# Which Testament interprets the other, Old or New?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 11, 2005)

Which way does it go, and why?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 11, 2005)

Your choices are inadequate. You need a category that says "Both Testaments interpret each other."


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Your choices are inadequate. You need a category that says "Both Testaments interpret each other."



 Scripture interprets Scripture.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 11, 2005)

We know that the Old was foreshadowing the New, and thus that 1) the New expounded and clarified the Old, and that 2) at the same time one thus cannot properly understand the New without understanding the Old.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Your choices are inadequate. You need a category that says "Both Testaments interpret each other."





However, the sequential nature is important.......


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 11, 2005)

As each part of Scripture "came forth" from God, all of it was immediately and mutually interpretive. Thus, Genesis is immediately and mutually interpretive of Exodus. Joshua is immediately and mutually interpretive of Deuteronomy. This process does not stop with the historical books, but as the prophets reveal God's word, it is immediately subject to the previous revelation; while at the same time the previous revelation is interpreted in light of the latest revelation.

This process has no stopping point at Malachi (or 2 Chron). As the NT documents are brought forth, they are immediately and mutually interpretive of the OT corpus. This interdependence and coherence of revelation, "the consent of all the parts," is one of the hallmarks of God's Word. It is one of its principal self-demonstrations.

To say, as Walter Kaiser once did, that a general _analogia scriptura_ should be replaced with the analogy of antecedent scripture is mistaken. For one thing, the "earliest" Scripture (Gen. 1?) cannot _by definition_ be interpreted (using the comparative method), but can only interpret. And what to do with Scripture that cannot be dated with certainty (e.g. Obadiah)? The goal of this alternative is to avoid "anachronistic" interpretations of previous revelation, however there is a strong element of a "developmental" theology here, in addition to sustaining a dispensational-friendly framework. But there is a big difference in saying that (for example) a full-blown trinitarian theology is thoroughly understood by Abraham or OT believers in general--something we rightly should question--and claiming that no one could possibly have believed in an essentially trinitarian theology until the NT age because it is most clearly revealed in the NT. When trinitarian elements are found in OT theology, we must not assert that no one was capable of making sense out of them!

Likewise, to say that the whole Bible can only be read from our standpoint in a "backwards" fashion--i.e. interpreting the OT purely by the NT--is like saying a mystery novel is incomprehensible until the concluding, and all revealing final chapter. In essense, this view would say: "Read the last chapter, and then read the rest of the book--otherwise its no good." The truth is that the final chapter, while revealing a great deal, cannot say everything. Who are these characters? Why are they here? Who has died? Why does anyone care? We may be burning with curiosity and itching to get answers, but most of us want the full reading-experience. We want the tension, drama, character development, etc. 

-----How full the enjoyment will two people have (relative to each other) in one's reading the "Lord of the Rings" from the battle of Minas Tirith to the end, and the other from the first pages of the "Hobbit"? Our appreciation of Gandalf, of the hobbit characters, of the sacrifice that Frodo makes, of the desperate (nearly hopeless) and noble struggle of survival that the march on the Black Gate means--all this is heightened by Gandalf's death-duel in Moria, by the weakness, insignificance, and unheroic nature of hobbits, the bent toward evil in man's heart freely evidenced, the mournful departure of the elves who have no destiny to be determined in this fight, etc. And this is a fairy tale!

How much more is the history of redemption? Ours is a "linear" faith, not a "circular" one. Even the "good news" must be prefaced with the "bad news." True, the gospel can be preached solely from the gospel accounts, or even from Paul's letters, but those works do not occur in a vacuum. They are interpretive of the OT, and are also interpreted by the OT. The OT is a story of "birth pangs" of redemption. It is a story of pain, loss, and sadness--and hope, great desperate hope. How did it happen that intensely monotheistic Jews, terribly devout, from whom Jesus chose his first disciples, how did these people unhesitatingly grant Jesus divine prerogatives? Shouldn't we feel their excitement in meeting Jesus? Shouldn't his death shock us? Shouldn't his resurrection make us as powerful in the Spirit as the first witnesses? Suddenly, the OT we have been saturated in all our lives is set on fire by a glow of comprehension, of interpretation. Our present experience is interpreted by our faith, going down to the bones of the world. How can you separate this? You cannot.


