Read Part 1
Early Christians Could Not Interpret The OT with the NT Because They Did Not Possess a Full NT
It is all very well sitting back in our plush chairs with our laptops or tablets resting against our knees while sipping a latte and carelessly typing out the line, “the OT must be understood through the NT.” It’s easy to do. But a reality check is in order here. In our 21st Century world, where so many things are just a click away, and where we can summon an array of Bible translations in seconds, it would be a sobering exercise to ask a basic question: “What kind of access did the average Christian have to the books of the NT, let alone the whole NT?”
Remember, the thesis we are enjoined to receive is that the OT, if it is to be rightly understood, needs to be comprehended via the NT and its witness to Christ.
Very well, let’s go back in time to say, 40 A.D. and the city of Antioch, where believers were first called “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). You head to the local house church in your area and you sit down. The preacher announces his intention to study the great temple in Ezekiel 40 to 48. He proceeds then to give a basic description of this edifice, being careful to remind you that the coming of the Shekinah Glory into the new temple corresponds with its departure from the old temple in Ezekiel 10.
But then he begins to say some startling things. He tells the congregation that this new temple is not a literal building at all, and that the vision Ezekiel was given in Ezekiel 43, which was just like the one he was given in Ezekiel 10 (Ezek. 43:3), was in actuality not the same. The reason it was not the same is that in Ezekiel 10 the description was of a literal temple in Jerusalem, but this larger temple was not literal (so the vision couldn’t be literal). The preacher then revealed that this latter temple was in fact the Church, and the returning Shekinah was the regenerating Spirit of God. Huh!
You began to wonder where the preacher obtained this information. Were there any new inspired books you did not know about? Meanwhile the preacher was enthusiastically telling his audience that since Christ is the fulfillment of the OT prophecies every covenant prophecy bar the second coming has been fulfilled in Him and in the Church, which is the true temple and the true Israel. He goes on to explain that the dimensions of Ezekiel’s huge temple plan correspond to the dimensions of the New Jerusalem. The details are not really important. They simply were big spiritual numbers that indicated enormity of the saved. Hallelujah!
You sit there a little befuddled. How did he get all that from your Bible? Upon what authority did he make these grand claims? On what basis should you follow this new teaching? Yes, Jesus has come and has died and been raised again, but don’t the words of the Prophets mean what they say? Didn’t they accurately predict Jesus and His Passion? Nowhere, as far as you can tell, does your Bible (or the preacher’s Bible) give you leave to reinterpret the words right before your eyes. And what was all this talk about “New Jerusalem?” And what would give this preacher the right to claim that the prophecies given to Israel were not literal and had somehow been redirected and fulfilled in some spiritualized way in the Church?
No, you say to yourself. I see absolutely no verification of the preacher’s teaching in the Bible I have access to. You decide to cleave to the Scriptures and to never again listen to this new fangled theology. You get up to leave, but you have to wait your turn. Many of your fellow believers have come to the same conclusion. Listen to the Word of God!
I placed this scenario in Antioch in the 40’s A.D. But in actual fact you could place it anywhere in the Roman world for centuries after the ascension of Christ. There were some “lucky” ones, like those who happened to reside in Ephesus while Paul was teaching in the School of Tyrannus for two years (cf. Acts 19:9-10), who may have heard these new doctrines from an Apostle. But a person could verify whether the preacher was telling the truth only if he ran into a busy Apostle and waylaid him for a while.
Universal access to the whole NT was not realistically possible for a very long time after the books which comprise the NT were gathered together in one volume. Textual Critics tell us that towards the end of the First Century the Gospels and Acts were transmitted as a group. The same to a lesser degree was true of Paul’s Letters with Hebrews, and even less common the General Epistles and Revelation. But how many believers could study these works, let alone own them? According to James O’Donnell’s biography of Augustine (which I do not recommend), the famous bishop of Hippo did not possess a full NT; and that in the first years of the Fourth Century!
