The Continuity of Theological Concepts: A New Covenant Reading of Old Covenant Texts

An apostle, or a NT prophet, could give a new meaning to an OT text.

We see this in the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15.

There is simply no way a GH handling of Hosea 11:1 would lead anyone to make the claim Matthew makes in 2:15. The meaning of Matthew 2:15 is a new application/use/flfillment of an OT text, but Matthew didn’t get there via the route of GH hermeneutics. Nor did he get there via RH hermeneutics. He got there by being led by the Holy Spirit to use a verse of prior revelation in a new way, apart from the context of Hosea 11:1. If God wants to do that, who’s to quibble with Him? But we aren’t Him, and aren’t granted the authority to treat his antecedent revelation in the OT that way.

BTW, I’ve read the rationale on Mat. 2:15 - from both sides extensively - RH and GH - to try to make the case for either.

Hosea 11:1 has its own single meaning according to the rules of proper hermeneutics, and Matthew 2:15 has its own single meaning through the same. Yes, they relate to each other, but neither dominates the other.

To do a good GH interp. on Matthew, one must understand Hosea 11:1 by the same rules - GH hermeneutics. Only then has the student not become the master. Each text must speak out of all its own context. This RH can’t do, b/c it goes back and strips the GH interp. of Hosea 11:1 away.

This is why I keep on making the point that RH, when embraced, causes the reader to lose the OT.

What RH wants to do is claim a new set of hermeneutic rules based on the use of the OT in the NT. I say “foul” and say you can’t do that, becasue you are neither an apostle, nor an NT prophet. This is where I pretty much began on this thread, back in post 16.

Forget the RH, and go back to GH in both the OT and the NT. Its like going from mono to quadraphonic.

Ted,

I should probably stay out of this, as John is doing such an excellent job, far better than I could do. But what I understand you to be saying is that NT inspired writers cannot be used to inform us regarding the meaning and use of OT Scripture. Am I understanding you correctly?

Warm regards,

Greg

[jpdsr51]

It’s been fun, Ted. Blessings, JOHN

Been a bit frustrating here, bro. I’ve been making the same point over and over, but you RH guys don’t respond to it.

To claim that you can use the OT the same way an inspired writer of NT Scripture does is an unwarranted leap of assumption.

IOW, my major point isn’t the invalidity of the RH to arrive at a certain and single meaning of a single text, but the presupposition behind it.

[G. N. Barkman] Ted,

I should probably stay out of this, as John is doing such an excellent job, far better than I could do. But what I understand you to be saying is that NT inspired writers cannot be used to inform us regarding the meaning and use of OT Scripture. Am I understanding you correctly?

Warm regards,

Greg

Not at all. What I am saying is that the apostle’s didn’t give you a lexicon that guides you in the interpretation about other OT texts, such as Zech. 12:10 - see post 4 and post 16. I am also saying that the apostles used the OT in many places in the NT in a way that is invalid for you, John, or myself, or any non-inspired person.

Ted,

Then why did the NT writers bother to quote OT texts? Why didn’t they just state the newly revealed truth as a completely different New Covenant revelation?

I struggle to believe that NT inspired writers quote OT texts, and in doing so, reveal a different understanding of that OT text than I might have, using the GH method without benefit of the NT, and yet that in no way shapes my reading of the OT. To me, that seem like forcing my hermeutic upon Scripture, rather than letting Scripture shape my hermeutic. If the NT cannot be allowed to inform my understanding of the OT, then progressive revelation must be wrong, and there must be total discontinuity between the two testaments.

The GH hermeutic is fine, but isn’t it it a humanly defined rule? Shouldn’t this man made rule be refined and improved by inspired Scripture?

Warm regards,

Greg

[G. N. Barkman]

Then why did the NT writers bother to quote OT texts? Why didn’t they just state the newly revealed truth as a completely different New Covenant revelation?

Some NT quotes of the NT reflect pure GH hermeneutics (Isa. 7:14 in Mat. 1:23). Others do not, as noted above. Therefore, the inconsistency shows us that the apostles and NT prophets are not laying down a hermeneutic principle, but rather making other connections given them by the Holy spirit for his reasons. Yes, Jesus is the ultimate Israelite (Mat. 2:15) - of course he is - how could he not be? But that doesn’t a hermeneutic principle make.

