Major Differences Between Old and New Testament

[prism]

Please list what you consider the major differences.
Maybe as I read the responses and ask questions my Dispensational leanings will be readjusted accordingly?

 

[Carbon]

Please list what you consider the major differences.
Maybe as I read the responses and ask questions my Dispensational leanings will be readjusted accordingly?

Not sure I understand exactly what your asking.

But consider it this way, Jesus Christ is the center of all of scripture. The OT teaches on him throughout. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT. The OT is full of types of Christ, types, and shadows.

 

[Alive]

I think one of them that is important to realize is the OT is filled with eschatological and theological types and shadows, which were fulfilled in and by Christ. The NT explains how this is so.
One of the core mistakes of dispensationalism is the need to return to those types and shadows in order to justify and explain the position.
For example; a reinstitution of a physical temple and animal sacrifices.
This is a real problem and necessitates a u-turn of redemptive history.

 

[prism]

Not sure I understand exactly what your asking.

But consider it this way, Jesus Christ is the center of all of scripture. The OT teaches on him throughout. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT. The OT is full of types of Christ, types, and shadows.

I'm thinking more in terms of the imprecatory prayers against enemies in the OT whereas we are called to bless and curse not, also the continual warfare that goes on with seeming approval from God. I'm sure there are other differences.

 

[prism]

I think one of them that is important to realize is the OT is filled with eschatological and theological types and shadows, which were fulfilled in and by Christ. The NT explains how this is so.
One of the core mistakes of dispensationalism is the need to return to those types and shadows in order to justify and explain the position.
For example; a reinstitution of a physical temple and animal sacrifices.
This is a real problem and necessitates a u-turn of redemptive history.

Actually, I'm not inclined to types and shadows. (maybe I'm not as Dispensational as I thought), but I have to scratch my head when it comes to Ezekiel 40-48 and the sacrifices/priesthood/worship etc., going on there???
Actually, I was under the impression that it was the Reformed that resorted to types and allegories e.g. circumcision/baptism.

 

[Alive]

Actually, I'm not inclined to types and shadows. (maybe I'm not as Dispensational as I thought), but I have to scratch my head when it comes to Ezekiel 40-48 and the sacrifices/priesthood/worship etc., going on there???
Actually, I was under the impression that it was the Reformed that resorted to types and allegories e.g. circumcision/baptism.

Perhaps it would help to know waht you mean by dispensational.

 

[Sparrow]

To me, the Old and New Testaments are one harmonious story of God’s creation, Satan’s plan to rule/ruin it, and God’s plan to redeem it from the Destroyer and have an eternal relationship with His creation. God is almighty throughout and never changes or strays from His plan. The God of the New Testament may seem more loving and merciful than the God of the Old Testament, but isn’t that only because we see more of the plan fulfilled/revealed as we read? Isn’t that only because we fall in love with our Redeemer as more and more of God’s character is revealed as we read? And even if we learn something new from our study of the New Testament, we can always find a reference to it or reason for it in the Old. As we study, the scripture itself answers the questions we have and harmonizes the differences we see. Scripture is better when viewed in its entirety.

Differences in the Old and New? They were written in different languages.

 

[Sparrow]

Actually, I'm not inclined to types and shadows. (maybe I'm not as Dispensational as I thought), but I have to scratch my head when it comes to Ezekiel 40-48 and the sacrifices/priesthood/worship etc., going on there???
Actually, I was under the impression that it was the Reformed that resorted to types and allegories e.g. circumcision/baptism.

In Ezekiel 40-48, we are given a physical description (so we can get a kind of mental picture) of a spiritual place, a very precise, orderly, perfect place. The LORD speaks to Ezekiel in 43:7: “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever.” We will all exist in another dimension then. There will be no corruption there. Sound like any place you’ve read about in the New Testament? The physical details just help us to comprehend the awesomeness of the spiritual. For example, notice how the “priests” are arrayed in white linen. Revelation 19:8 tells us that the linen represents the righteousness of the saints. There will be NO unrighteousness in the temple described in Ezekiel’s vision. Only blessings unending.

 

[Mr GLee]

Please list what you consider the major differences.
Maybe as I read the responses and ask questions my Dispensational leanings will be readjusted accordingly?

Both testaments make up the one perfect . To the law (Let there be). with the prophets as a witness (it was God alone good)

The law of faith (Christ's) What God says comes to pass .

To the law signified by Moses the law giver and the prophets signified by the power Elias given over to John the fulfilment of the law . .

Matthew 11:13-15King James Version For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Luke 9:30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: the law and prophets (as one voice sola scriptura"

The just and the justifier as one labor of "Let there be" and it was "Gods Love" revealed by the the prophets .

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[prism]

Perhaps it would help to know waht you mean by dispensational.

I tend towards a literal interpretation which results in God's continuing care for the nation of Israel.

 

[prism]

In Ezekiel 40-48, we are given a physical description (so we can get a kind of mental picture) of a spiritual place, a very precise, orderly, perfect place. The LORD speaks to Ezekiel in 43:7: “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever.” We will all exist in another dimension then. There will be no corruption there. Sound like any place you’ve read about in the New Testament? The physical details just help us to comprehend the awesomeness of the spiritual. For example, notice how the “priests” are arrayed in white linen. Revelation 19:8 tells us that the linen represents the righteousness of the saints. There will be NO unrighteousness in the temple described in Ezekiel’s vision. Only blessings unending.

