When God authored the OT Scriptures using OT writing prophets, He had already decreed how the NT writing prophets would exegete those OT Scriptures.
- Thread starter KMK
- Start date
- Status
pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
I agree with your statement. The phraseology depends on your purpose. For instance, you can emphasise God’s eternal nature and the authority of Scripture as follows:
From all eternity, God decreed the writing of the OT and NT Scriptures. He is the true Author of all Scripture and, as such, Scripture truly interprets Scripture.
From all eternity, God decreed the writing of the OT and NT Scriptures. He is the true Author of all Scripture and, as such, Scripture truly interprets Scripture.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Sophomore
Agree. You could also use the Holy Spirit’s involvement in all Scripture inspiration and illumination to show continuity as well if that is your goal.
Thanks for your help.
My statement is an attempt to rebut those who claim the NT authors did not always respect the context of the OT Scriptures, and therefore we should not reproduce their exegetical method.
If God did not intend for us to learn exegesis from the HS, then from whom does he intend us to learn it? Old dead German guys?
My statement is an attempt to rebut those who claim the NT authors did not always respect the context of the OT Scriptures, and therefore we should not reproduce their exegetical method.
If God did not intend for us to learn exegesis from the HS, then from whom does he intend us to learn it? Old dead German guys?
I see your aim, and fundamentally I agree with the point. There are two very different sides that would oppose a NT-centric effort at interpreting the OT, so combating each might involve different tactics. There is critical scholarship on one hand, mainly unbelieving but also found among those who identify within the faith and desire respectability. And on the other hand you have those with an "Israel-centric" hermeneutic, in which camp are mostly dispensationalists and premillenialists of various stripes.
Those of the critical camp usually operate from a skeptical standpoint relative to the prophetic task. They are more likely to look for near-term fulfillments, if not ex eventu appeals (i.e. "prophecy" is a literary device for casting an author as clairvoyant, when in fact he's no better informed than another news reporter). The prophet's contemporary audience is his main interest, and proof of his value as a prophet or preacher is measured in contemporary validation.
Those of the national camp operate from a "literal" (i.e. earthbound, geographical, political, genetic, temporal) standpoint. These do not doubt the prophetic quality of OT pronouncements, but they insist these must be realized within the frame of a Mosaic-covenant, completely concrete idealized expression inside of history. So, if they think a prophecy was left unfulfilled when Jesus came the first time--mainly on account of his rejection by the nation--which would have been fulfilled in the way they anticipate if Jesus had instead been elevated to the Davidic throne; then it only remains for the fulfillment to be seen in the Second Coming, all totally literal and exact.
In terms of the critical camp, the NT authors are largely free to appropriate the previous predictions--fulfilled or not, it matters little--and repurpose them for a NT audience. This notion is akin to putting a reader in charge of the text he's interpreting, showing little immediate concern for authorial intent. The believers in this camp might argue that the HS is free to inspire that repurposing, since he is the real Author behind the inspiration in the first place. Progressives or traditionalists are probably on the same page, now arguing that Christian interpretation keeps doing something similar as the ages roll on; now preachers and theologians continue the repurposing, even doing the same with the NT text (old and outdated as it seems to them).
As for the national camp, these tend to see the church-age and Gentile incorporation (and dominance) as forcing a repurposing of the OT text because of how the first advent of Christ worked out. But, it is selective and temporary repurposing. Only the NT authors are permitted to do such a thing; it can't be a pattern for NT pastors and teachers to follow as they too interpret the OT. The "literal" interpretation of NT quoted texts is suspended only until the Second Coming, when the nationalist ideals are finally to be realized, Israel the nation advances to first place, with remaining Gentiles accepting reduced standing relative to the genetic (or religious?) stock.
It just seems to me: the above are two very different sides standing in opposition to the view espoused in the thread title and which most of us subscribe.
Those of the critical camp usually operate from a skeptical standpoint relative to the prophetic task. They are more likely to look for near-term fulfillments, if not ex eventu appeals (i.e. "prophecy" is a literary device for casting an author as clairvoyant, when in fact he's no better informed than another news reporter). The prophet's contemporary audience is his main interest, and proof of his value as a prophet or preacher is measured in contemporary validation.
Those of the national camp operate from a "literal" (i.e. earthbound, geographical, political, genetic, temporal) standpoint. These do not doubt the prophetic quality of OT pronouncements, but they insist these must be realized within the frame of a Mosaic-covenant, completely concrete idealized expression inside of history. So, if they think a prophecy was left unfulfilled when Jesus came the first time--mainly on account of his rejection by the nation--which would have been fulfilled in the way they anticipate if Jesus had instead been elevated to the Davidic throne; then it only remains for the fulfillment to be seen in the Second Coming, all totally literal and exact.
In terms of the critical camp, the NT authors are largely free to appropriate the previous predictions--fulfilled or not, it matters little--and repurpose them for a NT audience. This notion is akin to putting a reader in charge of the text he's interpreting, showing little immediate concern for authorial intent. The believers in this camp might argue that the HS is free to inspire that repurposing, since he is the real Author behind the inspiration in the first place. Progressives or traditionalists are probably on the same page, now arguing that Christian interpretation keeps doing something similar as the ages roll on; now preachers and theologians continue the repurposing, even doing the same with the NT text (old and outdated as it seems to them).
As for the national camp, these tend to see the church-age and Gentile incorporation (and dominance) as forcing a repurposing of the OT text because of how the first advent of Christ worked out. But, it is selective and temporary repurposing. Only the NT authors are permitted to do such a thing; it can't be a pattern for NT pastors and teachers to follow as they too interpret the OT. The "literal" interpretation of NT quoted texts is suspended only until the Second Coming, when the nationalist ideals are finally to be realized, Israel the nation advances to first place, with remaining Gentiles accepting reduced standing relative to the genetic (or religious?) stock.
It just seems to me: the above are two very different sides standing in opposition to the view espoused in the thread title and which most of us subscribe.
Thanks, Bruce. Do you know of Reformed who would oppose the thread title? I am looking for resources from those who engage with "NT-centric effort at interpreting the OT" from a confessional POV.
I'm not aware of any specific Reformed author or theologian/professor of any standing who might debate the title-thesis. It seems likely that there would be shades of opinion on how the specifics work out, between an earlier interpretation (within the OT context) and the later NT context. For instance, I think I've read some of our (Reformed) exegetes favoring, or relying to a greater degree on, the "double fulfillment" theory: in which an OT messianic prophecy might see one (or more) prior fulfillment before a greater fulfillment in Christ sooner or later.
For my part, I tend to see intermediate "fulfillment" less as closing-the-prophetic-loop, and instead as amplifying the original prophecy while keeping the focus on Christological fulfillment. In reality, some appeals to intermediate fulfillment aren't compelling; in fact the evident weakness in the proposal is why some dispensationalists insist on a future, still-earthly fulfillment for some prophecy. They fail to see the overwhelming superiority of the fulfillment that exceeds earthly expectation, the kind the NT writers frequently claim for the prophets.
- Status
