Have the New Testament writers the right to reinterpret the Old Testament?
At the last FAF weekend, pastor Dale Ratzlaff addressed the problem of Ellen White’s authority. After had quoted the SDA Fundamental Belief No. 18 in which Ellen White’s writings are defined as “authoritative source of truth”, he proceeded to unpack how Ellen’s authority is seen in the church.
For example, let’s say that Paul uses some things in the Old Testament that we don’t see, Galatians, he takes Sarah and Hagar and draws a lesson out of that regarding the two covenants. But when you go to the Old Testament you don’t see it there. We accept Paul’s writings based on his authority as an inspired writer of Scripture and we take it based upon Paul. And so they would argue in the same way, if Ellen White is an authoritative source of truth and if she is an inspired commentator of Scripture, then if she is seeing something in Scripture that we don’t see, then we ought to take her interpretation as we do Paul’s. So for all practical purposes in Adventism the writings of Ellen White are the hermeneutical and interpretive filter for studying the Bible
I agree with Ratzlaff’s assessment of the situation, and trusting Paul’s interpretations based on his authority as an inspired writing is a sign of faith in the inspiration of the entire Bible, including NT writers. At the same time, I’m not fully satisfying in trusting Paul for seeing in OT what we cannot see in the OT because this will justify the Adventist apologetics described by Ratzlaff above, and will open the gates for any interpretation which uses the biblical text as a pretext without being faithful to it. If Paul can do eisegesis, if he can interpret the OT texts in a way which is not consistent with good exegesis, if he’s reading in OT what is not there, Ellen White can do the same, it may be argued by Adventists.
Colleen Tinker, the editor of the Proclamation, aware of the problem, asked Dale Ratzlaff. In May/June 2006 Proclamation! she describes a conversation with the same Dale Ratzlaff about this subject.
“We criticize Ellen White for quoting Bible texts out-of-context to prove her points,” I repeated to Dale, “yet we accept the New Testament writers quoting Old Testament verses, claiming they were fulfilled by events in Jesus’ life and in the fledgling church. Those Old Testament texts seem taken out of context, and no Jew would have seen their fulfillment the way the New Testament explains them. How is our criticism of Ellen White different from other people’s criticisms of the gospel writers?”
Dale’s answer was concise and unequivocal: “God inspired the New Testament writers to show how the Old Testament texts were fulfilled.”
I consider Dale’s answer good for sustaining belief in the inspiration of the Bible. At the same time, this answer leaves a door open for an Adventist to boost his faith in Ellen White’s inspiration. The logic runs in this way: “If Paul was able to see in the OT what I cannot see because a supernatural endowment, why not also Ellen White?” Seeing in Daniel 8:14 what we cannot see by doing exegesis looks from this perspective as justified.
Beside this, we should be able to verify Paul’s interpretation by looking ourselves to the OT text quoted by Paul, and see how his interpretation is in harmony with it, as the Bereans did.
The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Acts 17:10,11
We know that Paul pointed people to the OT, showing how OT predictions were fulfilled in the life of Christ, and we know that the four evangelists did this also, especially Matthew. Matthew especially abounds in quoting OT texts, and repeatedly adding explicitly “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet”. The problem appears when we look at the OT text quoted in Matthew and we have problems in seeing the OT material as prophetic, as pointing to Christ, in a predictive manner.
Just one example:
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son. ” Matthew 2:13-15
Matthew quotes from Hosea, and when we go to Hosea, we see that there is not a hint that the text is predictive in nature, but is describing what it happened with Israel, “my son”, in exodus.
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols. Hosea 11:1,2
How can we account for a fulfillment by Jesus? Recently, in a White Horse Inn program entitled “What Would Moses Do?” it was mentioned the difficulty of seeing how OT is fulfilled by Jesus. But if we start to see the narrative expressed in the OT as prefiguring what Jesus will do, the rationality of using the OT in the way NT writers used it. For example, Moses said
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen Deuteronomy 18:15
Here is an explicit statement that the Messiah will be like Moses, and the epistle to the Hebrews shows how Jesus is like Moses, a better Moses.
Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God’s house. For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. Hebrews 3:1-6
Here we have a principle of interpretation, namely that Moses faithfulness, his behavior, had as goal “to testify”, to prefigure, to said something about “the things that were to be spoken later”, about the future, about what Jesus will do. The narrative of Moses deeds, as many other OT narratives were intended to prefigure what Jesus will do. Not only what happened with Moses, but what happened with the people Israel has a significance. Commenting on the Exodus story, one of the co-hosts of White Horse Inn, Kim Riddlebarger, said
The whole point of Moses was that God called him to be the covenant mediator of this people, Israel, that God is going to redeem and rescue from the bondage in Egypt. And their bondage in Egypt works on two levels: one is the historical level of the people of God enslaved in a land were they were forbidden from going out in the desert to worshipping their own God, when they insisted on doing that the Pharaoh persecuted them, and Pharaoh becomes an Antichrist figure in redemptive history, persecuting the people of God, preventing them of worshipping Jahve.
