Ok wow, where to start with this. At the outset, I appreciate your approach to lovingly disagreeing with someone. I have been wanting this very issue to be addressed, I too have noticed this view becoming more prominent over the last few years. We see the extreme of this view with Andy Stanley, where the OT is "unhitched" and then it lead to not even really needing the NT. While this article does not point that far, it starts down a dangerous, inconsistent hermeneutical path. I have noticed that most that promote NT priority do so out of a need to support their presuppositions, and I have seen a rise within this camp that put a great focus on church history and church fathers to the point where they argue from church history rather than Scripture
as someone who is Reformed, i tell them this all the time and they refuse to acknowledge it 😂 consistent covenant theology = infant baptism "Reformed" baptists modified covenant theology in order to fit their baptist beliefs on the sacraments into the Reformed theology
Thank you. This might be your best video so far. Very informative and very encouraging. I do hold to the covenants of work and grace but also hold to the dispensational distinctives of a future for the nation of Israel and the hermeneutics you so wonderfully explained. I would very much like to see your teaching on the covenants of work and grace. I also wanted to add for your viewers that Tom Hick's information on Richard Baxter's problematic doctrine of justification is helpful. And his information on Doug Wilson is helpful as well. God bless you.
This was really helpful, thank you! I have been thinking about this topic from another angle, that being the nature of Scripture and how NT Priority relates to the idea of the "sufficiency" of Scripture. As I understand it, NTP effectively denies the sufficiency of the Old Testament on its own terms - in other words, as a faithful Israelite exegete in the time of (say) the exile, you could not accurately understand what God was saying in the Old Testament, until the New Testament came along. This vital "key" to understanding the Bible, in other words, was missing, for God's people prior to the authoring of the NT. The Old Testament does not posses the "sufficiency" characteristic, according to NTP, until it's matched with the New Testament. This becomes an even bigger problem when we enter the NT era and recognize that many of our favorite stories and characters are *still* operating without the benefit of the written NT. When the Bereans are commended for their Biblical discernment (Acts 17:11), they do not have access to the NT, their standard would have been the OT testament. Whenever Jesus or the apostles speak of "the Scriptures", they refer to the Old Testament. And some of our favorite texts (as Protestants) for supporting Sola Scriptura, like 2 Timothy 3:16-17, are almost certainly speaking in reference to the Old Testament scriptures, historically-speaking. What NTP implicitly seems to be saying is that, to the degree that Scripture is sufficient and perspicuous, it can only be so as a completed whole, not in its parts. According to NTP, the sufficiency of Scripture is quantitative (you need the complete set to correctly interpret it), whereas from a Passage-Priority standpoint, the sufficiency of Scripture is qualitative (sufficiency is a characteristic of divine revelation itself - in other words, God by nature speaks with enough clarity that people are accountable to correctly understand and obey him). I'm not sure if this framing makes sense to anyone else, but it seems helpful to me. Would love your thoughts! zacharyklein.substack.com/p/on-the-sufficiency-of-scripture
I think there is something to be said for addressing the sufficiency of Scripture and NTP. I am sure those who advocate for NTP would say they believe Scripture is sufficient, but perhaps they would say it has to be in its canonical context and completed form? I think that is problematic to argue that way, but regardless there is perhaps some inconsistency there. Thanks for sharing your writings on the subject for further detail!
Sorry, another comment: Galatians 3:16 refers to Christ as the Seed, but that's not the end of the story. If the blog author would just go down to verse 29, he would see that the seed there is plural. It's both/and, yes? EDIT: Okay, I see that he addressed that.
Just beginning to watch.....I would have thought that the key to understanding the New Testament would be to have a basic grasp of the Old Testament. So the inverse of the question in the heading.
