Categories of New Testament Use of the Old Testament

By Michael J. Vlach

There are approximately 350 explicit quotes of the Old Testament (OT) in the New Testament (NT). These quotations can be categorized in several ways. The following is not an exhaustive list but it does offer most of the ways the NT writers and persons used the OT:

1.     Literal Prophetic Fulfillment. This occurs when a NT writer or person views an OT prophecy as being fulfilled in NT times. For example, Micah 5:2 predicted that the ruler of Israel would come from Bethlehem. This is fulfilled with Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem just as Micah predicted. The chief priests and scribes understood Micah 5:2 literally which is why they could declare to Herod that the Ruler would come from Bethlehem (Matt 2:5-6). Also, the predicted New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is applied to NT times in Hebrews 8:7-13 to show the New Covenant has replaced the older Mosaic Covenant.

2.      Literal Application of a Timeless Moral or Theological Point. This occurs when a NT writer or person draws upon an OT passage to make a moral or theological point or principle. When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness by Satan, Jesus quoted the OT three times in Matthew 4 to refute Satan who also quotes Ps 91:11-12. Jesus applies Deuteronomy 8:3 which indicates man shall not live by bread alone. He then quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 to reveal that God should not be tested which Israel did at Massah. Jesus applies this principle to His situation. Jesus also refers to Deuteronomy 6:13 and/or Deuteronomy 10:20 to show the principle that only God should be worshiped. Jesus uses the OT passages contextually to draw out timeless principles to refute Satan.

3.      Literal Restatement of an OT passage. This occurs when a NT writer or person quotes an OT verse to point out what the OT verse stated. With Matthew 5:21 Jesus stated, “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’”  This quote is taken from Exodus 20:13 and represents a contextual rendering of one of the Ten Commandments. But as the New Covenant Lawgiver, Jesus then intensifies this command by internalizing it and indicating that hating one’s brother makes one guilty (see Matt. 5:22).

4.    Literal Affirmation of an OT Prophetic Text whose Fulfillment Is Still Future. Sometimes NT writers or persons quoted an OT prophetic text with the expectation that the OT text will be fulfilled literally in the future. Jesus did this in Matthew 24:15 when he stated that the “abomination of desolation” event Daniel predicted (Dan. 9:27) would occur in the future. Also, with Romans 11:26b–27 Paul quotes Isaiah 59:20–21 and Isaiah 27:9 in a straightforward manner as support for the coming salvation of the nation Israel and Israel’s entrance into the New Covenant.

5.     Literal Correspondence between David and Jesus. At times Jesus and NT writers draw a divinely intended correspondence between David and the ultimate David, Jesus the Messiah. John 2:17 states, “His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for Your house will consume me.’” Here application of Psalm 69:9, an imprecatory psalm of David, is applied to Jesus who as the ultimate David also has zeal for God’s house (i.e. temple). Also, the use of Psalm 41:9 in John 13:18 reveals that an enemy of David prefigured Judas who betrayed Jesus. Just as David faced enemies so too does the ultimate David.

6.   Literal Correspondence between Israel and Jesus. At times the NT writers draw a divinely intended correspondence between Israel and the ultimate representative of Israel—Jesus. With Matthew 2:15, Matthew links Jesus’ coming of Egypt with the historical event of Israel’s Exodus (Hos. 11:1). This shows Jesus is the ultimate Israelite who can bring an even greater exodus for Israel. Likewise, with Matthew 2:17-18 Matthew linked the deportation of Israelite men during the Babylonian captivity (Jer. 31:15) to the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem. Both tragedies point to the hope that Jesus the Messiah will bring to Israel amidst tragedy.

7.     Literal Reliance on an OT Event(s). Sometimes the NT writers appeal to a real event in the OT. Quoting Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5 states, “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up.” With Romans 9:7, Paul quotes Genesis 21:12 to point out God’s selective purposes concerning Israel: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”

    

8.     Generational Fulfillment Concerning Unbelieving Israel. At times NT writers and persons quoted OT passages about national Israel’s unbelief and applied them to the current unbelief of Israel to highlight that Israel is characterized by willful unbelief. Both Jesus (Matt. 13:14-15) and Paul (Acts 28:26-27) quoted Isaiah 6:9-10 as historical precedent for Israel’s continued unbelief.