And then on the second level as the New Testament looks back on this, the New Testament tells us that the Exodus from Egypt prefigures Christ victory for us over sin and death. And he went to Egypt, and so as Moses was called and raised up by God to rescue national Israel from an Antichrist figure, Pharaoh, to bring them through the Red Sea on dry ground, to take them through the wilderness, to bring them to the land of Canaan, give them all that was promised, all of that is historical and actually happened, but the New Testament writers look back on that and see two things.
One is: that’s how we got here, God actually did this in history, God brought historical events to this time and this place, but what you see happening there is a picture of what Christ is gonna do. Christ is gonna remove from us a greater bondage that any Pharaoh can do, the bondage and tyranny of sin.
Michael Horton continues and shows how Jesus recapitulates the history of Israel,
He’s called out of Egypt, but before that is the Herod slaughtered of the innocents, trying to get Jesus the way Satan tried to get Moses through Pharaoh’s slaughter, and then you have him called out of Egypt in the same way the Jews were brought out of Egypt through the Read Sea, and then you have Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, 40 days (compare with 40 years in wilderness)
It is interesting to see how Jesus recapitulates Israel’s history, and this shows us that the OT is also predictive even in places where we would not look for prophecies. What is important is that we can see, we are able to see this predictive typology which is fulfilled by Christ by comparing Christ’s life with the OT story. Compare this with Ellen White’s interpretations which can not be seen in the OT. It is reported that Raymond F. Cottrell, in talk given for Association of Adventist Forums, Loma Linda, CA shortly after the Glacier View meetings, had said:
Ellen White reinterprets Daniel for our time. And because I fully believe and am convinced that God spoke to and through Ellen White, I accept her writings 100%. I accept Ellen White’s reinterpretation, her approval of the Adventist interpretation of the heavenly sanctuary, the Investigative Judgment and 1844, because I accept her as an inspired writer
I don’t know If this report is accurate or not, and if Raymond changed or not his views, what I know is that the statement above reflects what many adventists think about Ellen’s rights based on a misunderstanding of the way in which the NT writers interpreted the OT. How these inspired writers did their exegesis is free for exploration, and it can prove a gold mine for spiritual food.
This shows that instead of looking at the way NT writers use OT texts as something which is beyond our understanding, it will be very useful for us to try to understand how these writers look at the OT material, because it will offer us a perspective of Jesus in the entire Scripture which otherwise will elude us. Of course, having faith that the NT writers correctly interpreted the OT texts is vital for us, and I’m not intending to criticize the approach of Dale Ratzlaff in any way. All I want is to encourage people to search for a better understanding of Scripture, especially of the OT, and the way in which the NT is rooted in the OT. Also, it is not less important to refute the Adventist apologist who tries to justify Ellen’s erroneous and weird interpretations of the Bible by pointing to the NT writers.
Any input regarding how the NT is fulfilling the OT, and how the NT writers interpret the OT in harmony with OT message itself is welcomed.
One of my OT teachers pointed out that Paul does indeed take the OT out of context in at least two places. Paul simply borrowed to emphasise a given truth even though not faithful to the original source.
Take for example his use of ‘and behold a virgin shall conceive taken from Isaiah. It wasn’t until I truly looked at the entire passage of Isaiah 7 that in it’s original context cannot be talking about Christ the future Messiah.
Ahaz was distressed because the King of Damascus was coming for him. God gave him a sign concerning his victory:
“Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.”
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [d] will call him Immanuel. [e] 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.
Notice when this would be fulfilled:
But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”
One would be very hard pressed to say that this is talking about Christ. However, I believe that Paul used it because by inspiration this passage had a dual application.
As far as EGW, I believe that her extra biblical information was more like a commentary or Max Lucado type description. Merely filling out the stories as opposed to cementing truths.
I think your professor disqualified himself as a reliable teacher of the Bible, if he’s talking about applications taken out of context, because he’s looking only at the immediate context without paying attention to the larger context of the book of Isaiah, and how the role of this child born to Ahaz is developed in the following two chapters, Isaiah 8 and Isaiah 9. He’s limiting himself to chapter 7, and fails to follow the theme in Isaiah 8 and 9. He prefers to speak about applications out of context, rather than looking how the child born in the time of Ahaz is portrayed as a type of Christ in the following chapters.
