False Logic: The Folly of Claiming the NT is Needed to Rightly Interpret the OT (Pt. 4)

PART THREE

Those who tell us that we must interpret the OT by the NT point us to NT texts which they insist prove their position. I want to take a look at these texts and ask whether they are being interpreted accurately. Because if they are not being interpreted correctly the whole procedure will start to appear like a question-begging exercise for the purpose of protecting a preferred view of the Bible’s teaching.

Romans 15:4:

For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

Paul has just quoted the OT (Psa. 69:9) in the previous verse; his concern being the edification of the saints (Rom. 15:2), especially the weak saint (Rom. 15:1). The Apostle is saying that the Scriptures they had (which would be the OT) are source material for our understanding of God and His ways, and the examples of faith therein show us that faith is rewarded by the God who sees.

Nowhere is this verse are we given permission to read esoteric types and shadows into the plain words God used. Nowhere are we told that Israel is the Church.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4, 6, 11:

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ…Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted… Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

This is an involved passage. It refers to Christ as “that spiritual Rock that followed” the children of Israel in the wilderness. What Paul is doing is not spiritualizing the text. The spiritual food and drink were real sustanance provided by God, yet both were “spiritual” in the sense that they were supernaturally given. But what about the reference to Christ? Clearly Paul is not expecting us to believe that a physical rock came rolling behind the Israelite camp throughout their sojourn! No, I think the key is in the provident nature of their sustenance. Remember also that their clothes and shoes were supernaturally maintained during the Wilderness Wanderings (Deut. 29:5). The God who was providing for and protecting the Israelites was their future Messiah!

Some commentators are too quick to jump to a typological understanding. But although a figurative interpretation is involved (typoi is used in verse 6), the figure is the rock (petra), which Paul makes a picture or symbol of Christ’s providential presence. So what he is doing is adding information to the original story, and demonstrating the usefulness of the OT for edification through its examples.

This passage could be used to advocate for a typological interpretation, but it is quite specialized. The connection between Christ as the Rock and the divine care of the people is actual, not simply pictoral. Even if we leave that aside, the passage does not allow us to claim that the OT has to be interpreted by the NT. The OT context furnishes the historical story, while the NT’s use of that story adds further information that in no way distorts or alters the original meaning. Therefore, this is not a proof-text for the notion that the NT must interpret the OT.

Common Examples Illustrated by a Commenter

What follows are comments made on YouTube by those who wish to assert the hermeneutical primacy of the NT. I fully realize that most commenters who disagree with my position will exhibit to all that they have not listened to the argument presented in the video, and have not thought very hard about their own interpretations, but I have picked a few of the better counter-arguments to consider.

“Non-dispensationalists argue that OT prophecies to be fulfilled BEYOND THE OT era were not necessarily clear at the time they were made. Do you plan to deal with texts stating that certain OT prophecies (1) were expressed as dark sayings/riddles (Numbers 12:5-8) and parables/symbols (Hosea 12:10); and (2) are only clarified/fully revealed through the person and ministry of Jesus and the writings of the apostles as His auhorised spokesmen (Romans 16:15-26)?”

This commenter has given us three texts to examine, so let’s take a look at them:

The first passage is Numbers 12:5-8 which is aimed at Aaron and Miriam who have spoken against Moses. Yahweh differentiates His more personal revelation to Moses from the more indirect method of a vision or a dream. What this commenter is infering here seems to be that these equate to the “dark sayings,” i.e., esoteric communication given to Aaron and Miriam as opposed to the literal revelation addressed to Moses. Presumeably, this individual thinks that these “dark sayings” proliferate throughout the OT? But while the passage indicates degrees of clarity in God’s revelation to His prophets, that is not the same as saying His revelation is opaque or undecipherable (cf. Heb. 1:1). Aaron and Miriam, along with other prophets, may receive revelation in a vision or dream. And though it may be given in a “riddle” it doesn’t mean it is unclear to the recipient. Additionally, the text definately does not say that when the prophet discloses their revelation that they couch it in hidden ways. We should recall that Amos 3:7:

Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.

