OT interpeted by NT

[Jerrysch]

Is the practice of reading the NT into the OT a valid principle of hermeneutics as practiced by Covenant Theologians? Why is this done, and what does it do to the process of progressive revelation which God engages in?

 

[LukeBritt]

Well, the apostles interpreted the OT prophecies by the fulfillment that is in Christ, so I think that this is the right hermenuetic. Not only were the apostles not literalistic as dispensationalists demand, but the Jews remained literalistic in their hermenuetics.

 

[Jerrysch]

Well, the apostles interpreted the OT prophecies by the fulfillment that is in Christ, so I think that this is the right hermenuetic. Not only were the apostles not literalistic as dispensationalists demand, but the Jews remained literalistic in their hermenuetics.

Really?

In the following quote who was speaking and who was he speaking of?

Romans 1 1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,


In what manner was the promice transcribed? What title does the writer (who was this?) confer upon himslef? Of whose lineage does the writer say Jesus was born of?

Guess what? we can solidly know what this writer is saying becasue he is using a literal hermenunic in the writting of this passage.

 

[Dispy]

Is the practice of reading the NT into the OT a valid principle of hermeneutics as practiced by Covenant Theologians? Why is this done, and what does it do to the process of progressive revelation which God engages in?

NO!!!

One should NEVER read future revelations into past history. One wouldn't read animal sacrifices, believing God and building an ark, believing God and counting the stars, or reading the Laws of Moses in to the Garden of Eden. Just as one wouldn't read the battles of WWII into the battles of WWI. That would be totally WRONG,

IMHO the greatest error in christiandom today is reading the future revelations of the Apostle Paul into the teachings of Jesus and the 12 in the Gospels. Those same people wouldn't read the Laws of Moses into the Garden of Eden because they know it is very poor hermeneutics. But they don't seem to have a problem reading Paul's revelations into the gospels. How does one figure that?

Jesus and the 12 lived and taugh the Law, and preached, "the gospel of the kingdom." Paul taught that the Law was now done away, and preached "he gospel of the grace of God." Hey, Law and Grace are two opposing doctrines. Mixing those two doctrines only leads to confusion and denominations, which I call "scrambled egg doctrines." Those that do each have a little different formula as how to mix them to serve their own "omlet" (doctrine) to those they feed.

God's revelations were progressive, and that is why I believe that one should study the Scriptures from a dispensational viewpoint. Makes for a much better understanding the mind of God and His will for our lives.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[LukeBritt]

Really?

In the following quote who was speaking and who was he speaking of?

Romans 1 1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,


In what manner was the promice transcribed? What title does the writer (who was this?) confer upon himslef? Of whose lineage does the writer say Jesus was born of?

Guess what? we can solidly know what this writer is saying becasue he is using a literal hermenunic in the writting of this passage.

Get a passage where Paul is interpreting something from the OT...
The apostles saw that these promises that they thought were of Israel are being fulfilled by Christ...
Many of the Psalms that were quoted by Jesus were referring to David, but he said that he had fulfilled them...
In Isaiah, the recurring them of Israel, the servant, is referring to Christ...if this were to be taken literally, we would see national Israel as the servant, which would contradict the apostles...(Acts 3:13, Matt. 8:17, Acts 8:34-35, Matt. 2:13-18...)
Other examples of this hermenuetic: Gal. 3:29, 2 Peter 3:13, Heb. 12:18-24, Luke 1:30-33, Acts 2:29-36...

 

[Dave Taylor]

The reason that so many of the NT writers chose to intepret the writings from the OT in light of Christ; and by the NT writings; is because Christ was the intended fulfillment of many-most of the OT prophecies.

The Pharisees didn't get it; and rejected most of the NT fulfillments because they were not being fulfilled in the expected literal nature that the Pharisees expected to see them fulfilled in. Unfortunately, in regards to OT prophetic fulfillment; the modern view of Dispensationalism has chosen to pick up the same type of OT prophetic expectation that the Pharisees held; and miss the true and intended fulfillment that the NT writers gave us; that Jesus gave us; and that often time; was the original intent meant by the very OT writers themselves.

It isn't that the NT is more correct or more accurate than the OT...it is that it is clearer, and gives us the wisdom to see the true intent that many of the OT passages had in regards to Christ and their fulfillments in Christ....so that we don't mis them; or mis-apply them like the Pharisees were doing; and like then modern Dispensationalism model also often does likewise.

Remember Jesus own words...surely they bare just a little weight for consideration...