The East Gate to the Outer Court
The Outer Court
The North Gate
The South Gate
The Inner Court
Chambers for the Priests
The Vestibule of the Temple
The Inner Temple
The Temple's Chambers
The Altar
The Gate for the Prince
Rules for Levitical Priests
The Holy District etc. It's just hard for me to spiritualize these things and/or fit into our 'future' dimension.

 

[prism]

Both testaments make up the one perfect . To the law (Let there be). with the prophets as a witness (it was God alone good)

The law of faith (Christ's) What God says comes to pass .

To the law signified by Moses the law giver and the prophets signified by the power Elias given over to John the fulfilment of the law . .

Matthew 11:13-15King James Version For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Luke 9:30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: the law and prophets (as one voice sola scriptura"

The just and the justifier as one labor of "Let there be" and it was "Gods Love" revealed by the the prophets .

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

I agree with the unity part of Scripture but I am having a hard time understanding God's 'apparent' change of attitude. (see post #4)

 

[prism]

Differences in the Old and New? They were written in different languages.

Also see post #4.

 

[Mr GLee]

I agree with the unity part of Scripture but I am having a hard time understanding God's 'apparent' change of attitude. (see post #4)

Hi thanks for the reply.

Not sure. . Change of attitude .Whose how?

 

[Arial]

Actually, I'm not inclined to types and shadows. (maybe I'm not as Dispensational as I thought), but I have to scratch my head when it comes to

A great deal of the OT is types and shadows and understanding them as the NT brings the reality of the types and shadows into the ongoing (from Gen 3:14-15 forward)story of redemption playing out in our history. It is also very helpful to obtain views of reliable theologians and writers that help us to see what we did not see before. Always checking the validity against the Bible itself of course. A good work by O. Palmer Robertson The Israel of God:Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, is very helpful in understanding these types and shadows in their fulfillment, and the prophecies also concerning the land, and in giving a nudge in moving away from dispensationalism. The land alloted to Israel is also a shadow of what is to come-----all the land of creation containing God's people. This we see in Christ as the gospel goes to all nations.Israel and the land are a type of God dwelling with His people as we see in Rev 21. Christ fulfilled all the requirements of the old covenant that applied to the Israelites possessing the land God gave them. The Israelites did not.

Actually, I was under the impression that it was the Reformed that resorted to types and allegories e.g. circumcision/baptism.

The NT tells us what we see in the OT are types of what is to come, and that Jesus is the real that the shadow anticipated. The NT writers explain the types. When we see that, we have an integrated redemption account, rather than one divided or paused.

 

[prism]

A great deal of the OT is types and shadows and understanding them as the NT brings the reality of the types and shadows into the ongoing (from Gen 3:14-15 forward)story of redemption playing out in our history.

That's how I'd take it.

. It is also very helpful to obtain views of reliable theologians and writers that help us to see what we did not see before.

C.S. Lewis makes a similar point in 'The Reading of Old Books'.

A good work by O. Palmer Robertson The Israel of God:Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, is very helpful in understanding these types and shadows in their fulfillment, and the prophecies also concerning the land, and in giving a nudge in moving away from dispensationalism. The land alloted to Israel is also a shadow of what is to come-----all the land of creation containing God's people. This we see in Christ as the gospel goes to all nations.Israel and the land are a type of God dwelling with His people as we see in Rev 21. Christ fulfilled all the requirements of the old covenant that applied to the Israelites possessing the land God gave them. The Israelites did not.

This dovetails in the OP, as another diff. between OT/NT is that prophecies in the OT were fulfilled literally, whereas we are led to believe not to expect a literal fulfillment from the NT. (maybe this is the appeal of the Preterist)

The NT tells us what we see in the OT are types of what is to come, and that Jesus is the real that the shadow anticipated. The NT writers explain the types. When we see that, we have an integrated redemption account, rather than one divided or paused.

I agree, as long as the antitype is seen as a literal fulfillment of the type

 

[prism]

Hi thanks for the reply.

Not sure. . Change of attitude .Whose how?

Did you read post #4?

 

[Mr GLee]

Did you read post #4?

Yes, bless do not curse . Christ alone has the power to rebuke or curse unclean spirits.

Ezekiel same law of hermeneutics. Without parables the signified tongue, Christ spoke not. . . hiding the gospel spiritual understanding from the lost

​

 

[Arial]

This dovetails in the OP, as another diff. between OT/NT is that prophecies in the OT were fulfilled literally, whereas we are led to believe not to expect a literal fulfillment from the NT. (maybe this is the appeal of the Preterist)

I suggest a study on interpreting OT prophecy---in particular apocalyptic prophecy. Many of the prophecies had an OT application that applied to the current events and those to be fulfilled in those times. But they also have future applications as it is all a part of the same redemption as it plays out in our history, and the parts must fit seamlessly into the whole.

For example there may be a prophecy that pertains to Israel returning to the land---which they did when a remnant returned from Babylon. The same prophecy may look forward to a future time that is not exclusive to Israel but relates to the consummation of our salvation. In that case, the geopolitical Israel is not in view exclusively but is seen in the light of the Redeemer arriving, dying, rising, ascending and even further into the consummation.

Another good resource is A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger.

I don't know where you understand that the NT leads us to not expect a literal fulfillment.

I agree, as long as the antitype is seen as a literal fulfillment of the type

What do you mean?

 

[Eleanor]

Please list what you consider the major differences.
Maybe as I read the responses and ask questions my Dispensational leanings will be readjusted accordingly?

The OT was a prefigure of the NT, is fulfilled in the NT, and is correctly understood only in the light of NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church.