My point has hopefully become clear. How could the vast majority of Christians in the first centuries of the Christian Church do what our contemporary amillennial and postmillennial brethren insist upon and use the NT to understand the OT? The fact of the matter is, they couldn’t. And if they couldn’t, we shouldn’t. It is far more plausible to believe that the Greek penchant for allegorizing and spiritualizing that we see in Philo and later in Origen and Augustine is the source of all this new doctrine and the motto they rely upon.
It was a practical impossibility for those in the Early Church to try to comprehend the meaning of the OT through NT because they had little to no access to much of the NT, and thereby no opportunity to indulge in the spiritualization, typologization, and general theological gerrymandering of the OT.
Discussion
NewEnjoyed
It is always welcome when we approach the challenges of early church Biblical and systematic theology in light of what the early church would have expected. Another difficulty for the early church would have been the relative lack of manuscripts for either the OT or NT, as well as the inability of (I'm told at least) an awful lot of believers to read any text. No?
I'm somewhat envisioning a situation a little bit akin to the pilgrims in The Canterbury Tales, where the pilgrims, denied access to the written Scriptures by papal edict, nevertheless somehow managed to commit an awful lot of Scripture to memory through oral memory of lessons at mass (OT, NT, Gospel lessons), as well as from the stained glass windows of their churches.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewWhenever I have brought this…
Whenever I have brought this concern up to my Reformed covenant theology brothers, they simply dismiss it as irrelevant. There's a striking lack of interest on their part to even think about these things and little to no self-awareness of the implications of their presuppositions.
NewInterpretation and the analogy of faith
Paul, I've appreciated your work in the past. I don't hop on here much anymore, but if you still read here yourself, I'd be glad for your interaction if you have bandwidth.
I feel confident that you'd advocate for ordinary contextual interpretation. And while there are ongoing disagreements about "NT priority" (to use some shorthand), I'm having trouble seeing how the statement, "The NT is needed to properly understand the OT" is controversial; it should be no more nor less controversial than saying, "The OT is needed to properly understand the NT." I would base this on principles of progressive revelation, and also the doctrine of the sufficiency and necessity of Scripture, that God has revealed--over time--neither more nor less than what we need for life and godliness.
So I would ask, is there any objection to the WCF 1-9? I quote:
I noted with interest that at least two points over the 2 parts of the article (thus far?), you used the word "reinterpret." As someone who leans toward the NT priority that you're arguing against, I would not affirm that the NT reinterprets the OT, in the sense that the OT affirms "A" and then the NT comes along and affirms "not-A." I would affirm that the NT clarifies, hones, and/or expands on expectations already inherent in the OT text, and this regardless of what contemporary readers would have understood.
Peter even tells us, living under the New Covenant, to rejoice that we have access to what the prophets could only search out (1 Peter 1:10-12). Peter says that Old Covenant believers knew they didn't have the full picture. Hebrews 11:13-16 tells us that Abraham--even though he occupied Canaan for a time--was taking the longer view.
If OT and early believers misinterpreted a text, or limited the import and application of the text, that is not the fault of the text. An early believer who thought Deuteronomy 25:4 was only about muzzling oxen probably should have taken a queue from the principles behind it (1 Corinthians 9:9-10).
There is still room for disagreement on how the NT texts interact with the OT texts and what the net meaning is. But I don't think it's a matter of God affirming A in one testament and not-A in another.
Imagine that I meet a caterpillar here above the 40th parallel, and I prophesy to him, "You will travel to Mexico." And he looks and me and says (he's a talking caterpillar, HT: Lewis Carroll), "Yeah, right. I could never walk that far on these legs." But then one day he's in a chrysalis, and he emerges with wings, and flies to Mexico. Is he going to complain, "But you said I'd walk to Mexico!" or will he be glad for the wings and remember that I'd never said anything about walking?