----------



## DTK (Dec 11, 2005)

Thanks Pastor Buchanan. This is a post that answers the question of the thread very well, with thoughtful interaction between the tensions with which we are faced as we read God's inscripturated revelation. It is, to be sure, a progressive revelation, but immediately self-interpretive with each disclosure God is pleased to make as the drama of history (which is in every sense His story) hastens to the consummation of the ages. I like how Augustine cautions us against interpretations, which are in essence additions to what God has revealed...


> *Augustine (354-430):* But where the matter is obvious, we ought not to add our interpretation to the meaning of the divine Scripture, for this is not done out of human ignorance, but out of perverse pride. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians, II, Answer to Julian_, Book V:7, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 436.


I like too how Augustine, as a pastor, presupposes the general perspicuity of Holy Scripture, when he states...


> *Augustine (354-430):* Our volumes are put up for sale in public; the light never needs to blush. Let them buy them, read them, believe them; or else buy them, read them, make fun of them. *Those Scriptures know how to hold people guilty who read them and don´t believe*. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons_, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.20 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), pp. 195-196.


Indeed, generally speaking, it was a patristic principle that Holy Scripture is a self-interpretation revelation...


> *Chrysostom (349-407):* You see, despite the use of such *precision* (avkri,beia) by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and farfetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. *And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and considerateness, the Holy Spirit directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us something like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn´t let the listener go astray. . . . So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture.* _FC, Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17_, 13.13 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 175.
> 
> *Chrysostom (349-407):* There is something else we can learn here. What sort of thing is it? It is when it is necessary to allegorize Scripture. *We ourselves are not the lords over the rules of interpretation, but must pursue Scripture´s understanding of itself, and in that way make use of the allegorical method. What I mean is this. The Scripture has just now spoken of a vineyard, wall, and wine-vat. The reader is not permitted to become lord of the passage and apply the words to whatever events or people he chooses. The Scripture interprets itself with the words, "œAnd the house of Israel is the vineyard of the Lord Sabaoth."* To give another example, Ezekiel describes a large, great-winged eagle which enters Lebanon and takes off the top of a cedar. The interpretation of the allegory does not lie in the whim of the readers, but Ezekiel himself speaks, and tells first what the eagle is and then what the cedar is. To take another example from Isaiah himself, when he raises a mighty river against Judah, he does not leave it to the imagination of the reader to apply it to whatever person he chooses, but he names the king whom he has referred to as a river. *This is everywhere a rule in Scripture: when it wants to allegorize, it tells the interpretation of the allegory, so that the passage will not be interpreted superficially or be met by the undisciplined desire of those who enjoy allegorization to wander about and be carried in every direction.* Why are you surprised that the prophets should observe this rule? Even the author of Proverbs does this. For he said, "œLet your loving doe and graceful filly accompany you, and let your spring of water be for you alone." Then he interprets these terms to refer to one´s free and lawful wife; he rejects the grasp of the prostitute and other woman. Duane A. Garrett, _An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom´s Commentary on Isaiah 1-8 with an English Translation_, Isaiah Chapter 5 (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 110-111.



DTK


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 11, 2005)

Pastor King,
I really appreciate the quotations you have culled from the Fathers over the years, and take the time to post for our edificaiton. Thanks again.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 12, 2005)

Bruce,

That was a great post. The sort of post that fires your imagination with the glory of Scripture and the faith. And, as Lewis remarked, if we could keep our imaginations in line we should very little trouble with anything else (a paraphrase).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Pastor King,
> I really appreciate the quotations you have culled from the Fathers over the years, and take the time to post for our edificaiton. Thanks again.


----------



## Civbert (Dec 21, 2005)

Christ interpreted the OT. So I tend to see the NT as an explanation or resolution of the OT. Therefore I lean toward the NT interpreting the OT.


----------



## crhoades (Dec 21, 2005)

Council of Trent - 4th Session:




> Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.



