OT interpeted by NT

[Hedgehog]

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.

Bingo.


Psa 53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were [any] that did understand, that did seek God.

Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.

Psa 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.


1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven;

Psa 57:3 He shall send from heaven, and save me [from] the reproach of him that would swallow me up. Selah. God shall send forth his mercy and his truth.

Jer 7:28 But thou shalt say unto them, This [is] a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.

Jer 9:3 And they bend their tongues [like] their bow [for] lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.

Hsa 4:1 Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because [there is] no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land

Jhn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God(the temple that we faithful are), which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

 

[Hedgehog]

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.

Couple more things.



Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Rom 16:27 To God only wise, [be] glory through Jesus Christ for ever.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

1Cr 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1Cr 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.


We know things now that none of the princes of this world knew before, or they would not have crucified Jesus, and we know them now because of the Holy Spirit!!


1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned


Without the Spirit, they couldnt have known. and the Spirit was not abundant given as it is today, in the OT.

 

[Hedgehog]

Lets look at a chapter that Im sure you know, as a dispensationalist.

Eph 3:2

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:how that by revelation He made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel:whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;and to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly [places] might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of Him.

Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,may be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

 

[Hedgehog]

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

 

[Jerrysch]

Bingo.


Psa 53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were [any] that did understand, that did seek God.

Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.

Psa 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.


1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven;

Psa 57:3 He shall send from heaven, and save me [from] the reproach of him that would swallow me up. Selah. God shall send forth his mercy and his truth.

Jer 7:28 But thou shalt say unto them, This [is] a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.

Jer 9:3 And they bend their tongues [like] their bow [for] lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.

Hsa 4:1 Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because [there is] no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land

Jhn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God(the temple that we faithful are), which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

Ha, so why did God bother?

 

[msortwell]

CTers do not "read the NT into the OT." However, we will use knowledge revealed the NT to gain a deeper sense of what is meant by an OT teaching. Correct me if I am wrong, but do not dispensationalists "see the promised redemption in Christ" as the subject of the following?

Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head , and thou shalt bruise his heel.KJV

msortwell

 

[Hedgehog]

Ha, so why did God bother?

Why did God bother doing what?

I'm going to open myself up for eyerolling and people telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about, but- you know what Jerry.... I dont know.
I dont know the whole story yet or I'd be done with my search for truth and set, right?
I hate to say " I feel like maybe this is what happened, or thats what happened" because I know God has had a plan from the beginning and He carried out His plan the way He wanted.

But I feel like possibley God could have allowed the Messiah to come when they were at Mount Sinai, but they asked not to hear Gods voice again, and made the golden calf.

Psa 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

One answer to why God has bothered is because people, not God have chosen for it to go the way it has... but He will work with people even when they make the wrong choices.

Deu 5:10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


So maybe God has wanted it one way, and people kept making wrong choices.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!
Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!

I dont know if your willing to look at the typology of this but just take a look.

Gen 42:22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required.

and these:

Isa 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.

Jer 29:19 Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending [them]; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.

Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

I guess its a good thing for us that God bothered? LOL

 

[Hedgehog]

some other things to consider Jerry:

for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament;

apparently God Himself wants us to "take away the veil" when we read the OT now.


Hbr 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all :was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing

 

[Jerrysch]

A quote I ran into;

" Reading the NT into the OT. Of course, there is everything right about reading the NT in light of the OT, but there is everything wrong with imposing NT revelation on OT revelation. Nevertheless, reading the NT into the OT becomes the key principle of Covenant hermeneutics because they have already presupposed the Covenant of Grace as the unifying principle of Scripture. Thus, when they read the OT term “Israel” they read the content of the NT term “Church” back into the term “Israel”. By this they satisfy the demands of the Covenant of Grace which dictates that there can only be one people of God"

 

[msortwell]

Deleted - Repeat Post

 

[msortwell]

A quote I ran into;