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
NewM. Osborne wrote: Imagine…
I don't think this illustration works. In it you posit that the caterpillar misremembers the precise thing you did say and complains about something you in fact did not say. But that is not at all what Henebury affirms when he speaks of the spiritualizing of Ezekiel 40-48. According to his illustration, the teacher refers to the plain language of the text and then states that it doesn't at all mean what it explicitly says but points to a deeper, spiritual reality only revealed through a new hermeneutic that was unavailable to the majority (possibly even Augustine?!) for centuries after it was supposedly introduced.
To adapt your illustration just a bit and bring it in line with what I typically hear from proponents of NT or canonical priority: you promise that the caterpillar will walk to Mexico, then, when he objects that he is flying with his newly formed wings, you respond, "But aren't wings better than legs, and doesn't flying beat walking? Promise fulfilled!"
NewMy Response to M. Osborne
Hi Michael,
No, I don't comment here a lot, but your comment desrves a full response. I quote you and then insert my answers:
”Paul, I've appreciated your work in the past. I don't hop on here much anymore, but if you still read here yourself, I'd be glad for your interaction if you have bandwidth. "
Michael, thanks for the comment. I'm writing this quickly, and will include some form of it in a later installment. My first reaction is that it bypasses the subject of the post, which is about the impracticality of being able to interpret the OT with the NT, never mind making it an essential of Bible interpretation, which many do.
"I feel confident that you'd advocate for ordinary contextual interpretation. And while there are ongoing disagreements about "NT priority" (to use some shorthand), I'm having trouble seeing how the statement, "The NT is needed to properly understand the OT" is controversial; it should be no more nor less controversial than saying, "The OT is needed to properly understand the NT.'"
Yes, but what is usually understood by the phase “The NT is needed to properly understand the OT” is that the NT transforms the meaning of the OT passage into something that the original recipients could have no clue about. Whereas the phrase “The OT is needed to properly understand the NT” usually is understood in terms of background not prophecy or covenant. The latter two subjects are opened up to the possibility of their being transformed into types to service an assumed NT antitype.
"I would base this on principles of progressive revelation..."
And I would have to enquire what you mean by the terms “progressive” and “revelation.” Do you mean by the first term “revelation that can be traced along a continuum of fixed meaning” or do you mean “subsequent revelation that only unveils the true meaning at the end of the process”?
"So I would ask, is there any objection to the WCF 1-9? I quote:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."
There is no issue with this paragraph in itself, but one must ask if a hidden assumption lies behind it. Of course, further reading of the Westminster Standards, which includes belief that all the saved of all ages comprise the Church; infant baptism; Christian Sabbath replacing the Jewish Sabbath etc., shows that WCF 1-9 has to be understood in its wider context and not simply affirmed as a pretext.
"I noted with interest that at least two points over the 2 parts of the article (thus far?), you used the word "reinterpret." As someone who leans toward the NT priority that you're arguing against, I would not affirm that the NT reinterprets the OT…"
This is a common objection, but it is really a deflection. Many writers who believe the OT must be interpreted by the NT use the word “reinterpret,” (e.g., Kim Riddlebarger, Graeme Goldsworthy). They do so correctly because an OT text, say, Isaiah 54:9-10, is given a new meaning, supposedly derived from the NT. Isaiah 54:9-10 says,
'For this is like the waters of Noah to Me;
For as I have sworn
That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth,
So have I sworn
That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.
For the mountains shall depart
And the hills be removed,
But My kindness shall not depart from you,
Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,”
Says the LORD, who has mercy on you.'
In Isaiah this is clearly addressed to Israel (Isa. 54:5), which is contrasted with the nations (Isa. 53:3). But this is re-interpreted via the use of a certain typology to refer to the Church. Again, the example I gave was Ezekiel’s Temple. The elaborate floorplan and the details of the courses of the “Levites” and the “Zadokites” etc., are made into types. They are re-interpreted. Now I understand your complaint. But you are operating from an assumption that such texts are like puzzles to be interpreted. In other words, they do not convey God’s intended meaning in their words, but are types and shadows that require interpretation. Whereas I hold that the words in context convey the precise meaning God intended us to have faith in. Hence, any attempt to “transform” or “expand” the meaning of those words would be a re-interpretation.
