← Back to sermon library

Renahan, your wife sent me a 
text. Make sure to take your pills 
and get to bed on time. I'm not done. It's cute that 
you're out this early in the morning. We're proud of you. Cam thought it was cool that 
you had neither a cane, nor a walker, nor a wheelchair. I'm going to get fired. What's that? I know, he's my 
boss. Well, since I'm going to get 
fired. Jim's so old, no. Jim's so old, he once babysat 
Nehemiah Cox. Acts chapter three, what we're 
doing is showing you that the apostles interpreted our Lord 
as the scope of the Old Testament, and we should do the same. Now 
somebody made a comment earlier that we can't do what Jesus and 
the apostles did because we're not inspired. No, we can't produce 
written products that are inert and therefore infallible and 
inspired by the Holy Spirit. But we can see the interpretive 
moves of our Lord, the interpretive principles of the apostles, and 
seek to implement them ourselves. If we don't use theirs, whose 
are we gonna use? We're gonna smuggle somebody 
else's in, which we have to do in one sense, because we're creatures 
with communicative capacities endowed upon us by God, and so 
we share Language, the gift of language 
with other creatures and the gift of understanding what a 
proposition is, a sentence, a subject, a predicate, a verb, an object, 
a direct, all those things. But I'm talking about how the 
Lord understood the fulfillment of certain aspects of the Old 
Testament as terminating on him. You don't get that from outside 
the Bible. You don't go to a tree and conclude Jesus is the scope 
of the Old Testament. You go to Jesus and he tells 
you and then you look at the apostles. So we looked at Peter 
before Pentecost, just one incident where thou art the Christ, the 
son of the living God, blessed art thou Simon Barjona for flesh 
and blood, has not revealed this to you but my father, And now I'm gonna go to Jerusalem 
and suffer and die and be raised from the dead. God forbid it, 
Lord. Get behind me, Satan. You know, 
that was before Pentecost. After Pentecost, we looked at 
Luke 2. He did something different than Jesus, at least Luke 2, 
Acts 2. He did something different than 
Jesus, at least in reference to Luke 24, the two times, and 
the John 5 passage we looked at. He actually cites, quotes 
Old Testament texts, Psalm 16, Joel 2. this side of the resurrection 
and entrance into glory of the Son of God, arguing that this, 
what I'm talking about, Jesus' resurrection and Pentecost, is 
that Psalm 16 and Jolt 2. And then, you remember, in both 
citations, one before and one after, he puts it in a broader 
Old Testament context. The Joel text, he says, in the 
latter days, God said this would take place. That's not in Joel, 
but that's in another place of the Old Testament. So he's saying, 
hey guys, when you go back there, remember the teaching about the 
latter days. Joel's prophecy was about the 
latter days, we're in them, because of the resurrection of Christ. 
But he did that also with Psalm 16 after Psalm 16 citation in 
Acts 2. He puts it in a wider context. 
David, being a prophet, knew that God had sworn to put his 
son up on his throne, prophesied this. So he puts it in a broader 
Old Testament context. Acts 3, I wanna look at verses 
17 through 26. This'll be, I'll race through 
this material because I'm gonna skip other sections of Acts where 
the same thing is done by the Apostle Paul two or three times 
and go to 1 Peter 1, 10 through 12. cap off this lecture. Acts 3.17, Yet now, brethren, 
Peter to primarily Jewish audience again, I know that you did it 
in ignorance, as did all your rulers, but those things which 
God foretold by the mouth of all his prophets, I think he's 
referring to the written products of the prophets, that the Christ 
would suffer, he has thus fulfilled, Repent, therefore, and be converted, 
that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing 
may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send 
Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must 
receive, until the times of the restoration of all things, which 
God, which, the times of restoration of all things, which God has 
spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world 
began. Okay, if he's talking about God 
speaking through holy prophets, we already know from the red 
letters, he's talking about their written products, right? So, 
the times of restoration of all things, God has spoken about 
them by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world 
began. Where does the eschatology of 
the Bible start? With the first writing prophet, whoever it is, 
probably Moses. Moses writes about eschatology? Some of you know that statement 
by Gareth Artis-Foss. In the revelation of Holy Scripture, 
the eschatological is prior to the soteriological. That sounds 
weird. Eschatology comes at the end. 