Paul preached to the Gentiles and the Jews from the O.T. I've also used the OT to shed light on who the Messiah is to Jewish folk I met in Israel (notably some young Brooklyn Jews....on the bank of the Sea of Galilee) and a few Israeli backpackers when they visited Australia. I then encouraged them to read Matthew as it seems the primary audience are Jewish and the references back to the O.T. are plentiful @@thebiblesojourner
That quotation or Galatians 3:16 by CT’s is one of the most annoying things to deal with. It just shows a lack of understanding or willingness to deal honestly with the other side
I believe an epistemological concern arises with New Testament priority because from NT we see numerous instances where Paul reasons from Scriptures to demonstrate Jesus is the Messiah. Therefore, it seems both anachronistic, and contextually questionable whether the apostles had anything like NT priority in mind. The epistemological question becomes, how could anyone confirm and that the NT is word of God and Jesus is Messiah in such a manner that it could be demonstrated in the 1st century. This question came to me because some bright Mormon missionaries came to me and asked, "Don't you us the NT to understand the OT? That's what we are doing with the BoM and prior revelation does not confirm later." Lastly, I did a good portion of my seminary training at a prominent Reformed seminary in the states and NT priority strongly taught. I don't know if it is a logical outcome but several of my professors denied that there were any direct prophecies of Christ. One even said, "Isaiah 53 speaks MORE directly about Jesus than Psalm 22." (He didn't believe Psalm 22 spoke of Christ except in a secondary manner and we only knew that because of the NT, I know this is controversial but the predominant interpretation before Ibn Ezra by both Jews and Christians was that Ps. 22 was aprophecy of a future event from David's time and not primarily of David)
I appreciate your thoughts and especially your personal experience with your seminary training and interaction with Mormons. I think that is often a missing component in this discussion--how does our consistency (or inconsistency) show up in interacting with other worldviews and religions. I think you make a great point (one that I totally missed addressing in the video!).
Thank you for your thoughtful response and interacting with your audience! One additional thought, in "A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar" by van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze they point out that the use of the conjunction at beginning of the narrative books (except Genesis) demonstrates the Hebrew Bible's narrative and especially the Torah is to be read as a continuous story from creation onward. In other words, the literary structure of the Hebrew Bible seems to militate against a NT priority view (i.e., forward reading rather than backward reading).
@@Ceterisparibus1723 That's a great point. I'm sure many who hold NT priority would say they view it as an unfolding story too, but in practice it does seem it is treated less like stories normally are. Love Merwe, Naude, and Kroeze!
I really think that if we clarify our use of the term “NT priority,” that dispensationalist and covenant theology could agree. I think we could agree about singular meaning with various significance as opposed to a postmodern view of multiple meanings (which should be distinguished from even what the Fathers were doing with literal and spiritual meanings). I think it would be helpful to Agree on the above, and then note that the differences between dispensational and covenantal views of the church and Israel are not really about “hermeneutics” but it’s about the vary particular set of passages that relate to the national restoration of Israel. I’m not a dispensationalist, but a progressive covenantalist, yet I agree with a national restoration for Israel. My disagreement with Dispensationalism has to do with its need to restore the sacrificial system and law of Moses rather than see the restoration of Israel unto the new covenant which has left certain aspects of the old covenant to one side. Thus, when I say the NT has priority over the OT, I mean two things: 1) that the NT does clarify certain hard things of OT prophesy concerning Messiah which Peter says were not clear but we’re being sought out by the OT prophets until the event of Jesus, and 2) that the NT is a covenantal system which supersedes the nationalist OT with an international body of Christ (which nation groups like Israel can later join in a wholistic sense if done in mass). The error of the Covenant theologian who denies the prophesied OT predictions is not on account of NT priority as defined above, but just a bad reading of both the OT and NT passages on this topic. It can turn into a war over hermeneutics but I think that is an unprofitable distraction. The error of the dispensationalist is the demand that the sacrifices must be restored for the OT prophesies of Israel’s restoration to be fulfilled (but we would need to go over specific passages to show why this is a mistake. On the whole I completely agree with your sentiment that certain passages in both the OT and NT can be unclear, thus it is the clear passages which should dictate the less clear, whether these are found in the OT or NT. I actually think there is much wisdom in this last observation. My basic pushback would simply be that “NT priority” should be accepted from a covenantal and progressive revelation standpoint, but can agree that it is not a one sized fits all “hermeneutic” for altering the OT based upon one’s preferred NT reading. Thanks for the great discussion of this difficult issue!
@@joshuakriese4604, perhaps so, but flush out what you mean when you say that it is a hermeneutical issue? I can see why you might say that, and we might be able to agree depending upon what you mean by a “hermeneutical issue.” Certainly there is a difference of interpretation. I’m not denying that. I’m just inclined to see more unity around the essential hermeneutical method among conservatives of many stripes then is often granted simply because of a difference over how to interpret Israel and the church. But what do you mean when you say that it is a hermeneutical issue?