"…in the sense that the OT affirms "A" and then the NT comes along and affirms "not-A."
I know that, and DV will try to show that the problem is that we’re not affirming the same thing when we speak of "A". With respect, and correct me if I’m wrong, you would claim that the OT affirms A (assumed to be a type or shadow – essentially a puzzle), and the NT comes along and declares “this is what “A” actually meant.” In such a scenario, only an interpretation is given because there is one step from type/puzzle to interpretation of said type.
But for one who believes the text is not a type or shadow and the meaning is on the surface of the text (i.e., Isa. 54 is God comforting Israel that His covenants with them are like the Noahic covenant, or that Ezekiel 40-48 refer to an actual temple and service in line with the covenant with Phinehas in Num 25), if these passages are converted into types, that is one step in interpretation, and the explication of the “types” would be the second step; i.e., re-interpretation.
"I would affirm that the NT clarifies, hones, and/or expands on expectations already inherent in the OT text, and this regardless of what contemporary readers would have understood."
Sure, but what do these words mean to you? By clarify do you mean “to add further information to what is already known” or do you mean more like “solve the riddle of the OT type”? When you say “expand” do you mean “to enlarge upon already existing information. To augment the detail”? Or do you mean “to convert the meaning of Type ‘A’ (say, the OT meaning of “Israel”) to its antitype (say, the mainly Gentile Church)?
Do you confine “expectation” to salvation through Messiah, or do you allow that OT Jews also had firm expectations of the nation of Israel being the first among the nations; that Messiah would reign on David’s throne in Jerusalem; that the nations will have to come to Jerusalem to observe the Feast of Tabernacles at the future temple? You see, we must understand what we intend to mean by the use of these terms.
"Peter even tells us, living under the New Covenant, to rejoice that we have access to what the prophets could only search out (1 Peter 1:10-12). Peter says that Old Covenant believers knew they didn't have the full picture. Hebrews 11:13-16 tells us that Abraham--even though he occupied Canaan for a time--was taking the longer view."
How are you interpreting 1 Peter 1:10-12 and Hebrews 11:13-16? Here, very briefly, are my interpretations:
In 1 Peter 1:10-12 the apostle is talking about “this salvation.” That is, he is talking about “the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1:11). There were intimations of this in the Prophets, but little detail about Jesus and crucifixion and nothing about the work of the Spirit in the Church (Col. 1:24-27). That is what “the Prophets could only search out” as you put it. Peter is not talking about the covenant promises to national Israel.
That is my understanding in brief. Would you agree with it? Maybe not, but my point is that perhaps you would agree more with a different interpretation along the lines of “the Prophets didn’t realize that what they were writing was symbolic of Christ and the Church.” I’m not saying you hold that view, but if I’m close see Part 1 of this series.
You write,
"Hebrews 11:13-16 tells us that Abraham--even though he occupied Canaan for a time--was taking the longer view."
Presumably you take the "longer view" to be that Abraham was not concerned about the landedness and earth-boundness of the covenant God made with him and his seed (e.g., Gen. 15)? But I think you misunderstand the passage.
To repeat something I said elsewhere, in Genesis 15,
“God reveals to Abram that he in fact will not himself live to inherit the land, but that he will die after living well into old age. [Also], the covenant expressly joins Abram’s descendants together with the land that Abram has been brought into, but only after they have been absent from it for four hundred years.”
Abraham was well aware that to look to possess the land himself was futile. Therefore he “looked to a city whose Builder and Maker was God”. This in no way alters the covenant oath God took in Genesis 15.
Of course, Abraham, who knew he would not inherit the land, looked to “a city whose Builder and Maker was God.” But this does nothing to transform the fixed promises of God regarding the people and nation of which he was the fount. This was my point about ““Only Our Interpretations of the NT are Permitted” in the first installment.
"If OT and early believers misinterpreted a text, or limited the import and application of the text, that is not the fault of the text. An early believer who thought Deuteronomy 25:4 was only about muzzling oxen probably should have taken a queue from the principles behind it (1 Corinthians 9:9-10)."
