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

While studying and teaching Zechariah 9-14 near Beirut, Lebanon I was challenged to think about the meaning and relevance of those chapters to Lebanese believers who often suffer because of the animosity between Lebanon and the very nation and people who are mentioned in those chapters. Does an alleged promised restoration of Israel and Jerusalem bring comfort or chagrin to believers in Lebanon? After all, are not Arabic speaking believers and Jewish believers in the Middle East the true people of God? Are they not the ones who should expect to share in the triumph of God? Does present day Israel have a “favored nation” status that trumps the “holy nation” of the church (1 Pet 2:9-10)?

Furthermore, does not a similar conundrum exist for those of us who live in North America? Do these texts have anything relevant to say to a largely Gentile church? Do we simply rejoice because ethnic Israel is to be restored or do we rejoice because the triumph which the old covenant nation expected is the triumph that belongs to all of those who are children of God through faith in Jesus Christ? Admittedly, the question of relevancy should not be determinative in the understanding of biblical texts but it does raise questions that might not be raised otherwise.

Additionally, not only does the difficulty of finding relevance in Zechariah 9-14 to Lebanese and North American believers pose a challenge, but so does a careful reading of the New Testament. Reading the Old and New Testaments separately, one might conclude that two distinct and contrasting Bibles exist (Old Testament and New Testament) written to two distinct peoples (Jews and Christians) with only shared lessons of moral application or common interest in the promised Messiah. Otherwise, one might conclude that God has distinct purposes for Jews and Gentiles. While interpreting texts in isolation from the larger corpus of Scripture makes this conclusion textually possible, a canonical reading of the Bible questions whether it is theologically justifiable and whether it adequately represents the biblical-theological message of the Bible which centers in the restoration of God’s original purposes as presented in Genesis 1-2, distorted in Genesis 3-11, given new hope in Genesis 12, and consummated in the coming of the Messiah.

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, He is present in the Jewish temple, the enemies of Israel will be defeated and Gentiles will make their way to Jerusalem, the Messiah will come humbly on a donkey and in glory with a display of power, etc.

However, Christians cannot read the Old Testament on its own because it is not on its own. It is part of the Christian Bible which includes both Old and New Testament. The Old Testament is a book of introduction, preparation, and expectation; the New Testament is a book of conclusion, denouement, and fulfillment. The OT informs the NT by giving background, promises, and a developing story line. The NT finalizes the story line and sees promise come to fulfillment.

The OT helps us understand the NT by introducing theological concepts which are continued in the NT, such as God, creation, sin, redemption, kingdom, people of God, temple, holy city, enemies, exile and restoration, etc. The NT expands on these concepts often giving them new clarity in light of the full and final revelation that comes with the advent of Jesus Christ.

Though there is continuity of theological concepts, there is discontinuity in the contextualization of these concepts. I suggest that in both the Old and New Testaments God addresses His people in language and terms that they generally understood, yet retaining a bit of mystery, because the ultimate reality, which God brings in the triumph of the Messiah, defies the ability of human language to fully convey.

If in the future believing Jews of the old covenant see the New Jerusalem coming out of heaven and witness the triumph of God over all evil and enemies, would they say, “I’m disappointed that it did not turn out ‘literally’ as portrayed in the language of the OT.” No, they would likely say, “This fulfillment not only satisfies all which God promised but goes far beyond what could be expected. Thank you, Lord.”

As I read Zechariah 9-14 and similar texts in light of the New Testament I look for theological concepts that are continuous between the testaments and interpret them in light of the fuller and final revelation of the New Testament. For instance, the theological theme of “people of God” is represented primarily by Israel in the Old Testament. Yet, we understand in the New Testament that the true “seed” of Abraham were those who had the faith of Abraham, regardless of ethnicity (Rom 2; Gal 3; 1 Pet 2). The “holy city” of the Old Testament was physical, geographical Jerusalem; in the New Testament the holy city is the New Jerusalem (Heb 12:18-24, Rev 21, 22). Furthermore, the New Testament even suggests that Abraham knew that the physical reality of “land and city” anticipated something more than earthly geography (Heb 11:10, 16; Rom 4:13). The theme of “temple as the place of God’s presence” in the Old Testament was primarily confined to the tabernacle and temple of ancient Israel; in the New Testament, Jesus is ultimately the temple (John 2:19—destroy this temple), believers and the church are the temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19), and there is no need of a temple in the new order because God’s presence pervades everything (Rev 21:3, 22).

There are other shared themes such as the ultimate triumph of God, the defeat of enemies, the removal of sin, the transformation of nature, the restoration of the cosmos, the establishment of worship and holiness. In Zechariah 9-14 all of these concepts are portrayed in old covenant language at times exceeding the limits of that language, anticipating the inauguration of the greater realities of the New Covenant and ultimately the consummation.

