Christ In The Old Testament

[irishman]

The Tabernacle shows Christ through and through.  The coverings, the furniture, the fence of white linen, etc.very interesting study.

[Calvary]

@ covenant and irish -

 

your both do exactly what most do, take your understanding of a doctrine or a truth that you found in the writings of Paul or in typology and lay it back into the understanding of the saints (yes I said saints, so obviously there were saved folks back then) and make them to be on equal ground of your own understanding. It is erroneous and the scriptures themselves decry such fanciful conclusions.

 

I see the Lord Jesus every where in the Bible, of course, it is all about Him, but that doesn´t mean any one who lived under the Mosaic dispensation had the slightest inkling of what the cross signified. If they saw it at all. I mean you just quoted Jesus reprimanding a pair of men for NOT SEEING IT.

 

First off, Peter says that even the men who gave you the anti types did not understand them or their meaning or role in salvation.

 

1Pe 1:10  Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
1Pe 1:11  Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1Pe 1:12  Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
 

 

That´s pretty self explanatory.

 

Can you imagine how excited Isaiah would have been to read the gospel of John? They knew a little of something, but had no understanding of the implications, the significance of what they themselves prophesied.

 

Eph 3:3  How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

 

Again, it´s just 6th grade English there my friend. Nothing too complicated to grasp. Men in other ages DID NOT KNOW what Paul revealed throughout his epistles. As much of the cross you see in Isaiah 53, Psalms 22, Numbers, Genesis 3,; 18 and the hundreds of other places. Paul speaking under the INSPIRATION of the HOLY GHOST stated emphatically that THEY ("the sons of men") DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT.

 

Now if you disagree with Ephesians 3, that´s your right to do so, as for me and my house, we will accept Paul´s word on it.

 

Col 1:25  Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Col 1:26  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Col 1:27  To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
 

Paul repeats the fact that what you and I know about Christ, the church, the types, the cross - as HID... BUT NOW...

 

Again, your debate is not with me, it is with a holy man of old who spake as the Spirit moved him.

 

I´ll give you brothers an example of what happens when you only see what you have received and never put yourself in the shoes of an OT saint who did not have any understanding of what you and I understand.

 

So Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that the gospel is the message that Christ died for our sins ( a propitiation) he was buried and then rose form the dead on the 3rd day. Paul says all of those components are in fact found in the scriptures. I have no problem conceding that those scriptures mentioned in 1 Corinthians are the OT writings. Anyone can see that. But that is not what we are talking about.

Paul said that those components of the gospel message are in fact essential to salvation, that unless someone believed those things and received them, there could be no salvation.

 

1Co 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

 

To simply run to verses 3-4 to preach what the gospel is and pass over the implications of verses 1-2 is to eradicate context.

 

BY WHICH ALSO YE ARE SAVED....

 

So, if the message that Christ died for sinners is non negotiable, if the fact that a belief in His resurrection is a requirement for salvation...

 

What exactly were the 12 preaching while with Christ?

 

Luk 18:31  Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
Luk 18:32  For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
Luk 18:33  And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

 

There´s 1 Corinthians 15:1-4!! Jesus looked forward to the cross. I grant that. The Father looked forward to the cross. I see that as well. But there is no evidence that any saint "looked forward" to the cross in the sense that he was trusting it would get him right with God.

 

Luk 18:34  And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

 

What do we have here!!??

These 12 men who have walked with Jesus for over 3 years, who have watched him do things that we could only imagine, that heard him teach every day, I mean EVERY SINGLE DAY,  -  and you would have me believe that they looked forward to the cross?? After the Holy Spirit just said that THEY (the 12) understood NONE of THESE things (the death, burial and resurrection), that this saying was HID from them (exactly as Paul told you they were, yet still you argue) and that THEY (the 12) NEITHER KNEW the things SPOKEN. Which according to Paul are a requirement for salvation!! (Review 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 if you need to)

 

I do not how how much more redundant the Holy Spirit can be to make you see that what you good men try to explain, cannot be supported by the scriptures you claim to believe.

 

 

Things different are not the same. It´s not rocket science my friends, it´s just Bible study.

 

Now, before you demand of me that I don´t believe the Bible and quote a bunch more scriptures that have no real bearing on what I am talking about., do not forget to re-read my post. I have not said any one was saved by keeping the law (I haven´t said either way really). I haven´t said that Jesus is not the way to peace with God. I haven´t said half the stuff you are about to accuse me off, so think before you speak (or write).

 

If Paul is correct, and I have no doubt he is, then according to 1 Corinthians we need to preach death, burial and resurrection so that folks will get saved.

Are you suggesting that the 12 preached the central issues of the gospel, although they understood none of it, when those central issues were hid from them (??!!) and that they neither KNEW any of it???!!!!