Did God offer to Adam a quality of life better than his created 
status? Could Adam have advanced his 
created status to a glorified status? better than his beginning 
status. Most of you are going, yeah, 
that's the covenant of works. So that before Adam sinned, God 
offered him eschatology. That's what the Vos thing means. 
So the latter days have been spoken about, and the sufferings 
and glory of Christ have been spoken about by the mouths of 
all his writing prophets, starting with the first one. which we'll 
just assume is Moses. For Moses truly said to the fathers, 
the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me 
from your brethren, him you shall hear in all things. This is my 
beloved son, hear him. Remember that language? Whatever 
he says to you, and it shall be. By the way, do you think 
the father was teaching us that the sun was fulfilling the Mosaic 
prophecy of Deuteronomy, or of, yeah, Deuteronomy 18, 15 and 
18 there, I think so. and it shall be that every soul 
who will not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from 
among the people. Yes, and all the prophets, from 
Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have 
also foretold these days. You are sons of the prophets 
and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying 
to Abraham, and in your seed all the families of the earth 
shall be blessed. To you first, God, having raised up his servant 
Jesus, send him to bless you in turning away every one of 
you from your iniquities." Note first, those things which God 
foretold by the mouth of all his prophets that the Christ 
would suffer, he has thus fulfilled. That this suffering of Christ 
motif, God foretold by the mouth of all his prophets. When did 
God start telling us that the Messiah would suffer? way early 
in the book of Genesis. Most likely, Genesis 3.15 was 
the first time. Note, second, by the way, Adam 
was a type of Christ. Did Adam suffer before he sinned? Like something came upon him 
from the outside that altered his state of being? This is weird. God put him to sleep and took 
a rib out of him And all the women are going, 
yeah, and then he entered glory when the rib was formed into 
a woman. God made Eve out of that rib. God built, some translations 
I think say that. I was reading some old guys, 
I don't know who they are, I think it was Gil and Zanki, and they 
said the Septuagint uses the same word They're translated 
in English, built, in Genesis 2. In Matthew 16, I will build 
my church. You go, that's pretty wild. Read 
Ephesians 5, because Paul gives us license to go look at Adam 
and Eve and see Christ in the church from Ephesians 5. So you're 
saying, before the fall of the sin, there was some sort of redemptive 
stuff being hinted at prior to the lapse, prior to the fall? 
Yeah, Paul said there was. I'm speaking about marriage and 
yet Christ in the church and marriage as an institution with 
its first two partners predates the fall into sin. So even prior 
to the fall into sin, things can be pointed to redemptive 
realities. I'm off the note so might as 
well keep going. What happened on the third day of creation? Stuff started coming out of the 
ground. Friday, Saturday, Sunday, what 
came out of the ground? Who likens the resurrection to 
plants and harvest? Jesus in John 12, Paul in 1 Corinthians 
15. Do any of our old heroes say 
that the third day when stuff was coming out of the ground, 
now that we have the rest of Revelation, is actually pointing 
to the resurrection? And you know, the answer to that, 
yes. Do you believe it? Well, it could be. At my church, when 
I say, it could be, it means, I think it is. So this is huge. Peter's saying, let me tell you 
what the prophets were doing from the beginning. by the mouth 
of, let me tell you what God was doing. He was speaking through 
the mouths of the prophets, their written products, and he was 
talking about these days. Is every single verse in the 
Old Testament a prophecy of New Testament days? No. Is every 
single reference in the Old Testament pointing forward in the motif 
of prophecy, foretelling the future? No. Can the Old Testament 
foretell the future through persons, not them speaking, but their 
actions and their offices. Yeah, does it do that? Way more 
than we're comfortable with. Second, the times of restoration 
of all things, God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy 
prophets since the world began. The latter days are spoken about 
in the Old Testament and have been inaugurated by our Lord's 
sufferings and glory. Note third, what the prophet 
Moses spoke about has come. For Moses truly said to the Fars, 
the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me, 
