One way to balance second temple hermeneutics and theological grids is to see how authors handle themes within their own writing. That is precisely what my proposal did in going to Romans 9. In Romans 9 we see how Paul thinks directly without having to posit a point that may or may not be present. As I said, I am not sure these positions A to B or B to A are so different. but I do think we can see Paul thinks corporately and individually about the seed, while Wright’s empahsis is built on his larger thesis and is less explicitly present.

dlb

You said “we can have second temple hermeneutic being used as well as looking at the theological grids being present in the method.” I agree that this should not be an either-or, and this is exactly my struggle as I look at the NT use of the OT. How do we maintain a right balance of second temple hermeneutics and the theological grids being employed without pitting one against the other?

Thank you for your contribution to this field and I am looking forward to reading more.

Nice summary. My one observation on Wright is that the place he ends up (family) is really the same place I am arguing for. But the singular of it cannot be merely made into this descriptive category. It is the singular Christ who creates the family in question.

Romans 5 shows Paul thinks of two lines in humanity (Adam and Christ). What we are trying to do is see the theological linkage that let’s us get from point A to point B. Romans 9 shows that Paul thinks in this singular to corporate manner about seed. This is also not a matter of either-or. We can have second temple hermeneutic being used as well as looking at the theological grids being present in the method.

What I resist about Enns is to say usage is just hermeneutics, christological and (rather) arbitrary at spots. There are grids of understanding at work, rooted in the progress of revelation as the case is being made.

Thanks again for the thoughts.