Hermeneutics 301: The New Testament is a Commentary on the Old Testament

No. I do not mean that the New Testament is not the word of God. Our focus here is proper hermeneutics and not doctrine.

The title is based on the principle of Progressive Revelation. NO NEW REVELATION SHOULD CONTRADICT THE PREVIOUS REVELATION. Otherwise, God is inconsistent and incoherent.

All 66 books of the Bible are indeed inspired, but IT NEVER MEANS THAT ALL DECLARATIONS ARE OF EQUAL INDEPENDENT VALUE. Logically and progressively, the New Testament explains the Old Testament and furthermore, the Epistles explain the Gospels. That is the primary logic by which Scripture is to be interpreted.

We do not need to remind informed people that the The Jewish Scriptures, our protestant Old Testament, was authenticated by Jesus Christ Himself as THE WORD OF GOD.

The Gospels are commentaries by Christ Himself on the Old Testament. Christ spent his three-year ministry explaining to the Jews what the Tanak really meant, but because Christ is the Son of God, we have to consider the gospels as the Word of God because it is, implicitly but evidently. Christ NEVER contradicted any word and context of the Old Testament.

The Epistles are commentaries on the Old Testament and the Gospels. None of the teachings of the Apostles should contradict the words, context and spirit of the Old Testament and the Gospels. If they do, they should be considered cultural or useless.

Based on the premise of progressive revelation, the interesting question is, "What new revelations do the epistles contribute to the Bible in order to be cannonized as the part of the Word of God?"  As mere commentaries, they do not qualify to be cannonized but the Church Fathers in the first 500 years after the birth of Christ considered it to be so. I do agree with them but for more explicit theological reasons other than the formulation of the Creeds.

1. The epistles were meant to focus on applying the Great Commandment showing how genuine love (of the chesed and ahavah kind) was demonstrated by God and should be demonstrated by man. Although the Greek word used was agape, it meant more than that to the Jewish mind.
2. The epistles were meant to emphasize the meaning of the Seven Levitical Feasts especially the Day of Atonement. It meant to show that forgiveness of sins and holiness is easier to obtain compared to the Levitical procedures to obtain it.
3. The epistles were meant to zero in on the importance of sanctification in salvation. While the Old Testament already provided forgiveness from sins committed and freedom from the penalty of sin by substitution, it did not provide freedom from the dominion of the sin nature, frequently referred to in the New Testament as the flesh or the body or sin. The Epistles declare that is the more important part of the born-again new self experience since there are more passages about holiness than justification by faith. Converted Jews know that the divine "life is in the blood" of the Messiah, shed for us giving us divine life and resurrection power to conquer the sin nature.
4. The epistles were meant to show the role and activities of the Holy Spirit when truly indwelling the life of the believer.
5. The epistles were meant to demonstrate the meaning and the power of Grace, i.e., the grace of God.
6. The epistles explain and help us appreciate eternal life motivating believers to live and look heavenward including partial pictures of the kingdom of God in heaven and his plans for the new heavens and new earth and new Jerusalem

Other than the above five, all other teaching MUST simply explain the Old Testament and/or the Gospels. Hence, there should be no other "new" revelation aside from the above and that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) of God, and the fulfillment and completion of the ceremonial law.

Such is the way hermeneutics should be performed. That is the way we should differentiate cultic teaching from the true voice of God. Interpretation should follow the principle of progressive revelation as stated or it is cultic.

Cultic Teachings based on Progressive Revelation.

1. Total Depravity of Man. If man is totally depraved prior to salvation and has no capability at all to seek God, how do we account for Enoch, Noah, Abraham, David, Joseph, Daniel, Moses, Gideon, etc etc etc. In fact, these people were NEVER INDWELT by the Holy Spirit. Man is NOT totally incapable of seeking God. In fact, Scripture shows by the example of these Bible characters that God actually seeks out those who seek him or desire to seek him. For example, people think that God sought Moses first based on the book of Exodus burning bush story. But based on the book of Hebrews 11, it was Moses who sought God first. St Paul, as Saul, sought God first and desired to please God by what he thought was right and just according to Jewish Law, but Christ responded by correcting his belief and re-orienting it in the correct direction. The way this principle is taught today is total CONTRADICTION! Avoid this teaching!
2. Unconditional Election. If God elected for man to fall, then God is playing with himself making him ridiculous and almost idiotic. Contradicts free will, which is the essence and obvious implicit assumption of ALL of Scripture. CONTRADICTION! Avoid this teaching!
3. Limited Atonement - This interpretation from the Epistles totally contradicts the gospels of Christ's "whosoever" scope of salvation. God so loved the word, not just the elect. Yet this same people who are very meticulous about word study violate their own rules in favor of their cherished but cultic theological interpretations. CONTRADICTION! Avoid this teaching!
4. Irresistible Grace - Adam had the grace of God at creation and was even innocent before the fall. YET HE CHOSE TO FALL!!  He had the capability to resist the grace of God and that is precisely what he committed. CONTRADICTION! Avoid this teaching! God created free will and he will NEVER, in fact CANNOT, is not able to violate his own design. He CANNOT violate his own rules. If he does, he may be sovereign but DEFINITELY less than perfect.
5. Perseverance of the Saints - Search all Scripture for the words persevere or perseverance and and there is no instance where it talks about eternity. But Calvinism uses this as a "once saved always saved" doctrine. Lest we get lost in their jargon, let's look up the word, ENDURE. Furthermore, let's look up preponderance of verses and listen to the SHOUTS of God instead of his whispers. God shouts the following....