"'from your brethren. "'Him you shall hear in all things 
"'whatever he says to you, "'and it shall be that every soul "'who 
will not hear that prophet "'shall be utterly destroyed from among 
the people. "'God, through Moses, said he 
would come. "'God, through Peter, says he 
has come.'" Note forth the days in which this prophet would minister 
were foretold days. All the prophets from Samuel 
and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold 
these days. What Moses foretold was foretold 
by all the prophets, though in different words from Moses' words. They're all talking about the 
same thing using different words. Note finally, the promised seed 
to bless the earth has come, God said to Abraham, and in your 
seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. The days 
in which we live are foretold days, days inaugurated by the 
sufferings and glory of our Lord, days foretold by Moses, days 
foretold by Samuel, days foretold by all the writing prophets from 
the first one to the last one. So by the time the Old Testament's 
finished, our Lord comes on the scene, it's all set up. What 
is the Old Testament in one sense? Setting the world up for this 
conference? No. The Old Testament is a slow 
but sure crescendo and drum roll, setting the world up for 1776. 
Or how about this one, 1677. is Jesus, right? The Old Testament 
is a slow but sure drum roll. The crescendo of it is outside 
of it in its fulfillment in the historical incarnation, sufferings, 
and glory of Jesus of Nazareth. That's the big deal of all the 
events of the history of events. The greatest one is in the fullness 
of time, God sent forth his son. God said he would do this, God 
did it, and then God tells us he's done it. That's the Old 
Testament said he would do it, the historical incarnation of 
our Lord is a fulfillment of it, and the New Testament records 
it and then explains it for us. Everything hinges on that. That's 
the big thing in the sense creation. What's the biggest thing since 
creation? The inauguration of the new creation. the whole complex 
of events we call Sufferings and Glory of the Son of God. 
The next grand event will be the second coming, which by the 
way, the first coming prepares for the second as well, but the 
lecture is off the notes. First Peter chapter one, let's 
go to Peter writing now. We've gone to Peter preaching 
twice. Now we're gonna go Peter writing, 
one, 10 through 12. Peter's a theologian, right? 
He's probably a little older now. probably been able to think, 
muse a little more about the hermeneutical lectures he heard 
from the Lord when he was in Jerusalem in Acts 6, 4. It seems 
that they were, the apostles didn't want to serve the widows, 
not because they hated women. That's a butlerism. He would, 
not because they hated women. I can't preach, I used to preach 
a little more like Jim. I can't, I put my neck out. He 
does the, You ever seen his Jim Butler bottle head? He's got 
one. He sat in the front row. I was 
going to say I'm sorry, but I'm not sorry. So in Acts 6, 4, they 
didn't want to serve the women because they wanted to give themselves 
to the word and prayer. Most people think prayer and 
preaching, prayer and preaching. But you can give yourself, we 
gave ourselves to the word yesterday at a studio, I think. We were 
discussing theological things. So do you think the apostles 
sat around Jerusalem, all they did was preach and pray? Do you 
think they ever sat down and said, and I think Matthew was 
writing, putting together his gospel pretty early, Do you think 
the apostles sat around and say, I get it, I was reading Hosea, 
I was reading so and so, and then I remember what the Lord 
said, and they're writing stuff down and comparing, I think that 
was going on. They didn't have computers and 
all that stuff, but I think that was going on. Now we have a mature-minded 
Peter, okay, so he's gonna reflect on the events. that occurred 
in light of what the prophet said would take place. Things 
that I think he probably preached, and maybe other apostles, to 
the recipients of this letter who were dispersed from Jerusalem. 1 Peter 1, verse 10, of this 
salvation, the prophets have inquired, this is the writing 
prophets, and searched carefully who prophesied of the grace that 
would come to you, searching what or what manner of time the 
Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when he testified 
beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would 
follow. To them it was revealed that 
not to themselves, but to us, they were ministering the things 
which now have been reported to you through those who have 
preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. 