There probably are another 2-3 categories but most NT uses of the OT fit into the categories listed above. While a topic for another day, I believe these categories are consistent with grammatical-historical hermeneutics and the belief that the NT writers and persons used the OT primarily (if not exclusively) in a contextual way consistent with the meaning and intent of the OT writers. 

Dispensationalism’s Relationship to Both Continuity and Discontinuity: Bringing It All Together

by Michael J. Vlach

This blog entry is a summation of my two previous blogs addressing continuity and discontinuity within Dispensationalism. Below are the eight areas of continuity and five areas of discontinuity. For more information on each point see the previous two blogs:

Continuity withinDispensationalism

1  Storyline Continuity (the storyline of the Old Testament is literally fulfilled over the two comings of Jesus)

2  The kingdom of the Messiah is consistent with the kingdom promised in the Old Testament

3  Israel

4  Israel’s land and Jerusalem

5  Day of the Lord

6  Messianic salvation extending to believing Gentiles

7  Salvation by grace alone through faith alone

8  The New Testament quotes and alludes to the Old Testament in ways consistent with the original literal meaning of the Old Testament writers.  

Discontinuity within Dispensationalism

1  Israel and the church

2  Mosaic Covenant to New Covenant

3  Dispensations

4  People of God

5  Role of Holy Spirit

Based on these points I am hesitant to identity Dispensationalism as solely a “discontinuity” system. Dispensationalism seems to evidence a healthy balance of continuity and discontinuity. Since Dispensationalism affirms a literal fulfillment of the promises, prophecies, and covenants of the Old Testament it seems to evidence more continuity than discontinuity.

For more on this issue see the excellent book, Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, edited by John S. Feinberg. This is one of the most important theology books I have read. It contrasts dispensational and nondispensational scholars on issues of continuity and discontinuity. It also helped me become a convinced dispensationalist.

Dispensationalism and Discontinuity

by Michael J. Vlach

In a previous blog I mentioned eight areas of continuity in Dispensationalism. This current entry is devoted to discussing areas of discontinuity in Dispensationalism. There are five major areas of discontinuity to note. Like the previous entry on “Dispensationalism and Continuity,” the goal here is not to be exhaustive on these topics but to point out major areas of discontinuity within Dispensationalism as a point of reference for understanding and evaluating Dispensationalism.

1  Israel and the church.  Dispensationalism affirms the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Israel consists of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that comprise the nation Israel. Some Israelites are saved and some are not, but Israel always has an ethnic component in the Bible. The church, on the other hand, is the New Covenant community of believing Jews and Gentiles in this age who have believed in Jesus the Messiah. The church includes believing Israelites (“Israel of God” Gal. 6:16; Rom. 9:6) but is not the same thing as “Israel.” With the 73 references to “Israel” in the New Testament none refer to the church, nor are Gentiles ever referred to as “Israel.” Dispensationalism affirms that Israel is a vehicle for bringing blessings to Gentiles (see Gen. 12:2-3), but it is not God’s intent to make Gentiles part of Israel.

From Exodus 19 onward the nation Israel was the mediatorial vehicle for God’s purposes in the world. Yet with Israel’s failure, culminating in Israel’s rejection of her own Messiah, the church became God’s vehicle for Gospel and kingdom proclamation in this age between the two comings of Jesus. God is still saving Israelites, but in this age the church is the messenger of God’s kingdom program, taking the gospel to all nations. When God saves the mass of national Israel in the future (Rom. 11:26) Israel will once again have a mediatorial role of service and leadership to the nations under Jesus the Messiah who at that time will be ruling the nations (Isa. 2:2-4; Matt. 19:28; Rev. 19:15). But in this age the church is the primary agent for God’s kingdom purposes.