I struggle to believe that NT inspired writers quote OT texts, and in doing so, reveal a different understanding of that OT text than I might have, using the GH method without benefit of the NT, and yet that in no way shapes my reading of the OT.

Try reading Hosea 11:1 as the original recipients did (i.e., without regard for Mat. 2:15). What do you see?

To me, that seem like forcing my hermeutic upon Scripture, rather than letting Scripture shape my hermeutic. If the NT cannot be allowed to inform my understanding of the OT, then progressive revelation must be wrong, and there must be total discontinuity between the two testaments.

I think you assume that all NT quotes of OT passages reveal a RH hermeneutic. They do not, unless you want to make the RH hermeneutic so flexible it really means nothing at all. See Chirichigno’s fine work on OT quotes in the NT for the massive listing and broad ways the apostles and NT prophets used the OT (bibliographic entry at bottom). At the end of the day, there is no way to fit all the massive number of quotes and allusions of the OT in the NT into any system.

The RH method is not the result of doing the exegetical spadework on all OT quotes in the NT - far from it - but the handmaiden of a theological system - covenantalism.

The GH hermeutic is fine, but isn’t it it a humanly defined rule? Shouldn’t this man made rule be refined and improved by inspired Scripture?

I don’t believe so. Believers are born by the agency of the word (1 Peter 1:23ff). This requires the ability to read and understand the words as it stands written (gegraptai), not by a spiritualizing process.

God accommodates His revelation in human terms, in words that are to be read and understood according to what they say. Words like Jerusalem mean Jerusalem. Its the literal place Jesus was crucified.

As I posted above, when someone becomes a believer, they do it becasue they believe God’s words about Christ and their sin, literally. They don’t adopt a RH hermeneutic, but rather believe that he literally died an atoning death (not to be spiritualized) and rose from the dead (not to be spiritualized). RH teaches people to shift out of this faith system into a realm of subjectivity and spiritual interpretation.

Thanks Greg - blessings!

Archer, Gleason L., and Chirichigno, G. C. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey. Chicago: Moody, 1983.

[G. N. Barkman] Ted,

Then why did the NT writers bother to quote OT texts? Why didn’t they just state the newly revealed truth as a completely different New Covenant revelation?

I struggle to believe that NT inspired writers quote OT texts, and in doing so, reveal a different understanding of that OT text than I might have, using the GH method without benefit of the NT, and yet that in no way shapes my reading of the OT. To me, that seem like forcing my hermeutic upon Scripture, rather than letting Scripture shape my hermeutic. If the NT cannot be allowed to inform my understanding of the OT, then progressive revelation must be wrong, and there must be total discontinuity between the two testaments.

The GH hermeutic is fine, but isn’t it it a humanly defined rule? Shouldn’t this man made rule be refined and improved by inspired Scripture?

Warm regards,

Greg

Excellent point, Greg. That’s mine as well. Since we have NT commentary on OT texts, we have something more than just new revelation. We have a Scriptural illustration of how the OT text was intended to be read (in that point at the very least). Now when we can survey how the NT authors used the OT text, how they understood it, in multiple different places and among multiple different NT authors, we come closer to seeing how God purposed a good number of OT text to be read. Given this reality, it seems that this should educate us on many points about the OT. In fact, in Hebrews 9:5 the inspired author makes the following statement: “Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. (ESV)” The KJV renders the phrase “of which we cannot now speak particularly”. As the author of Hebrews is speaking about the tabernacle furniture and other ceremonial things, this statement speaks volumes. He says there are things to be said about that, but he doesn’t have time in his sermon to do that now. (Hebrews is very much a long exhortation similar to a sermon, as many commentators have seen.) No other NT author goes on to speak of those things in detail, but the detail is valid and could have been spoken of!