I don't like the rest of that verse, so I'm not gonna read 
it. It's weird, isn't it? Things which angels desire to 
look into. Actually, that's one of my favorite 
sections. I don't think I'll get to explain 
it much, except if you read the Old Testament, if you allow the 
Bible to help you interpret the Bible, you have angels looking 
into Christological things, like typological things, like the 
mercy seat. You got angels looking down at it. Methinks I can hear 
Spurgeon. They're looking at it because 
it's the incarnate Son of God typified. and they learn of the 
manifold wisdom of God by virtue of what God does in his redemptive 
plan enacted on the earth. Ephesians 3, angels go to church 
every Lord's Day and learn things and glorify God in light of it. 
I think that's what's going on there. But let's just walk through 
this text real quick. Note first the words, this salvation, 
at the first part of verse 10. Those words refer to that which 
Peter's recipients were enjoying. The salvation, this side of death 
and resurrection of Christ, and Pentecost, and what Peter enjoyed 
as well. Note second, the prophets are the Old Testament writing 
prophets. I already made that claim. Third, the prophets were 
scholars. You ever thought of that? They 
seem to be students here. You're saying, well, they're 
just going, hmm, and receiving, what was that? Okay, or have 
their secretary write it down or whatever. I think there's 
something more going on here. The prophets were scholars, they 
were students of the scriptures. I think I said this already, 
that searched carefully. I think it best to take that 
second verb, searched carefully, to refer to inquiring into holy 
scripture concerning specific content. Here's what Gill says, 
and searched diligently in the use of means. By prayer. What a novel idea. The prophets 
pray to understand their own products and the products of 
other prophets. By prayer and supplication. Now 
watch this one. By reading the prophecies that 
went before. The first time I read that, I'm going, finally, somebody 
said what I was thinking. Then I'm going, bummer, somebody 
said what I was thinking. Because I am that proud. By the 
way, I used to preach things I'd never heard anyone say before, 
like a long time ago. I try to never do that now. And 
I tell young guys, so nobody said it, don't say it. Because 
it's most likely not true. But he said it. By reading the 
prophets that went before, and watch this. By observing the 
types, shadows, and sacrifices of the law. And by waiting upon 
the Lord for the inspiration of his spirit. Note fourth, the 
prophets wrote about Christian salvation. Fifth, the spirit 
of Christ was working in the prophets of Christ, indicating 
the sufferings and glory of Christ prior to the incarnation of Christ. 
You had mediatorial activity by the pre-incarnate son going 
on, revealing, saving knowledge to men, by virtue of which they 
were saved, because they believed it, and others would be saved 
in the future, because when Jesus came on the scene, people believed 
the scriptures, but not of the New Testament. And they were 
saved by virtue of the revelation of the New Testament and the 
earthly witness of our Lord. The prophets, six, knew they 
were speaking about the future salvation to be accomplished 
by our Lord, that's in verse 12. Seventh, what was reported 
to Peter's recipients through preaching is that which the prophets 
foretold and that which Jesus told his apostles to preach. 
And then lastly, elect angels are students of the sufferings 
and glory of our Lord. Now what I have next is quotations 
from both Matthew Poole, John Gill, and I think John Brown. But I need to ask Pastor Butler, 
it's 1011, when do you want me to finish? So basically, that means 1045-ish, 
okay. Now, I just want you to listen 
to some of these old timers because I don't wanna, some of this might 
seem novel, like, I've never heard this before. Maybe you 
haven't, okay. Maybe you haven't heard just those observations 
on 1 Peter 10 through 12. But I didn't make the theology 
up. I got help, and see, these are 
some of my friends that have helped me the most. Here's Matthew 
Poole's commentary on verse 10. The prophets, those under the 
Old Testament, out of whose writings the faith of the New Testament 
believers is to be confirmed. Okay, before the New Testament 
was written, that's, I think that's what he's getting at. 
