Whenever a passage from the Old Testament is quoted in the New, the reader should turn back to the passage in the Old Testament and read the connection to ascertain the original significance of the prophecy; then he should study its setting in the New Testament passage in order to arrive at the full meaning. In Matt. 2 appear four quotations from the Old Testament. Each of these is an illustration of a different principle of interpreting prophecy. Verse 6 illustrates the principle of literal interpretation. Micah stated that the Saviour would be born in Bethlehem; Matthew says that the birth of Jesus in the city of Bethlehem was the fulfillment of that prophecy. This language is unmistakable. In v. 15 appears the principle of literal fulfillment plus that of the typical. This passage is quoted from Hos. 11:1 and primarily referred to the literal coming forth of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage. This exodus typified, according to Matthew, the coming forth from Egypt of God's Son-Jesus the Christ. In v. 18 appears a quotation from Jer. 31:15 which referred to the sorrow and grief of the Jewish mothers at the time of the Babylonian captivity. Matthew's using this passage with reference to the weeping of the mothers of Bethlehem when Herod slew their infants is the literal interpretation plus that of application. Since it was a similar situation the words of the prophet were indeed applicable to the new situation; hence it was an application (there is a vast difference between interpretation of Scripture and application of the same, which must be kept clearly in mind if one is to avoid error). In v. 23 is the principle of the literal fulfillment plus the summary. Matthew says that Christ dwelt in Nazareth, and "that he should be called a Nazarene." In the Old Testament there is no statement that He should be called a Nazarene but there are detailed statements that He would be despised and hated. The word Nazarene was an epithet with which to stigmatize one with the greatest reproach; hence in this one word Matthew summed up all the predictions concerning the Messiah's being hated. If the context of an Old Testament passage indicates unmistakably that it is to be taken literally, it is to be understood literally in the New Testament; if the Old Testament setting indicated a figurative meaning, its New Testament context will indicate the same. Zion in the Old Testament was literal; in the New Testament it is always to be understood literally unless the context indicates otherwise. So with all prophecy. THE ETERNAL GOD ACCORDING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER XXI THE NEW Testament, a DiVINE REVELATION OF THE M OSES and the prophets raised many expectations and hopes which, according to the Tenach, were never realized during Old Testament times. Since the God of Israel is a God of truth and righteousness He never made any promises which He cannot and will not fulfill. Furthermore, it follows from the above statement that what He has not already fulfilled He will in the future at the proper time bring to pass. In order that the Hebrew reader may realize that the New Testament is THE WORD OF THE GOD OF ISRAEL in the same sense in which the TORAH is, hence of equal importance, it is well for him to note some indisputable facts connected with it and its teaching. I. THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT This fact is seen by a study of the contents of both. Both Testaments, as admitted by all scholars, are oriental. The Hebraic spirit breathes through all their pages; the diction, phraseology, idiomatic expressions, and concepts are likewise Hebraic. The outstanding doctrines of both Testaments are the same. In both appears a pure monotheistic conception of God, which doctrine is peculiar to the sixty-six books (thirty-nine of the Old, twenty-seven of the New). The doctrine of the Trinity appears in both Testaments; but in the New Testament it is fully elaborated. The expectation of the Messiah raised in the Old is fulfilled, according to the New Testament, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. In both Testaments the origin and nature of man are the same. In both appears the teaching of an evil, malignant spirit known as Satan, or the Devil, who is the leader of a mighty army of fallen Spirits that are opposed to God and the children of God. In both appears the doctrine of the lost condition of humanity. In both the doctrine of salvation (deliverance) is taught; in the Old Testament, however, the teaching is given in the form of types, symbols, and brief statements; whereas in the New Testament it is developed fully. By the prophets predictions were made of the restoration of the kingdom of God to the Davidic household; by the writers of the New Testament the same conception of the kingdom is set forth. In the Old Testament appear a few brief statements of the punishment of the wicked and the blessed condition of the righteous; in the New Testament these doctrines are fully developed. The mention of these doctrines will suffice to show that the New Testament is but a continuation of the Old. The book of Genesis has been called "the seed plot of the Bible." By this statement the affirmation is made that all of the doctrines throughout the Tenach and the New Testament are to be found in the embryonic or undeveloped form in the book of Genesis. A careful study of this collection of sixty-six books by an unprejudiced truth-seeker produces the profound conviction that a unity pervades them, which fact proves beyond a doubt that the same Spirit Who spoke through the prophets likewise spoke through the writers of the New Testament. II. THE NEW TESTAMENT FULFILLS THE OLD TESTAMENT EXPECTATION As was seen in Book Two, Chapter VIII, Israel's Messiah was scheduled to appear before the governmental powers departed from Judah. The meaning of Genesis 49:10, where such a promise is made, is explained by Dr. McCaul in the following words: “A chief tribal governor shall not cease from Judah nor a subordinate magistrate from His posterity until He Who is Peace shall come, and to Him shall be the obedience of the nations." In commenting upon this paraphrase of Dr. McCaul's, John Wilkinson says: "In short, that whatever might become of other tribes, Judah must retain his separate existence as a tribe, and also his independent government until the coming of Shiloh to Whom the heathen should yield obedience." Since it is an historical fact that the government passed away from the tribe of Judah in the year |