Israel has deep roots in the Old Testament. The church is linked with all who have believed in Jesus the Messiah and have experienced the New Covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the church began on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the followers of Jesus (Acts 2). Some want to make the “church” the people of God of all ages but that is not correct. Jesus and the New Covenant are the main ingredients for the church and only New Testament saints have experienced these yet.

2  Mosaic Covenant to New Covenant.   The Mosaic Covenant was a temporary and conditional covenant given to Israel at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19). The era of the Mosaic Covenant ended with Jesus’ death and the establishment of the New Covenant (Eph. 2:15; Heb. 8:8-13). Most dispensationalists hold that the Mosaic Covenant was a unit that ended with the death of Christ. We are now under Jesus’ priesthood associated with the New Covenant, not the Aaronic priesthood of the Mosaic Covenant. As the writer of Hebrews stated, “when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also” (Heb.7:12). As a result dispensationalists believe Christians are under the New Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant. Likewise Christians are under the Law of Christ as our code for life, not the Mosaic Law. This Law of Christ will have many similarities with the Law of Moses concerning moral laws since God’s moral standards remain constant, but the Christian is no longer bond by the Mosaic Law as a rule for life. With 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 Paul explicitly stated he was under the Law of Christ, not the Mosaic Law.

3  Dispensations   Like all Christians, dispensationalists believe in dispensations—eras in which God works with His people in different ways. The pre-fall era with Adam and Eve was obviously different than the post-fall era. The present church age is different from Israel’s previous theocracy under the Mosaic Covenant. The kingdom that follows Jesus’ return will differ in some ways from the present age we live in as Jesus rules from and over the earth (Zech. 14:9). Yet even with differences among the dispensations salvation has always been by grace alone, through faith alone, based on the atonement of Jesus. Dispensations may change but the way a person is saved always remains the same (Gen. 15:16; Rom. 4).

Dispensationalists debate the number and characteristics that make up the various dispensations (as nondispensationalists also do), but they acknowledge that God has worked in different ways at different times. Yet the way of salvation remains the same throughout history. Thus, the dispensations evidence both continuity and discontinuity.

4  People of God  The concept of the people of God has varied throughout some dispensations. To be clear—all God’s people from beginning to end are saved the same way (i.e. continuity), but the people of God concept has varied. From Adam until Moses there was no nation of Israel so the people of God were not related to any one nation. According to Paul this was also an era in which people were sinners even though they did not have special specific verbal revelation that Adam and Moses had (see Rom. 5:13-14).

With Israel becoming a nation, the people of God concept was strongly linked with Israel and the message of salvation coming from Israel. Under the Mosaic Covenant era becoming a believer usually meant becoming a proselyte to Israel. Yet because of Jesus and the New Covenant, the people of God concept expanded to include believing Gentiles alongside believing Israelites. This expansion of the people of God concept does not mean believing Gentiles becomes Jews or Israel as nondispensationalits believe, but they do become the people of God alongside believing Israelites. This is what Paul discusses in Ephesians 2:11-3:6 and what Isaiah predicted in Isaiah 19:24-25 (see also Acts 15:14-18).

5  Role of Holy Spirit   Most dispensationalists believe the Holy Spirit’s role of permanently indwelling saints began as a result of Jesus’ ascension and pouring out of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2. Before His death Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit lives with them, but will be in them (John 14:17).

In His person and character the Holy Spirit never changes. Yet during Old Testament times He came upon some persons for temporary indwelling for service (Exod. 31:3). But His role of permanent indwelling and empowerment of all Christians for sanctification is closely linked with the death and ascension of Jesus the Messiah. This does not deny that the Holy Spirit saved Old Testament saints but there is greater enablement for sanctification with the coming of the New Covenant (see Rom. 8:1-4). Thus, the role of the Holy Spirit is different in the New Testament era.