This is a very common response, as if it gives carte blanche to interpret any troublesome OT text to mean something different than it actually says. But this is just an example of meaning versus significance. It is not to be understood as many meanings foisted onto a passage.
"There is still room for disagreement on how the NT texts interact with the OT texts and what the net meaning is. But I don't think it's a matter of God affirming A in one testament and not-A in another.
Imagine that I meet a caterpillar here above the 40th parallel, and I prophesy to him, "You will travel to Mexico." "
So please apply this to Ezekiel 40-48 or Zechariah 8 or 14, or Jeremiah 33:14-26. For instance, the Jeremiah 33 passage cites or alludes to no less than five divine covenants.
"And he looks and me and says (he's a talking caterpillar, HT: Lewis Carroll), "Yeah, right. I could never walk that far on these legs." But then one day he's in a chrysalis, and he emerges with wings, and flies to Mexico. Is he going to complain, "But you said I'd walk to Mexico!" or will he be glad for the wings and remember that I'd never said anything about walking?"
Behind this illustration lies the idea that any OT covenant oath given to a specified party can be morphed into something utterly different (like a butterfly is from a caterpillar) so that the original promises of God are altered out of all recognition by prioritized interpretations of the NT (anyone unfamilar with caterpillers would never think it was the same creature as a butterfly). But the privilegd interpretations are channeled through particular set of theological assumptions (like “one people of God,” “first coming hermeneutics”).
Deconstructing the tale, notice the choice of a caterpillar which has the potential to turn into a butterfly. Again, feel free to correct me, but the caterpillar is presumably OT Israel which it is assumed has the potential to turn into the multinational Church. Ah, but do you see the hidden assumption? Israel is the Church and the Church is Israel, but in an expanded form. In other words, this is an example of begging the question. One must first prove that OT Israel/NT Church is like the caterpillar/butterfly (i.e., the same creature) before assuming it. And this brings us back to my posts, which put their finger on this very assumption.
I do not think you deliberately meant to be deceptive. This way of treating Scripture encourages a form a casuistry where real intention is hidden. To summarize them
1. Your statements about “the NT is needed to properly understand the OT” and “the OT is needed to properly understand the NT” are equivocal. You seem to hold that the NT can transform the plain terms of the OT but not vice versa.
2. Your “principles of progressive revelation” seem not to mean univocal meaning augmented and traceable from A to Z, but more like types finally unveiled as unexpected antitype at the final reveal.
3. Your quotation of the WCF 1-9 is misleading because it fails to account for what the Divines meant by it.
4. Your OT “A” versus NT “non A” contrast does not take into account the typology I believe you have built into “A” which I would reject.
5. You assert that “the NT clarifies, hones, and/or expands on expectations already inherent in the OT text,” but all those words bear a meaning which incorporates types and shadows into the statement. What you mean by these words is not what I would mean. There is a hidden equivocation.
6. Your referencing 1 Peter 1 and Hebrews 11 privileges your interpretation of those passages, which confirms my contention in Pt 1 of this series.
7. Finally, your illustration carries within it a hidden assumption that the OT is like a caterpillar and the NT like a butterfly. Hence, OT passages can be transformed by NT passages (understood in a certain way). But I entirely reject this premise.
I say this, not to attack you in any way, but to try to explain the difference in our approaches to the Bible. And remember, the actual point of the post you commented upon was that the NT couldn’t have interpretive authority because it just wasn’t available to most Christians for a long time after it was written.
Again. Thank you for giving me the chance to further explain my position.
God bless you and yours,
Paul H.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
NewIt seems self evident
If a NT passage quotes an OT passage and interprets it with a different meaning than OT interpreters assumed before taking the NT interpretation into account, the previously assumed OT interpretation must now be revised. Assumed OT interpretation is not inspired. NT declared interpretation is inspired. Fallible OT interpretation must yield to inspired and therefore infallible NT declaration.
G. N. Barkman
NewDoes this phrase, which I've heard much, make sense?