I’m indebted on this point to my friend Nathan Pitchford, whom I will quote on this point:

[Nathan Pitchford] The New Testament does interpret specific Old testament verses. But it also does more than that. Hebrews 9:2-5 tells us, “For the first tabernacle was prepared, in which was both the lampstand, and the table, and the setting out of the loaves, which is called Holies. And after the second veil was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid all around with gold, in which was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. And over it were the cherubs of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat (about which we cannot now speak piece by piece).” The author of Hebrews has just been giving detailed interpretations of how Old Testament realities pointed to Christ. Now, he says, in effect, “I could give you more of these specific interpretations. But now is not the time. All of those truths are there, waiting for you to discover them. And you are able to do this if you understand the central truth that I have been laboring to emphasize. Namely, that Christ is the central truth of all the Old Testament.” Behind all of the specific truths about Christ that the New Testament authors taught us is the foundational truth that the bible, from beginning to end, is about Jesus. And once we grasp that basic truth, we can study all of scriptures “with an unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18). The veil that blinds the natural man’s understanding when he reads the bible is done away in Christ. This is the work of the Spirit.

Quote from this online article.

Ted,

I somewhat sympathize with your frustrations. I’m sure John thinks he has addressed your issues (and those I raised earlier), when neither of us are satisfied that our point has really been engaged. I do not fault John for this. His starting point is not ours.

For me at any rate, the main issue is this: Does God mean what He says where and when He says it? If there are places in the prophetic Scriptures where His words point to one thing (e.g. a literal temple complex in Ezek. 40ff. or future restoration of Israel in the strict terms of Jer. 33:14-26, etc., etc.), but take on a different meaning at “fulfillment” then God was equivocating when He spoke the original words. If so, then this affects the doctrine of God itself. If it is in God’s nature to equivocate the question comes up, “How can God be trusted when He promises to save those who trust in His Son?”

Perhaps John or those agreeing with him can answer that question. And please don’t tell me “God means what He says.”

[Ted Bigelow] Try reading Hosea 11:1 as the original recipients did (i.e., without regard for Mat. 2:15). What do you see?

Did you forget about John Sailhamer’s contention that Hosea was seeing a Christological emphasis in earlier Scripture: Numb. 24:8-9 (cf. Gen. 49:9, Ex. 4:22)?

[Ted Bigelow] The RH method is not the result of doing the exegetical spadework on all OT quotes in the NT - far from it - but the handmaiden of a theological system - covenantalism.

Hardly! Scholars of many persuasions who don’t speak from a firmly federal covenant theological perspective unite on this point, Ted. Progressive Dispensationalists even unite with us. The true story is that a theological system - dispensationalism, is the tail that wags the dog for a consistent GH method that isolates the OT texts from the NT in such a consistent way. And for all that, the system barely preaches from the OT at all, unless it is moralizing without reference to Christ. Rather, the RH guys with other systems of thought, use the OT and are recovering its use for the church today.

[Bob Hayton]

Did you forget about John Sailhamer’s contention that Hosea was seeing a Christological emphasis in earlier Scripture: Numb. 24:8-9 (cf. Gen. 49:9, Ex. 4:22)?

No, its a connection I tried to make in the past, based on several words in the texts. I no longer do.

Scholars of many persuasions who don’t speak from a firmly federal covenant theological perspective unite on this point, Ted. Progressive Dispensationalists even unite with us. The true story is that a theological system - dispensationalism, is the tail that wags the dog for a consistent GH method that isolates the OT texts from the NT in such a consistent way. And for all that, the system barely preaches from the OT at all, unless it is moralizing without reference to Christ.

Whoa. Down boy. Woof.

Rather, the RH guys with other systems of thought, use the OT and are recovering its use for the church today.

The RH has been used for centuries, Bob. Its not being recovered. It being resuscitated. Go back and do the research, bro. The RH has been in use for since the fathers. Why do you thnk supercessionism has been the defacto theology of the church lo these many years?

I can’t imagine Paul sitting in heaven waiting for the resurrection and languishing for the millenium

What is so funny about this is that Rev 5:10 says exactly that, “You made them a kingdomm and priests to our God,n and they will reign on the earth.” The saints in heaven are looking forward to reigning upon the earth.

John, Christ isn’t more of anything. Christ was the promise. The original promise. All benefits would be realized through Christ. The Jews knew this. Paul, postconversion, knew this. The attempts to minimalize the OT promises simply because they don’t fit your system just doesn’t work. You are forcefeeding NT assumptions down the throat of explicit OT texts and choking them.

