individual and eschatological by way of contrast with Paul's in Galatians which is corporate and historical.

So who's right? What does Leviticus 18:5 'really' mean? Or should we learn to be happy with a multiplicity of meanings?

One of the things I've been thinking about in the paper I've just written on Paul's hermeneutic of the OT as seen in Galatians 3:12 is the importance of interpretative traditions.

Galatians 3:12

But the law is not of faith, rather 'The one who does them shall live by them.'

Leviticus 18:5

You shall therefore keep my statutes and rules: if a person does them, he shall live by them.

Most commentaries will tell you that Galatians 3:12 is a quotation of Leviticus 18:5. It's not quite a precise quotation but that's another matter. What very few of them will tell you is that Galatians 3:12 is also an allusion to Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21 and Nehemiah 9:29 where the Leviticus reference is taken up and applied in a quite specific way that is not immediately obvious from the Leviticus context. Both Ezekiel and Nehemiah apply the verse corporately to all Israel, and historically to Israel's failure to keep the law.

What no commentary I've come across tells you is that the Damascus Document of the Qumran community also applies Leviticus 18:5 corporately, though with their characteristic eschatological slant. Longenecker in his commentary does point out the eschatological thrust in the Targums of this verse, which interpret the 'life' mentioned as 'eternal life'.

Nor have I found anyone who comments with respect to Jesus' allusion to the same verse in Luke 10:28.

Now it seems to me that in Galatians 3, Paul is answering the question 'Who are the sons of Abraham?' cf. v7 and v29 and thus the most natural reading of v12 takes it as a reference to the covenant community of Israel and alludes to their historical failure to keep the covenant laws.

Which is precisely what we'd expect if we'd also noticed the allusion to Ezekiel and Nehemiah.

All of which is to say that Paul's hermeneutic of the OT is influenced by (though not wholly determined by) the interpretative tradition within which he stood and that if we are to intepret him correctly we need, insofar as we are able, to understand that interpretative tradition.

Nothing particularly controversial so far (I hope).

But here's the thing: if Paul (and the other apostles) were right in their interpretations of the OT, then surely that validates the hermeneutical principles by which they came to these interpretations (not unthinkingly adopting the traditions wholesale but nonetheless working with this background pattern of thinking).

So: should we seek to interpret the OT in the light of other second temple Jewish interpretative traditions even when these give different results from our grammatical-historical exegesis?

And: should we seek to interpret the whole bible in the light of the interpretative traditions that have developed over the past 2000 years?

We get to discuss my paper next week - it'll be interesting to see what other people make of it!

So we moved on Saturday. Three trips to IKEA in the space of two days (one to buy a bed; one because the car wasn't big enough for the bed; and one because we got the wrong part for the bed) is more than enough to send any rational person insane. Lots of people helped carry stuff and drive things and organise other people.

Karyn even went so far as to make the journey along Mount Carmel Avenue sitting inside a bookcase in the boot (sorry, trunk) of someone's car, holding the lid down.

It's been nice to have somewhere that's at least a bit mine, and I think we're starting to settle in. The plumber's due today to fix a leak under the kitchen sink and there are one or two other things that need sorting.

Yesterday was a bad day. The guy came to set up our cable for the TV and internet as planned. After he left, I was supposed to wait for the internet to come on and then go through the activation process. So I did, but halfway through we lost the connection. So the instructions say to call Comcast (the cable company). Fine. It's at that point I realised I couldn't find my phone (which is the world's smallest mobile phone).

So then I'm in the flat with no phone, no internet, no car and it all got a bit too much. Which meant that the paper I was supposed to be writing for today didn't get a whole lot done to it.

A few hours later, the internet signal came back on so I tried the activation process again. Except I haven't got the account number and when I put in the name/address/phone number instead, I discovered the mistakes on the Comcast database. Three failures and, guess what, you're supposed to phone Comcast. Except I can't find my phone...

Anyway, I did eventually get through the activation and we are now on line. The paper did get done, late last night and early this morning, and though it's not very good it's hopefully controversial enough to distract everyone's attention.

Still haven't found the phone though.

ETAGot the phone back tonight - thanks Jeff!