Luke 24:25
"Then Jesus said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

Luke 24:44
"And Jesus said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures"

 

[LukeBritt]

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Is the practice of reading the NT into the OT a valid principle of hermeneutics as practiced by Covenant Theologians? Why is this done, and what does it do to the process of progressive revelation which God engages in?

Reading the NT back into the OT is not really a bad thing for a dispensationalist to do. For example, we see in Revelation a mention of a 1000 year reign, then interpret certain passages in Isaiah as referring to the 1000 year reign. But we absolutely draw the line if the interpretation changes the meaning of the original text. God is going to do what He originally promised, right? God isn't going to go back on His Word, right? We take these views because of our high priority given to progressive revelation (as we see it) and our emphasis on discontinuities in the text. These are nearly opposite presuppositions from CTers, who emphasize continuity in the text and have a different view of progressive revelation.

The emphasis on discontinuity in dispensationalism means a higher priority is given the Biblical covenants and their provisions, and produces a "textual emphasis" interpretation method. The emphasis on continuity in CT tends to "flatten out" the Biblical covenants, de-emphasize their provisions and produces a theological/traditional/historical interpretation method.

CTers don't mind changing the meaning of the original text if they see justification for it through NT examples. This just shocks the socks off us dispensationalists, but its because we have different presuppositions, not because they are going liberal on us. But they believe their approach is Scriptural, just as we dispensationalists believe our approach is Scriptural. And quite frankly, when each system is seen from within its own theological framework, they are very consistent. If we view the other side from our own "lens" - we often misunderstand and misrepresent.


LDG

 

[Driver]

How could any truly saved person say "no"? Why would you not want to interpret the OT with the NT? Doesn't this show where dispensatanalism really comes from?

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

How could any truly saved person say "no"? Why would you not want to interpret the OT with the NT? Doesn't this show where dispensatanalism really comes from?

Here is what Kaiser, a non-dispensationalist had to say:

We agree with this call for balance and for a forward reading of the OT into the NT text. To import "prior conclusions" from the NT into the OT is outright eisegesis and worthy only of our rejection, no matter how noble its goals are."

 

[Driver]

"But there is further reason, and a pressing one today, why we should write upon our present subject, and that is to expose the modern and pernicious error of Dispensationalism. This is a device of the Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned. It is sad to see how widely successful the devil has been by means of this subtle innovation. " - Arthur Pink

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

So what does Arthur Pink's quote have anything to do with the OP?

There is nothing in it about how the OT is interpreted by the NT. Its just an unsubstantiated airing of an opinion, one of which many scholarly CTers would disagree.

LDG

 

[JM]

"But there is further reason, and a pressing one today, why we should write upon our present subject, and that is to expose the modern and pernicious error of Dispensationalism. This is a device of the Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned. It is sad to see how widely successful the devil has been by means of this subtle innovation. " - Arthur Pink

RED HERRING: "The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion."

AND

"This fallacy is often known by the Latin name "Ignoratio Elenchi", which translates as "ignorance of refutation". The ignorance involved is either ignorance of the conclusion to be refuted—even deliberately ignoring it—or ignorance of what constitutes a refutation, so that the attempt misses the mark. This explanation goes back to Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations, the focus of which is fallacious refutations in debate. As with all of Aristotle's original fallacies, its application has widened to all arguments."

 

[Driver]

So what does Arthur Pink's quote have anything to do with the OP?

There is nothing in it about how the OT is interpreted by the NT. Its just an unsubstantiated airing of an opinion, one of which many scholarly CTers would disagree.

LDG

It has everything to do with it, as it hits the nail on the head. This is quoted from Arthur Pink's "Study of Dispensationalism", which is available on the internet.

The OP stated:

"Is the practice of reading the NT into the OT a valid principle of hermeneutics as practiced by Covenant Theologians? Why is this done, and what does it do to the process of progressive revelation which God engages in?"

What advantage is there for the Christian to avoiding the New Testament and the pronouncements of Jesus Christ and the apostles when it comes to studying the Old Testament?

Isn't this what Satan wants?

And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. Mark 4:15


​

Do you believe Satan in an influence in the world today? Are there any false doctrines in the Church today?

 

[Dispy]

The reason that so many of the NT writers chose to intepret the writings from the OT in light of Christ; and by the NT writings; is because Christ was the intended fulfillment of many-most of the OT prophecies.