 

OK.....   If you say so....

 

God bless,

calvary

 

[Moved_On]

@ covenant and irish -

 

your both do...
 

 

@ Calvary:

 

When backed in a corner, many long-winded, intelligent, scripture-quoting folks I've met believe that OT Jews were redeemed by works of righteousness.

 

For the record, what say ye? It is works or grace?

[heartstrings]

Here is Christ in

 

In Genesis 3:15, Moses recorded......

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The "seed of the Woman" is none other than Jesus Christ.

 

Moses wrote about Him, so did David, Job, Isaiah and a host of other "prophets"......Philip said.......

Philip *found Nathanael and *said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and {also} the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

 

In Revelation 13:8, John penned....

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 

Wait....wasn't the Lamb "slain" somewhere around 33AD? Moses, Abraham, David, and all true believers were looking for the true Messiah. They were looking for the right one, while all those OT Jews who tried to keep the Law by their own strength died without hope no matter how many animals they sacrificed. Even today, the Jews are looking for the "Messiah", but they are looking for the wrong one. The Bible says there is none other name which we must be saved. Everyone from Adam to the very last baby ever born will have to come through the Blood of the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Jesus said "no man cometh to the Father but by me" and he said "I am 'the way'" There is no other way...... than "the way".

[Invicta]

The OT saints may not have known of the cross but they knew of the coming Saviour and had faith in him.  Read Hebrews 11.

[heartstrings]

In another post I mentioned the term "looking forward to the cross". Understand, I was using a term taught to me time and time again at my former IFB church. I failed to study it myself, and determine it's Biblical accuracy. Just because something is taught at one's church, doesn't mean it's always 100% right. That's why we are supposed to study for ourselves. My apologies

Edited to add...

The cross isn't mentioned in the OT;  the disciples certainly didn't know about it. But the principles of the Savior,  the redeemer, the Messiah, the blood atonement and Hell certainly were there which brings me to another question: what could the "certain rich man", in Luke 16, have "done" to have kept himself from going to Hell? Jesus had not yet been crucified or risen. And what did the beggar, Lazarus, have that got him into "Abraham's bosom"?

[Calvary]

@ Calvary:

 

When backed in a corner, many long-winded, intelligent, scripture-quoting folks I've met believe that OT Jews were redeemed by works of righteousness.

 

For the record, what say ye? It is works or grace?

 

So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol

 

For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is?

 

I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper.

 

But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical.

 

Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground.

 

Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body back under the law??

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism.

 

Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile.

 

God bless,

calvary

[Calvary]

In another post I mentioned the term "looking forward to the cross". Understand, I was using a term taught to me time and time again at my former IFB church. I failed to study it myself, and determine it's Biblical accuracy. Just because something is taught at one's church, doesn't mean it's always 100% right. That's why we are supposed to study for ourselves. My apologies

Edited to add...

The cross isn't mentioned in the OT;  the disciples certainly didn't know about it. But the principles of the Savior,  the redeemer, the Messiah, the blood atonement and Hell certainly were there which brings me to another question: what could the "certain rich man", in Luke 16, have "done" to have kept himself from going to Hell? Jesus had not yet been crucified or risen. And what did the beggar, Lazarus, have that got him into "Abraham's bosom"?

 

Now you´re asking the right questions!!

 

Good for you heart.

 

God bless,

calvary

[ASongOfDegrees]

In another post I mentioned the term "looking forward to the cross". Understand, I was using a term taught to me time and time again at my former IFB church. I failed to study it myself, and determine it's Biblical accuracy. Just because something is taught at one's church, doesn't mean it's always 100% right. That's why we are supposed to study for ourselves. My apologies

Edited to add...

The cross isn't mentioned in the OT;  the disciples certainly didn't know about it. But the principles of the Savior,  the redeemer, the Messiah, the blood atonement and Hell certainly were there which brings me to another question: what could the "certain rich man", in Luke 16, have "done" to have kept himself from going to Hell? Jesus had not yet been crucified or risen. And what did the beggar, Lazarus, have that got him into "Abraham's bosom"?

Yes, the principles were there but they were hid from them even though the prophets spoke of them and tried to understand them. This is what all the ministering of the temple and the sacrifices were all about. They were all foreshadows of what was to come.

 

Even though nobody under the OT was saved like we are today that's not a complete truth. All the saints will eventually be redeemed only by the blood of the Lamb but those prior to the cross had to wait (through the forbearance of God-Romans 3:24-26) until the atonement was made. They had to make the sacrifices that God commanded which were only a temporary covering for sin until Christ would make the final and full sacrifice. Then those in Abraham's Bosom (the way to heaven hadn't been made yet - Hebrews 9:7-9-  because the things in heaven hadn't been sprinkled with the blood- Heb. 9:22-24) could be raised with Christ and enter heaven. 