Appreciate your thoughtful comment and great interaction! I have to say, progressive covenantalists are some of my favorite people in the world, and I think sometimes I have more in common with many of them over against some dispensationalists. I say that just to reaffirm what you said, there is a lot of agreement between some of these positions. I think as long as we can agree on what we're trying to accomplish (a contextual meaning within the author's intended use), then we can have very profitable discussions. The biggest difference between progressive covenantalists and dispensationalists (I think) would be in terms of typological understandings. Often PC will agree with the dispensationalist in the exegesis of an OT passage, but then argue from typology to change its meaning (e.g., the land promise to Israel). But of course, not all PC are the same. Really appreciate your comments and hope we get more future interactions. Blessings.
Thanks for that Peter I’d like to ask you if you think using Harry Potter as references is wise? I’m very much against the books and see them as witchcraft for kids. If you like them then that’s between you and the Lord but to use them in your Bible podcasts I don’t think is wise. When I preach I don’t talk about certain types of music I like as I know it’s not all helpful to those in the congregation. I love your podcast and please know say this in love 😊
Daniel, your kind rebuke is taken in the spirit it was given. Thank you brother! I will certainly spend time thinking more about this. Really appreciate you taking the time to say that. Your thoughtful interactions are certainly some of the best parts of UA-cam.
@@thebiblesojourner thank you Peter, and I so glad you received it with the love it was sent in. I’m so grateful for your teaching. There aren’t many really good defenders of pre mill dispensational view of scripture in the format you run in. It’s so easy to get lost in the covenant theology UA-cam/podcast world as they produce so much good stuff. I really struggled to feel like what I believe the Bible teaches had good defenders. You’ve opened me up to many other godly men who believe as we do and it has really helped. Please keeps up the good work, I’m a father of three and appreciate how busy life is. Glad you take the time to help blue collar folks Like me learn whilst I work. 😁
Dr. Goeman, as always, great podcast! This thought of the Bible as a mystery novel is rather dangerous. I think what is at stake is the perspicuity of Scripture. If the NT is the interpreter (or, in Vlach's words, the "reinterpreter") of the OT, then God didn't speak to mankind until the Church recognised the canon. This is just nonsense! God indeed has spoken to mankind (cf. Heb 11:1).
I think you're right. The clarity of Scripture and how we know what it means is really the issue at stake. If there is a "reinterpreter" then we are in deep trouble!
When Jesus said the Law the Prophets spoke of Him, i think that gives us a new light in how to read those texts does it not? Also in Matt 7:28-19 when Jesus was teaching from the Old Testament scriptures he amazed people. They heard these scriptures in a new light and had a new greater understanding after Jesus taught. Also isnt Daniel locked until Revelation was written? The book that unlocks so much prophecy in Daniel and other Old Testament prophets? We cannot understand Daniel by itself and neither can we understand Revelation by itself. Old and New testaments are not fighting for supremacy, they are the two witnesses mentioned in Rev 11:4 and Zach 4:14.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Lawrence. When Jesus said the Law and Prophets spoke of Him, that is undoubtedly true. But we also can easily see that in the Old Testament... we don't need the New Testament to show us that. The New Testament simply confirms what we already knew to be true. For example, there were many who were awaiting the Messiah because of what the OT had said in very clear terms. Also, when Jesus taught the sermon on the mount, the amazement that the people had was because Jesus taught as one having authority, not as the scribes. In other words, it was not the secret content as much as the boldness with which he taught (in contrast to the pharisees and scribes). Revelation "unlocking" Daniel as it were is simply consistent with progressive Revelation, and the two witnesses mentioned in Rev 11:4 and Zech is a debatable construct. It could just as easily be allegorically applied to the human and divine nature of Christ if we are just going to argue it is symbolic... (I don't believe this, but just want to show we need to have some standard by which we can interpret). Really appreciate your interaction. Blessings to you!
@@thebiblesojourner Thank you for the kind response. Its possible we may agree but saying it differently. You mention in the video that we can learn a new way to understand a text after reading the NT but there was no new meaning added. For the reader isnt that the same thing though? For instance Genesis 3:15 we understand this to be the first Gospel promise but many Jews do not read it that way. If a Jewish person who was raised only on OT and later in life read the NT and believed it he would suddenly have a new understanding of Gen 3:15. You and I may tell him he had a bad understanding prior to reading the NT but for him this is a new understanding. This doesnt make the NT a more important text, it clarifies certain aspects of the OT. Another example would be the trinity. We see it in many examples in the OT most clearly in Isaiah 48:16-17 but again our Jewish friends would disagree. Until a Jewish person converts to Christianity they would never agree on a triune God. Im sure there are other examples but ill leave with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching and equipping us fully. It doesnt say the new or old is better or more important. They are both needed to fully equip us. This among other reasons is why I believe the new and old are the two witnesses but that's a different argument.