How could you confirm what you were believing to be according 
to truth, revealed truth by God? Well, you had to see if it was 
in line with the Old Testament, because it's the only testament 
that existed. He says, and whom this apostle 
therefore mentions that he might strengthen the faith of the Christian 
Jews by assuring them that the doctrine he had delivered to 
them was no new invention, but the very truth of God revealed 
of old to the prophets. This is that. The apostles and 
Jesus didn't spin the Old Testament to mean something new. They didn't reinterpret it in 
light of Christ. By the way, you know how we say 
we need to interpret the Old Testament in light of Christ? 
Christ interpreted it himself in light of the Old Testament. 
And I think the apostles did that as well. This grace, he 
goes on, revealed under the gospel the prophets foretold, but in 
a more dark way, the sun of righteousness not being yet risen, the shadows 
were not gone, and the light was but obscured. Now notice 
these words. The faith of the New Testament 
believers is to be confirmed out of the writings of the prophets 
of the Old Testament. This is that Irenaeus on the apostolic preaching. Has anybody read it? Isaac's humbly putting his thumb 
up. Isaac's read it, and you guys 
haven't read it. This conference is over, thank 
you for having me. What does he do in there, in 
part? He does exactly what they do in the book of Acts. He says, 
let me prove Christianity to you Jews, and he goes to the 
Old Testament. He hardly ever cites the New 
Testament. I don't know what the ratio is, but he goes to 
the Old Testament. How did Jesus prove himself to 
be the scope of the Old Testament? He interpreted it. He didn't 
read the New Testament and say, see, Right? So, this will assure them that the 
doctrine he had delivered to them was no new invention, but 
the very truth of God revealed of old to the prophets. Hey, 
Dr. Beale, what's new in the New 
Testament? Members answer, not much. Hey, 
Dr. Augustine, what's the first book 
of the New Testament? The Old Testament. This means 
that the events depicted for us by the New Testament concerning 
our Lord are to be interpreted in light of the writings of the 
Old Testament prophets. Events transacted. Things happened. And the apostles 
are saying, you see these things that happened, the incarnation, 
the sufferings, and the glory of Christ, and the endowment 
at Pentecost? All of that is contained in the 
writings of the prophets from the beginning of the world. All 
the prophets we're talking about these days, inaugurated by that 
one. The scope of the whole, which 
gives all glory to God. How? The incarnation, sufferings, 
and glory of Christ. Also, that which the prophets 
foretold they did in a more dark way, the sun of righteousness 
not being yet risen, the shadows were not gone, and the light 
was but obscure. But you know what happened? Subsequent 
revelation made explicit what was implicit in antecedent revelation, 
right? When you read, if you just started 
Genesis 1, you start reading. Get all the way through the law, 
you get through the writings, you get through the prophets. 
At some point you're gonna go, there's themes and concepts that 
are woven together in different words by later writers. Then 
when you go to the New Testament, you're gonna go, oh man, he's 
saying he's the target, the goal, the bullseye of that. And then 
you go, after you read the New Testament, you go back and read 
the Old Testament, what happens? Aha! I didn't see that the first 
time, or the fifth time, or the 50th time, or the 100th time 
I read that. I didn't see it. But the more 
you see it, have you ever seen that meme that's got all those, 
whatever you call those things, all the connections of the Bible 
within the Bible? It starts in the Old Testament, and some of 
those go from the Old to the New. Some of them are in the 
New. Do you know that the New Testament alludes to the New 
Testament? That sounds weird. The New Testament 
alludes to the New Testament? Yeah, remember when Peter acknowledged 
Paul's writings, plural, were hard to understand, like Pastor 
Butler's preaching sometime? You're in the front row. I only 
have one more opportunity, so. Subsequent revelation makes explicit 
what is implicit and antecedent revelation. Matthew Pool again 
on 1 Peter 1.11, this shows that not only Christ had a being under 
the Old Testament before his coming in the flesh, for if Christ 
were not, there could be no spirit of Christ. Interesting, Christ 
had a being under the Old Testament according to his divine nature. 