I will ask again and hope for a specific answer:

The major NC promise in the OT is found in Jer 31. I have already pasted it and we all have Bibles. At the end of the passage, v38-40, God laid out explicit geographical points that were tied to the fulfillment of the NC. If these promises are not fulfilled, then God failed. Since the institution of the NC at the cross, Israel has not possessed the land. Either that aspect is still future or God lied. To argue that the specific geographical points were code for heaven or some other thought because that is what the Jews would understand is just foolishness. The OT already promised that the righteous would inherit the whole earth.

Now, to come along and say they have bigger and better promises is an assumption you make because of the difficulty in dealing with the contradictions in your own hermeneutic. This is exactly what Origen and the rest of the early supersessionists did. They couldn’t square OT texts so they stripped them down. The TSA guards think Origen over did it. When Hebrews speaks of a better covenant with better promises, the better promises are the promises tied to the NC. The NC promises to Israel, which include the land, are better than what Israel had previously possessed.

So again, here is the question:

Will God keep his promises to Israel regarding the specific geographical locations he promised in the major NC passage of Jer 31?

Whoever said anything about the Millennium being temporal? The duration given is the time of Satan’s imprisonment, not the length of Christ’s reign. The first 1000 years are only the beginning.

John, be so good as to define and give an example of an equivocation for me.

Your brother,

Paul

[Paul Henebury] If so, then this affects the doctrine of God itself.quote]

Yes, it does affect the doctrine of God. He is either one who may be contained in a tight literalistic GH understanding of His promises, or one whose majesty is so wonderful, goodness is so great, promise is so unfathomable that it retains a measure of mystery and brings about both our awe and bewilderment. Either He may be a God of whom we must be suspicious unless He proves his trustworthiness by giving us exactly what a tight literalistic GH hermenuetic demands or One who satisfies us beyond our expectations in the person and work of Christ.

Please don’t insult those who do not hold to GH as if they are in some danger of giving in to some lesser view of God.

Isn’t that what you just did from the RH perspective? ;) That dispies put God in a box of suspicion unless he meets their expectations? That’s called idolatry, my friend, and of course, I won’t wear those robes. Neither will Paul.

I am indebted to RH men all over the place, and in part, becasue of their hermeneutic. And i imagine Paul (Henebury) would say the same. I don’t mean as a whipping post for my hermeneutics, but for my theology, and my passion for Christ.

If I may speak to Paul’s defense for a minute (and Paul doesn’t need me one whit), He isn’t saying you believe God equivocates, but that as he examines your theological position, he believes this is a weakness of it.

Thanks Ted,

You are right. I certainly am not saying God equivocates. My issue is with a theological and hermeneutical methodology which throws up the specter of a God who, knowing in advance everything He is going to do (Acts 15:18), can use such unambiguous covenant language as that found in, e.g., Jeremiah 33:14-26, and mean something quite other than what the words actually say.

I have asked John for his definition and an example of equivocation, but here is mine:

An equivocation is “An informal fallacy in which two or more meanings of the same word [e.g. “Israel”, “land” “Jerusalem”, “Temple”, “kingdom”] or phrase have been confused. If used with one of its meanings in one of the propositions of the argument [e.g. “Temple” in Ezekiel, or “Jerusalem” in Zechariah 14] , but with a different meaning in another proposition of the argument, a word is said to have been used equivocally” - Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction To Logic, (11th edition, 2002), 630.

In his article John wrote,

Admittedly, a “pre- New Testament” reading of Zechariah 9-14 and the Old Testament on its own may lead one to conclude that ethnic Israelites are the people of God, earthly Jerusalem is the city He has chosen, …, the enemies of Israel will be defeated and Gentiles will make their way to Jerusalem…

(condensed for space)

It definitely seems to have led the disciples to conclude all that. Moreover, the teaching of the Risen Jesus “about things pertaining to the kingdom” (Acts 1:3) did not disabuse them of this opinion (Acts 1:6). Now either their confusion over the meaning of “kingdom” and “Israel” was caused by their not paying attention when Jesus was correcting their OT perspective with the lenses of a (yet unwritten) NT view, or their confusion is not theirs but belongs to some of their interpreters; in other words, there was no confusion of meaning between Acts 1:3 and Acts 1:6 at all! Jesus and the disciples meant the same things. John and those good brethren supporting his position must take the former view. Aaron, Ted, Jeff (if I may presume a little) and yours truly take the latter.