@@lawrencekuhlman9405 Yes, you make a good point and I think Gen 3:15 is a good example. Also, the Trinity is an excellent point. Our understanding of those things deepen through progressive revelation in ways OT saints didn't have, but I'm just very sensitive to the idea that meanings change. Really the biggest point where this shows up is in a future land promise to Israel. There is so much about that in the OT and it seems very clear. But then you have many who say, "Well, that's not repeated in the NT, so it must be reconfigured just to be talking about blessing" or things like that. But that seems a little different to me than deepening ones understanding. That seems to be completely reversing one's understanding of a relatively clear text of Scripture.
Do you believe God is the primary author of Old Testament texts? Because if you do, that makes you conclude that the Bible is unlike all other books. In this way, "meaning" can be concealed in the old, and realized/revealed in the new--along these lines, see, for example, 1 Peter 1:10-13.
I don’t agree with the terminology “primary.” I believe in what is known as confluence-the human and divine author are completely confluent and what one means the other means incomplete and absolute harmony. 1 Peter 1 shows that the prophets didn’t know when their prophecies would happen but they understood what they were prophesying.
@@thebiblesojourner If you don't like the word "primary", in what way would you say that God is the greater / more responsible in terms of authorship? Or would you even? It would seem that you could use a word to describe God's superior role in the matter. For example, God thought it up to write it before the prophet did? I don't see a problem in seeing some ultimacy of God over the prophet (even within the narrow topic of authoring). Your word, "confluence" appears to me to be a word to describe one aspect of the whole subject, while there yet remains many aspects to it -- so when I say "primary", then I mean by it that God himself knows the end of the matter from the beginning -- more than the prophet did. God can know when one event will be typical of a future larger one. Take marriage, for example, from Eph 5, where Paul says he is talking about Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32). I would say God knew about this back in Genesis 3, and knew more about it than Moses. God always knows more than the tools he employs to write his words. It seems to me that you would object to this conclusion as it applies to authoring and authors.
The blog article you are referencing says, "It [the NT] tells us of 'mysteries' in the Old Testament yet to be revealed (Colossians 1:26)." I would strongly disagree with this assertion. The author cites Colossians 1:26 ("the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints") but there's nothing there about the mystery being hidden in the OT. An even clearer text is Ephesians 3:9 -- "...the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God..." The mystery was hidden _in God,_ *not* _in the OT._
That's a good point. That assertion would need to be proven a little better. But in his defense, it is a blog article, so I get being a little too concise. Probably something that he would want to talk a little more about though.
How soon the Bible becomes an idol in the hands of the intellectual class who imagine themselves teachers. The facts are that we have two alternative covenants. The first covenant was a book of rules that were misinterpreted and thus made rule keeping the function we are to place most high. Isaiah 22 talks about how the people were busy offering sacrifices and tithes and completely ignoring God. The same can be said of dispensationalists who think that somehow Jesus' work and ultimate sacrifice is not sufficient unto salvation. So sad that so many have been taken in by the heresy we call dispensationalism.
An honest reading of Romans 11 shows that the idea that we should "discard the old testament" is exactly what Paul was warning Christians against doing. There is no way to read that as allegory.
Ok wow, where to start with this. At the outset, I appreciate your approach to lovingly disagreeing with someone. I have been wanting this very issue to be addressed, I too have noticed this view becoming more prominent over the last few years. We see the extreme of this view with Andy Stanley, where the OT is "unhitched" and then it lead to not even really needing the NT. While this article does not point that far, it starts down a dangerous, inconsistent hermeneutical path. I have noticed that most that promote NT priority do so out of a need to support their presuppositions, and I have seen a rise within this camp that put a great focus on church history and church fathers to the point where they argue from church history rather than Scripture
You're right of course. There are different extremes of this kind of thinking, but it all stems from problematic methodologies.
👏👏👏 Well done! Spot on! ❤
Appreciate it, thank you for the encouragement.
Excellent. Reformed Baptists cling to NT priority because it’s their last line of defense against infant baptism.