" Reading the NT into the OT. Of course, there is everything right about reading the NT in light of the OT, but there is everything wrong with imposing NT revelation on OT revelation. Nevertheless, reading the NT into the OT becomes the key principle of Covenant hermeneutics because they have already presupposed the Covenant of Grace as the unifying principle of Scripture. Thus, when they read the OT term “Israel” they read the content of the NT term “Church” back into the term “Israel”. By this they satisfy the demands of the Covenant of Grace which dictates that there can only be one people of God"

I don't believe it is appropriate to read the OT into the NT. Nor is it appropriate to read the NT into the OT. However, knowledge revealed in one text should be allowed to assist in the understanding of the other.

I found the article from which your quote was obtained. And I found a section immediately preceding the above quote much more interesting. It states,

"However, to disregard the fact that truth was progressively revealed is dangerous when interpreting Scripture because it assumes that the common OT Israelite had the complete corpus of revelation that we have today. The recognition of progressive revelation forces the interpreter to try to interpret within the confines of the amount of revelation available at the time the specific text he is working with was written. This protects him from reading later revelation into prior revelation."

The author of the article seems to be saying that what we should be seeking to understand is the understanding that the original audience would have had upon hearing or reading the text. Is it our goal to understand . . .

1. what the original recipients would have understood, based upon the limited revelation which they had received at their time?

2. what God intends for us to understand today, regarding what He wrote to the original recipients, based upon the completed revelation in His completed Word?

Or would you describe the product/intent (rather than the method) of the proper interpretation of Scripture differently?

Perhaps this belongs in the Hermeneutics area, but it seems like the way that we address this question significantly impacts whether we lean toward dispensational view or a Covenantal view . . . or perhaps our view shapes our hermeneutic in this way???

msortwell

 

[Jerrysch]

I don't believe it is appropriate to read the OT into the NT. Nor is it appropriate to read the NT into the OT. However, knowledge revealed in one text should be allowed to assist in the understanding of the other.

I found the article from which your quote was obtained. And I found a section immediately preceding the above quote much more interesting. It states,

"However, to disregard the fact that truth was progressively revealed is dangerous when interpreting Scripture because it assumes that the common OT Israelite had the complete corpus of revelation that we have today. The recognition of progressive revelation forces the interpreter to try to interpret within the confines of the amount of revelation available at the time the specific text he is working with was written. This protects him from reading later revelation into prior revelation."

The author of the article seems to be saying that what we should be seeking to understand is the understanding that the original audience would have had upon hearing or reading the text. Is it our goal to understand . . .

1. what the original recipients would have understood, based upon the limited revelation which they had received at their time?

2. what God intends for us to understand today, regarding what He wrote to the original recipients, based upon the completed revelation in His completed Word?

Or would you describe the product/intent (rather than the method) of the proper interpretation of Scripture differently?

Perhaps this belongs in the Hermeneutics area, but it seems like the way that we address this question significantly impacts whether we lean toward dispensational view or a Covenantal view . . . or perhaps our view shapes our hermeneutic in this way???

msortwell

You are correct it is interesting, the whole article is interesting, I just didn't think it would float all at once . I thought the one statement summarized what I wanted to express regarding the use of the NT relative to the OT.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

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

It really depends. Revelation is unfolded progressively in Scripture, so the historical-grammatical aspects of the OT should always be retained. Also the NT uses the OT in a variety of ways - The NT does not use the OT in an analogical way all the time. And, one must be aware of the different "dimensions" Scripture gives to specific events and/or phrases.


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

CTers do not "read the NT into the OT." However, we will use knowledge revealed the NT to gain a deeper sense of what is meant by an OT teaching. Correct me if I am wrong, but do not dispensationalists "see the promised redemption in Christ" as the subject of the following?

Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head , and thou shalt bruise his heel.KJV

Yes, you are correct. Dispensationalists do have a sense of "canonical" reading (OT+NT) which is often overlooked in the heat of debates. For dispensationalists, Rev 20 reveals how long the millennial kingdom will be (1000 years), yet we also "read back" this concept into passages in Isaiah and other places, and refer to it as describing the millennial kingdom.