Conclusion

There is much to discuss concerning the above five points of discontinuity, but my main point has been to highlight five areas where Dispensationalism see areas of discontinuity in the Bible. These areas appear to arise naturally from a grammatical-historical approach to the Bible and are not artificially imposed on the biblical text.

NOTE: I write as one who is a revised dispensationalist. I understand that I do not speak for all dispensationalists and I understand that other dispensationalists might word things differently. Yet I do believe that the points above represent the dispensational tradition as a whole accurately.

Some Thoughts on the Magi at Christmas Time

For much of my life I thought the account of the Magi who visited Jesus when He was a child was a nice story—a true story, but I did not think much about its significance. The mysterious travelers crossed my mind when we sang “We Three Kings,” put up our nativity set, or when I watched the TV special, Little Drummer Boy.

But according to Matthew 2, the account of the Magi has important kingdom implications. According to Matthew’s gospel, certain “magi from the east” arrived in Jerusalem (2:1) declaring, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him” (2:2).

Most scholars think the “magi” belonged to a priestly caste of astrologers from Persia. Many automatically think there were three of them, mostly because they brought three specific gifts—gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But we are not told their number. By the third century some in the Christian tradition believed they were kings. And in the sixth century names were attributed to them—Bithisarea, Melichior, and Gathaspa.

There are many questions about this mysterious group. They appear in the seventh century as a tribe within the Median nation. Daniel 4:9 and 5:11 appear to link the prophet Daniel with this group which may indicate how the Magi had knowledge of Israel’s coming King. As John MacArthur notes, “Because of Daniel’s high position and great respect among them, it seems certain that the magi learned much from that prophet about the one true God, the God of Israel, and about His will and plans for His people through the coming glorious King.” 

As they traveled to find Jesus, the Magi most probably journeyed with Oriental pomp and escort that could hardly be missed by those who crossed their path. But significantly, Gentiles from a faraway country were determined to travel a great distance and worship the One who would be King of Israel. This was not just some great wise man or philosopher they were seeking. They were coming to worship a King.

From a theological perspective, this was an early and important indicator that Jesus’ mission would extend beyond Israel to Gentiles and that people from faraway lands could find salvation in Him. This King of Israel will also be King of the entire world (see Zech 14:9), including this band of astrologers from Persia. This truth would challenge many Jews who were resistant to God’s kingdom extending to Gentiles (see Matt. 8:10-11). These Gentile astrologers from afar grasped what many inside Israel refused to see.

The Magi’s quest for the King intersected with another ruler, Herod, who viewed himself as king of the Jews. Their arrival in Jerusalem indicated that they expected to find the King in the city of David. When Herod heard of the Magi’s quest he was disturbed (2:3) and inquired more information from the chief priests and scribes. Relying quite literally on the OT prophet, Micah, we are told:

They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
‘and you, Bethlehem, land of Judah are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; for our of you shall come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel” (2:5–6).

The religious leaders of Israel viewed the coming King as a “ruler” over “Israel.” Herod certainly had this understanding, viewing the child-king as a threat to his political position. The religious leaders understood that the kingdom of Messiah would involve a political rule over Israel. No indication exists that the Jewish religious leaders were wrong in their understanding. The perception that the Messiah would be a political ruler over Israel is correct. Isaiah 9:6 predicted this: “the government will rest on His shoulders.” Of course, Jesus would be more than a political ruler. He would also be a Savior from sin. But these two concepts are not mutually exclusive. A savior from sin can also be a political ruler over nations. From our standpoint in history, Jesus became a spiritual Savior to all who believed on Him with His first coming, but a political rule awaits His second coming (Rev 19:15).

Herod expected the Magi to return back to him after visiting Jesus. After their encounter with Herod the Magi left and were guided by a star that took them directly to where Jesus resided (Matt. 2:9). They “rejoiced exceedingly with great joy,” and entered the house. They then saw Mary and fell to the ground to worship the child Jesus. Then the Magi presented Jesus the gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt. 2:10-11). Significantly, when Jesus rules in His future millennial kingdom, the gifts of gold and frankincense also will be brought by the nations (see Isa. 60:6).