but likewise that Christ is God because of his inspiring the 
prophets with the knowledge of future things which none but 
God can do. The Son of God had a being under 
the Old Testament before his coming in the flesh and was exercising 
his mediatorial office by revealing redemptive knowledge to the prophets 
by the Spirit of God from the beginning of the world. On 1 
Peter 1.12, we read, the prophets under the Old Testament did by 
the Spirit foresee and foretell Christ's passion, resurrection, 
ascension, the effusion of the Spirit, the enlargement of the 
church by the calling of the Gentiles, but did not live to 
see their own prophecies and God's promises fulfilled. What 
the prophets foretold would happen, the apostles have proclaimed 
to us, has happened. Poulon, verse 12, the angels 
desire to look into. It seems to be an allusion to 
the cherubims that stood above the ark with their faces toward 
the mercy seat, which was a type of Christ. The angels thus look 
into mysteries of the gospel as desirous to see the accomplishment 
of them, admiring the manifold grace and wisdom of God in them, 
Ephesians 3.10, and rejoicing in the salvation of sinners, 
which is the end and effect of God's revealing them. Here's 
John Brown on 1 Peter 1. These prophetic oracles were 
but imperfectly understood by those who uttered them. We are 
not to suppose, however, that in uttering them their minds 
were entirely passive and that the Holy Spirit only employed 
their organs of speech but to express words to which they attached 
no idea. They understood the meanings 
of the words. They were the expression of thoughts communicated to their 
minds. They knew that they referred to great blessings to be bestowed 
on the church, but as to the precise nature and extent of 
these blessings, and as to the period of time, when, and the 
manner in which they were to be bestowed, the prophets were 
much in the dark. The prophecy came not by their 
own will. It was not of self-interpretation. Either the event referred to, 
or another explicatory revelation was necessary to unfold fully 
its meaning. The whole quote for that last 
sentence. Pastor Butler's probably saying, get out of there, I'd 
like to preach that. Either, okay, so they're dark, 
it's shadowy, it's not substance. In one sense, the Incarnate Son 
of God's shadow is cast backwards on the Old Testament. It's shadowy 
information, it's typological, it's forward-looking, a lot of 
the doctrinal richness of it is implied by the narratives 
but not explicitly spelled out for us. When the event prophesied 
comes, And he says, another explicatory revelation along with the fulfillment 
of the event, remember? Sometimes God does something, 
then he raises up a penman and he explains what he did, and 
later authors tell us more about the event that's narrated. Well, 
sometimes God says he's gonna do something, like sufferings 
and glory, then he does it. Then he asked Penman to explain 
it. So what John Brown's saying is, through the prophets, God 
said he was gonna do something, the biggest thing ever, become 
one of us, to repair us and bring us back to glory. Then God did 
it, the event prophesied. Then God gave us an explanatory 
revelation, the New Testament. Let's note a few things about 
Brown's comment. These prophetic oracles were 
but imperfectly understood by those who uttered them. Not utterly 
misunderstood or not understood, but imperfectly understood. They 
would scratch their heads, not knowing the full intent. Now, 
if they were on the scene in the first century, I think we'd 
be going, whoa, this is better than we ever thought. We wrote, 
we knew it was going to be great, but now I see all kinds of connections. But they weren't alive. But I 
think there would have been something like that. These prophetic oracles 
were but imperfectly understood by those who uttered them. is 
what Brown says. Though the prophets had real 
knowledge of the meaning of their oracles, their knowledge was 
partial, shadowy, obscure. Second, ponder the last words 
by Brown. With the coming of our Lord, 
we have both the event referred to and another explicatory revelation 
in the form of the New Testament. So, I'm gonna finish, maybe even 
early, some implications for interpreting scripture in light 
of our study of 1 Peter. 1 Peter 1. First, since the prophets studied 
the written products of other prophets and their own writings, 
since they compared Scripture with Scripture in order to better 
understand Scripture, guess what? We should do the same, right? 