LDG
see the promise to Abraham concerning God blessing the nations as

being currently fulfilled throughd through his seed as referring to Chris.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Perhaps this belongs in the Hermeneutics area, but it seems like the way that we address this question significantly impacts whether we lean toward dispensational view or a Covenantal view . . . or perhaps our view shapes our hermeneutic in this way???

Most conservative evangelicals (which includes dispensationalists and CTers) agree on the basic hermeneutical approach and principles - the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. But no one is a tabula rosa, and before we even engage in our hermeneutic we bring our presuppositions, preunderstandings, cultural perspective, and assumptions to the text. All this is interwoven together before we even approach the Bible, and they definitely guide the way we "see" Scripture. If the major presuppositions change, then the view undergoes significant change as well. We also give different "priorities" to commonly held concepts, such as progressive revelation and Biblical continuity. And then we often refer to the same terms but with different meanings, such as progressive revelation and Israel.

LDG

 

[Covenant Heart]

But we absolutely draw the line if the interpretation changes the meaning of the original text.

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

Thank-you for acknowledging that covenantal thinkers are equally committed to the Scriptures.

As another way of getting at the hermeneutical divide, suppose that we retain the meaning of the original OT text, but allow the Christ and his apostles the prerogative of reinterpreting the OT text so that it serves their ministry in completing the NT canon?

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

 

[Jerrysch]

Thank-you for acknowledging that covenantal thinkers are equally committed to the Scriptures.

As another way of getting at the hermeneutical divide, suppose that we retain the meaning of the original OT text, but allow the Christ and his apostles the prerogative of reinterpreting the OT text so that it serves their ministry in completing the NT canon?

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

I would like to add that there is not that much doctrine which distinguishes Covenantal thinkers from Dispensationalists. Indeed we have more in common than different, but a discussion is usually based upon a difference of understandings and the discussions of who, what, why and so forth.

That is an interesting consept regarding the perogative of Christ and His apostles, yet in saying so, this doesn't give us license in deviating from a literal hermeneutic. To do so is to change the meanings of the words, and to do so it to employ an "external expert" to which one refers to get the "deeper meaning". (do you see that this is actually the process?) We dare not alter the word of God, we dare not rob it of the meaning intended by Him by way of the words He selected to express His thoughts.

 

[Covenant Heart]

I would like to add that there is not that much doctrine which distinguishes Covenantal thinkers from Dispensationalists. Indeed we have more in common than different, but a discussion is usually based upon a difference of understandings and the discussions of who, what, why and so forth.

...of how we hold our faith!

More on the other issue later.

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

 

[Covenant Heart]

Traditionally, reformed thinkers have honored the historical-grammatical understanding of the Scripture. This is not only an hermeneutical issue; it is also the foundation preaching in the protestant reformed heritage. The first step is always to discern what a text said to the recipients of the message.

Much has been said of the “spiritualization” of the Scripture, and not all of it has been entirely fair (we're all sinners!). There needs to be recognized a distinction between a spiritual interpretation of any given passage, and the practice of pure allegory. Illustration may be helpful to clarify what is at issue.

We are to discern spiritual things (1Co 2:13-15). Ro 29, Ph 3:3 and Co 2:11 bring a spiritual understanding to circumcision (not that this was entirely new as in Dt 10:16, 30:6 and Je 4:4). Similar to “spiritual” circumcision (without hands) is the temple discussion (Mar 14:58; Ac 7:48 cf. 1Co 3:16-17; 2Co 6:16 etc.). He 9:24 regards such holy places as human hands made to be figures of the true. The writer says that had Joshua given them rest, he would not have spoken of the future rest that awaits God’s people (He 4:8-9), a rest that we are to seek diligently (He 4:11)! The point is that just as holy places were figures of the true, so the holy land finds its greatest significance as a figure of the eternal, spiritual rest that we must seek to possess (as do the saints that die in the Lord--He 4:10, cf., Re 14:13) .

