Which Testament interprets the other, Old or New?

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Which way does it go, and why?

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

 

[Romans922]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?"
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..."

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]

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]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahonWe 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]

Originally posted by just_grace

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahonWe 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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

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).

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]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

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).

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

Simple with hind site mate

 

[just_grace]

Truth...

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

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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