Augustine: "The New Testament is hidden in the Old; the Old is made manifest in the New" (often given in Latin as Novum in Vetere latet, et in Novo Vetus patet).
The idea is that the Old Testament holds in seed form (types, prophecies, patterns) what the New Testament brings into the open. So the Exodus, the sacrificial system, or the suffering servant passages in Isaiah are read as pointing forward to Christ, and the New Testament is seen as the interpretive key that unlocks them.
NewIf a NT passage quotes an OT…
I would imagine no one disagrees. But this doesn’t take into account the places that the NT uses the OT in a way other than interpretation, and I would venture to say that most NT uses of the OT are not strict interpretation. Furthermore, this would only affect that passages that are interpreted and the vast majority of the OT is not treated in the NT. So how are we to determine that meaning?
Remember, God held his people responsible (and judged them) on the basis of the OT meaning without the NT. It seems rather unjust to hold someone responsible for something that the text never meant and for a meaning that was undiscernible to them because they didn’t have the NT.
NewNo one disagrees
Larry, I'm glad you agree with my statement, and consider it sufficiently self-evident that you doubt that anyone would disagree. But doesn't that contradict your assertion that God would be unjust to hold people responsible for OT interpretation if they didn't have the NT? If there were only one case of NT inspired interpretation of the OT correcting the assumed but erroneous interpretation of the OT, as you evidently agree there is, then either God must be unjust in this particular example, or your assumption that to do this would make God unjust falls apart. Are you asserting that it's OK for God to be unjust occasionally? I fail to see how an unproven assumption about the justice of God should override known inspired examples of the NT correcting assumed OT interpretations.
G. N. Barkman
NewThat's a Big "If"
Well Greg, That is the whole point of these posts. What needs to be done is to address the matter, not simply restate the premise under scrutiny. You say, "Assumed OT interpretation is not inspired. NT declared interpretation is inspired." But "declared NT interpretation" is the point at issue. What is the correct interpretation of those inspired NT passages?
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
NewDarrell
This whole series is a refutation of that premise.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
NewWhat is the correct interpretation of the inspired NT passages?
Are you asserting that the NT meaning of a passage must be adjusted to agree with the assumed meaning of the corresponding OT passage? If so, I find this a strange assertion.
G. N. Barkman
NewNo
Greg, you're not reading what I wrote. You're reading your assumptions into my words (notice you say "adjusted" as if you think the NT passages reinterpret the OT). I'm saying - and I think this is made clear in the articles - that those who say that the OT must be interpreted by the NT actually mean "the OT is full of types etc which have their antitypes in the NT according to our privileged interpretation of the NT. No alternative interpretation of the passages are permitted."
I am saying that your interpretation of the NT is wrong because of the hermeneutical assumptions that are brought to the text. That is part of the "False Logic" of the title. The other aspect of this "False Logic" I have outlined is that it was not possible for the earliest Christians to interpret the OT with the NT as most of them didn't have a NT.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
NewThanks, Paul
That helps to clarify your articles. I agree that hermeneutics is crucial to this debate. The problem, as I see it, is that nobody's hermeneutical principles are inspired. They are derived and assumed. "Strangely", the principles employed by Dispensationalists yield dispensational interpretations, and the principles used by Covenantal students yield interpretations that support their positions. Hmmm...
It is obvious that Christians with only the OT did not have the benefit of NT guidance. God only holds people accountable for what they have, not what they do not have. But for those who have both OT and NT, God expects them to be guided by the greater light of the NT.
G. N. Barkman
NewIf there were only one case…
I think the difference here is that you think the NT gives a different interpretation of the OT than can be obtained by literal-grammatical-historical exegesis. I think NT interpretation will be the same that you would get from the OT interpretation. I also think you probably don’t limit “NT inspired interpretation” to actual interpretation of a text, but rather include any usage (or at least much more usage) of the OT by the NT, even when it isn’t interpretation. So if you limit your claim to actual interpretation, I don’t think anyone disagrees. If you expand “interpretation” to include things other than interpretation, you run into trouble.