Silly puritans...the Magisterium interprets both.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Christ interpreted the OT. So I tend to see the NT as an explanation or resolution of the OT. Therefore I lean toward the NT interpreting the OT.



But would not much of the material in the New Testament be lacking or at least unclear in meaning if a reader had never been exposed to the Old Testament?


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Dec 21, 2005)

Scripture interprets Scripture. What is often latent in the OT becomes patent in the NT. Subsequent revelation often makes explicit what was implicit in antecedent revelation. This is due to the fact that the canon is a cohesive whole, a body of revelation from God which is moving toward the goal of His glory through His Son revealed in the gospel and mediated through the covenants of God.


----------



## kceaster (Dec 22, 2005)

In my humble opinion, we need to see the Scriptures, and pretty much God's redemptive history as a tapestry. If we zoom in too close to any particular part, we can't see the whole. If we can't see the whole, then our interpretation of the tapestry is not adequate.

This is why covenant theology answers most of the questions, because it takes the fullest view of the tapestry.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Dec 22, 2005)

KC,

I agree. We need a whole Bible hermeneutic when approaching any and every part of the Bible, lest we loose the forest for the trees.


----------



## Civbert (Dec 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Yes indeed. But in order of precedence, the New Testament rules over the Old Testament, since the NT references and explains the OT explicitly, and the OT helps explain the NT implicitly.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 22, 2005)

There is nothing contained in the NT that the OT does not contain or explain. If we miss that, it is due to the hardness of our hearts to see the truth clearly.

Paul's, Jesus', Peter's et al. Bible was Genesis-Malachi.


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> There is nothing contained in the NT that the OT does not contain or explain. If we miss that, it is due to the hardness of our hearts to see the truth clearly.



There is, for example, no mention whatsoever of baptism in the OT. If we did not possess the NT, we would never baptize anyone.


> Paul's, Jesus', Peter's et al. Bible was Genesis-Malachi.



True, but Paul, Peter _et al_ were guided by the Holy Spirit in the writing of new Scripture.


Rom 15:4. *'For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we, through the patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope.'* The OT was actually written for Christians and, indeed, for our times! Therefore we should certainly not ignore it.

1Peter 1:10-12.*'Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied to you of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which have now been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel yo you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven- things that even angels desire to look into.'* 

Col 1:25-27.*'......of which I became a minister according to the stewardship of God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to the saints. To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.'*

These texts tell us that the OT prophets themselves didn't fully understand their own messages. It is we, the saints, to whom the 'mystery' of Christ has finally been fully revealed, who can fully understand the OT, because we read it in the light of the New. That the Gentiles would be blessed through the Seed of Abraham was known as early as Gen 12:3. But _how_ and _when_ this would come about remained a mystery, with clues being scattered thoughout the OT, but the revelation of the mystery came only with Christ.

John 5:39. *'These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me.'* The OT is all about the Lord Jesus Christ and we should expect to find Him there constantly.

BCF 1689: 1:9. _'The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the SCripture itself, anf therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by _[ie. understood in the light of]_ other passages which speak more clearly.'_

If we accept this (and the WCF is very similar), we cannot insist on interpreting the OT solely by the OT or the NT solely by the NT. We must use all the Scriptures that bear upon a subject to arrive at the true interpretation of a text.

Blessings to all,

Martin


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 24, 2005)

> There is, for example, no mention whatsoever of baptism in the OT.



Huh? 

Most of the word studies done for the NT on "baptism" are taken from the _OT idea of baptism/sprinkling/dipping_. The Jews were avid baptizers. Even John the Baptist, without any NT Documents, baptized. Even the disciples, without any NT documents, baptized. The OT is filled with concepts of baptism and making one clean as a result.