The principle of the analogy of scripture and the analogy 
of faith, invented by the Protestant reformers, true or false? False. Where'd that come from? The Bible. 
Who did it first? The Old Testament prophets. The 
prophets were students of the prophets. Though they produced texts, they 
also relied on other texts for the understanding of their own 
texts. Maybe they could have written 
and had a modicum of understanding in terms of the typology that 
was going on. And then they could have read, 
just could have. They were just thinking out loud here, trying 
to fill in some time. And then they could have, subsequent 
to their written product, read something they've already read 
and go, oh my, there's a connection there I wasn't really conscious 
of. There's something larger than 
my written product that's going on here, like God's ultimately 
in charge of the world and of revelation and God can have events. God can enact events, do things, 
and the meaning of those events are first, well, not explicated, 
but the narration of the act of the event is given, and then 
subsequent writers of scripture pick up on the first narration 
and draw out a bunch of theology that's not contained in the first 
narration of the event, But the theology was always embedded 
in the event itself, but we wouldn't know it unless God told us. By 
the way, how do I know that Luke was the first creaturely son 
of God on the earth? God told me. Did you hear it? Luke 3.38. Adam, what did I say? Luke. Luke wasn't the first created 
son of God. I do that sometimes just to see 
if people are listening because Four people, I'm not going to 
look at you, but four of you were asleep, and that woke you 
up. Steve just woke up, by the way. Second, Steve writes the checks. I better watch it. Second, there's a built-in obscurity 
in the writings of the Old Testament prophets. What they wrote is 
true, though details of its fulfillment remain dark until further revelation 
comes. This is clearly the case with 
the typology of the Old Testament, the sacrificial system of the 
Old Testament, and the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. 
When that to which the Old Testament comes, comes, it sheds light 
on the meaning of the that to which, of the that to which document 
of the Old Testament. When the antitype comes on the 
earth, it illumines the function of the type. It helps you understand 
how the type, like when Christ comes, we understand Adam a lot 
better. We go, okay, now I get it. Types, antitypes, tell us 
more about the function of their types. So further revelation 
has come in the incarnation, sufferings, and glory of our 
Lord, along with the divine recording of these events and the divine 
explanation of these events in the New Testament. The dark sayings 
of the Old Testament now have the light of the coming of the 
Son of God incarnate, Pentecost, and its recording and explications 
in order to make explicit what was implicit in them. Once the 
event foretold comes and an explicatory revelation along with it, then 
we can go back and go, aha, aha, aha, wow. Though subsequent revelation 
makes clear what is contained in antecedent revelation, it 
does not reinterpret it, making it mean something it did not 
mean, but now does mean. In the words of John Brown, with 
the coming of our Lord, we have both the event referred to and 
another explicatory revelation in the form of the New Testament. 
