Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the OT by the NT: The Last Twenty
Image
Read the first twenty.
21. Saying the NT must reinterpret the OT also devalues the OT as its own witness to God and His Plans. For example, if the promises given to ethnic Israel of land, throne, temple, etc. are somehow “fulfilled” in Jesus and the Church, what was the point of speaking about them so pointedly? Cramming everything into Christ not only destroys the clarity and unity of Scripture in the ways already mentioned, it reduces the biblical covenants d own to the debated promise of Genesis 3:15. The [true] expansion seen in the covenants (with all their categorical statements) is deflated into a single sound-bite of “the Promised Seed-Redeemer has now come and all is fulfilled in Him.” This casts aspersions on God as a communicator and as a covenant-Maker, since there was absolutely no need for God to say many of the things He said in the OT, let alone bind himself by oaths to fulfill them (a la Jer. 31 & 33. Four covenants are cited in Jer. 33; three in Ezek. 37).
22. It forces one to adopt a “promise – fulfillment” scheme between the Testaments, ignoring the fact that the OT possesses no such promise scheme, but rather a more relational “covenant – blessing” scheme.
23. It effectively shoves aside the hermeneutical import of the inspired inter-textual usage of an earlier OT text by later OT writers (e.g. earlier covenants are cited and taken to mean what they say in Psa. 89:33-37; 105:6-12; 106:30-31: 132:11-12; Jer. 33:17-18, 20-22, 25-26; Ezek. 37:14, 21-26). God is always taken at face value (e.g. 2 Ki. 1:3-4, 16-17; 5:10, 14; Dan. 9:2, 13). This sets up an expectation that covenant commitments will find “fulfillment” in expected ways, certainly not in completely unforeseeable ones.
24. It forces clear descriptive language into an unnecessary semantic mold (e.g. Ezek. 40-48; Zech. 14). A classic example being Ezekiel’s Temple in Ezek. 40ff. According to the view that the NT reinterprets the Old, it is not a physical temple even though scholars across every spectrum declare that a physical temple is clearly described.
25. It impels a simplistic and overly dependent reliance on the confused and confusing genre labeled “apocalyptic” – a genre about which there is no scholarly definitional consensus.
26. It would make the specific wording of the covenant oaths, which God took for man’s benefit, misleading and hence unreliable as a witness to God’s intentions. This sets a poor precedent for people making covenants and not sticking to what they actually promise to do (e.g. Jer. 34:18; cf. 33:15ff. and 35:13-16). This encourages theological nominalism, wherein God’s oath can be altered just because He says it can.
27. Since interpreters in the OT (Psa. 105:6-12); NT (Acts 1:6); and the inter-testamental period (e.g. Tobit 14:4-7) took the covenant promises at face value (i.e. to correspond precisely to the people and things they explicitly refer to), this would mean God’s testimony to Himself and His works in those promises, which God knew would be interpreted that way, was calculated to deceive the saints. Hence, a “pious transformation” of OT covenant terms through certain interpretations of NT texts backfires by giving ammunition to those who cast aspersions on the God of the OT.
28. The character of any being, be it man or angel, but especially God, is bound to the words agreed to in a covenant (cf. Jer. 33:14, 24-26; 34:18). This being so, God could not make such covenants and then perform them in a way totally foreign to the plain wording of the oaths He took; at least not without it testifying against His own holy veracious character. Hence, not even God could “expand” His promises in a fashion that would lead literally thousands of saints to be misled by them.
29. A God who would “expand” His promises in such an unanticipated way could never be trusted not to “transform” His promises to us in the Gospel. Thus, there might be a difference between the Gospel message as we preach it (relying on the face value language of say Jn. 3:16; 5:24; Rom. 3:23-26), and God’s real intentions when He eventually “fulfills” the promises in the Gospel. Since it is thought that He did so in the past, it is conceivable that He might do so again in the future. Perhaps the promises to the Church will be “fulfilled” in totally unexpected ways with a people other than the Church, the Church being just a shadow of a future reality?
30. Exegetically it would entail taking passages in both Testaments literally and non-literally at the same time (e.g. Isa. 9:6-7; 49:6; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9; Lk. 1:31-33; Rev. 7).
31. Exegetically it would also impose structural discontinuities into prophetic books (e.g. God’s glory departs a literal temple by the east gate in Ezekiel 10, but apparently returns to a spiritual temple through a spiritual east gate in Ezekiel 43!).