Initially the child born to Ahaz was given as a sign that the two enemies of Judah, Syria will no longer be a threat for Judah before the child will reach a certain age (isaiah 7). In the next chapter it is explained why these kingdoms will loose their power, because of Assyria, which will conquer both the norther kingdom of Israel, and also Syria. Assyria will invade also Judah, and we have the image of the River, ”it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel” (Isaiah 8:8) Notice that Immanuel, the child born in Isaiah 7 is present also in the 8 chapter. But this situation, this sad situation, will not remain forever. Chapter 9 opens with the announcement that ”In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations” (Isaiah 9:1) This shows the predictive nature of the prophecy, which makes a link between the desolation, the occupation of the land by Assyria, and the future liberation.
And the child is mentioned again
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore. Isaiah 9:6,7
Here Isaiah makes a reference to the child about whom he talked previously, and presents this child as a type of Christ. Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace and king on the throne of David “forevermore”. Here we see how the role of the child who was a sign for Azah is a sign of Christ also, of the redeemer, of the God-man, to whom is given names worthy only of God, combined with fulfillment of the prophecies made to David.
Typology and fulfillment are great themes, and I hope this thread will be useful in building our understanding of how the OT is fulfilled in NT.
That there maybe a dual prophecy that can be applied to the Christ, that is true.
However, I believe that the ‘child born of a virgin’ spoken of in the context of Isaiah 7 is NOT directly speaking of Christ. The fact that the word for ‘virgin’ also means ‘young woman’ in Hebrew and Immanuel was a common name also shows that it could apply to many and not excusively to the Christ.
Verses 15-17 of chapter 7, along with Isaiah 8:4 show that the temporary fate of Assyria in Ahaz’ time is directly linked with this child’s immediate upbringing. The fate of the child occurs BEFORE the kingdoms fall, not 500 years after. No application of Isaiah 9:6 to the Messiah can change that literal fact.
I believe Paul took this passage to apply to Christ the Messiah. I’ve no doubt that he was inspired to do so. However, in it’s immediate context (specifically chapter7 that he directly quotes from) he was taking the passage out of context.
However, I believe that the ‘child born of a virgin’ spoken of in the context of Isaiah 7 is NOT directly speaking of Christ. The fact that the word for ‘virgin’ also means ‘young woman’ in Hebrew and Immanuel was a common name also shows that it could apply to many and not excusively to the Christ.
Had I said that it applied exclusively to Christ?
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 05 March 2008 03:32 PM
Initially the child born to Ahaz was given as a sign that the two enemies of Judah, Syria will no longer be a threat for Judah before the child will reach a certain age (isaiah 7). In the next chapter it is explained why these kingdoms will loose their power, because of Assyria, which will conquer both the norther kingdom of Israel, and also Syria.
guibox - 05 March 2008 03:45 PM
The fate of the child occurs BEFORE the kingdoms fall, not 500 years after. No application of Isaiah 9:6 to the Messiah can change that literal fact.
Who denied that the child would not arrive at the age of accountability before the kingdoms fall? He was a real person, and I explicitly spoke about a relation type - antitype in which Jesus is the antitype and the child born in the time of Azah as the type. Both are real persons, and they lived in different times. In typology one prefigures the other, and when we speak of prefiguration we are not dealing with applications, which can be many, but one fulfillment of a prediction made through the means of a type.
guibox - 05 March 2008 03:45 PM
he fact that the word for ‘virgin’ also means ‘young woman’ in Hebrew and Immanuel was a common name also shows that it could apply to many and not excusively to the Christ
The name was part of prefiguration, and coupled with the names given in Isaiah 9, Everlasting Father, Mighty God, Prince of Peace, this shows that the name was specially designated to point to a single person, not to leave the room for multiple applications. It had a typological unique function, and Isaiah 9 is not an application, but a fulfillment of what was predicted through the image of the type. One fulfillment, not many.
guibox - 05 March 2008 03:45 PM
I believe Paul took this passage to apply to Christ the Messiah. I’ve no doubt that he was inspired to do so. However, in it’s immediate context (specifically chapter7 that he directly quotes from) he was taking the passage out of context.
guibox - 05 March 2008 02:36 PM
One of my OT teachers pointed out that Paul does indeed take the OT out of context in at least two places. Paul simply borrowed to emphasise a given truth even though not faithful to the original source.
Take for example his use of ‘and behold a virgin shall conceive taken from Isaiah.