The following sampling of verses may help:

Exod. 24:6, 8; 29:16, 20f; Lev. 1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:6, 17; 5:9; 6:27; 7:2, 14; 8:11, 19, 24, 30; 9:12, 18; 14:7, 16, 27, 51; 16:14f, 19; 17:6; Num. 8:7; 18:17; 19:4, 13, 18ff; 2 Ki. 12:13; 16:13, 15; 2 Chr. 29:22; 30:16; 35:11; Job 2:12; Isa. 21:4; 52:15; 63:3; Ezek. 36:25; 43:18
Gen. 37:31; Lev. 9:9; Jos. 3:15; 1 Sam. 14:27; 2 Ki. 5:14; 8:15.

However, the point still remains - there is nothing contained in the NT that was not first in the OT. Jesus came to explain, of "exegete" the Father more "thoroughly" to us, not "newly" to us. To miss this is due to the hardness of our heart to see things clearly in the OT (which is the very reason it laid out as it is in the NT). The NT documents themselves prove the point - we are hard hearted.

[Edited on 12-24-2005 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Presbyrino (Dec 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> However, the point still remains - there is nothing contained in the NT that was not first in the OT. Jesus came to explain, of "exegete" the Father more "thoroughly" to us, not "newly" to us. To miss this is due to the hardness of our heart to see things clearly in the OT (which is the very reason it laid out as it is in the NT). The NT documents themselves prove the point - we are hard hearted.





Our own Lord's words testify to this:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, *"O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! *
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 
Luk 24:27 *And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, * he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. 

He didn't say "And beginning with Romans..."


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 24, 2005)

Hi Matthew,
Just to take the first verse you give:-
Exod 24:6. *'And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar........And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people.......'*

I see ritual cleansing by means of blood, and if that is baptism to you, fair enough, but it isn't to me. If you used the word 'washings' then we might be able to agree. But hadn't the Israelites already been 'baptized' when they crossed the Red Sea (1Cor 10:1 )? BTW, I know about Heb 9:10, but that verse is emphasizing the temporary nature of those 'baptisms.'

If all you are saying is, "The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed" then that is knindergarten stuff and we have no disagreement. But if you are saying that the OT has some sort of priority over the NT, then I disagree profoundly.

Hi Steve,
You wrote:-


> Our own Lord's words testify to this:
> 
> Luk 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
> Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
> ...


Absolutely! As I wrote:-


> John 5:39. *'These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me.'* The OT is all about the Lord Jesus Christ and we should expect to find Him there constantly.


However, that does not mean that the New Covenant is not 'new.'

A very happy holiday to all!

Martin

[Edited on 12-24-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 24, 2005)

> If all you are saying is, "The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed" then that is knindergarten stuff and we have no disagreement.



We are in agreement then! Amen! Yes, this is exactly what I mean. There is nothing new in the NT that is not first, under types, shadows, or even explicitely, stated in the OT.

That is why the WCF 1:5 uses the phrase, "the consent of all the parts" as pertaining to everything being in harmony with everything else, and that all parts "consent" of the validity of every truth held therein. We cannot find anything ideally in the NT not in the OT in this manner.

In WCF 1:6 it says, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:"

This is a sound manner of explaining things that we ought not just say "In the NT" but "In Scripture."


----------



## just_grace (Dec 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_We cannot find anything ideally in the NT not in the OT in this manner.



For the deep thinker your probably right Matthew, but for people on the street, they need to hear the Gospel, and the first phrase of Hebrews puts it like this...

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

God has revealed a lot more through His Son than He ever did in the OT and prophets, in my honest opinion.

[Edited on 12-25-2005 by just_grace]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_We cannot find anything ideally in the NT not in the OT in this manner.
> ...



Much like the bible, Gods 'breathed out word', the prophets only echoed what God/Christ told them to say; it was not elaborated upon, but specific and accurate. To assume Christ revealed 'a lot more', again would be dispensational in thinking and an implication that the NT saint had a hands up on the OT saint; this is just not true. Outside of the fact that Christ was living and breathing during His day, and in that way, there was a benefit, the message was the same........


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."
> 
> God has revealed a lot more through His Son than He ever did in the OT and prophets, in my honest opinion.