Of course, this assumes that with the historical-grammatical approach, we also recognize the contribution of literary form to the study of the canonical text. But here at least, there is at least a credible basis upon which to discuss the propriety of deeming circumcision as spiritually fulfilled in baptism, holy places and the temple as being the people God indwells by his Spirit, and the land as a figure of eternal rest. One may or may not accept the circumcision-baptism analogy. But so long as Scripture texts are adduced for the analogy, we can discuss what is the best reading of the text. So even if not adhering to strict literalism per se, this approach does not speak without Biblical warrant.

In contrast is the classic example of reading Scripture as allegory. Consider St. Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan of Lu 10:30-35. According to Augustine:

The man is Adam, meaning humankind. Jerusalem is the heavenly city of peace, from whose blessedness Adam fell. Jericho stands for the moon. It signifies our mortality, because like the moon, it waxes and wanes. The robbers are the devil and his angels who strip Adam of his immortality.

They beat him by persuading Adam to sin, leaving him half dead (alive in so far as he can know God, but dead in so far as being in the power of sin). The priest and Levite represent the law and the prophets, which do not lead to salvation. The Samaritan personifies Jesus. The bandaging of wounds is the restraint of sin. The oil is the comfort of Christian hope. The wine is the admonition to persevere.

The donkey is the flesh in which Jesus comes to us. Being put on the donkey is belief in the incarnation of Christ. The inn is the church. The innkeeper is the apostle Paul. The next day is the day of Jesus’ resurrection, and the time after his resurrection. The two silver coins are either the two commandments of love, or the promise of this life and that which is to come.

Even where correct in what he affirms (ex: our first parents were persuaded to sin, etc.), Augustine’s musings have no connection to the text whatsoever. Reformed thinkers criticize such an approach to reading on the grounds that it 1) it is entirely arbitrary and 2), the text itself becomes dispensable; the interpreter entirely displaces the writer of the Biblical text. No responsible reformed thinker follows that approach.

We must surely begin with the historical-grammatical approach to Scripture. But we do not end there. If we reject the force of literary form and demand a strict literalism, we will go wrong from the very start. Note the first prophecy of the Christ--“he shall crush your head; and you shall strike his heel.” We understand this to refer to the breaking of Satan’s power, that the fact that his works will not stand. God, not Satan, has the last word. But that is not the strict and proper connotation of these words, but is an interpretation of them.

That Christ and his apostles many times declare that a text has been fulfilled (directly, typically, analogically, or by eschatological Yahweh) has given rise to the expression, “the apostles’ hermeneutic,” which (we believe) is also the hermeneutic of Christ. And we believe that it is in his word that all Christians will ultimately rest their case. If we cannot articulate our belief through his lips, what do we have?

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

 

[Markea]

My thoughts would be that the word is living and powerful, and even effectual.. it's not static in its proclamation (I'm not implying that anybody has suggested this).. but living and limitless in its application and scope.

This is not to say that there are not dominant themes within the scriptures.. because surely there are and we see that within context etc.. although I also believe that there are limitless aspects to His word which we can glean from throughout time..

I see this in His creation as well..

Take sound for example.. I enjoy music and have a basic understanding of it.. there are fundamental tones and there are overtones etc which all comprise the voicing.. we often simply need to listen more closely to hear these subtle yet present portions of the voice..

Take sight as another example.. how limitless is nature in its detail around us.. we can not even begin to fathom the depths of the heavens nor the microscopic elements in their composition if we look in the other direction.. sometimes if we simply look more closely we see more and more and...

This is how I see His word as well.. while there are certainly major and minor themes running throughout.. there are also limitless treasures waiting for our discovery..

For all thr treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ Jesus our Saviour and Lord.. and in the volume of the book it is written of Him..