The apostle Paul was never popular in Adventism, and the SDA church had subtle ways of discrediting his messages, at the same time pretending to believe in his inspiration. It seems that Guibox’s teacher is manifesting a willingness to discredit Paul by deceit.
Paul had not quoted Isaiah 7, Matthew did.
Attributing to Paul something that Matthew did by Guibox’s teacher shows either his ignorance or a deceptive way to discredit Paul’s writings. Either way, he’s disqualified as a teacher, and his ignorance about typology speaks volumes. He should not be in that position. And those who are trusting this kind of teacher are not raising above their level
I still hope that those who are really students of God’s Word and who are respecting it will contribute to this thread.
One of my OT teachers pointed out that Paul does indeed take the OT out of context in at least two places. Paul simply borrowed to emphasise a given truth even though not faithful to the original source.
Take for example his use of ‘and behold a virgin shall conceive taken from Isaiah.
Guibox, what verse from Paul’s epistles are you referring to? As Gabriel alluded to, the reference to Isaiah 7:14 comes from Matthew 1:23.
guibox - 05 March 2008 02:36 PM
As far as EGW, I believe that her extra biblical information was more like a commentary or Max Lucado type description. Merely filling out the stories as opposed to cementing truths.
Last I checked, Lucado is not considered by his readers to be a “continuing and authoritative source of truth”, nor did he claim to receive special revelation from God endorsing particular doctrinal viewpoints. Guibox, you can define Ellen White any way that satisfies your conscience, but you still must contend with her prophetic claims and the official position of your own denomination that stand opposed to you.
Gabriel, thanks for the very valuable insights you provided to start this thread. The Old Testament messianic prophecies are powerful evidence that Jesus was who he claimed to be. God simultaneously authenticated Jesus’ mission and the New Testament scriptures by embedding prophecies into the Old Testament which would be fulfilled hundreds of years later, protecting Christians against false messiahs and false doctrine. In contrast, there are no similar prophecies predicting the appearance of a 19th century woman who would bring a message of “present truth” previously unknown to the Christian church. Yet Ellen White is considered by many Adventists to be uniquely situated within Christian history as not only a prophet, but “more than a prophet”.
Who denied that the child would not arrive at the age of accountability before the kingdoms fall? He was a real person, and I explicitly spoke about a relation type - antitype in which Jesus is the antitype and the child born in the time of Azah as the type. Both are real persons, and they lived in different times.
I guess there is no reason to argue. We are saying the same things.
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 05 March 2008 04:59 PM
The apostle Paul was never popular in Adventism, and the SDA church had subtle ways of discrediting his messages, at the same time pretending to believe in his inspiration.
Oh good grief. Every former has to turn everything around to point out any impression of pittance between SDAs and Paul. It is getting to be like a broken record.
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 05 March 2008 04:59 PM
It seems that Guibox’s teacher is manifesting a willingness to discredit Paul by deceit.
Attributing to Paul something that Matthew did by Guibox’s teacher shows either his ignorance or a deceptive way to discredit Paul’s writings. Either way, he’s disqualified as a teacher, and his ignorance about typology speaks volumes. He should not be in that position. And those who are trusting this kind of teacher are not raising above their level
Gabriel, get off your sanctimonious high horse. Comments like the above are reasons why I get nauseous trying to debate you. The errors in attributing Matthew to Paul was a mere oversight on my part. I haven’t taken my teacher’s course in over 17 years. I am no doubt speaking out of context and turn in his place from the vague comments I remember.
The man knows more about exegesis about the OT then you or I or Greg or Stan will ever know.
And for the record, he is definitely not an EGW or SDA apologist. He follows the exegesis where it leads him like a Hebrew scholar does.
Gabriel, speaking with you and your ignorant pious comments makes me ill.
You and I have no more correspondance on this site.
Good bye and good riddance.
Actually, I am pretty much through with this website. I don’t need the nonsense I see here and all your misinformed record-skipping comments over again that merely show bitterness about EGW without seeing any rationality or compromise.
Same stuff, different pile as Revival Sermons. I only knew it would be a matter of time that this site would resemble FAF more than anything else. pretty much figure that a thread could be started about butterscotch ripple ice cream and somehow you’d end up turning it into one about the ‘falsehoods’ of EGW.
I’ve realized my time is better spent than wasting it talking about this with any of your formers or the fool conservatives too.
Greg, please remove me from the member list so I am not tempted to come back like I promised I wouldn’t do the first time I left.
I will not reply to your last post, since I respect your decision to stop posting, and I don’t want to press you to reply to my post, against your will. From my point of view, the issue our differences are less personal, rather spiritual.
