Are There Any Relationships Between The OT and The NT?

reformed

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Matthew says Jesus is Israel. So does Paul saying he is Abraham's seed, excluding the physical seed altogether.

Keep repeating your incorrect interpretation ... by the way, so you are actually saying that Jesus sacrificed to Balaam and burned incense to graven images ... hmn

That's how I am reading his posts...

Dave_L

@reformed said:

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Matthew says Jesus is Israel. So does Paul saying he is Abraham's seed, excluding the physical seed altogether.

Keep repeating your incorrect interpretation ... by the way, so you are actually saying that Jesus sacrificed to Balaam and burned incense to graven images ... hmn

That's how I am reading his posts...

You need to understand the NT before you can understand the OT.

reformed

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Matthew says Jesus is Israel. So does Paul saying he is Abraham's seed, excluding the physical seed altogether.

Keep repeating your incorrect interpretation ... by the way, so you are actually saying that Jesus sacrificed to Balaam and burned incense to graven images ... hmn

That's how I am reading his posts...

You need to understand the NT before you can understand the OT.

That is true for SOME of the OT, not all of it. And even then, the NT is only needed to understand the OT fully.

Dave_L

But Dispensationalists ignore much of the NT thinking the church was not mentioned in the OT. When the OT refers to it over 300 times as the congregation (church) of the Lord. It's a very buggy system if you care to delve into it.

reformed

@Dave_L said:
But Dispensationalists ignore much of the NT thinking the church was not mentioned in the OT. When the OT refers to it over 300 times as the congregation (church) of the Lord. It's a very buggy system if you care to delve into it.

Off topic

Dave_L

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
But Dispensationalists ignore much of the NT thinking the church was not mentioned in the OT. When the OT refers to it over 300 times as the congregation (church) of the Lord. It's a very buggy system if you care to delve into it.

Off topic

On topic. Showing how ignorance of the NT distorts understanding the OT.

C Mc

Jesus and the OT

One should be reminded of the usage and value Jesus placed upon that of the OT.

1. It would be beneficial to the student of the Word to be fully aware that the OT was authoritative Scripture for Jesus Himself. Jesus knew no Scripture save the OT.
   2.** Never once** did He suggest that in the light of His work the OT could be discarded or put on a level of inferior importance.
2. On the contrary, He regarded the Scriptures as the key to the understanding of His person, emphasizing again and again that He is represented in the Scriptures, that they witness to Him and are fulfilled in Him.
3. The very fact that the OT was normative Scripture to Jesus means that it must also be normative Scripture for us—unless one wishes to understand Jesus in some other way than He understood Himself or than the NT writers understood Him.

Keep studying. CM

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:

Jesus and the OT

One should be reminded of the usage and value Jesus placed upon that of the OT.

1. It would be beneficial to the student of the Word to be fully aware that the OT was authoritative Scripture for Jesus Himself. Jesus knew no Scripture save the OT.

Indeed ... and yet, he obviously understood the OT scriptures and also expounded (without (!!!) any NT scriptures to which to point) them to his disciples (cp Lk 24 record about the disciples on the way to Emmaus)

2.** Never once** did He suggest that in the light of His work the OT could be discarded or put on a level of inferior importance.

Yet, he clearly spoke of the Law and the prophets being fulfilled by him ... which of course means that once these OT scriptures were fulfilled, they no longer carried the same importance as before the time of fulfillment and correctly understanding the OT scriptures requires that one carefully recognizes that what has been fulfilled has indeed been fulfilled (and thus should not be regarded as yet unfulfilled)

3. On the contrary, He regarded the Scriptures as the key to the understanding of His person, emphasizing again and again that He is represented in the Scriptures, that they witness to Him and are fulfilled in Him.

Exactly ... and as is clear from an overall scope of Scripture, one need not necessarily to have NT scriptures to recognize such as you mention here.

4. The very fact that the OT was normative Scripture to Jesus means that it must also be normative Scripture for us—unless one wishes to understand Jesus in some other way than He understood Himself or than the NT writers understood Him.

Indeed ... NT scripture may add and perhaps make it somewhat more easy to understand certain OT passages.

C Mc

The unity of the two Testaments of Scripture: A confirmation of the continuing work of the Holy Spirit

Grenz and Franke establish that there is a certain “innate” singularity forming the various texts into one canonical Scripture when reading the Bible theologically, which means approaching the texts as embodying a unity of basic purpose.

And it is the unity of purpose that brings the Old and New Testaments together as comprising one canon. Reading the Bible as one canon forms the basis of reading the texts of the ancient Hebrews as Christian Scripture, leading to the realization that the material realities given in the Hebrew Scriptures are promises of spiritual reality given first to ancient Israel and later to Christians. Emphasizing the unity of the canon is not to ignore its diversity.

Barton admits “that the biblical canon contains diversity is obvious to most readers; that it is nevertheless a unity is the conviction of those for whom it functions as Holy Scripture. In the history of Christian thought, there have been many ways of trying to hold together an awareness of both diversity and unity”.