32. In addition, it makes the Creator of language the greatest rambler in all literature. Why did God not just tell the prophet, “When the Messiah comes He will be the Temple and all those in Him will be called the Temple”? That would have saved thousands of misleading words at the end of Ezekiel.
33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature.
35. It turns the admonition to “keep” the words of the prophecy in Revelation 1:3 into an absurdity, because the straight forward, non-symbolic understanding of the numbers (7, 42, 144000, 1260, 1000, etc) and persons and places (twelve tribes of Israel, the Two Witnesses, the Beast and False Prophet, Jerusalem, Babylon, New Jerusalem, etc.), which is in large part built upon the plain sense of the OT is rejected in favor of tentative symbolic/typological interpretations. But how many people can “keep” what they are uncertain is being “revealed”?
36. It makes the unwarranted assumption that there can only be one people of God. Since the OT speaks of Israel and the nations (e.g. Zech. 14:16f.); Paul speaks of Israel and the Church (e.g. Rom. 11:25, 28; Gal. 6:16; 1 Cor. 10:32; cf. Acts 26:7), and the Book of Revelation speaks of Israel separated from the nations (Rev. 7), and those in New Jerusalem distinguished from “the kings of the earth” (Rev. 21:9-22:5), it seems precarious to place every saved person from all ages into the Church.
37. In reality what happens is that the theological presuppositions of the interpreter are read into the NT text and then back into the OT. There is a corresponding breakdown between what the biblical texts say and what they are presumed to mean. Thus, it is the interpretation of the reader and not the wording of the biblical text which is often the authority for what the Bible is allowed to teach.
38. This view also results in pitting NT authors against themselves. E.g. if “spiritual resurrection” is read into Jn. 5:25 on the rather flimsy basis of an allusion to Dan. 12:1-2, that interpretation can then be foisted on Rev. 20:4-6 to make John refer to a spiritual resurrection in that place too. Again, if Jesus is said to refer to His physical body as “this temple” in Jn.2:19, then He is not allowed to refer to a physical temple building in Rev. 11:1-2. This looks like what might be called “textual preferencing.”
39. This view, which espouses a God who prevaricates in the promises and covenants He makes, also tempts its adherents to adopt equivocation themselves when they are asked to expound OT covenantal language in its original context. It often tempts them to avoid specific OT passages whose particulars are hard to interpret in light of their supposed fulfillment in the NT. What is more, it makes one overly sensitive to words like “literal” and “replacement,” even though these words are used freely when not discussing matters germane to this subject.
40. Finally, there is no critical awareness of many of the problems enumerated above because that awareness is provided by the OT texts and the specific wording of those texts. But, of course, the OT is not allowed a voice on par with what the NT text is assumed to make it mean. Only verses which preserve the desired theological picture are allowed to mean what they say. Hence a vicious circle is created of the NT reinterpreting the Old. This is a hermeneutical circle which ought not to be presupposed because it results in two-thirds of the Bible being effectively quieted until the NT has reinterpreted what it really meant.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (later Journal of Dispensational Theology). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
Paul,
You can spin it any way you like. I know it’s easier than apologizing for the intemperate language you used. Although you don’t judge motives you know I’m getting hot under the collar. That’s the problem of course, not what you said. The below statement and others suffice. It’s slippery to separate views from the viewers. Anyway you spin it you accuse those who disagree as undermining the the character of God. It is a serious accusation. I don’t think those who hold to DT make God a liar or can’t be trusted. I think they are wrong on some points and God is right no matter what our interpretations are. Our interpretations don’t make God a rambler.
“This view, which espouses a God who prevaricates”
“A God who would ‘expand’ His promises in such an unanticipated way could never be trusted”
And then you justify it by saying you are “no more accusatory than a five-point Calvinist, etc. etc.” so it must be okay.
Maybe neither of us are reading you accusation clearly. May other be the judge.
Steve
Paul, thanks for your patience with me. My exposure to the Covenant Theology / Dispensationalism debate is limited.