Everyone here would agree that Christ (and God's kingdom as a whole) is more _clearly_ and _explicitly_ revealed in the New Testament than in the Old - but there is not actually anything _in substance_ or _at heart_ that is revealed in the New that had not also already been revealed in the Old, any more than the "new" commandment that Christ gave in John 13:34 actually revealed anything _new_ in substance from what was revealed through Moses in Leviticus 19:18 (as is further explained in 1 John 1-2).


----------



## just_grace (Dec 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by just_grace_
> ...



So tell me Chris, in what Covenant was the Holy Spirit given, the most precious gift that a man can be given, old or new? It was the promised gift. And we have it now. At least I know I have it! It's my seal.

[Edited on 12-25-2005 by just_grace]


----------



## just_grace (Dec 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by just_grace_
> ...



What I mean is Chris, is that you would have arrived at this knowledge without Christ?

Simple with hind site mate


----------



## just_grace (Dec 25, 2005)

*Truth...*

And btw it is the Holy Spirit that leads us into all Truth.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 25, 2005)

Did Abraham have the Holy Spirit internally, or is Abraham in hell? (cf. John 3:3-10)


----------



## just_grace (Dec 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Did Abraham have the Holy Spirit internally, or is Abraham in hell? (cf. John 3:3-10)



Well for a start, Abraham's salvation was never in doubt. For he believed....plus God's promise was made to him...and his offspring. ( that is all those in Christ )

Why did Christ have to preach to those past dead?

Why was Enoch taken alive? And others.

Actually, we are very fortunate people now...

[Edited on 12-25-2005 by just_grace]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 25, 2005)

David, 

I understand what you are saying, however, you did not answer my question in relation to your statement.

You said:



> So tell me Chris, in what Covenant was the Holy Spirit given, the most precious gift that a man can be given, old or new? It was the promised gift. And we have it now. At least I know I have it! It's my seal.



Then I asked 


> Did Abraham have the Holy Spirit internally, or is Abraham in hell? (cf. John 3:3-10)



You really did not answer that. 

Do you believe that Abraham had the Holy Spirit indwelling him?

If I might be so forward - let me answer by the Apostle's answer:

1 Peter 1:10-11, "Of *this salvation* the *prophets* have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ *who was in them* was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow."

Now we see that the OT prophets, who declared "this salvation" (which they had) inquired into carefully. They were good exegetes of God's Word, knowing full well that there are not two kinds of Christians - those who have the Spirit and those who don't. They knew that "this salvation" was "their salvation" as well. This grace that they had, was also given to others, as the Apostle says, "of the grace that would come to you." So they had what would also come "to you." What was this grace? They testified before hand, and partook in the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. In this they carefully search, having, just as we do, the "Spirit of Christ" *IN THEM.*

All the prophets, then, of the OT, had the Spirit of Christ in them. Not as Spurgeon says, "bouncing around", which is the epitome of silliness.

Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc. all had the same Spirit of Christ as we have. As a matter of fact, it is the same Gospel we have today that they had then. Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven. It was the same kingdom Noah preached and Abraham preached and knew of.

As Paul says, Galatians 3:8, "And *the Scripture*, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, _preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand_, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

The Gospel never changes. It is only fulfilled. That is why the same Spirit, the same Christ, the same Kingdom, the same information contained in the OT by substance is commented and more fully explain (not newly introduced) in the NT. 

Abraham was as much living in the fullness of the Spirit as we do. Otherwise, we should also heed the rebuke Christ gave Nicodemus for not understanding what it means to be born again, which is an OT concept! 

John 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the *teacher of Israel*, and do not know *these things*?

[Edited on 12-26-2005 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 25, 2005)




----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> So tell me Chris, in what Covenant was the Holy Spirit given, the most precious gift that a man can be given, old or new? It was the promised gift. And we have it now. At least I know I have it! It's my seal.



For one thing, there are different senses in which one can speak of the Holy Spirit's being "given":

Since totally depraved man has been in need of efficacious regeneration since the Fall, the Spirit was necessary for any and all individuals to even come to faith from then on, as He was for sanctification.