God bless you, and guide your ways wherever you are walking
I have less time this day than the previous, so my contribution will be short. I just bought a book about Apostle’s Paul and his relation with the Old Testament, entitled Contours of Pauline Theology by Tom Holland, in which he’s dedicated to show how Paul’s theology is deeply rooted in the Old Testament
I just started reading his book, and it looks promising, for this time I’ll limit myself to a single observation. Tom Holland is arguing that Paul was influenced by the expectations of the Old Testament regarding the Messiah and that especially the book of Isaiah constitute the framework of the gospel preached by Paul. He had quoted from Isaiah in such a way that he had described the history of salvation, from the Fall of man to the final establishment of the messianic kingdom. When you list the quotations from Isaiah in the order Paul listed in the book of Romans, for example, a pattern becomes evident: Paul sums up the history of redemption.
Take a look at the quotations from Isaiah as they are listed in the Epistle to the Romans
LXX stands for the Septuagint, the greek translation of the Old Testament available in Jesus’ times
For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:24; Isaiah 52:5 , LXX)
“Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” (Rom. 3:15-17, Isaiah 59:7,8)
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” Rom. 9:27,28 Isaiah 10:22,23, LXX)
And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.” (Rom. 9:29, Isaiah 1:9, LXX)
as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;(Rom. 9:33a, Isaiah 8:14)
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Rom. 9:33, Isaiah 28:16)
For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”(Rom. 10:11, Isaiah 52:7, LXX)
As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Rom. 10:15, Isaiah 52:7)
For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” (Rom. 10:16, Isaiah 53:1, LXX)
Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” (Rom. 10:20, Isaiah 29:10, LXX)
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” (Rom. 11:7-8, Isaiah 29:10, LXX)
And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” (Rom. 11:26-27, Isaiah 59:20-21, LXX)
“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” (Rom. 11:34, Isaiah 40:13, LXX)
for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, (Rom. 14:11a, Isaiah 49:18)
every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” (Rom. 11:14b, Isaiah 45:23, LXX)
And again Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.” (Rom. 15:12, Isaiah 11:10, LXX)
but as it is written, “Those who have never been told of him will see, and those who have never heard will understand.” (Rom. 15:21, Isaiah 52:15, LXX)
Tom Holland continues by showing how these texts describe Paul’s perspective regarding the history of redemption, presenting the plans of God as they developed in history.
Israel had not answered to the call he received, he had acted in the same manner the other nations acted (rom. 2:24, Isaiah 10:22-23)
God’s purpose is to show his faithfulness regarding the promises he had made by saving a remnant (Rom. 9:27-29, Isaiah 10:22-23)
God will send a redeemer for both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 9:33, Isaiah 8:14, 8:16, Rom. 10:11, Isaiah 28:16). Paul accentuates the universal character of the salvation offered by Christ by adding after his quote from Isaiah 28:16, he says “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Paul talks afterwards about the responsibility of the Church to preach God’s salvation, a responsibility which was fulfilled by the remnant (Rom. 10:16, Isaiah 53:1)
The message of the Gospel had encountered the same unbelief (Rom. 10:16, Isaiah 53:1)
Despite this the plans of God regarding his calling cannot be destroyed by man’s sinfulness. God will finish what he purposed (Rom. 10:22, Isaiah 65:1, Rom, 10:21, Isaiah 65:2, Rom. 11:8, Isaiah 29:10)
God’s plans will be fulfilled and all Israel, as he was defined already by Paul (Rom. 4:11-12), will be saved (Rom. 11:26-27, Isaiah 59:20-21).
All of these are above man’s plans, they depend only on God (Rom. 11:33-34, Isaiah 40:13)
The salvation promised to Abraham, in which the nations will share in the blessings of the covenant, will be consummated. The men who previously had not been included in the people of God, had entered now in the community of the end times (Rom. 15:21, Isaiah 52:15).
All these shows that Paul does not quotes from Isaiah in an aleatory way. He used Isaiah as a framework for his presentation of the gospel. Paul does not simply use the prophecy of Isaiah, he builds on it, and he organizes his presentation of the gospel around this structure, because Jesus represents the fulfillment of all prophetic predictions.
Very interesting how Tom Holland had presented his view of Paul, and I admit that it asks for a deeper reflection and study. It is a field of study which is promising.
“Gabriel, speaking with you and your ignorant pious comments makes me ill.
You and I have no more correspondance on this site.
Good bye and good riddance.
Actually, I am pretty much through with this website. I don’t need the nonsense I see here and all your misinformed record-skipping comments over again that merely show bitterness about EGW without seeing any rationality or compromise.