[Paul Henebury] This makes a lot of sense provided one believes the doctrine of marriage in the OT pictured Christ and the Church. But since the Church is a post-resurrection reality and since some of us respectfully disagree with Dan’s assumption, I must disagree with his conclusion.My view at this point of Cov/Disp is like this. When a question comes up regarding what is true about the NT church and Israel, if you say “they’re the same” then you’re a Cov guy; if you say “different” then you’re a Disp guy. BUT IMO, neither being a Cov guy nor being a Disp guy excuses you from making a Biblical answer to each question you come across.…
If your answer to one particular question is overly based on the bias you have regarding whether the answers should generally be “same” or “different” then you’re no longer seeking a Biblical answer to that question; you’re acting on your bias.
—=-=—
Marriage: Eph 5:31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
1. Paul (in Eph 5) is referring to Genesis 2:24. That seems obvious to me.
Therefore both OT marriages and NT marriages are in view in this teaching.
2. The church might refer to OT and NT saints -OR- it might refer to NT church only. (depends on your bias…)
Paul says in Eph 5 that there is a great mystery here - meaning hidden for ages (since before the fall!). The command to marry - and all marriages [in some sense] depict Christ and the church.
Two questions to debate:
1. Did a hidden meaning exist about Christ and the church in every marriage covenant since Adam and Eve? (My answer: YES)
2. By saying “the church,” was Paul referring only to the NT church or to all called out believers of all time? (My answer: Not sure.)
I am on vacation so this will be my last post here. Thanks to everyone who commented!
Bro. Whalen: Here is a half-answer
Bro. Barkman: You write that, “Some insist that we must not accept what the NT passages appear to say because they contradict what OT passages appear to say.”
I for one do NOT hold to any such belief. Your comment had more to it but I must go.
Thank you particularly for starting this stimulating conversation.
God bless,
Paul H.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Regarding Acts 15 and Amos 9, I confess that I don’t understand the confusion. It seems to me that we simply need to exegete the passages.
James doesn’t say Amos 9 is fulfilled and gives no indication that Amos 9 is being fulfilled. So why should we say that it is? That is, to me, the missing part of this discussion.
James makes several changes to Amos that distinguish his use from Amos’ intent. Compare the passage.
Amos 9:11 “In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old; 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom And all the nations who are called by My name,” Declares the LORD who does this.
Amos 9:12 (LXX) … that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.
Acts 15:16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’ 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
Note the following:
- “In that day” becomes “After these things” – “These things” refers to the period after God’s present activity of calling the Gentiles to salvation.
- James adds “I will return” to show that Amos’ prophecy would not be fulfilled until after Christ returned. So he is clearly putting the Amos fulfillment later than the church.
- He follows the LXX which has a slightly different translation. The LXX translates “possess” as “seek; and Edom as man.
.Amos 9:11-12 is certainly eschatological. It speaks of the resurrection of the Davidic dynasty and the restoration of the nation of Israel to the land. James is addressing the issue of whether Gentiles must be circumcised and obey the law, to proselytize to the Jewish faith in order to be saved. Nothing in Amos, at face value, addresses this issue in Acts 15. James is showing that God was calling Gentiles to salvation without their first becoming Jews (Acts 15:14). He cites Amos for support that such activity is not in contradiction to God’s prophecies in the OT, but rather in agreement with it. What God was presently doing in the church was exactly what he had promised to do in the Kingdom at the return of Christ and the resurrection of the Davidic throne. If he does it in the kingdom (after Christ’s return, v. 16), then it is not odd that he should do it now before Christ’s return and before the kingdom restoration. Simply put, the prophets agree that Gentiles can be saved without becoming Jews. Amos says nothing about the timing of that. James, by the inspiration of the Spirit, delineates the current events of Acts 15 from the events of Amos 9.
It seems to me that if we actually read the text and exegete it, there is no real difficulty unless one imagines a change.
Regarding the NT use of the OT, it seems there is a prevailing view among some that any NT use of the OT is fulfillment. Yet there are many varied uses of the OT by the NT. Moo and Naselli identify nine. Bock identifies six; Kaiser identifies five. Some of them are certainly direct fulfillment. Others are simply borrowed words. And so on.