Look at his statement from #13:

I agree with you Bob on the use of cosmos as an expansion or ultimate fulifllment of the land promise. I would say that Israel’s possession of land always anticipated the New Creation as did earthly Jerusalem anticipate the heavenly.

(Emphasis mine)

Who anticipated this “ultimate fulfillment”? Not the disciples after being taught by the Risen Christ (Acts 1:3, 6). The only answer is that God anticipated it. If this were true (and Ted, Aaron and I say it is not) then God’s words in, say Jeremiah 31:31-37; 33:14-26 and Zechariah 12-14 (which is one piece) are without doubt equivocal. The referents are “changed”, the promises “transferred”, the subject – object construction is “different.”

Again, #103 John replied to Ted:

Well, at least we agree on two things: 1) NT writers give new meaning to OT texts; 2) Matthew and the Holy Spirit did not use the grammatical historical method.

I sidestep whether Ted and John really do agree here because I simply wish to point out the same phenomena I have been speaking of in regard to John’s method. If NT writers give “new meaning” to OT passages an equivocation has occurred IF the specific propositions of NT fulfillments operate at the level of God’s original intent (and not just at the level of application and illustration). Further, if the way this is arrived at is via a new set of hermeneutics diverging from the Grammatical Hermeneutics underlying the disciple’s question of Acts 1:6 (and OT expectations, e.g. Lk. 1:31-33), then the Holy Spirit was equivocating when the original promises were made in regard to national Israel, its land, and its kingdom.

Please do not misunderstand me here. I am only saying that this problem is a consequence of what I believe is an incorrect method; not that God equivocates or indeed that my brothers who espouse this approach intend to predicate this of God. But this approach, which pits a certain theologically driven understanding of the NT against the plain wording of the OT, produces “fulfillments” of OT covenant promises (many of them unilateral) through an unwarranted hermeneutical veto which the NT enjoys over the OT. This elicits what I have called a “discontinuous continuity” wherein OT concepts are freighted with “new meanings” through new hermeneutics.

The “holy city” of the Old Testament was physical, geographical Jerusalem; in the New Testament the holy city is the New Jerusalem

Apart from the fact that in Matt. 4:5; 27:53 and Rev. 11:2 the “holy city” is not New Jerusalem, we can see the implication is that in fulfillment of OT promises the NT supposedly changes the expectations from a “physical, geographical” city to a different “city” with a similar name. Thus, OT propositions referring to Jerusalem are applied by the Holy Spirit to now refer to New Jerusalem. That is an equivocal use of the OT term (since in this view eschatological OT Jerusalem is not the same as eschatological NT Jerusalem).

I will address John’s reply concerning the nature of God later. I do hope no one is taking any of this personally. I wish to debate this issue because it is important and I am learning in the process, but I don’t want to upset good brothers with who I happen to disagree.

I asked:

Does God mean what He says where and when He says it? If there are places in the prophetic Scriptures where His words point to one thing (e.g. a literal temple complex in Ezek. 40ff. or future restoration of Israel in the strict terms of Jer. 33:14-26, etc., etc.), but take on a different meaning at “fulfillment” then God was equivocating when He spoke the original words. If so, then this affects the doctrine of God itself. If it is in God’s nature to equivocate the question comes up, “How can God be trusted when He promises to save those who trust in His Son?”

In response John wrote the following (with my comments supplied):

I will let the Apostle Paul answer that question. He is better suited to do so as a Jew who knew the promises of God and who believed that in Christ he had all that God had promised.

I respectfully submit you give the apostle an errand he never intended to undertake for you. I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Jer. 33 or the question you were asked.

John

Romans 11:1-6 Paul’s experience of salvation in Christ is evidence to him that God has not failed in his promise to Israelites.