Same stuff, different pile as Revival Sermons. I only knew it would be a matter of time that this site would resemble FAF more than anything else. pretty much figure that a thread could be started about butterscotch ripple ice cream and somehow you’d end up turning it into one about the ‘falsehoods’ of EGW.
I’ve realized my time is better spent than wasting it talking about this with any of your formers or the fool conservatives too.
Greg, please remove me from the member list so I am not tempted to come back like I promised I wouldn’t do the first time I left.
I am puzzled indeed by your above comments. They seem so much out of the character from your usual posting. I thought Gabriel made some excellent points about the entire context of Isaiah as it relates to the great themes of pointing to Christ as the Messiah. It is enough to say that because Matthew says that Isaiah passage is talking about the virgin birth of Christ, then it is therefore authoritative. Many Jews have converted to Christianity because the holy Spirit has impressed these truths upon their hearts.
I don’t think that you really think that this web site compares to some of the irresponsible things said on other websites that you named. I would love to correspond with you by email on this, and I will try to do so shortly as I get time. We have tried to be objective without the name calling that is so prominent on the other sites. We have also tried to direct the conversation and topics to the over arching marvelous themes of the grace of God and His miraculous ways in saving every one of us.
I wish you all the best my good friend Guibox, and God’s richest blessings on you and yours.
Those observations and quotes from Isaiah and Tom Holland’s book really blessed me today. What a Wonderful Messiah and Saviour we have!
That was a wonderful post, and contributes greatly to the excellent theological content that I am able to read on this website, even though I haven’t been as active as previously, I have been richly blessed by everyone’s posts on here.
Perhaps both of us were raised in the SDA church where we were taught that Jesus was rejected by the Jews because they mistakenly interpreted the OT prophecies, expecting a physical liberation from their condition of slavery under the Roman Empire. The assumption was that this expectation was based on a grave distortion of Old Testament predictions, which in reality pointed to a suffering Messiah (Isaiah 53) and to a spiritual rule of Christ the Son of David and not to a physical, earthly rule and kingdom.
Continuing to read Holland’s book I became aware that, even if the above observation is correct, according to Holland, there was in the Jews’ interpretation of the OT writings enough truth in order for them to have a correct framework, an accurate paradigm in which Jesus, the promised Messiah fits perfectly. With other words, even if the Jews had problems in their interpretation of the OT, they still had the correct expectations regarding Messiah. When the apostles quoted some text from OT, in the Jewish mind that hint, that reference brought to their mind their understanding of the OT prophecies, and the connection between OT prophecies and Jesus’ fulfillment was instantly seen by them. With other words, the NT writers targeted the Jewish interpretation, on the assumption that it was right, and in that framework, in their paradigm, they placed Jesus’ deeds as fulfillment of the OT expectations.
But for us, who had not in mind the first century interpretations of the OT predictions, the use of the OT texts by the NT writers looks weird. So, when going to the NT text, we should keep in mind that the text spoke primarily to a first century audience, to a Jewish community of those days, who know enough of OT prophecies, and got enough truth from them in order for them to understand the way in which those prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus. What for us look strange, for them it make perfect sense. The apostles just demonstrated how their expectations were meet by Jesus.
In the next post I will try to be a more specific about those expectations.
What the Jews from Jesus time’s expected to happen? And how much those expectations were in harmony with OT promises, to the paradigm shaped by the OT
The Jews looked at themselves as the people with whom God established his covenant, a covenant he had not made with other nations. On the basis of their pledge to fulfill the conditions of the covenant, to keep the law, they were to receive blessings, to inherit the land of Canaan.
But because of people disobedience, they received instead the curses of the covenant, and the nation lost the land of Canaan, and went again in another slavery in another land, Babylon. They practically arrived where they started, as slaves. they started in Egypt, and God kept his promises to Abraham, the precursor of the New Covenant, and liberated the people from Egypt through Moses, in what became known as the Exodus.
Well, if the bad situation repeats, it is normally to expect a repetition of the solution, a new Exodus. And this is what God promised through the prophets when the people was in the second slavery, in Babylon.