I would recommend Kaiser’s chapter in teh Three Views on the NT Use of the OT, and particularly his response to Enns. Kaiser responds to this issue by talking about reading the Bible backwards. Kaiser points out the obvious (which apparently is no so obvious, though I have tried to make the point here):
The first New Testament believers tested what they had heard from Jesus and his disciples against what was written in the Old Testament. They had no other canon or source of help. How, then, were they able to get it right? Thus, from a methodological point of view, reading the Bible backward is incorrect historically as well as procedurally. … [The early Christians] could not have tested what was established (and true) for them (possessing only the Old Testament) by what was being received as new (the New Testament). (Kaiser 2003, 26)
For Kaiser, the very fact that they used the OT to persuade their hearers means that their arguments from the OT could have been seen in the OT by those they were trying to convince. He argues that the apologetic value of the OT would be minimized if the appeal to it was clouded. If the Messianic meaning was hidden or less than obvious, “how could it have been persuasive for those considering whether Jesus was the one sent from God according to his plans for all eternity?” (Kaiser 2003, 22). If their intent was to convince people, particularly Jews, that the church was the next step in God’s plan (however that might be construed), it would not do to use the OT in a way that was unconvincing. The Scripture would need to be used straightforwardly, in a way that induced as little controversy as possible.
You have stated,
Anyway you spin it you accuse those who disagree as undermining the the character of God. It is a serious accusation.
It would be if that is what I had done. That was how you took it, and I am saddened by this. However, no personal attack was intended, nor do I think I should apologize for impugning the character of ANY CT or otherwise. I was showing that the adoption of this approach to the OT has problems, some of them theological and some of them philosophical. With great respect, I don’t think I have seen any solid rejoinders to the Reasons themselves. Perhaps that’s because you and others really have considered what is being said and you think it’s all trivial. From some of the interactions I believe I detect simply that the NT (re)interprets the OT and there’s nothing more to say; the question is now about how the NT uses the OT.
But the Use of the OT in the New is a debated question to which there are several approaches. That is an intersecting subject with the present one, although it does not concern many of the Reasons.
You did not like my examples of what I am trying to do in the 40 Reasons. Here are another one or two: Arminians can accuse Calvinists of making God’s offer of salvation in the Gospel inauthentic to anyone but the elect. In saying this they are neither attacking God nor their Calvinist brothers. They can also claim that Calvinist theology is against missions for this reason. I have been accused by friends who held to the 5-points of holding a theology that effectively denies the Gospel. They were not attacking me and I never felt that they were. It was a perceived problem which they detected in my outlook.
May I gently ask you to reflect upon the opening line of your initial comment on this thread. It was a bit combative even if you were not being personal (the same for the first line of your second comment).
However, upon rethinking the tone of some of my remarks I think I did not adopt a very magnanimous tone toward yourself and Bro. Barkman. Please forgive me for this. I should not have hurried my responses to you both and ought to have taken care to use better wording.
God bless you and yours,
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Larry]James makes several changes to Amos that distinguish his use from Amos’ intent.
I believe we are at the heart of the issue: apparently Christians in the NT change OT prophecies based upon how their intent differed from the orginal author’s.
apparently Christians in the NT change OT prophecies based upon how their intent differed from the orginal author’s.
Does the meaning of the prophecies change. Does the NT author take an OT prophecy that meant one thing and change it to mean another thing? I would say no. Some here would say yes.
In Acts 15, James didn’t change the prophecy at all in a substantive way. The change from “In that day” to “After these things” is the most difficult since there is no textual evidence for such a reading in Amos 9. It may in fact be a reference to other prophets just as Jer 12:15. After all, James says that “the prophets” (plural) agree. The major “change” is that James added “I will return” to make clear that Amos was referring to the time after the return of Christ. In other words, James is specifically precluding the fulfillment of this passage in Acts 15 since Christ hadn’t returned yet. Whatever Amos is talking about will not happen until Christ returns.
Again, it seems obvious that the NT does not always use the OT in a direct fulfillment sense and Amos 15 seems one those obvious places. Acts 15 cannot be the fulfillment of Amos 9 because Christ hasn’t returned yet and the tent of David hasn’t been restored yet.
Which leads us back to the question: Why does James cite Amos 9 as “the prophets”?
First, notice the plural. He is not just referring to Amos but to a stream of thought in the prophets who thoughts are represented by Amos, a stream of thought that completely anticipated the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom people of God after the return of Christ without needing circumcision of the flesh. James’ point seems to be that if such inclusion is clearly prophesied in the kingdom, it is no surprise that the Gentiles are included now without circumcision. In other words, the prophets agree that there will be an inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God quite apart from circumcision. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that Gentiles are included in the church before the return of Christ and there is no reason to insist on circumcision for them. Therefore, the Jews in Acts 15 demanding circumcision disagree with the prophets.
Discussion