Barton however also notes that “the two Testaments have traditionally had a different status in many varieties of Christianity; except in parts of the Reformed tradition, the Old Testament normally plays second fiddle to the New. This is not Marcionism, but a nearly universal Christian belief that the ultimate authority in Christianity lies with the new revelation in Christ, even though, because this revelation was ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’, the Old Testament can never be abandoned. The ‘second rank’ character of the Old Testament as Scripture is perhaps more marked in Lutheran than in other Christian thinking.”

Barton also acknowledges what he called ‘reconciliation’ of diversities. This consists in changing one or more of the texts concerned to make them all convey the same message, often by omitting passages in which there is conflict, in other words, the method described above as ‘deletion and alteration’. Yet, another way to view the diversities of Scripture is to recognize that, “the texts do not all speak with a single voice, yet taken together they witness to a unified truth. In this way of understanding the Bible, there is no attempt to deny the empirical evidence that shows we are dealing with many writers and points of view, and that all do not say the same thing....But it is held that properly read, the Scriptural texts have a unity of purpose and message which is more important than their mutual tensions and disagreements in detail.”

Barton observes that “at least in modern Protestant thinking the diversity in Scripture has sometimes been given a favorable spin. Diversity, after all, though it can be a source of confusion or a sign of muddle, can also be a mark of richness and subtlety, and can point to a mystery that lies beyond precise formulation.” Diversity, therefore, is a virtue rather than a vice.

Truth found truth shared. CM

SOURCES:

-- Grenz, S.J. & Franke, J.R. (2001). Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a postmodern context. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press., 20, 90.
-- Barton, J. (2007). The Old Testament: Canon, Literature, and Theology, Collected Essays of John Barton. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited., pp 53, 58-59, 63.

C Mc

The Unity of the Bible and the Relationship between Testaments. Most authors see the Bible as a unit. However, there are an array of understandings behind such a statement:

1. The Scripture is inerrant and of mission -- (mostly conservative evangelical authors).
2. The Bible as descriptive of mission or the result of it.
3. The New Testament is superior to the Old and use the New Testament as an interpretive lens for the Old.
4. There was no real gospel before the cross.
5. The Old Testament is incomplete.
6. There is a progression in Israel’s understanding of mission in the Old Testament.
7. There was no such development and see the Great Commission as being the inauguration of a completely new era of mission.
8. Israel had a missionary role.
9. Deny Israel had a missionary role, insisting that only the New Testament church had such a missionary purpose and nature.

Different assumptions of scholars:

1. Unity and continuity between the Testaments.
2. OT/NT complementarity or discontinuity.
3. There is a gap between the Old Testament’s idealism and the actual life of Israel.
4. The Old Testament contains the explicit model of mission entrusted to Israel.
5. The Bible reveals a dynamic unity.
6. There are clear distinctions that need to be preserved in order to be faithful to God’s revelation.
7. Believe the Bible includes the deutero-canonical books, in addition to the canonical ones.

Which of these are true of the Bible and of its relationship between the two testaments? Make your case pro or con for as many of the statements above. Blessed contemplation and reflection. CM

SOURCES:

• Beeby, H. D. Canon and Mission. Christian Mission and Modern Culture. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1999.
• Legrand, Lucien. Unity and Plurality: Mission in the Bible. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990.
• Peters, George W. A Biblical Theology of Missions. Chicago: Moody, 1972.
• Filbeck, David. Yes, God of the Gentiles, Too: The Missionary Message of the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Billy Graham Center, 1994.
• DuBose, Francis M., ed. Classics of Christian Missions. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1979.
• Wright, Christopher. Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.
• Senior, Donald, and Carroll Stuhlmueller. The Biblical Foundations for Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983.

Mitchell

QUESTION: Is there any relationship between the Hebrew Bible/LXX and the NT?

ANSWER: Sure...

(1) the NT writers quote and make claims based on the assumption that the promises found in the Hebrew Bible/LXX are valid.

(2a) The Canon of Scripture used by Jesus, his disciples, as well as the early Church was the Hebrew Bible/LXX.

(2b) In 2 Timothy 3:14 ~ 17 the Holy Scriptures that Timothy knew from childhood (3:15) that are able to make one wise in the knowledge of Messiah/Christ are the very same Scriptures referred to in the pericope as being God breathed (3:16) are what is know as the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible/LXX.

The narrative and the promises of the Hebrew Bible/LXX find much(but not all) of their fulfillment in the events expressed in the NT's Gospels and in the book of Acts.

I am glad that I spent years studying the Hebrew Bible before opening the NT Scripture for I doubt that I could have appreciated the nuance of the NT Scripture as much if I had not have.

C Mc

OT/NT are equally inspired and supports one another. There are NO contradictions. CM

Mitchell

yes, and to add to the above neither one is somehow more inspired or more true scripture than the other!

Lamech

"ALL scripture is inspired of God and is profitable....."

 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. "

C Mc

So true, about the 2 Tim 3:16.

