Interpreting the Old Testament in the Light of the New

I've been meaning to start a thread on this for some time without getting around to it, but a post I made on a British blog has prodded me to post something.

There are certain N.T. verses that give us instruction as to how to interpret the Old Testament. I have previously mentioned that we should always look and expect to find Christ in the O.T. on the basis of John 5:39 & Luke 24:27. However, there are some other verses which can also help us:

Romans 15:4. 'For whatever things were written before [i.e. the O.T.] were written for our learning, that we, through the comfort and patience of the Scriptures might have hope.' So the O.T. was actually written for our benefit and we should look to find teaching, comfort and training for patience there. The O.T. history, types, prophesies, precepts and examples are intended for the instruction of believers.

1 Corinthians 10:6, 11. 'Now these things [the things in 1 Cor. 10:1-5] became our examples.......Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.' Now 'example' in both verses is tupos, a pattern, type or parallel. We are to find these things in the O.T. just as Paul finds baptism, spiritual food and drink, and, of course Christ as our Rock, in the story of the Exodus (vs. 1-5).

1 Peter 1:10-12. I won't write it all out, but you see there that the prophets themselves did not understand the full portent of what they were proclaiming concerning Christ and the grace that would come to us through Him, but they came to understand that they were not ministering to their own time so much as to ours.

So when Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:9 quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, he does not hesitate to apply it to the Church. And Matthew takes Hosea 11:1 to apply to Christ (Matthew 2:15; c.f. Numbers 24:8). The O.T. was 'written for our learning.'

So I was browsing the Archbishop Cranmer blog, which manages to mix Anglicanism and Conservative Party politics and came to this: Patriarchal pronouns: if we should stop calling God 'he', may we call Satan 'she'? The comments turned to the Church of England, and I wrote,

"Leviticus 14:33ff deals with the situation of a 'leprous plague' within a house. '.....If the plague has spread in the house, it is an active leprosy in the house. It is unclean. And [the priest] shall break down the house, its stones, its timber, and all the plaster of the house, and he shall carry them outside the city to an unclean place' (vs.44-45). I can't help feeling that there is an application for these verses in respect of the C of E. Tear it down and start again from scratch."

I believe that it is legitimate to apply that verse to an apostate church. If you don't, what application is there for it today. If I have dry rot in my house, I'm not going to send for my Pastor to diagnose it for me, am I? What do others think? How far can we go in applying O.T. verses to Church situations?

 

I agree. You're thinking of Numbers 21:4-9. It's a fascinating type, because the 'fiery' serpent is clearly a portrayal of Satan himself (Revelation 12:3,9). So how can Satan possibly be a type of the Lord Jesus Christ??? And how can looking at Satan possibly save anyone???

The answer is that Christ on the cross is Christ made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). There on the cross our Lord was made the very epitome of sin, carrying all the sin and all the wickedness of His people; and by doing so, He has paid in full the penalty for those sins, so whoever looks to Christ crucified in repentance and faith is united to Him in His death and also in His resurrection to new life (e.g. Romans 6:5-8).