Unlike the wicked Herod, these Gentile travelers welcomed the King of Israel. After being warned by God in a dream, the Magi did not return to Herod but went back to their own country by a different way (Matt. 2:12). So not only did they come to worship the King, they obeyed God in protecting Him from harm.

The account of the Magi is an important reminder that the Messiah of Israel will bring blessings to all who will worship Him, including those outside of Israel. Many within Israel would miss their Messiah but this traveling band from the East did not.

Dispensationalism and Continuity

Theology systems often can be placed on a Continuity–Discontinuity spectrum or scale. “Continuity,” in this context, refers to a connection or carryover of an Old Testament (OT) idea or concept into the New Testament (NT). Discontinuity refers to a change or disconnect between the OT and NT.

Dispensationalism is often known as a “discontinuity” system mostly because it sees a distinction between Israel and the church. In the very important and helpful book, Continuity and Discontinuity, edited by John S. Feinberg, Dispensationalism was identified as a discontinuity system.

But while affirming important areas of discontinuity in the testaments, Dispensationalism also affirms significant areas of continuity as well. That is what I want to focus on in this entry. Below are areas where Dispensationalism affirms continuity between the OT and NT. Note that each of these eight points below could be developed over many pages, but for the sake of brevity of a blog post, I list them with a short explanation.

1  Storyline Continuity Dispensationalists believe there is strong continuity between the storyline of the OT and the storyline presented in the NT. In other words, while the NT adds details to the Bible’s storyline it does not change the story.  Dispensationalists believe the covenants, promises, and prophecies of the Old Testament are and will be fulfilled literally through the two comings of Jesus. This includes all physical and spiritual realities along with all particular (Israel) and universal entities. While affirming the importance of spiritual realities such as salvation, forgiveness, new heart, and indwelling Holy Spirit, dispensationalists do not believe physical realities are spiritualized or transcended with the coming of Jesus and the NT era. This contrasts with nondispensational systems that often see the NT as transcending, transforming, transposing, or spiritualizing the message of the OT. To repeat, Dispensationalism affirms that the storyline begun in the Old Testament is fulfilled literally through the two comings of Jesus. The story is not changed. This includes many realities concerning the Messiah and His role, Israel, the land, Jerusalem, the temple, nations, etc.

2  The kingdom of the Messiah is consistent with the kingdom promised in the Old Testament. The prophets and Psalms predicted a future earthly kingdom of the Messiah where He transforms the planet and rules the literal nations of the world (Ps. 2; 72; 110; Isa. 2, 11, 25). Dispensationalists see these predictions coming true as a result of the second coming of Jesus the Messiah. Just as the Old Testament promised a future tangible earthly kingdom over the nations, so too does the New Testament (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 19:15). The kingdom is not spiritualized or transcended. Thus, when John the Baptist and Jesus declared, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17) they meant the prophesied earthly kingdom of the Old Testament. This is in contrast to some nondispensational systems that often see the promised earthly kingdom of the OT spiritualized to a present reign of the Messiah from heaven.

3  Israel. The Israel of the Old Testament consists of the ethnic descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that comprise the nation of Israel. Sometimes these Israelites are saved and sometimes they are not. Likewise, all 73 references to “Israel” in the New Testament refer to ethnic Israelites or ethnic Israelites who have believed in Jesus (“Israel of God” Gal. 6:16). There is no transformation or transcending of the concept of Israel. There is no enlargement or expansion of Israel to include Gentiles, although there is expansion of the “people of God” concept to include believing Gentiles alongside believing Israelites (Eph. 2:11-22). Thus, “Israel” in the New Testament carries the meaning of Israel found in the OT. This is in contrast to some nondispensational systems that often view Israel as being redefined, enlarged, or transcended to include Gentiles.

4  Israel’s land and Jerusalem.  Israel’s land and Jerusalem continue to remain significant in New Testament times. Jesus offers instructions for people living in Judea in the last days and anticipates a coming restoration of Jerusalem (Matt 24:15-22; Luke 21:24). Thus, this is another area where Dispensationalism affirms continuity.