Old Testament saints had a “two-age” view of history—the age in which they lived and the age to come. The age to come anticipated the advent of the Messiah and the Day of the Lord in which God’s people would be delivered and His enemies would be judged. The age to come was depicted in terms that related to the age in which they lived though the seed of old covenant concepts blossoms into the unforeseen beauty of new covenant realities.

The New Testament declares that “the age to come” was inaugurated at the first advent of Christ (Lk 1:67-80; Acts 2:29-36), that we live in the age that was anticipated (1 Cor 10:11—“on whom the end of the ages has come”), but, though the age has already come, it is not yet consummated, so we anticipate the consummation at His Second Advent (2 Thess 1:5-10).

Consequently, New Covenant believers live between two worlds: having entered the kingdom (Col 1:13) but waiting for the consummate kingdom (Rev 11:15); having become part of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17), yet waiting for the consummate new creation (Rev 21); being seated in the heavens with Christ (Eph 2:6), yet living as strangers on earth (1 Pet 2:11); having witnessed the triumph of Christ over sin, Satan, and death (Col 1:13-15), yet awaiting the consummate world of righteousness (2 Pet 3:13); having tasted in the Spirit the inheritance to come (Eph 1:13-14), yet awaiting consummate glory (1 Pet 5:1).

jpdsr51 Bio

Dr. John P. Davis is currently Lead Pastor of a church plant in Philadelphia, PA. Grace Church of Philly is a gospel-centered city church seeking to reach people of all nations. John received the BA in Bible (Greek minor) at Bob Jones University, MDiv from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, the ThM in OT from Westminster Theological Seminary, and the DMin from Biblical Theological Seminary. His ThM thesis was on A Critical Evaluation of the Use of the Abrahamic Covt. in Dispensationalism. His DMin project/dissertation was on Common Factors in the Practice of Ongoing Personal Evangelism. John has pastored two other churches in PA and two in NY. Three were church-plants.

Discussion

John,

Thanks for the post, and this point in particular:
[John] In my understanding, the authorial intent of the divine author goes beyond that of the human author. So even though a text is originally directed to say, Israel, the divine author intended it to be part of the church’s Bible and to address the church. Do you mean that neither I nor the church are in the divine author’s mind and intent in the giving of the OT text and that we should remove ourselves as not being addressed in the text? I think this is the heart of what this thread is about, i.e. in what manner does the OT speak to the church?
I think you have isolated the issue, it is authorial intent. Intent gets to the heart of interpretation, and interpretation requires discerning who the language is spoken to.

If I read you right, you want to spread the recipients of say, Isaiah, to Grace Church, Philadelphia. The reason for this is because Isaiah was written by God, and God knew we who live all these years later would read it.

Would you have one intended audience for the human author, and another for the divine? If so, doesn’t this lead to two interpretations for each passage - one human, and one divine?

Or, to make it more practical, is Grace Church Philly in Isa 53:3? Did Grace Church despise and forsake Christ? After all, “He was despised and forsaken of men.” Were some of those men in your church?

Or does Isaiah 53:3 only apply to the people living in Israel who rejected Christ as their Messiah? Or both Israel, and Grace Church? Both the unbelieving Jews, and the believing Christians?

TED said:
If I read you right, you want to spread the recipients of say, Isaiah, to Grace Church, Philadelphia. The reason for this is because Isaiah was written by God, and God knew we who live all these years later would read it.

Would you have one intended audience for the human author, and another for the divine? If so, doesn’t this lead to two interpretations for each passage - one human, and one divine?

Or, to make it more practical, is Grace Church Philly in Isa 53:3? Did Grace Church despise and forsake Christ? After all, “He was despised and forsaken of men.” Were some of those men in your church?

Or does Isaiah 53:3 only apply to the people living in Israel who rejected Christ as their Messiah? Or both Israel, and Grace Church? Both the unbelieving Jews, and the believing Christians?
Do I then take you to mean that the OT Scriptures are not addressed to the church. I doubt think this is what you mean, but I still don’t understand in what way the Hebrew Scriptures are actually Christian Scriptures to you.

When the human author wrote the words of the original text, they did not know the nature of the church that would be reading the Hebrew Scriptures as Christian Scriptures, though in some sense they knew they were serving us in what they wrote (1 Peter 1:101-12). But I am sure that the divine author had both the original recipients and the ultimate recipients (the church) in mind (2 Tim 3:16, Rom 15:3-4). He also knew that the church would be reading the OT through the light of the full and final revelation in Jesus Christ (Luke 24). Do not the OT Scriptures provide doctrine, reproof, correction, training in righteousness; they are for our learning and hope; they speak of Christ to the church and for the church.