Welcome, Lamech, to CD. I'm looking forward to our exchanges. You have much to choose from. Be blessed! CM

Lamech

Jo0hn 3:14-15 cannot be understood without the LXX input about Nehushtan.

LUKE 9:31 and Heb 6:6 cannot be understood without Micah 5:2

Revelation of John can't be understood apart from Daniel

Many Many other examples

C Mc

Lamech, you said:

"John 3:14-15 cannot be understood without the LXX input about Nehushtan".

Are you sure about this?

Have you considered that in 2 Kings 18, it speaks of The Bronze Serpent. This text precedes the account of the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. It details the reform of Hezekiah, who smashed the “stone pillars” and other illicit cult objects. He destroyed the “bronze serpent” that Moses had made (Num 21) because it had become an object of worship called Nehushtan (v. 4).

May I suggest you see the background to "Nehushtan" R. S. Hendel, “Nehushtan,” DDD (Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible), 615.

Mitchell

https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/16255#Comment_16255

Yes, indeed. And The Holy Scriptures spoken of in 2 Timothy 3:14 ~ 2 Timothy 3:17 are those that Timothy knew from childhood ( 2 Timothy 3:15) and that are able to make one wise in the knowledge of Messiah/Christ (or to lead one to Messiah) and these very same Scriptures referred to in this pericope as being God breathed (3:16) are clearly what is know as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible as Timothy could not have possibly known the NT from childhood.

Grace and Peace

C Mc

The Messiah as the "Branch" 

Several Scripture texts refer to the Messiah as the branch. Some of these texts mention BRANCH, spelled in capital letters (see Zechariah 3:8; 6:12). It is evident from the context of both these scriptures that they had at that time a futuristic hope and longing. 

• In the Brenton LXX, the English text for Zechariah 3:8 contains the reading "The Branch," but the Greek text has anatolen.
• Young's Analytical Concordance mentions as possible translations "dayspring" or "sunrising" or "branch."
• Thomson LXX, for his English version reads "Behold, I am bearing My servant Anatole, the Dayspring."  More clearly.

The same rendering is given in the New Testament in several texts, in the K. J. V. and other versions. See: 

1).  Luke 1:78 - "Whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us." Margin reads "sunrising, or, branch" and refers to Malachi 4:2, "The Sun of righteousness." 

• The New American Standard gives "Sunrise."
• The New English Bible gives "The morning sun."
• See also Syriac Peshitto, Holy Name Bible, Sacred Name New Testament, Cunnington, et cetera. 

On Other Texts 

1. The expression "Day-star" appears in other scriptural texts, but stems from a different Greek word phosphoros. 

2).  2 Peter 1:16, 19 — "The Messiah" "the Morning Star" (Amplified). In other texts, all in the Apocalypse, we read of another Greek word, proinon, as "morning Star." 

• See also New American Standard, Kleist and Lilley New Testament, Amplified, Jerusalem Bible. 

Note the following English translations: 

1. "The Title 'Son of God' was to be conferred on King-Messiah" (on Rev. 22:16). 
2.  The Kleist and Lilley translation of the New Testament: 
   1. "Christ is the Morning Star" (Rev. 2:28). 
3. The Weymouth Translation of the New Testament: 
   1. "The Morning Star [is] Christ Himself" (Rev. 2:28). 

Truth found Truth shared. CM

[Deleted User]

@C Mc posted

Several Scripture texts refer to the Messiah as the branch. Some of these texts mention BRANCH, spelled in capital letters

The matter of CAPITALIZATIN is non-existing as such in ancient biblical manuscripts but is rather a matter introduced by translators and publishers of Bibles in languages where such capitalization is used to indicate specific meaning or emphasis, etc. In other words, such meaning or emphasis reflects the understanding and private interpretation of the translators and/or publishers, capitalization in this manner is not part of the initially inspired and given biblical text.

YourTruthGod

The whole Old Testament is about Jesus, who was to come.

The Old Testament is full of prophecies about Jesus, and the New Testament is the prophesies fulfilled.

God the Father's promises---about Jesus

Passover---about Jesus

Israel---about Jesus

The Rock in the desert---about Jesus

The bronze snake Moses made---about Jesus

The manna from heaven---about Jesus

The old Law---about Jesus

The purification/ceremonial works---about Jesus

Circumcision, special days, animal sacrifices---about Jesus

Crossing the Jordan---about Jesus

The promised land---about Jesus

Redeemer, Savior, Deliverer, Shepherd, High Priest---about Jesus

All the Prophets and their names---about Jesus,

...and more.

C Mc

Here is one more:

• It's clear in Acts 2:22-36, Peter in his preaching emphasized that Jesus, whom the Jews crucified, was the Messiah.
• Isaiah says that the Lord was willing to "bruise" his Servant, the Messiah, that his soul might be an "offering for sin" which is "poured out ... unto death", that by the knowledge thereof many shall be justified. Is. 53:10- 12.

Keep studying. CM