This indicates; and Scriptures bears it out – that most prophetic revelation is perspicuous. And, of course, the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture would be eviscerated if, as this commenter seems to indicate, much of it is comprised of “dark sayings.” Standing behind this comment is the assumption that much of the OT is unclear. But that assumption is brought to the text because the plain-sense of the prophetic literature has already been rejected. They want to teach that the covenantal prophecies of the OT are unclear because they want to “transform” (i.e., spiritualize) them via their NT interpretations.

The commenter’s next passage is Hosea 12:10:

I have also spoken by the prophets,
And have multiplied visions;
I have given symbols through the witness of the prophets

What was said above applies to this text and to those like it. In fact, it applies to Hosea himself. How much of the Book of Hosea is obscure if we are familiar with out OTs? Very little I would say. The prophecies of Hosea are readily understood when compared with God’s covenants. The NKJV has translated the verb dama as “symbols”, but that is not the best rendering. The word means “to compare.” Hence “similitude” would be more accurate. Of course, Isaiah (Isa. 20:1-4), Jeremiah (Jer. 32), Ezekiel (Ezek.4), Zechariah (Zech. 11:4-17) were symbols to the people.

The third example this individual supplies is Romans 16:15-26, although I think he means 16:25-56 which is on point.

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith..

Our commenter says these verses refer to revelations that “are only clarified/fully revealed through the person and ministry of Jesus and the writings of the apostles as His auhorised spokesmen.” What he means here is that the person of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles give us the true meaning of what was unclear in the OT.

I would say, sure, absolutely. The NT adds information which clarifies certain OT passages. Ah, but what I believe this person has in mind is more like “the NT reinterprets the types and shadows of the OT and tells us what its obscure symbolism really meant.” That, of course, is not what Romans 16:25-26 says. What was kept secret was the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But no prophet obfuscated this truth, he just gave glimpses as he was shown.

Our friend then tries to illutrate his view:

Consider the example of Isaiah 53:10: The original audience of the prophecy would not have known whether the Suffering Servant’s “seed” in Isaiah 53:10 represent biological descendants or a symbolic reality. ONLY IN THE NT ERA would it have become clear that Jesus’s seed in Isaiah 53:10 are not biological descendants, but those who are BORN from above/again through faith in Jesus to eternal spiritual LIFE (as well as eternal physical resurrection life).

As a non-dispensationist, I completely agree with you on the clarity of the OT prophecies you covered THAT WERE FULFILLED IN THE OT. But that is beside the point. Why don’t you focus instead on OT prophecies that have already been fulfilled BEYOND THE OT ERA? If you do so, you’ll realise that the decision whether to interpret such prophecies literalistically (for example, that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem) or symbolically (for example, His seed in Isaiah 53:10) can only be made IN LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT NT REVELATION.

This is a rather unfortunate example as a reading of the immediate context undercuts his argument. Yes, the “seed” in verse 10 is not physical. It is spiritual. But it is also literal not symbolic. This Servant Song tells us that the Servant (who has already been described in Isaiah 42 and 49) will act as a Substitute for our sins (Isa. 53:5). He “will sprinkle many nations” (Isa. 52:13), meaning He will consecrate peoples to God. Isaiah 53:6 declares,

the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (cf. Isa. 53:8, 10-11).

Now, if the Servant is going “to justify many” and save sinners, isn’t it easy to interpret His “seed” as those whom He saves? Some of whom are biological descendants (Isa. 53:8d)? If so then the “seed” from “the nations” (Isa. 52:13) can at least be inferred as spiritual seed. It may take the NT to provide the information about being born-again by the Spirit and then being adopted to augment this prediction, but it surely does nothing to reinterpret it!

And so I have found such challenges to affirm the consequent or else to read the OT text too thinly because back of it all is the thought that the NT must reinterpret the OT. That assumption ought to be dropped when the OT is read.