Two questions regarding the OT

Status
Not open for further replies.

StephenMartyr

Puritan Board Freshman
My Dad and I got into a heated discussion last night about two things: how OT saints got saved and the revelation some had. He didn't flesh out his stance about question 2 (it was late) so I'm only going by what I believe he meant. I'll elaborate.

1: How did the OT saints get saved?
2: Did some saints receive more revelation about the gospel than scriptures talk about?

My answers to clarify where I stand (in short form):

1: They were saved by looking to a "Messiah to come".
2: I can't see it.

Our talk revolved more around question 2. My Dad brought up about this verse how Enoch walked with God:

Gen 5:22 "And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:..."

Aside from that verse, there could be other men that "talked with God": Adam, Moses and maybe a few more. My Dad went on to say, "What did they talk about?". This came from my stance that they only knew about the Messiah to come in "little bits":

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

He didn't seem to like that "little bits" stance.

If you came across someone that held to the notion that God revealed more of the gospel (the good news of the Messiah to come) than what scripture says, what would you say to them? My guess is what my Dad was trying to say was God could have revealed more than Genesis 3:15 to say Enoch. Scripture doesn't say it, but God could have said, "Enoch I'm going to send my Son to die for the sins of my people.". Scripture doesn't say that, but since he "walked with God", since Moses spent a lot of time talking with God, it would follow in their discourses (God with the person) a lengthier, more developed back-and-forth discussion of the things to come. What else would they be talking about?

I think that's my Dad's stance. It's not a good time at the moment to bring it up, but I hope to soon to see if my understanding of his position is right.

To me that is very dangerous because you're adding to scripture (Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.) something that scripture does not say. To me, it's dangerous ground to go on.

I hold to God giving "little bits" of information to Adam and on, getting fuller in the time of Isaiah to the full revelation at the time of Paul. I hold that Enoch and Moses didn't know what Paul and Peter knew. Am I wrong? Is this view to narrow?

I'm asking both to talk with my Dad and for my own understanding, hope to bounce what I'm thinking to people here to see if I'm on the right track. I'm open to rebukes or corrections.
 
I'll just leave two little thoughts to maybe help your thinking through this. I'm sorry to hear it went roughly. I do hope reconciliation is close at hand.

On one part, it's clear that the revelation of the New Covenant times far exceeds those of the times prior. Christ had said that the prophets longed to know the things the apostles knew, and never learned them. Jesus even says the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist. There is a massive difference in understanding, and in the outpouring of the Spirit.

However, where do the apostles get all their doctrine about Christ? From the Old Testament itself. They had been personally discipled by Christ but were not ready for the next stage of their commission until the Spirit had opened up their minds to understand the Scriptures, as the end of Luke tells us. Those Scriptures are the Old Testament. It wasn't enough that they knew Jesus personally in the flesh. Without a thorough understanding of the Law, Writings or Prophets, they were not ready to direct the New Covenant church. Despite their personal discipleship from the Master, they would not be able to give Christ to the Church through the ministry of the Word as they needed to be able to do.
 
Last edited:
My Dad and I got into a heated discussion last night about two things: how OT saints got saved and the revelation some had. He didn't flesh out his stance about question 2 (it was late) so I'm only going by what I believe he meant. I'll elaborate.

1: How did the OT saints get saved?
2: Did some saints receive more revelation about the gospel than scriptures talk about?

My answers to clarify where I stand (in short form):

1: They were saved by looking to a "Messiah to come".
2: I can't see it.

Our talk revolved more around question 2. My Dad brought up about this verse how Enoch walked with God:

Gen 5:22 "And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:..."

Aside from that verse, there could be other men that "talked with God": Adam, Moses and maybe a few more. My Dad went on to say, "What did they talk about?". This came from my stance that they only knew about the Messiah to come in "little bits":

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

He didn't seem to like that "little bits" stance.

If you came across someone that held to the notion that God revealed more of the gospel (the good news of the Messiah to come) than what scripture says, what would you say to them? My guess is what my Dad was trying to say was God could have revealed more than Genesis 3:15 to say Enoch. Scripture doesn't say it, but God could have said, "Enoch I'm going to send my Son to die for the sins of my people.". Scripture doesn't say that, but since he "walked with God", since Moses spent a lot of time talking with God, it would follow in their discourses (God with the person) a lengthier, more developed back-and-forth discussion of the things to come. What else would they be talking about?

I think that's my Dad's stance. It's not a good time at the moment to bring it up, but I hope to soon to see if my understanding of his position is right.

To me that is very dangerous because you're adding to scripture (Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.) something that scripture does not say. To me, it's dangerous ground to go on.

I hold to God giving "little bits" of information to Adam and on, getting fuller in the time of Isaiah to the full revelation at the time of Paul. I hold that Enoch and Moses didn't know what Paul and Peter knew. Am I wrong? Is this view to narrow?

I'm asking both to talk with my Dad and for my own understanding, hope to bounce what I'm thinking to people here to see if I'm on the right track. I'm open to rebukes or corrections.
Any saved person in history was saved by the death of Christ on their behalf, and His resurrection. Saved by grace alone through faith alone, but God did give forth progressive revelation, as we now know far more than even the OT Prophets of God did regarding Jesus.
 
Why couldn't God have told Enoch about Christ? They walked and talked, just because we don't have transcripts of their doesn't mean anything. We don't know.
 
I think there's a false dichotomy going on. Even though the OT saints did not know as much about Christ as we do today, they still had plenty to "talk about" with God. Moses for example was responsible not only to reveal what God told him, but he had to assemble all the institutions for a whole nation. I'm sure he had many questions to run by God about that, along with all the other personal struggles that all leaders or even ordinary believers would have in their spiritual lives. The content of all the conversations need not be secret conversations or revelations about the future. My 2 cents...
 
From Adam to Noah the regenerate saints lived many hundreds of years so one would think they learned a lot. Or, maybe I should say one would hope they did.

Also, there could have been Theophanies, Christophanies, and angelic visitations as well.

Wouldn't God certainly have fed His sheep from the beginning?

Abraham met Melchizedek! I wonder about that?

Thank you for this thread. It is interesting.
 
There are clear Scriptures that indicate sources that were revealed by God to people in the OT and even in the NT times that were not preserved. If they were not preserved, they were not necessary for salvation later in time. The parts that were preserved are essential. Scripture clearly reveals Jesus Christ, even in the OT, though it is clearer in the NT.
 
There are clear Scriptures that indicate sources that were revealed by God to people in the OT and even in the NT times that were not preserved. If they were not preserved, they were not necessary for salvation later in time. The parts that were preserved are essential. Scripture clearly reveals Jesus Christ, even in the OT, though it is clearer in the NT.
Progressive Revelation was going on, as we now know what those in the OT longed to know!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top