 

So when we say folks in the OT weren't saved like we are today we mean AT THAT TIME THEY LIVED IN. Ultimately, though, everyone is saved by the blood of Christ (Col. 1:20). They just had to wait until it was finished.

 

One other important factor, there was no sealing of the Holy Ghost in the OT. The Comforter didn't abide with the saints and because of this nobody was united with the body of Christ. This is probably the most important factor why there was nobody born again in the OT. You couldn't even be baptized into Christ until after the resurrection. It was not impossible. No body of Christ, no baptism of the Spirit, no being born again.

 

If you ask me this teaching glorifies Christ more than saying that everyone was saved the same way as we are today throughout the bible. It doesn't focus on the importance of the atonement of Christ and what was really on line when he struggled in Gethsemane.

[JerryNumbers]

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Jude 1:15 ¶ To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

 

And they did not know? Enoch surely did, & preached about it.

 

And the Scriptures Dave.

Hebrews 11

 24  By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

 

 25  Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

 

 26  Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

 

Amazing, we can look back to Christ but they can't look forward!

[Moved_On]

So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol

 

For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is?

 

I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper.

 

But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical.

 

Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground.

 

Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body back under the law??

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism.

 

Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile.

 

God bless,

calvary

 

I had a feeling you'd avoid the question. I'll try once more.

 

Were the OT Jews redeemed by works of righteousness or by grace through faith alone?

[heartstrings]

So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol

 

For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is?

 

I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper.

 

But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical.

 

Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground.

 

Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body back under the law??

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism.

 

Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile.

 

God bless,

calvary

Romans 14?

[Covenanter]

Interesting discussion, with an underlying agreement that we can clearly see Christ throughout the OT, when we look with the light of the NT writers.

 

The questions seem to include: (my brief answers)

 

Were the OT believers saved the same way as NT believers, i.e. by repentance & faith in Christ? (Even if they did not understand - is OUR understanding essential to OUR salvation?)

(Yes)

 

Were they born again and secure in their salvation?

(Yes)

 

Did they enter heaven at death?

(Yes)

 

Were they saved by obedience to the Law?

(No, but compliance showed salvation, as disobedience showed they were not saved)

 

Is possession of the Land essential to fulfilment of God's promises?

(No)

 

Was salvation of Gentiles on the same basis as Jews revealed in the OT?

(No - that's Paul's mystery)

[heartstrings]

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. John 1:12

 

Word Origin & History

even 

O.E. efen "level," also "equal" (as in efeneald "of the same age"),from P.Gmc. *ebnaz (cf. Ger. eben, Goth. ibns). Etymologists areuncertain whether the original sense was "level" or "alike." Ofnumbers, from 1550s. Modern adverbial sense (introducing anextreme case of something more generally implied)

seems to have arisen 16c. from use of the word to emphasizeidentity ("Who, me?" "Even you," etc.) Sense of "on an equal footing"is from 1630s. Related: Evenly. Rhyming reduplication phrase evensteven is attested from 1866; even break first recorded 1911.Evenhanded attested from c.1600; even-tempered from 1875.

 

 

name 

O.E. nama, from P.Gmc. *namon (cf. O.Fris. nama, O.H.G. namo, Ger.Name, Du. naam, O.N. nafn, Goth. namo "name"), from PIE *nomn-(cf. Skt. nama, Avestan nama, Gk. onoma, onyma, L. nomen, O.C.S.ime, gen. imene, Rus. imya, O.Ir. ainm, O.Welsh anu). Meaning "one's reputation" is from c.1300. As a modifier

meaning "well-known," first attested 1938. The verb is from O.E.namian. Name-calling is from 1853; name-dropper first recorded1947. The name of the game "the essential thing or quality" is from1966; to have one's name in lights "be a famous performer" is from1929.

 

Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

 

When I got saved, I didn't understand the cross, the blood, repentance or a host of other things. I didn't know He was "the I Am", the "Prince of Peace" or "Immanuel". But I knew His name was Jesus, and I called on that name which is above every name. I don't know which of His names the men in Genesis 4, or Abraham, or Isaac or any of the others down through time. But it's a fact that they called on the name of the Lord in faith. 

[Calvary]

I had a feeling you'd avoid the question. I'll try once more.

 

Were the OT Jews redeemed by works of righteousness or by grace through faith alone?

 

So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol

 

For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is?

 

I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper.

 

But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical.

 

Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground.

 

Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body backunder the law??

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism.

 

Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile.

 

God bless,

calvary

 

 

I made that bigger for you in case you missed it ....