I don’t think the justice of God is an unproven assumption. It is fundamental to theology proper, isn’t it?
NewThanks for correction
Thanks for correcting me
NewRegarding the old OT interpretation
Probably one of the big things to wrap our minds around is the reality that a lot of "standard interpretations" of the Old Testament come from the very "traditions of the Pharisees" and such that Jesus and Paul decried. So that makes it a little more complicated to interpret the OT with a fresh look.
But that said, I would still concur with the author that the NT will not overwrite correct interpretations of the OT. It's just more difficult than we might think at first.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewNT will not "overwrite" correct interpretations of the OT
I totally agree with this statement. What the NT does is correct incorrect interpretations of the OT. The NT helps us to interpret the OT in the way God intended. It helps us better understand how we should interpret the OT.
G. N. Barkman
NewSee Part One
Well, what Greg writes is true, but it doesn't get us very far. My purpose in this series is to identify where "false logic" is used to use the NT in such a way as to change the meaning of the OT text by the imposition of typology, genre, etc to conform the OT (and not a little of the NT) into a set of theological presuppositions.
Although only M. Osborne has attempted any real interaction with the arguments so far presented (and I inserted a part of a coming installment in my answer to him), I am grateful for any pushback that has been offered. DV I will respond to the counters as the series proceeds.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
NewSin offerings
This question has surely been answered in other threads on this forum, but I likely have missed it. I think it would be appropriate in this thread.
The opening post describes a preacher in 40 AD covering the book of Ezekiel. How would that preacher have presented the sin offering instructions in Ezekiel 43:19-27? Should that preacher be describing them as having the same purpose and function as the sin offerings that took place before Christ died on the cross? Would the OT readers have understood them to mean anything other than what sin offerings meant when they were commanded in the book of Exodus?
If there's a link to an article about future sin offerings, I'd love to read it.
NewShould that preacher be…
I would suggest that by 40AD, it was well known that the church was no longer under the Law and the sacrificial system. And yes, I think such a preacher would have preached the OT understanding on that passage and pointed out that it referred to a future age when Israel is restored and the temple rebuilt as Ezekiel prophesies. I am not sure why he would preach anything else. Remember, the blood of bulls and goats never took away sin in the OT and there is no reason to think they would in the millennium, and there is also a community oriented nature of the sacrificial system, i.e., it wasn’t just for atonement with God but for community relationships as well. So I don’t find this particularly troubling or difficult, but perhaps that’s just me.
NewLarry wrote: Remember, the…
So what did atonement with God mean in regards to sacrifices for an OT reader? I know the sacrifices didn't "take away" sin, but they did atone for sin until the next sacrifice. Didn't they? Would an OT reader be mistaken in thinking that the atonement meaning would apply for the Ezekiel temple?
NewSo what did atonement with…
The atonement covered over sins for a time (Rom 3). But they were acts of faith testifying to a greater thing, though it is not clear to me how much people knew at various stages along the way. On the basis of Hebrews, the repetitive nature of the sacrifices made clear that they didn’t finally atone for sin so I think it is consistent with OT exegesis to understand that, and to understand that they were pointing to something else. So Ezekiel sacrifices that point to something else is completely in line with OT knowledge.
But I think this misses another point that the sin offerings were not simply towards God. Again, as I said above, they were for community life and restoration and accountability. And that will still exist in the millennium. Taht is to say sacrifices were both vertical (towards God) and horizontal (toward fellow humans). This is why a biblical (I know … dangerous word) understanding of the kingdom matters. If you think the kingdom is now, you have to explain why these sacrifices don’t exist now because they are part of the legal framework for life in the theocracy. I think you can’t just wave them away. If you see a kingdom future, there is no tension here.
NewLarry wrote: If you think…
Since the sacrifices are going to be re-instituted, does that mean the whole Mosaic Law is going to be in effect during the Millennium? After all, the whole Law was part of the legal framework for life in the theocracy. Wasn't it?