Note that the event referred to is the event that has happened, 
in the words of the Apostle Paul, when the fullness of the time 
came. And the explicatory revelation is what we call the New Testament, 
which Jesus promised in the upper room to the apostles. This means 
that in light of subsequent revelation and the seeding revelation may 
now reveal to us more than we first thought possible. If this 
is so, and I think it is, the theologians call it sensus plenur, 
fuller meaning, Persons, places, institutions, and events, and 
prophecies depicted for us in the Old Testament may contain 
a surplus of meaning which often awaits further revelation to 
unveil. See what I'm saying? Not new 
meaning. The meaning was always there. But the meaning, the surplus 
of meaning, that there is the meaning that's not on the surface, 
but it's entailed in the act, gets unveiled for us later. So we live in very privileged 
times. We're on this side of the cross 
resurrection of Christ in the New Testament. This also means 
that the intent of these Old Testament phenomena is not limited 
to the conscious intent of the human authors. I don't think 
if Moses and the prophets lived during the days of our Lord, 
they would sat there going, that's not what I meant, that's not 
what I meant, that's not what I meant. I think they would have said, 
the Bible's the written word of God. God's in charge. God 
does things, and they're pregnant with theological meaning more 
than I ever thought. Hallelujah, this is utterly in 
line with what I was writing, but it transcends it as well, 
because this is a God thing. So 1 Peter 1 10 through 12 is 
an important text to ponder. It not only relates the prophets 
of old to the accomplished salvation now enjoyed by believers, but 
it also has within it principles of scriptural interpretation 
applicable to present-day interpreters. So I hope that's been helpful. 
Scope of the whole is to give all glory of God through what 
he does in the incarnate Son of God. who suffers and enters 
into his glory and brings many sons to glory against all enemies 
and all odds and nobody's gonna stop him. I'm a preacher. And 
how do we know that? The prophets have been telling 
us from, when? From the beginning. Lo, in the 
beginning of the book it is written of me to do thy will, O God. 
Paul tells us in Hebrews 10 that those words were on the lips 
of our Lord when he was on the earth. That's Psalm 40. Psalm 
40, go read it, David wrote it. Lo, it is written me in the scroll, 
or in the beginning, Geneva Bible, in the beginning of the book, 
to do thy will, O God. David's speaking on somebody's, 
David's writing, but somebody, it's talking about somebody else 
who is speaking in Psalm 40. Who is it speaking? I think it's 
God the Son about himself. And what is he saying? In God's 
book, toward the beginning of it, it's written about me to 
do God's will. Of course you know what John 
Owen, John Gill and John Owen, how they interpreted that. Genesis 
3.15 is the first place it's written that the incarnate Son 
of God would do the will of God by both suffering and triumphing. and entering 
his glory. By defeating the devil, and that 
defeat of the devil has entailments or implications for our well-being 
as well. Because he beat him, by the way, 
you ever read Luther on the irony of the curse? You got to the 
man through a woman. I'm gonna get to you through 
a woman without a man. Is the virgin birth there in 
315? All our old heroes said yes. And all the Genesis 3.16 through 
the end of the book of Revelation is just a footnote to all that, 
teases it all out. Okay, remember, Revelation is 
organic, because it comes from God. Diverse human authors, but 
God is its ultimate divine author, so he holds the whole story in 
a cohesive oneness. That's why the old guy saw unity 
between the Old and New Testament, because God is ultimately, scripture 
is a written word of God. And then it's progressive, It's 
going somewhere, it's setting the world up. God does things 
that end up setting the world up for greater things, and then 
it's consummative in the fullness of time, and then it's explanatory, 
the New Testament. So I hope that has helped you. 
Christ is the scope of Scripture. The infallible rule of interpretation 
of Scripture is Scripture itself. The Bible's the written word 
of God. We have the Bible to repair the 
damage that sin has brought in, and the Bible does that by virtue 
of the sufferings, telling us about the sufferings and glory 
of Christ. When the scripture interprets scripture, you have 
the word of God on the word of God, and therefore, an infallible 
interpretation, and subsequent revelation often makes explicit 
what is the implicit and antecedent revelation, let's pray. We thank you, Lord, for this 
last night, this morning, time to think together and to be challenged 
and learn new things and have old things brushed off and cleaned 
up and hopefully our minds are sharper and we'll better be able 
to both read scripture, hear it preached, and sing it. Bless 
our time in the next session as well, we ask in Jesus' name, 
amen.