5  Day of the Lord.  The coming day of the Lord that impacts both the land of Israel and the entire world is taught in the NT as well as the OT (Isa. 13; 1 Thess. 5; 2 Thess 2). The OT prophets predicted that the Day of the Lord would involve the judgment of the nations, the regathering of Israel and an earthly kingdom following judgment (Isa. 24-27). This scenario is affirmed in the NT (Matt. 24-25).

6  Messianic salvation extending to believing Gentiles. The OT predicted that Gentiles would become the people of God because of the Messiah (Amos 9:11-12) and that has happened in NT times (Acts 15:14-18).

7  Salvation by grace alone through faith alone.  Dispensationalism affirms that salvation in all ages is by grace alone through faith alone (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4). While the content of revelation increases throughout the canon there is great continuity regarding salvation. OT saints and NT saints are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, based on the atonement of Jesus.

8  The New Testament quotes and alludes to the Old Testament in ways consistent with the original literal meaning of the Old Testament writers.  There are about 350 quotations of the OT in the NT. While there are some challenging cases, the vast majority of OT uses in the NT, are contextual and consistent with the ideas of the OT writers. This fact emphasizes continuity between the storyline of the OT and that found in the NT. Dispensationalists may vary to some degree on NT use of the OT but overall most affirm continuity concerning OT meaning and NT use of the OT.

These are just some areas of continuity. Contrary to what some critics claim, Dispensationalism does not start with the concept of “discontinuity” and impose it on the Bible to find what it wants to find.

Because I see much continuity in Dispensationalism I would not identify this system as solely a discontinuity system. I would say Dispensationalism is a healthy and biblical balance of both continuity and discontinuity. I will comment more on the discontinuity elements in a future blog entry.

‘Radical Reinterpretation,’ New Testament Priority, and the Hermeneutics of George Ladd

As I continue my discussion on Historic Premillennialism (HP), I want to focus my thoughts on the hermeneutics of HP’s #1 defender in the 20^th century—George Ladd. Specifically, I want to address Ladd’s views on how the New Testament (NT) uses the Old Testament (OT). Since Ladd is often looked to as a primary leader of HP, his views on hermeneutics should be examined to help us understand HP or at least modern expressions of HP.

In regard to how the NT uses the OT, I will point out that Ladd affirmed three things: (1) the NT used the OT non-contextually; (2) the NT reinterpreted the OT; and (3) the NT has priority over the OT.

Non-contextual Use of the OT

Ladd believed that the NT writers used OT prophecies non-contextually:

The fact is that the New Testament frequently interprets Old Testament prophecies in a way not suggested by the Old Testament context.[1] (emphasis is Ladd’s)

Responding in agreement to Ladd’s statement, the amillennialist, Anthony A. Hoekema, wrote, “I agree with him [Ladd] that the Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament and that a totally and exclusively literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is not justified.”[2]

Ladd also argued for deeper meaning for OT passages given by the NT: “Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament to find their deeper meaning.”[3]

NT Reinterpretation of the OT

In addition, Ladd believed in NT reinterpretation of the OT. In doing so he argued that physical promises to Israel are “reinterpreted” and may find their spiritual fulfillment in the church:

The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm.[4]

Two passages highlight Ladd’s methodology. First, concerning Matt. 2:15 which states, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son,” Ladd offered the following:

In Hosea [11:1] this is not a prophecy at all but a historical affirmation that God had called Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus. However, Matthew recognizes Jesus to be God’s greater son and deliberately turns a historical statement into a prophecy. This is a principle which runs throughout biblical prophecy. The Old Testament is reinterpreted in light of the Christ event. (Emphasis is Ladd’s)[5]

Second, Ladd held that Rom 9:24–26 is evidence that the Christian church fulfills promises made to national Israel. He states, “Paul deliberately takes these two prophecies about the future salvation of Israel and applies them to the church. The church consisting of Jews and Gentiles has become the people of God. The prophecies of Hosea are fulfilled in the Christian church.”[6]