Good point! It is a big part of the argument for them.
as someone who is Reformed, i tell them this all the time and they refuse to acknowledge it 😂
consistent covenant theology = infant baptism
"Reformed" baptists modified covenant theology in order to fit their baptist beliefs on the sacraments into the Reformed theology
Thank you. This might be your best video so far. Very informative and very encouraging. I do hold to the covenants of work and grace but also hold to the dispensational distinctives of a future for the nation of Israel and the hermeneutics you so wonderfully explained. I would very much like to see your teaching on the covenants of work and grace. I also wanted to add for your viewers that Tom Hick's information on Richard Baxter's problematic doctrine of justification is helpful. And his information on Doug Wilson is helpful as well. God bless you.
Glad to hear it was helpful, praise God! Looking forward to getting your thoughtful interactions on some of the CoG and CoW issues. Blessings!
Thank you.
This was really helpful, thank you! I have been thinking about this topic from another angle, that being the nature of Scripture and how NT Priority relates to the idea of the "sufficiency" of Scripture. As I understand it, NTP effectively denies the sufficiency of the Old Testament on its own terms - in other words, as a faithful Israelite exegete in the time of (say) the exile, you could not accurately understand what God was saying in the Old Testament, until the New Testament came along. This vital "key" to understanding the Bible, in other words, was missing, for God's people prior to the authoring of the NT. The Old Testament does not posses the "sufficiency" characteristic, according to NTP, until it's matched with the New Testament.
This becomes an even bigger problem when we enter the NT era and recognize that many of our favorite stories and characters are *still* operating without the benefit of the written NT. When the Bereans are commended for their Biblical discernment (Acts 17:11), they do not have access to the NT, their standard would have been the OT testament. Whenever Jesus or the apostles speak of "the Scriptures", they refer to the Old Testament. And some of our favorite texts (as Protestants) for supporting Sola Scriptura, like 2 Timothy 3:16-17, are almost certainly speaking in reference to the Old Testament scriptures, historically-speaking.
What NTP implicitly seems to be saying is that, to the degree that Scripture is sufficient and perspicuous, it can only be so as a completed whole, not in its parts. According to NTP, the sufficiency of Scripture is quantitative (you need the complete set to correctly interpret it), whereas from a Passage-Priority standpoint, the sufficiency of Scripture is qualitative (sufficiency is a characteristic of divine revelation itself - in other words, God by nature speaks with enough clarity that people are accountable to correctly understand and obey him).
I'm not sure if this framing makes sense to anyone else, but it seems helpful to me. Would love your thoughts! zacharyklein.substack.com/p/on-the-sufficiency-of-scripture
I think there is something to be said for addressing the sufficiency of Scripture and NTP. I am sure those who advocate for NTP would say they believe Scripture is sufficient, but perhaps they would say it has to be in its canonical context and completed form? I think that is problematic to argue that way, but regardless there is perhaps some inconsistency there. Thanks for sharing your writings on the subject for further detail!
Great message Peter - my first time listening to your podcast. Glad to hear we are on the same page brother! 🙂
Thanks for taking a listen, John! Indeed! Glad we are on the same page.
" Meaning, Application, and Intent. "
Important concepts!
Sorry, another comment: Galatians 3:16 refers to Christ as the Seed, but that's not the end of the story. If the blog author would just go down to verse 29, he would see that the seed there is plural. It's both/and, yes? EDIT: Okay, I see that he addressed that.
The more comments the merrier :) Thanks for making a reference to v. 29. Always important to be looking at the context!
Just beginning to watch.....I would have thought that the key to understanding the New Testament would be to have a basic grasp of the Old Testament. So the inverse of the question in the heading.
Sounds like you already understand the main issues! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the issue afterward.
Paul preached to the Gentiles and the Jews from the O.T. I've also used the OT to shed light on who the Messiah is to Jewish folk I met in Israel (notably some young Brooklyn Jews....on the bank of the Sea of Galilee) and a few Israeli backpackers when they visited Australia. I then encouraged them to read Matthew as it seems the primary audience are Jewish and the references back to the O.T. are plentiful @@thebiblesojourner
That quotation or Galatians 3:16 by CT’s is one of the most annoying things to deal with. It just shows a lack of understanding or willingness to deal honestly with the other side
I believe an epistemological concern arises with New Testament priority because from NT we see numerous instances where Paul reasons from Scriptures to demonstrate Jesus is the Messiah. Therefore, it seems both anachronistic, and contextually questionable whether the apostles had anything like NT priority in mind. The epistemological question becomes, how could anyone confirm and that the NT is word of God and Jesus is Messiah in such a manner that it could be demonstrated in the 1st century. This question came to me because some bright Mormon missionaries came to me and asked, "Don't you us the NT to understand the OT? That's what we are doing with the BoM and prior revelation does not confirm later."
