Tonight in a seminary Biblical Interpretation class I teach in Indianapolis one of the topics is the New Testament use of the OT and biblical theology in general. I'll have them look at examples like:
1. Paul's use of Genesis 3; 12:7; and Deuteronomy 25:4
2. Matthew's use of Micah 5:2; Hosea 11:1; Isaiah 7:14; and Isaiah 11:1
3. Matthew and Luke's use of Joel 2
4. Hebrews' use of Jeremiah 31 and Psalm 40
These uses show a spectrum of continuity and discontinuity with the original meaning. But the take away from this exercise, as far as I can see, is nothing short of massive. From a Christian perspective, the key take-away is this:
For the New Testament, inspiration is not in any way connected to the literal meaning of Old Testament passages. It is pneumatic, and in fact the same OT passage can have multiply valid interpretations.
Just some quick but massive implications:
1. The inspired meaning of Scripture cannot be deduced from the historical-cultural method.
2. Any understanding of inerrancy that is tied to historicity or scientific correlation is foreign to the biblical texts themselves.
3. Twentieth century evangelicalism was well-intentioned but misguided in limiting the meaning of biblical texts to a single meaning.
I can't see any way around any of these conclusions, can you?