And yes, Isa 53 is God’s Word for the church in no less way than it was for the Ethiopian eunuch to whom Philip spoke or the numerous uses of it in the NT. Isa 53 is the confession of all believing Jews — and Gentiles.

Yes, the ultimate recipient whom the divine author had in mind is the church. In the full and final revelation that comes with Christ, we possess the fuller understanding of what the divine author intended through the human author’s words.

Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text” - not human and divine, as you say, but a divine message in seed form to the original recipients and a divine message in fuller blossom to the ultimate recipients?

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

[jpdsr51]

Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text” - not human and divine, as you say, but a divine message in seed form to the original recipients and a divine message in fuller blossom to the ultimate recipients?
No way. One text, one meaning, but many applications.

Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?

[Ted Bigelow]
[jpdsr51]

Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text” - not human and divine, as you say, but a divine message in seed form to the original recipients and a divine message in fuller blossom to the ultimate recipients?
No way. One text, one meaning, but many applications.

Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?
Here are a couple:

Gen 22:18 > Galatians 3:16

Psalm 16:7-11 >Acts 2:25-31

So if I understand you correctly, David and Abraham understood exactly what the NT writers understood or would you say that the NT use of the OT text is simply an application.

It seems to me there is an OT seed which the original recipients grasped and a fuller blossom of understanding that the ultimate recipients, i.e. the church, understands.

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

[Ted Bigelow]
[jpdsr51]

Here are a couple:

Gen 22:18 > Galatians 3:16

Psalm 16:7-11 >Acts 2:25-31
I think you misread what I asked:
[Ted Bigelow] Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?
SEED >>>>>>> BLOSSOM

Gen 22:18 > Galatians 3:16

Psalm 16:7-11 >Acts 2:25-31

Same Text in OT and NT

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

Hi John,

That’s 4 texts. In post 92 you said:
[John] Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text”
To which I asked for an example of a single text that gives two interpretations.

All your examples are of multiple texts - Genesis, Galatians, Psalms, and Acts.

Shall we try it a 3rd time?

“Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?”

[Ted Bigelow] Hi John,

That’s 4 texts. In post 92 you said:
[John] Do you really not believe that there can be ‘two interpretations for one text”
To which I asked for an example of a single text that gives two interpretations.

All your examples are of multiple texts - Genesis, Galatians, Psalms, and Acts.

Shall we try it a 3rd time?

“Got an illustration of a single text in seed form, but with a fuller message?”
Actually, there are two examples of single texts. Let’s try again.

The single text of Gen 22:18 is also found in Galatians 3:16. It is the same ‘single’ text — the first mention of the ‘single’ text is seed the second mention of the ‘single’ text is blossom.

The same holds true of the ‘single’ text of Psalm 16:7-11 and Acts 2:25-31.

If this doesn’t answer your question, then we are talking about two different things and I’ll ask if you at least in these two instances of ‘single’ texts recognize a movement from seed to blossom and that the NT understanding of the ‘single’ text here exceeds that which was available to the OT audience.

Blessings, JOHN

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

[Ted Bigelow] A single text is a single text. Gen. 22:18 is a single text. Galatians 3:16 is a single text, that quotes Gen. 22:18, but in a context different than Genesis.

Each text requires its own exegesis based on all the factors evident within a GH hermeneutic.

So let’s have a single text with two meanings ;)
Either you are equivocating, avoiding the question, or really believe what you say. I’ll assume the latter. I said:
Actually, there are two examples of single texts. Let’s try again.

The single text of Gen 22:18 is also found in Galatians 3:16. It is the same ‘single’ text — the first mention of the ‘single’ text is seed the second mention of the ‘single’ text is blossom.

The same holds true of the ‘single’ text of Psalm 16:7-11 and Acts 2:25-31.

If this doesn’t answer your question, then we are talking about two different things and I’ll ask if you at least in these two instances of ‘single’ texts recognize a movement from seed to blossom and that the NT understanding of the ‘single’ text here exceeds that which was available to the OT audience.
If you are serious about your above statement, then I understand you saying that Paul’s use of Gen 22 in Gal 3 and Peter use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2 is only same language but not the same authoritiative words contained in OT Scripture or at least you are saying (perhaps in agreement with me :) that the NT context of the OT words using a GH hermenutic arrives at a fuller (seed to blossom) meaning of those words. I agree :) Peace!

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

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 Bigelow] 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.
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.

It’s been fun, Ted. Blessings, JOHN

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

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

G. N. Barkman

[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.