Lastly, I did a good portion of my seminary training at a prominent Reformed seminary in the states and NT priority strongly taught. I don't know if it is a logical outcome but several of my professors denied that there were any direct prophecies of Christ. One even said, "Isaiah 53 speaks MORE directly about Jesus than Psalm 22." (He didn't believe Psalm 22 spoke of Christ except in a secondary manner and we only knew that because of the NT, I know this is controversial but the predominant interpretation before Ibn Ezra by both Jews and Christians was that Ps. 22 was aprophecy of a future event from David's time and not primarily of David)
I appreciate your thoughts and especially your personal experience with your seminary training and interaction with Mormons. I think that is often a missing component in this discussion--how does our consistency (or inconsistency) show up in interacting with other worldviews and religions. I think you make a great point (one that I totally missed addressing in the video!).
Thank you for your thoughtful response and interacting with your audience!
One additional thought, in "A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar" by van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze they point out that the use of the conjunction at beginning of the narrative books (except Genesis) demonstrates the Hebrew Bible's narrative and especially the Torah is to be read as a continuous story from creation onward. In other words, the literary structure of the Hebrew Bible seems to militate against a NT priority view (i.e., forward reading rather than backward reading).
@@Ceterisparibus1723 That's a great point. I'm sure many who hold NT priority would say they view it as an unfolding story too, but in practice it does seem it is treated less like stories normally are. Love Merwe, Naude, and Kroeze!
The New Testsment is the key to understanding the Old Testsment just like the Old Testsment is the key to understanding the New Testsment.
...pretty much, they work together in bringing the big picture, structure and an historical timeline.
I really think that if we clarify our use of the term “NT priority,” that dispensationalist and covenant theology could agree.
I think we could agree about singular meaning with various significance as opposed to a postmodern view of multiple meanings (which should be distinguished from even what the Fathers were doing with literal and spiritual meanings).
I think it would be helpful to
Agree on the above, and then note that the differences between dispensational and covenantal views of the church and Israel are not really about “hermeneutics” but it’s about the vary particular set of passages that relate to the national restoration of Israel.
I’m not a dispensationalist, but a progressive covenantalist, yet I agree with a national restoration for Israel. My disagreement with Dispensationalism has to do with its need to restore the sacrificial system and law of Moses rather than see the restoration of Israel unto the new covenant which has left certain aspects of the old covenant to one side.
Thus, when I say the NT has priority over the OT, I mean two things: 1) that the NT does clarify certain hard things of OT prophesy concerning Messiah which Peter says were not clear but we’re being sought out by the OT prophets until the event of Jesus, and 2) that the NT is a covenantal system which supersedes the nationalist OT with an international body of Christ (which nation groups like Israel can later join in a wholistic sense if done in mass).
The error of the Covenant theologian who denies the prophesied OT predictions is not on account of NT priority as defined above, but just a bad reading of both the OT and NT passages on this topic. It can turn into a war over hermeneutics but I think that is an unprofitable distraction.
The error of the dispensationalist is the demand that the sacrifices must be restored for the OT prophesies of Israel’s restoration to be fulfilled (but we would need to go over specific passages to show why this is a mistake.
On the whole I completely agree with your sentiment that certain passages in both the OT and NT can be unclear, thus it is the clear passages which should dictate the less clear, whether these are found in the OT or NT.
I actually think there is much wisdom in this last observation.
My basic pushback would simply be that “NT priority” should be accepted from a covenantal and progressive revelation standpoint, but can agree that it is not a one sized fits all “hermeneutic” for altering the OT based upon one’s preferred NT reading.
Thanks for the great discussion of this difficult issue!
Unfortunately, your response shows you don’t really understand dispensationalism. And we can’t agree, because it is certainly a hermeneutics issue
@@joshuakriese4604, perhaps so, but flush out what you mean when you say that it is a hermeneutical issue?