With regard to the Spirit dwelling in certain men to gift and prepare them for God's work, there are numerous examples throughout the Old Testament, such as Genesis 41:38; Exodus 31:3; 35:31; Numbers 11; 27; Judges 3:10; and countless other examples as well. (Do an online search for the word "Spirit" in the Old Testament.) We likewise see that type of the Spirit's work in the special revelations to the Prophets, which ceased for a significant period of time between them and the New Covenant.

In reference to the events and phenomena of Pentecost, there is clear Scriptural demonstration that it was a specific act in redemptive history, intended for a particular time, and as such was in essentially the same category as the periods of time that contained the type of cases I mentioned in my above paragraph. (To go into a detailed argument of why that is the case would be past the subject of this thread, but you can do a search on "cessationism" with my username as the author.) Thus, the whole reference to the "coming" of the Spirit ("Helper") in John 14-16 was not some declaration that all believers would be affected by the Spirit's work in a completely new sense that the believers of the Old Covenant were not (even though it may be said to have made that work of the Spirit more _clear_), but rather a foretelling of the next (and last until the final judgment) outpouring of the Spirit in special revelation in the manner as with the Prophets.



> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> What I mean is Chris, is that you would have arrived at this knowledge without Christ?
> 
> Simple with hind site mate



Had I lived under the Old Covenant, I would not understand how it all works together and what exactly the implications of it were in as explicit and clear a fashion "“ but I do not see any biblical evidence whatsoever (and in fact I see significant problems with it) for the notion that there is any of it of which I would not possess the substance as an Old Covenant believer, or which would not have been revealed to me in some degree, albeit a less clear and explicit one that in the New Covenant.

As I originally illustrated through the comparison of Leviticus 19:18 and John 13:34, I would have known of the "new" commandment just as well under the Old Covenant as I would have being one of the people Jesus gave it to in those terms. Likewise, as I explained from Scripture throughout this post above, I would have the Spirit for regeneration and sanctification, and would also have known of the cases of particular times in which He gave special revelation to the Prophets and miraculous signs to certain people of God for specific purposes.



> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> And btw it is the Holy Spirit that leads us into all Truth.



Indeed "“ and does not this point all the more to the necessity of all the Spirit's work and presence under the Old Covenant, as God´s people of that time were certainly aware of truth?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Dec 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Your choices are inadequate. You need a category that says "Both Testaments interpret each other."



 That's the only reason I chose, "neither."


----------



## kevin.carroll (Dec 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_We cannot find anything ideally in the NT not in the OT in this manner.
> ...



So is it your belief, then, that gospel is not to be found clearly in the OT? If so, that particular dog doesn't hunt! What do you think Jesus was propounding to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus when he began with Moses and showed them all the things written concerning himself?

Could he not not have mentioned Gen. 3:15? How about Psalm 27? Isa. 53? (I could go on...)


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> > If all you are saying is, "The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed" then that is knindergarten stuff and we have no disagreement.
> ...



Excellent!  However, the danger comes when one takes the 'types' and 'shadows' and tries to impose them upon the much clearer light of the NT.


> That is why the WCF 1:5 uses the phrase, "the consent of all the parts" as pertaining to everything being in harmony with everything else, and that all parts "consent" of the validity of every truth held therein. We cannot find anything ideally in the NT not in the OT in this manner.



I can accept this so long as one is not imposing the shadow upon the reality. 


> In WCF 1:6 it says, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:"



I dislike the phrasing here because there will inevitably be disagreement over what is 'good and necessary.' I prefer the 1689 Confessions amendment to this:-

B.C.F. 1689. 1:6. _'The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men.'_

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 1-1-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## just_grace (Dec 29, 2005)

Sorry, been away, enjoying the festivities with family...

What you on about?

I see the ditto ditto sheep followers...

You ask about the possesion of the Spirit in regards to people of old, I am just trying to see how I can relate this to today, was tempted to type new there.
Matthew, ask me a 'direct question' lets not beat about the bush.

Ask me a question that you would like me to answer.

The best you can produce.

David



> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> David,
> 
> I understand what you are saying, however, you did not answer my question in relation to your statement.
> ...



Edited because of a letter.... It did not change anyones personal destiny...

[Edited on 12-29-2005 by just_grace]


----------