The new beginning will be realized by a descendant of David (Isaiah 11:1). This man will be anointed with God’s Spirit for this task (isaiah 61:1-2). He will lead the people through the desert (Hosea 2:14). The journey through the desert will be under the protection of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 43:3), in the same way the exodus from Egypt happened. The people will see miracles, marvelous things (Micah 7:15), as he saw in the Exodus, and the desert will be partially transformed, sharing in the re-creation of the nation (Isaiah 55:13). The exiled will return speaking about God’s salvation (Isaiah 52:7-10). A New Covenant will be ratified, in the center of it being the prince from the lineage of David (Isaiah 9:6-7), and if the Jews who went out of Egypt were circumcised in the flesh, this time the hearts of the people will be circumcised (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
This return from the exile will be a return to Eden (Isaiah 51:3). After the return to the Jerusalem, the people will build a majestic temple which will be sanctified by the descendant of David (Hezekiah 44-45). All the nations of the earth will enter this temple in otder to worship the God of Israel (Isaiah 2:1-5). God will enter in his temple (Isaiah 4:2-6) and finally, the marriage of God with his people will celebrate by a great banquet of universal proportions (Isaiah 54:1-8)
But, even if the people returned to the land of Canaan, the temple they had built was less glorious than the first temple instead to be more glorious than the first, as it was promised, and instead of the nations coming to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel, the Jews were under the oppression of the other nations. Only a complete liberation from slavery would signify the end of God’s punishment.
The inter-testamental writings show that the expectation of a New Exodus was the common denominator of the diverse groups and sects of Judaism. And Jesus, the evangelists, and Paul, presented Jesus as the fulfillment of these expectations.
Now it makes more sense Jesus’ recapitulation of the history of Israel, especially the Exodus. He’s called out of Egypt, but before that is the Herod slaughtered of the innocents, trying to get Jesus the way Satan tried to get Moses through Pharaoh’s slaughter, and then you have him called out of Egypt in the same way the Jews were brought out of Egypt through the Read Sea, and then you have Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, 40 days (compare with 40 years in wilderness) In the context of people’s expectations of a new exodus, Jesus own and personal exodus was a sign that he is the true Israel to whom the promises of God are fulfilled. he kept the law perfectly, and God blessed his obedience. He took the place of Israel, of the people, and for the people, suffered God’s curse for their sins on the cross, and also fulfilled the requirements of the law, gaining the blessings promised to Israel which they forfeited by disobedience.
In this way, the curse of Israel was removed, not exactly like they expected, but nevertheless God kept his promises, and brought a new beginning.
Its no wonder that all four gospels mentions John the Baptist message, his identification with the voice of wilderness who cried “prepare the way of the Lord (Isaiah 40:2-4). John had used the words of Isaiah who announced the coming of the descendant of David in order to fulfill the promises of God. When Jesus raised in the synagogue, He said that the Spirit of the Lord is upon him to proclaim good news to the poor (Luke 4:18-19, Isaiah 61:1-2). He claimed to be the one who came to bring liberty to the captives, the son of David, the promised King.
It is significant that both John the Baptist and Jesus started their public mission quoting from Isaiah, both texts pointing to the new exodus. Using these texts they claimed that the salvation predicted by Isaiah finally came in the history of the world. At Jesus baptism, a voice from heaven said ““You are my beloved Son with you I am well pleased”. These words are taken from Isaiah 42;1. God identified Jesus with the Servant who will be the leader of the new exodus.
Linked with the Exodus is the Passover, the starting point of the first Exodus. Jesus established the New Covenant in his blood at the time and in the context of a Passover meal. He intended his death to be seen as a passover sacrifice. Without this sacrifice, with a redeeming value, a redemption from the slavery of sin, there would be no Exodus.
This shows that a lot of the Jewish expectations were right on target. The expected the removal of God’s curse, and they expected the blessings of the covenant, a new exodus. But the way in which God’s curse was removed, and the promises of the new covenant fulfilled, found a people unable to move forward in their understanding to the point of accepting God’s ways as perfect for them.
“Perhaps both of us were raised in the SDA church where we were taught that Jesus was rejected by the Jews because they mistakenly interpreted the OT prophecies, expecting a physical liberation from their condition of slavery under the Roman Empire. The assumption was that this expectation was based on a grave distortion of Old Testament predictions, which in reality pointed to a suffering Messiah (Isaiah 53) and to a spiritual rule of Christ the Son of David and not to a physical, earthly rule and kingdom.”