I can see why you might say that, and we might be able to agree depending upon what you mean by a “hermeneutical issue.” Certainly there is a difference of interpretation. I’m not denying that. I’m just inclined to see more unity around the essential hermeneutical method among conservatives of many stripes then is often granted simply because of a difference over how to interpret Israel and the church.
But what do you mean when you say that it is a hermeneutical issue?
Appreciate your thoughtful comment and great interaction! I have to say, progressive covenantalists are some of my favorite people in the world, and I think sometimes I have more in common with many of them over against some dispensationalists. I say that just to reaffirm what you said, there is a lot of agreement between some of these positions. I think as long as we can agree on what we're trying to accomplish (a contextual meaning within the author's intended use), then we can have very profitable discussions. The biggest difference between progressive covenantalists and dispensationalists (I think) would be in terms of typological understandings. Often PC will agree with the dispensationalist in the exegesis of an OT passage, but then argue from typology to change its meaning (e.g., the land promise to Israel). But of course, not all PC are the same.
Really appreciate your comments and hope we get more future interactions. Blessings.
Thanks for that Peter
I’d like to ask you if you think using Harry Potter as references is wise?
I’m very much against the books and see them as witchcraft for kids.
If you like them then that’s between you and the Lord but to use them in your Bible podcasts I don’t think is wise.
When I preach I don’t talk about certain types of music I like as I know it’s not all helpful to those in the congregation.
I love your podcast and please know say this in love 😊
Daniel, your kind rebuke is taken in the spirit it was given. Thank you brother! I will certainly spend time thinking more about this. Really appreciate you taking the time to say that. Your thoughtful interactions are certainly some of the best parts of UA-cam.
@@thebiblesojourner thank you Peter, and I so glad you received it with the love it was sent in.
I’m so grateful for your teaching. There aren’t many really good defenders of pre mill dispensational view of scripture in the format you run in. It’s so easy to get lost in the covenant theology UA-cam/podcast world as they produce so much good stuff. I really struggled to feel like what I believe the Bible teaches had good defenders. You’ve opened me up to many other godly men who believe as we do and it has really helped.
Please keeps up the good work, I’m a father of three and appreciate how busy life is. Glad you take the time to help blue collar folks
Like me learn whilst I work. 😁
Dr. Goeman, as always, great podcast! This thought of the Bible as a mystery novel is rather dangerous. I think what is at stake is the perspicuity of Scripture. If the NT is the interpreter (or, in Vlach's words, the "reinterpreter") of the OT, then God didn't speak to mankind until the Church recognised the canon. This is just nonsense! God indeed has spoken to mankind (cf. Heb 11:1).
I think you're right. The clarity of Scripture and how we know what it means is really the issue at stake. If there is a "reinterpreter" then we are in deep trouble!
When Jesus said the Law the Prophets spoke of Him, i think that gives us a new light in how to read those texts does it not? Also in Matt 7:28-19 when Jesus was teaching from the Old Testament scriptures he amazed people. They heard these scriptures in a new light and had a new greater understanding after Jesus taught. Also isnt Daniel locked until Revelation was written? The book that unlocks so much prophecy in Daniel and other Old Testament prophets? We cannot understand Daniel by itself and neither can we understand Revelation by itself. Old and New testaments are not fighting for supremacy, they are the two witnesses mentioned in Rev 11:4 and Zach 4:14.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Lawrence. When Jesus said the Law and Prophets spoke of Him, that is undoubtedly true. But we also can easily see that in the Old Testament... we don't need the New Testament to show us that. The New Testament simply confirms what we already knew to be true. For example, there were many who were awaiting the Messiah because of what the OT had said in very clear terms. Also, when Jesus taught the sermon on the mount, the amazement that the people had was because Jesus taught as one having authority, not as the scribes. In other words, it was not the secret content as much as the boldness with which he taught (in contrast to the pharisees and scribes). Revelation "unlocking" Daniel as it were is simply consistent with progressive Revelation, and the two witnesses mentioned in Rev 11:4 and Zech is a debatable construct. It could just as easily be allegorically applied to the human and divine nature of Christ if we are just going to argue it is symbolic... (I don't believe this, but just want to show we need to have some standard by which we can interpret).
Really appreciate your interaction. Blessings to you!