Third, according to Ladd, Jesus’ exaltation as discussed in Acts 2 means “new redemptive events in the course of Heilsgeschichte (“salvation history”) have compelled Peter to reinterpret the Old Testament.”[7]

 At times, Ladd escalates the concept of “reinterpretation” to “radical reinterpretation.” In regard to Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ ascension in Acts 2, Ladd said:

This involves a rather radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament prophecies, but no more so than the entire reinterpretation of God’s redemptive plan by the early church.[8] 

In regard to Heb 8:13 and the new covenant Ladd states: “Here again we have a radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament prophets. . .”[9]

NT Priority over the OT

Along with the concept of “reinterpretation” or “radical reinterpretation” of the OT, Ladd explicitly affirmed NT priority over the OT. He did this when comparing Dispensationalism with non-dispensationalism:

Here is the basic watershed between a dispensational and a non-dispensational theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that it cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end are to be fulfilled for (a) the first coming of Christ was accomplished in terms not foreseen by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, and (b) there are unavoidable indications that the Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Christian church.[10]

One important thing to note here is that Ladd views NT priority over the OT as more than just being his own personal view—it is a “watershed” issue that separates non-dispensational theology from dispensational theology. Thus, one can determine whether he or she is a dispensationalist or not based on this understanding. As a dispensationalist, John Feinberg affirms this difference:

Nondispensationalists begin with NT teaching as having priority and then go back to the OT. Dispensationalists often begin with the OT, but wherever they begin they demand that the OT be taken on its own terms rather than reinterpreted in the light of the NT.[11]

(When Feinberg made this statement he did so with Ladd’s previous statement in mind.)

Dispensationalists have responded to Ladd’s claim that the NT overrides the meaning of the OT. John Feinberg claimed that:

No NT writer claims his new understanding of the OT passage cancels the meaning of the OT passage in its own context or that the new application is the only meaning of the OT passage. The NT writer merely offers a different application of an OT passage than the OT might have foreseen; he is not claiming the OT understanding is now irrelevant.[12]

In response to George Ladd’s declaration that the NT reinterprets the OT, Paul Feinberg asked some relevant questions: “If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning?”[13]

Conclusion

My purpose here has been to focus specifically on the hermeneutics of George Ladd and his understanding of how the NT uses the OT. I am not saying all historic premillennialists agree with Ladd on every one of Ladd’s assertions. But since Ladd is often looked to as the leading proponent of HP, it is helpful to look at his beliefs in this area and understand that Dispensationalism has strong differences with Ladd on how the NT uses the OT.

---

[1] George Eldon Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (IVP, 1977),  20. Emphasis in original.

[2] Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” in  The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views 55. Emphasis is mine.

[3] Ladd, 23.

[4] George E. Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the Millennium,” Review and Expositor 57 (1960): 167.

[5] Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 21.

[6] Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 24.

[7] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, Revised edition, 1994, 372.

[8] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament , 373. Emphasis mine.

[9] Ladd, The Last Things: An eschatology for Laymen, Eerdmans, 1978, 27. Emphasis mine.

[10] Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 27.

[11] John Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988), 75.

[12] John Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity

[13] Paul Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 116. Emphasis in original.

Dispensationalism, Historic Premillennialism, and the Restoration of Israel

As I continue with my thoughts on how Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) differs from Historic Premillennialism (HP) I want to make some additional comments regarding my earlier statement in another blog that DP differs from HP in that DP affirms a restoration of national Israel while HP does not affirm this. The Orange Mailman expressed strong rejection of my claim:

. . . Vlach states something that is just flat-out not true.  You can tell because he cites no source whatsoever to back up his claim.  He states that Historic Premillennialists do not believe in a future restoration of the nation of Israel.  I quoted in the comments section from Ladd himself where he states that there would be a future restoration of the nation of Israel.  Older premillennialists also held out this hope.  So will there be a retraction of certain aspects of Vlach’s post?  I doubt it. (http://theorangemailmanmyblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/historic-pre-millennialism-misrepresented-again/)TOM then offers a quote from Ladd where Ladd uses the term "restoration" in regard to Israel:

