Does the Bible Mean What It Says

The other day I was fellowshipping with some friends of mine near the ESV display at the Shepherd’s Conference. Scott Hill was seated next to me reading my copy of Kenneth Gentry’s third edition of “Before Jerusalem Fell.” I highly recommend this book even if you already own a previous copy, because the preface of the third edition has Dr. Gentry’s rebuttals to the many critiques of his book including the one’s made by TMS’ own Dr. Robert Thomas. So, we were seated together and guess who happen to walk by our table? Dr. Thomas!

I could not pass up this opportunity, “Hey Dr. Thomas!” I exclaimed. “Scott is reading a book he would like for you to sign.” You should have seen Scott’s face. Scott began to explain how Dr. Gentry treated Dr. Thomas with respect and so forth — but Scott never revealed whose “side” he was on — compromiser!

As we laughed about the whole thing, a conversation sparked about interpretive principles. We asked Dr. Thomas about his issue with the New Testament’s nonliteral interpretations of key Old Testament passages, as he puts it.[1] Dr. Thomas said, “Because Israel rejected the Messiah, the apostles had to reinterpret the Old Testament to open the door for salvation to a new church that included Gentiles.” I could not believe that he said that so I asked him to repeat it… and he did.[2]

Dr. Thomas believes that because the Jews rejected the Messiah the Apostles had to go back into the Old Testament and discover, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, meanings that were not originally understood either by the one who originally wrote it or by the audience who originally read or heard it.

Dr. Thomas believes, “NT writers applied OT texts to situations entirely different from what the corresponding OT contexts entailed. The NT writers disregarded the main thrust of grammatical-historical meaning of the OT passages and applied those passages in different ways to suit different points they wanted to make. They may have maintained some connecting link in thought with the OT passages, but the literal OT meanings are absent from the citations. …We may call this nonliteral use an “inspired sensus plenior application” of the OT passage to a new situation. Such a usage is “inspired” because the NT writing in which it appears is inspired by God. It is “sensus plenior” in that it gives an additional or fuller sense than the passage had in its OT setting. It is an application because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage, but simply applies the OT wording to a new setting.”

Now the gist of what Dr. Thomas is saying is that the OT prophets did not foresee the sufferings of the Messiah or the New Covenant church. In dispensationalism the Church is deemed a new and unprophesied aside to God’s major plan for the Jews. John Walvoord writes of the Church: “There is good evidence that the [Church] age itself is a parenthesis in the divine program of God as it was revealed in the Old Testament. . . . [T]he present age [is] an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far as Old Testament prophecy is concerned.”‘ Dr. Walvoord clearly asserts that, in his theological opinion, God had a special, Jewish only program in operation in the Old Testament and the present Church age is but an interruption of that program.

Furthermore, Dr. Thomas contends that the OT was written with the intention of having only one “meaning” and that “meaning”, as far as OT prophecies are concerned, being in its grammatical-historical sense is Premillennial. Now something about all of this just doesn’t add up in my mind. Dr. Thomas implies that the New Covenant church is “entirely different” from what the Old Testament was anticipating, that all the OT prophets were Premillennial, that the promises of God were for national Israel. And it is hard for me to believe that Jesus and the Apostles “re-interpreted” the Old Testament after prophecies didn’t work out just right.

For many reasons, I have a hard time believing that is whole “new meaning” hypothesis is true. David for example knew that God had promised that his son Solomon would sit upon the throne, but he also knew that all of the promises ultimately referred to the resurrection and glorification of Christ. Peter revealed this to us in Acts 2:31. It is clear in this passage that Peter is not using “inspired sensus plenior” and discovering some new meaning in David’s words, but rather Peter was letting us all know that this WAS the original means AND David knew it.

Peter also said in his first epistle, “Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched … inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you…” (1 Peter 1:10-12, emphasis mine). It is clear to Peter that the prophets of the Old Testament were fully aware of the crucifixion, glorification of Christ, and the NC church.

Furthermore, Dr. Thomas would have us to believe that the Old Covenant church is void of a global vision and even void of Gentile believers. I cannot figure out how he misses the clear global nature of the promise made to Abraham to bless all nations through his offspring Christ. Nor can I figure out why Dr. Thomas completely ignores that there were multitudes of Gentile believers in the OC church, like Adam, Able, Enoch, Noah, Rahab, Ninevites, Ruth, etc.

Consider the following passages that are just a few of the many where Dr. Thomas claims that the OT meant one thing but someone in the NT changed the original meaning or at least gave it a new “second” meaning:

The context of Isaiah 25:8 speaks of the time of Christ’s future reign over the nations when God will “swallow up” death. He promises a time of prosperity for Israel. In Corinthians, Paul applies the words to the future resurrection of those in Christ, the church, because of the resurrection of Christ Himself (1 Cor 15:54). Dr. Thomas calls this an example of a nonliteral application of OT prophecy. But what authority does Dr. Thomas have to know that Paul was inventing a “new” or “fuller” meaning to the Isaiah prophecy. Why can we not just believe Paul who said this is the meaning?