@@thebiblesojourner Thank you for the kind response. Its possible we may agree but saying it differently. You mention in the video that we can learn a new way to understand a text after reading the NT but there was no new meaning added. For the reader isnt that the same thing though? For instance Genesis 3:15 we understand this to be the first Gospel promise but many Jews do not read it that way. If a Jewish person who was raised only on OT and later in life read the NT and believed it he would suddenly have a new understanding of Gen 3:15. You and I may tell him he had a bad understanding prior to reading the NT but for him this is a new understanding. This doesnt make the NT a more important text, it clarifies certain aspects of the OT. Another example would be the trinity. We see it in many examples in the OT most clearly in Isaiah 48:16-17 but again our Jewish friends would disagree. Until a Jewish person converts to Christianity they would never agree on a triune God. Im sure there are other examples but ill leave with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching and equipping us fully. It doesnt say the new or old is better or more important. They are both needed to fully equip us. This among other reasons is why I believe the new and old are the two witnesses but that's a different argument.
@@lawrencekuhlman9405 Yes, you make a good point and I think Gen 3:15 is a good example. Also, the Trinity is an excellent point. Our understanding of those things deepen through progressive revelation in ways OT saints didn't have, but I'm just very sensitive to the idea that meanings change. Really the biggest point where this shows up is in a future land promise to Israel. There is so much about that in the OT and it seems very clear. But then you have many who say, "Well, that's not repeated in the NT, so it must be reconfigured just to be talking about blessing" or things like that. But that seems a little different to me than deepening ones understanding. That seems to be completely reversing one's understanding of a relatively clear text of Scripture.
Do you believe God is the primary author of Old Testament texts? Because if you do, that makes you conclude that the Bible is unlike all other books. In this way, "meaning" can be concealed in the old, and realized/revealed in the new--along these lines, see, for example, 1 Peter 1:10-13.
I don’t agree with the terminology “primary.” I believe in what is known as confluence-the human and divine author are completely confluent and what one means the other means incomplete and absolute harmony. 1 Peter 1 shows that the prophets didn’t know when their prophecies would happen but they understood what they were prophesying.
@@thebiblesojourner If you don't like the word "primary", in what way would you say that God is the greater / more responsible in terms of authorship? Or would you even? It would seem that you could use a word to describe God's superior role in the matter. For example, God thought it up to write it before the prophet did? I don't see a problem in seeing some ultimacy of God over the prophet (even within the narrow topic of authoring). Your word, "confluence" appears to me to be a word to describe one aspect of the whole subject, while there yet remains many aspects to it -- so when I say "primary", then I mean by it that God himself knows the end of the matter from the beginning -- more than the prophet did. God can know when one event will be typical of a future larger one. Take marriage, for example, from Eph 5, where Paul says he is talking about Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32). I would say God knew about this back in Genesis 3, and knew more about it than Moses. God always knows more than the tools he employs to write his words. It seems to me that you would object to this conclusion as it applies to authoring and authors.
The blog article you are referencing says, "It [the NT] tells us of 'mysteries' in the Old Testament yet to be revealed (Colossians 1:26)."
I would strongly disagree with this assertion. The author cites Colossians 1:26 ("the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints") but there's nothing there about the mystery being hidden in the OT. An even clearer text is Ephesians 3:9 -- "...the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God..." The mystery was hidden _in God,_ *not* _in the OT._
That's a good point. That assertion would need to be proven a little better. But in his defense, it is a blog article, so I get being a little too concise. Probably something that he would want to talk a little more about though.
How soon the Bible becomes an idol in the hands of the intellectual class who imagine themselves teachers. The facts are that we have two alternative covenants. The first covenant was a book of rules that were misinterpreted and thus made rule keeping the function we are to place most high. Isaiah 22 talks about how the people were busy offering sacrifices and tithes and completely ignoring God. The same can be said of dispensationalists who think that somehow Jesus' work and ultimate sacrifice is not sufficient unto salvation. So sad that so many have been taken in by the heresy we call dispensationalism.
Can you explain the last part? How exactly do dispensationalists not believe Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for salvation?
@@Christ.is.King2210 In the milenial kingdom there will be animal sacrifices offered in a temple made by man according to many dispensationalists.
Christians should discard the old testament.
I think Christians should treat the OT the same way Jesus and the Apostles did....
@@thebiblesojourner Yes, they should disrespect it. THe old testament is satanism-
ok andy stanley
An honest reading of Romans 11 shows that the idea that we should "discard the old testament" is exactly what Paul was warning Christians against doing. There is no way to read that as allegory.
@@messengersmessianicjewisho1058 Christians see Jesus as god, not Paul.