tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1811264108457143000.post3313265269675908199..comments2023-07-01T00:22:54.261+09:30Comments on Berith Road: The Perspicuity of Pauline ScriptureSteven Coxheadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17798792943613130505noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1811264108457143000.post-58542341376312022622010-01-30T03:28:36.698+09:302010-01-30T03:28:36.698+09:30Steven
I agree largely with what you say.
However...Steven<br /><br />I agree largely with what you say.<br />However, I do think the fulfilment of the OT both exceeds OT revelation and exegetes it in unexpected ways. Both of thes are involved in 'mystery'in the NT.<br /><br />Rom 16:25-26 (ESV)<br />Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-<br /><br />The OT envisaged one eschatological end. The 'already' and 'not yet' is not clear in the OT viewed on its own terms. <br /><br />The idea of Union with Christ and much implied in that is also either absent or 'hidden'. This includes the equality of Jew and Gentile as one new man or one body.<br /><br />The fact that the gentile fullness happens before the Jewish fullness (Roms 9-11) is another example.<br /><br />Christ not only revealed OT truth, he advanced truth. He in fact is 'the truth'. He promises the disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into truth they were not yet ready to bear. This seems to be fresh revelation.<br /><br />Having said this, as I say, I largely agree with your comments.John Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03409722788388167914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1811264108457143000.post-29759015971763902912010-01-29T22:04:36.827+09:302010-01-29T22:04:36.827+09:30Hello John,
Yes, I hold to progressive revelation...Hello John,<br /><br />Yes, I hold to progressive revelation as well, and acknowledge a theological priority of the New Testament over the Old. I don’t think this means, however, that the New Testament is necessary to interpret the Old Testament properly. The New Testament adds clarity, and therefore can definitely help us understand the Old Testament better (but, depending how it is used, it can also get in the way). The New Testament also identifies for us the One that was prophesied about, and perhaps introduces a few new ideas; but the Old Testament stood for a long time in and of itself as a sufficient witness to Israel about God and his purposes. In and of itself it is not that difficult to understand. Jews through the centuries haven’t had the New Testament to guide them, but I’d argue that their exegesis of the Hebrew Bible has generally been quite good! There’s a lot that we can learn from orthodox Jewish believers regarding how the Hebrew text should be understood. <br /><br />I agree that Christ explained to his disciples from the Old Testament the things concerning himself, but he was talking about things that were already there in the text of the Old Testament, and bringing out the significance of those things in terms of their connection with himself. His text was actually the Old Testament! <br /><br />“He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26). According to Jesus, the suffering and glorification of the Messiah were clearly spoken about in the Old Testament, and in great detail. <br /><br />In your view is there anything regarding the new covenant that hasn’t already been prophesied or foreshadowed in the Old Testament? In my experience, there’s not much.Steven Coxheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798792943613130505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1811264108457143000.post-56143242588237444332010-01-28T07:39:42.393+09:302010-01-28T07:39:42.393+09:30Steven
My argument for NT interpreting the OT is ...Steven<br /><br />My argument for NT interpreting the OT is less based on the relative perspecuity of the NT over the OT than on the principle that the OT is incomplete and not fully explained without the NT. It is progressive revelation rather than perspecuity itself that is the issue. This progressive revelation is necessary to properly interpret the OT. And so Christ explains to his disciples from the OT the things concerning himself. I think the NT has a priority in this sense over the OT.<br /><br /><br />Incidentally when you post a reply comment I notice it always appears twice in my mail box and your comment appeared twice on Euangelion???John Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03409722788388167914noreply@blogger.com