In Isaiah 29 and 35, Isaiah speaks of the day of the LORD when the spiritual deafness and blindness of Israel will be replaced with spiritual hearing and eyesight. In Matt 11:5 Jesus applies the words to the physical healing of the deaf and blind that He accomplished during His earthly ministry at His first advent. But Dr. Thomas in effect disagrees with Christ when Dr. Thomas asserts that Jesus interpreted Isaiah 29:18 and Isaiah 35:5 in a “nonliteral” way because these were, according to Dr. Thomas, suppose to be in conjunction with Israel’s repentance at the future advent of her Messiah not the first advent. Again, does Dr. Thomas really know better than Christ. How can Dr. Thomas be so sure that these OT verses did not originally mean exactly what Christ said they meant?

Or read this quote from Dr. Thomas who again claims that the NT writers reacted to the Messiah’s rejection and re-interpreted the Old Testament to mean new things: “Isaiah promises that the Servant of the LORD will be a covenant to the people and a light to the Gentiles in the day when Israel enters the benefits of her new covenant (see Jer 31:31-34). That will happen when the Messiah returns and establishes Israel’s kingdom on earth. Hebrews 8:6, 10-12 show that because of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah at His first advent, the Servant extended the redemptive benefits of that new covenant to the church.”

Isaiah 49:6 contains God’s promise that His Servant, the M essiah, will be a light to the Gentiles in providing salvation to the ends of the earth. Dr. Thomas exclaims, “That, of course, will happen during the future kingdom after His return. But in Acts 13:47 Paul uses the words in an entirely different manner. He applies the words to his own ministry among the Gentiles during the present age, not to that of the LORD’s Servant during the future age of the kingdom.” So instead of Dr. Thomas believing Paul’s exegesis of Isaiah as being the “single” or ultimate meaning, he just asserts that Paul uses Isaiah in an “entirely different” manner than what Isaiah meant! Why can Dr. Thomas just admit that Paul sees the NC church as the kingdom Isaiah to which Isaiah was referring?

Concering Isaiah 65:1, Dr. Thomas noted: “Isaiah speaks of the unexpected turning of Gentiles to God during the time of Israel’s blessing in her future kingdom, but Paul applies the verse to the church during the present age. Since the existence of such a body as the church was a mystery throughout the OT, this must be an Inpired Sensus Plenior Application of the Isaiah passage.” Riiiiight — it MUST be some new meaning because nobody in the OT ever expected those Gentile dogs to be part of the kingdom! Especially not Jonah, he is still fuming about those filthy Ninevites.

Dr. Thomas asked this question in the TMS Journal: “Can the present-day interpreter assign additional and different meanings to OT passages in imitation of the applications made by the NT writers?” His answer: “The answer is no because of the principle of single meaning.” But that raises another question based on the way Dr. Thomas has treated the Lord’s usage of the OT and the Apostles interpretation of the OT: “Is it possible that Dr. Thomas is right about OT passages having a single meaning but is wrong about what that actual meaning is?” I would have to believe either the answer to that question is “Yes” or “No, Dr. T. is infallible.” Of course, none of us are… but the Bible is, the inspired interpretations of the Apostles are. So do you see the dilemma?

One more Scriptural reference I would like for all to consider. Jesus considered all of the Old Testament to be about Him, His rejection, His resurrection, and His global church. Such is clearly explained in Luke 24:44-47 — “Then [Jesus] said to them, ‘These are my words that I have spoken to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then opened he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Notice Jesus based this on “it is written.” Jesus is saying in very plain language that His global New Covenant church is “plan A”!

Go here if you wish to read more by Dr. Thomas, and you will see that I have not misrepresented him in any way. I just want to say, I respect Dr. Thomas but cannot believe that he knows better than Christ or Paul what the original intent of these passages were. He may call it “inspired sensus plenior” or “charismatic exegesis” or “spiritualizing the text” but I call it — the Bible saying what it means!

[1] Dr. Thomas commonly now refers to such interpretations as “inspired sensus pleanor” or “charismatic exegesis.” Also see his use of this phrase in this article.

[2] “Fourthly, someone might ask, “Why did the NT writers attach these sensus plenior meanings to OT passages?” In most instances, if not every instance, the new meaning given to an OT passage relates to Israel’s rejection of her Messiah at His first advent and the consequent opening of the door of salvation to a new people, the church (see Romans 9-11). The new people consist of both Jews and Gentiles as fellow members of the body of Christ, a mystery not revealed in the pages of the OT (cf. Eph 3:1-7). New meanings through special divine revelation were necessary to relate this new program to what God had been doing throughout the OT period.” Robert Thomas, New Evangelical Hermeneutics and Eschatology, 2003 Pre-Trib Study Group.