The Pharisees didn't get it; and rejected most of the NT fulfillments because they were not being fulfilled in the expected literal nature that the Pharisees expected to see them fulfilled in. Unfortunately, in regards to OT prophetic fulfillment; the modern view of Dispensationalism has chosen to pick up the same type of OT prophetic expectation that the Pharisees held; and miss the true and intended fulfillment that the NT writers gave us; that Jesus gave us; and that often time; was the original intent meant by the very OT writers themselves.

It isn't that the NT is more correct or more accurate than the OT...it is that it is clearer, and gives us the wisdom to see the true intent that many of the OT passages had in regards to Christ and their fulfillments in Christ....so that we don't mis them; or mis-apply them like the Pharisees were doing; and like then modern Dispensationalism model also often does likewise.

Remember Jesus own words...surely they bare just a little weight for consideration...

Luke 24:25
"Then Jesus said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

Luke 24:44
"And Jesus said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures"

In Romans 15:8 Paul tell us that Jesus came as "...as a minister of the circumcision... to confirm the promises made to the fathers."

The promises were to the nation of Israel, not the Body of Christ, the Chruch for today. The promises to Israel are earthly while the promises to the Chruch, the Body of Christ are heavenly.

Many of the OT prophesies concerning Christ were fulfilled in the Gospels, but not all. However, they will be fulfilled at a later date; after the rapture of the Chruch, the Body of Christ.

The prophetic "timeclock" stopped when God set the nation of Israel aside after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. God then raised up Saul/Paul to usher in this "dispensation of grace." We are living in a "(parenthetical)" period within the dispensation of the Law. When this period (dispensation of grace) ends, with the rapture of the Chruch, the prophetic timeclock will resume, and all unfulfilled prophesy will then be completed.

The revelations that God gave to the Apostle Paul were kept secret "since the world began," cannot be found in prophesy, and should NEVER be read into OT prophesy or the gospels. They are not addressed to Israel, and there are no OT prophesies being fulfilled during this dispensation of grace. However, events are happening today that will lead to the fulfillment of OT prophesy, after the rapture of the Church.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often, and Love the Lord!

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

The OP stated:

"Is the practice of reading the NT into the OT a valid principle of hermeneutics as practiced by Covenant Theologians? Why is this done, and what does it do to the process of progressive revelation which God engages in?"

That is my point, Its obvious that Arthur Pink's quote does not address the OP questions at all. Nothing is said in the OP concerning the "study of dispensationalism." So why the red herring?

What advantage is there for the Christian to avoiding the New Testament and the pronouncements of Jesus Christ and the apostles when it comes to studying the Old Testament?

Why do you think this of dispensationalists? One who misrepresents the truth isn't doing anyone any favors. It really isn't hard to do truthful research on dispensationalism. Dallas Theological Seminary's doctrinal statement is available on the internet from DTS itself. Here is what the third sentence in article one says:

We believe that all the Scriptures center about the Lord Jesus Christ in His person and work in His first and second coming, and hence that no portion, even of the Old Testament, is properly read, or understood, until it leads to Him.




LDG

 

[Driver]

That is my point, Its obvious that Arthur Pink's quote does not address the OP questions at all. Nothing is said in the OP concerning the "study of dispensationalism." So why the red herring?




Why do you think this of dispensationalists? One who misrepresents the truth isn't doing anyone any favors. It really isn't hard to do truthful research on dispensationalism. Dallas Theological Seminary's doctrinal statement is available on the internet from DTS itself. Here is what the third sentence in article one says:

We believe that all the Scriptures center about the Lord Jesus Christ in His person and work in His first and second coming, and hence that no portion, even of the Old Testament, is properly read, or understood, until it leads to Him.




LDG

So, do you agree or disagree that the OT should be interpreted using the NT?

 

[Jerrysch]

So, do you agree or disagree that the OT should be interpreted using the NT?

Suggesting this indicates that the reciepients of the Old(er) Testament texts were then unable to understand them becasue the New(er) Testament texts did not exist at that time.

 

[Driver]

Suggesting this indicates that the reciepients of the Old(er) Testament texts were then unable to understand them becasue the New(er) Testament texts did not exist at that time.

The New Testament simply proclaims that the Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ and the Church. Why is this such a problem?

 

[billwald]

Well, because Moses wrote the first edition of the Bible. Moses wrote the first canon. Moses ordered that anyone who preached anything that conflicted with his Bible should be killed. Does anyone disagree?

Does anything in the OT this side of Deut conflict with Moses and his canon?