Consider this quote from The Gospel of the Kingdom which concerns Romans 11:26.  " It is quite impossible in light of the context and the course of Paul’s thought in this passage to understand "all Israel" to refer to the Church….  But secondly, there is to be a greater turning to the Lord on the part of Israel after the flesh, of such proportions that Paul can say that "all Israel," i.e., Israel as a whole, will be saved….  When God’s purpose for the Gentiles is fulfilled, so this verse implies, Jerusalem will no longer be trodden down.  There will be a restoration of Israel; "all Israel will be saved." "Since Ladd uses the term "restoration" for Israel, does this mean I was wrong in my affirmation that only DPs believe in a restoration of Israel? I don’t think so.

This is a case where we have different understandings of the term, "restoration." Ladd and DPs use the term in different ways. I and other dispensationalists use the term "restoration" more specifically to mean that Israel will not only be saved but restored as a nation in the sense of having a specific role to play to other nations in the millennium and perhaps beyond. While Israel and all believers are saved in the same way and have the same spiritual blessings in Christ, the nation Israel has a role to play in the millennium that is not shared with other groups.

I think Arnold Fruchtenbaum is right when he states that Dispensationalists believe in both the salvation and restoration of national Israel (see Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology) while non-dispensationalists do not affirm both. HPs usually affirm a salvation but not a restoration of Israel. Restoration goes beyond salvation and indicates that national Israel will lead the nations in service, worship, and example when Jesus returns to earth—just as the OT predicted (see Isa 2). It is this meaning of "restoration" that DPs affirm and HPs usually do not. In his book, The Millennial Maze, Stanley Grenz makes this point when explicitly comparing HP with DP:

According to historic premillennialists the object of the prophesies of a golden age is not a future regathered nation of Israel, as in dispensational thought, but "spiritual Israel"—the church. The group that will enjoy the millennial blessings, therefore, is not composed of an end-times restored nation of Israel, the natural offspring of Abraham, but the true Israel of God composed of Abraham’s spiritual children in all generations. (Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze, IVP, 1992, 136).Grenz also says:

Historic premillennialists continue likewise to reject the dispensationalist understanding of the tribulation and the millennium, which views them in terms of God’s program for his Old Testament people. These eras do not belong to some purported Israel phase of salvation history, historic premillennialists argue. (Grenz, 130).Grenz appeals to historic premillennialist, Clarence Bass, who says that historical premillennialists believe, "that the church is indeed spiritual Israel; that the covenantal relations of God to Israel have indeed passed over to the church." (Clarence C. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, Baker, 1960, 152.)

Russell Moore, who appears to take a Ladd-like view of HP states his difference with DP on this issue: "Dispensationalists, even progressives, mistakenly speak of the millennial Israel as having a 'mediatorial' role in dispensing the blessings of God to the nations." For Moore, "Scripture presents this mediatorial role as belonging to Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). (The Kingdom of Christ, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 118.)

When I read George Ladd and other HPs after Ladd (Grudem, Erickson, Moore, etc.), I sense that many HPs affirm a salvation of Israel and some even see Israel "restored" in the sense of being placed in their land. But I do not see them (at least Ladd and post-Ladd HPs) saying that the nation Israel will have a mediatorial role of leadership, service, and example to the other nations as prophesied in the OT. The closest thing I have seen to this is a chapter by Richard Hess, where he argues for a literal restoration of Ezekiel’s temple in the coming millennium (see "The Future Written in the Past: The Old Testament and the Millennium," in A Case for Historic Premillennialism, ed. Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, Baker, 2009, 23-36).

My purpose here has not been to argue which side is right although as a dispensationalist I believe DP is correct. But I think it fair to say that DP affirms a restoration of Israel as a national entity with a role to play to other nations in a way that HP does not.