• Matthew 10:22 - And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. A USELESS STATEMENT IF THOSE WHO DO NOT ENDURE ARE ALSO SAVED.
• Matthew 13:21 - yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles.
• Matthew 24:12-13 - And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. A USELESS STATEMENT IF THOSE WHO DO NOT ENDURE ARE ALSO SAVED.
• Mark 13:13 - And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. A USELESS STATEMENT IF THOSE WHO DO NOT ENDURE ARE ALSO SAVED.
• 2 Timothy 2:10 - Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. A USELESS STATEMENT IF ALL THE ELECT ARE AUTOMATICALLY SAVED.
• 2 Timothy 2:12 - If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. A USELESS STATEMENT IF THERE ARE THOSE WHO DO NOT ENDURE BUT WILL REIGN WITH HIM ANYWAY.

Perseverance is man's responsibility and NOT God's. Note that the only way one would come up with "Once saved, always saved" in the above verses it to invent or re-invent theological hocus pocus and jargon and arrogantly edit God's word instead of receiving the plain and simple common sense message. In 2 Timothy 2:10, EVEN THE ELECT NEED SAVING! This goes against the doctrine of

1. Predestination - Since the way it is taught violates or contradicts the ABSOLUTE free will granted by God to man, it violates the implicit assumption of all Scripture and is quite cultic. CONTRADICTION. Stay away from anyone who wishes to teach about this.
2. Women Pastors - Anyone who contends that "women should be silent in the churches" should first explain why their own women do not wear veils in church and why men do not wear hats either. Both statements by Paul on silent women and veils and head coverings have Paul's theological reasons for why they should be done and both came from the epistle to the Corinthians. You cannot chose to obey one and violate the other. Look at the Jews today, men still wear hats in synogogue but they are under the Law not under Grace, so they have an excuse. The denominations who contend that women should be silent are the same denominations that refuse to free slaves during the Civil War period and they have not corrected themselves nor apologized for it explicitly and publicly. They continue to have feudal and cultic thinking and hermeneutic methods. They have not been freed from the Law. CONTRADICTIONS. Avoid people who want to argue this point, especially John McArthur and people like him! The fields are white, the laborers are few, yet they paralyze half of the laborers because they limit their capability as kingdom people to protect  a doctrine that is obviously cultural in context. They both QUENCH THE SPIRIT and GRIEVE the Spirit based on dogmatism and dogmatism alone. Due to their faulty hermeneutics, they cling to the letter of the Law instead of the Spirit of the Law and the Prophets (and many were women prophets too).Pre-tribulation Rapture - It is more fantasy than Scripture, one of those "new" revelations that we need to avoid. We will discuss this in another blog to look at all the details for the basis of this teaching versus what Scripture says. Suffice it to state that there is no explicit Scriptural foundation for this other than implicit deductions (arguing from hints or from silence) instead of inductive research and, at best, circumstantial evidences. In fact, there are more contradictions than support for this theory. It does not directly violate progressive revelation because it not even in Scripture. Therefore, this seems to be a satanic distortion of Scripture because it promotes escapism, it makes the church complacent and unprepared for suffering and tribulation producing tares instead of wheat. The tares will be the first people who will surrender to the Anti-christ to avoid suffering or dying for their faith because this teaching did not prepare them for it. Paul actually warned against teaching like this in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4. He also mentioned why teaching like this is deceiving in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. Yes, the passage says that the teaching was sent by God because he is beginning to separate the wheat from the tares AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOSPELS!
3. Cessationism - There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that states that miracles have ceased or will cease once Scripture is completed.  Like the Pre-tribulation rapture, the only Bible support they have is by inference from a verse in 1 Corinthians 13 whose context is not even about revelation. If course, because these people do not have faith in miracles, THEY GET NONE! Avoid this teaching
4.