What hermeneutical approach does Hebrews use on the Old Testament
Psalm 2:7 is quoted in two different contexts in Hebrews, seeming to be used to support two vastly different arguments.
In Hebrews 1:5, we read
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? (Hebrews 1:5 ESV)
where Psalm 2:7 is apparently used to support Auctor's sustained argument that Jesus is better than angels.
A couple of chapters later, however, the verse is quoted again
So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”; (Hebrews 5:5 ESV)
This time, the Psalm is apparently used to prove that Jesus did not take the priesthood upon himself (see, e.g., v4).
And yet, when reading Psalm 2, this stanza seems to refer to a decree in which God appointed the King (whether David, or Jesus, or both).
What is going on? These two verses seem to pay no attention to the original context, and simply use these words to augment an argument that is made before even approaching the text. To put it more provocatively, the usage here seems to be eisegesis or, perhaps, prooftexting.
What is Auctor's approach to Psalm 2:7 when he uses it in 1:5 and 5:5?
"To put it more provocatively, the usage here seems to be eisegesis or, perhaps, prooftexting".
Conclusions like these result from the assumptions brought to the text.
In a literal interpretation it is presumed that Ps 2 speaks of one thing, of which the human author was aware. Therefore, when a NT author finds something more, we presume it is eisegesis, prooftexting, or even as some authors suggest, wishful invention.
In a sensus plenior interpretation, a literal meaning is acknowledged, but so are three hidden meanings, two of which speak of Christ. Since it is presumed that it is God's intention to speak of Christ, then a conclusions of eisogesis, or prooftexting are unwarranted.
If a hammer keeps bending nails no matter who uses it, then take a closer look at the hammer. If the issues which arise from a literal approach to the scriptures keeps causing exegetical problems, then perhaps it is the approach which is the problem.
The author of Hebrews is the one who says it applies to Jesus. Presumably he is more of an authority on the topic than any modern interpreter. It would seem reasonable to take a closer look at the hammer.
Should we try to use the same methods as the apostles? Considering that they were specifically instructed to teach us, and they said we should imitate them, it just seems natural that their use of the Old Testament should be considered normative rather than exceptional.