Paul is incorporated into the Church, but your inference that from this he thinks all the promises God made to Israel (e.g. Jer. 33:14-26, which you have conveniently passed over) are fulfilled (I take you to mean this) is unsupported by Rom. 11:1-6, and is contradicted by reading the rest of the chapter, especially vv. 25-29. In verses 25-26 Paul cites new covenant passages in Isa. 59:20 and 27:9 pertaining to national Israel (whom he is talking about in Rom. 11 and contrasting with saved Gentiles). “Has God cast away His people? Certainly not!” (11:1a)? “The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (11:29). This lines up with the expectations of Jeremiah 31 & 33 taken in its plain sense.

2 Cor 1:18-22 Paul is confident that all of God’s promises are “yes’ in Jesus Christ and he is experiencing them through the gift of the Spirit and incorporaiton into the body of Christ.

OT saints are not “in Christ” (unless you can find the Body of Christ before the Cross) so this promise misses the point of the question you were put to. In fact, if all the promises of God in Christ are “yes” and “amen”, surely all the promises of God to Israel (whether “in Christ” or not) are “yes” and “amen” too. And this is exactly the point of Jer. 33:14-26!

Eph 2:18-22 Paul has a temple through union with Christ that brings about what ancient Judaism failed to do - union of Jews and the nations.

Notice that the “holy temple in the Lord” in v.21 is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and [NT] prophets…(v.20). It does not include Jeremiah or the elect Remnant of whom he spoke. In 2 Thess. 2:4 the Man of Sin enters “the temple of God and sits” in it. As the NT Church is a spiritual temple “in the Lord” this cannot be the same temple. The one in Eph. 2 is spiritual and the Man of sin could not possibly “sit” in it, while the temple in 2 Thess. 2 is physical where sitting is in every way a possibility. You seem to think that the Body of Christ is the only temple in the NT and that it constitutes the fulfillment of OT temple prophecies like Ezekiel 40-48, Jeremiah 33:14-26 and Malachi 3:1-6. You make this passage do far more work than it can bear.

Eph 1:11-14 Though he never speaks of restoration to the land, he rejoices in the inheritance he has in Christ.

Why would an apostle writing to the church have cause to mention the land promises to Israel? Why would the omission of the land promises surprise you? Again, you are conflating the church’s inheritance with the unconditional land promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob and their elect physical descendants (Gen. 15; 28:13; 35:10-12; Ezek. 36:22-38).

Rom 4:13-17 Paul rejoices that through faith he and all believers are heirs of the cosmos that Abraham was promised.

You should note carefully which parts of the Abrahamic covenant Paul uses and which parts he says nothing about. This is because he is showing how we are all spiritual seed of Abraham through faith. He is not teaching anywhere in this chapter that Jer. 33 or Ezek. 40ff. or any covenant promise to national Israel is revoked or transferred.

Gal 4:21-31 Paul rejects the present earthly Jerusalem and rejoices in the Jerusalem above and recognizes all believers as children of promise, like Isaac.

This passage contains an allegory. You are reading your eschatology into it. Verse 21 states that the matter under discussion is the relation of the believer to the law. The passage concerns the “liberty” (5:1) into which the Gospel calls us as contrasted to the bondage of the law, signified by circumcision (cf. 3:2; 5:1-5; 6:12-15). It says nothing about the fulfillment of OT promises to Israel.

Thus, I think you have, in effect, dodged the question you were asked by ignoring the passages you were confronted with, and have put Pauline passages to the task of dealing with a topic they were never meant to address.

Your enrollment of the NT to “answer for you” does not alleviate your difficulty. In fact, it only demonstrates that you reinterpret the OT promises of God with your assumptions about what the NT teaches. That, of course, is one of the things we are debating. The other is what acceptance of this method means for the doctrine of God and His promises to us. After all, if the OT promises can be “expanded” or, more accurately, “changed” and “transferred” to others, how do we know God won’t transmute the Gospel promises we have believed hereafter?

One more thing. Several times Hebrews 11:8-10 has to brush away the OT expectations concerning the restoration of national Israel to their land. But Gen. 15:13-16 make it very clear that Abraham himself did not expect the covenant promises to be fulfilled in his lifetime. Why would he not look for a heavenly city then?

Your brother,

Paul