Gabriel, I believe that most Christian churches believe that at least a part of the Jew’s rejection rationale was as you stated, that they were expecting (hoping for) a political liberator and conquering general rather than a suffering Messiah who came not to be served, but to serve, by saving the world (all of us) spiritually. I would guess that there was some selective interpretation and perhaps rejection of the Hebrew scripture to support this belief, because to do so made it (the rejection) a good fit from a humanistic worldview
[quote author="GABRIEL PROKSCH continued...” ]
... Continuing to read Holland’s book I became aware that, even if the above observation is correct, according to Holland, there was in the Jews’ interpretation of the OT writings enough truth in order for them to have a correct framework, an accurate paradigm in which Jesus, the promised Messiah fits perfectly. With other words, even if the Jews had problems in their interpretation of the OT, they still had the correct expectations regarding Messiah. When the apostles quoted some text from OT, in the Jewish mind that hint, that reference brought to their mind their understanding of the OT prophecies, and the connection between OT prophecies and Jesus’ fulfillment was instantly seen by them. With other words, the NT writers targeted the Jewish interpretation, on the assumption that it was right, and in that framework, in their paradigm, they placed Jesus’ deeds as fulfillment of the OT expectations.
I agree with almost everything you just stated here… However, I’m sensing that your brush may be a bit broad in painting all the Jews of Christ’s day as having the “correct expectations” regarding Christ the Messiah. What I mean here is that the Pharisees certainly had a self-interest in denying the authenticity of Jesus’ claims of divinity. However, the NT writers were all well educated in the OT and could instantly see the connection and the obvious fulfillment of OT prophecy. Most of them had the benefit of the spirit working on their hearts and they were initially ignorant of the true need for Christ to be crucified as was clearly foretold in the OT. But they were not comfortable with the inexorable nature of the cross on Calvary. Of course this was not true for all of the original twelve, for as we know, Judas was very disappointed in the lack of worldly intervention offered by Christ, and in his sinfulness he was touched by Satan and betrayed Him whom he followed and had loved him faithfully!
[quote author="GABRIEL PROKSCH continued...” ]
But for us, who had not in mind the first century interpretations of the OT predictions, the use of the OT texts by the NT writers looks weird. So, when going to the NT text, we should keep in mind that the text spoke primarily to a first century audience, to a Jewish community of those days, who know enough of OT prophecies, and got enough truth from them in order for them to understand the way in which those prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus. What for us look strange, for them it make perfect sense. The apostles just demonstrated how their expectations were meet by Jesus.
Your insight here is very accurate. During my recent World Religions class at church we were studying how Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Christ was a created being rather than “begotten” by God because they miss-interpret the use of the phrase “first born” by taking it literally in the modern context. The correct OT interpretation is as in “the inheritance” of the “first born” meaning that Christ inherited all the rights, privileges, and the very character of God as the “begotten” Son and is therefore co-equal as a part of the Triune God. To elucidate, our modern use of “first born” is a statement of birth order. Where as the OT reference was referring to the inheritance rights of the “first born”, which is everything owned by the father, goes to the first born son without restriction. This is a clear example of how the application of modern phraseology against OT verbiage can mislead greatly!
Thanks to all of you for tolerating my meager attempts at contributing to this forum! I too was saddened by the exit of Guibox in such a manner. We must pray for our brother in Christ, that he will continue to seek the truth just as we all must do!
However, I’m sensing that your brush may be a bit broad in painting all the Jews of Christ’s day as having the “correct expectations” regarding Christ the Messiah. What I mean here is that the Pharisees certainly had a self-interest in denying the authenticity of Jesus’ claims of divinity.
Hi Dan,
Point well taken, I think we have no disagreement, I’m also clarifying my views, I’m a beginner in this field. What surprised me, and my real intention by using “correct expectations” was related to the theme of a New Exodus. This does not include the expectations for God Himself to be the Messiah, or the way He fulfilled their expectations. My point was that they had the understanding necessary of the OT writings in order to see that Jesus fulfilled the predictions. I thought that their understanding of OT was almost a total distortion of the OT, “how could they expect a physical king, and a physical kingdom?”, but the prophecies talk in those terms and use the davidic kingdom as a model. The prophecies speak of a nw exodus, a new liberation, a temple greater than the previous temple, a temple in which God will enter.
Of course, God entered the temple, but they didn’t expected him to be a man… The gentiles come to worship Israel’s God, the nations come to worship the Israel’s God to the point that they become the majority of the community of faith, but not in the way the Jews expected. They expected this, but not in this way. And there are many other points.
I’m just at the beginning of my study, and I welcome any contribution to the topic. It’s not simply an academic study, is a way of reading the OT, a way of reading the Bible with new eyes, and a boost for faith in its inspiration, its trustworthy character, and of course, a way in which the history of salvation and God’s dealings with his people become more clear. The past encourages us to look in the future, and seeing God acting in history brings us also before him in worship, adoration and praise for the way in which his plans are fulfilled.
Thanks Dan for your interest, I would like to see more from you on these topics. I think that when we will see better the link between OT and NT, and how the NT is rooted in OT we will grow not only in understanding but also in faith, and will progress in sanctification
