Chad,

I think we are on the same page.  What i said is that the NT overrules any 
other interpretation of the OT that we put on it.''thanks for the 
clarification.



> I believe this sets up a false tension between the OT and the NT that is =
> not reflected in the text.  While the NT is both apostolic and =
> authoritative, it is not "overruling" the OT.  It cannot simply because =
> the OT is the type of the NT antitype.  The OT is *grounded* in the NT.  =
> The apostolic interpretation *always* is in keeping with the OT =
> context... i.e. the NT is a New Covenant commentary on the OT.  There =
> are no examples of interpretations of the OT in the NT that strips the =
> OT of its original or intended Messianic context.
>

> IMHO, b, c, and d cannot be sustained in the examples (prooftexts) =
> given.  All of the NT fulfillment examples provided are fulfillments per =
> the OT description.

I believe this is actactly what i said:  the Messianic intent is fulfilled 
in the new and the so called "literal" is not the OT intent.  How do we 
know - the New explains it  in a 'non-literal' or "non-natural' way as per 
the pre-mills use the word.


 IOW, the Messianic intent of every jot and tittle =
> of the OT is either fulfilled or explained in the NT passages.  The NT =
> authors are using these passages *because* the original intent of the OT =
> prophecies pointed forward to what the authors are writing about, not =
> *in spite of* whatever the context of the OT passages.  There are *no* =
> examples of non-contextual use of the OT in the NT.
>
By spiritual, we mean "not-this worldly, but "that which relate to heavenly 
things versus that which relates to the former creation."

> Because Christ had and *still* has a physical body his fulfillment of =
> the OT prophecies was *not* spiritual but both physical and heavenly.


> for example, the people of God as the temple or house of God is just as =
> *physical* and just as *real* as the temple that stood in Jerusalem.  =
> It's not that the concept has been spiritualized in the church.  It's =
> that the *temple* was a shadow of a greater reality (Christ as temple, =
> then the church united to Christ as temple).

AMEN!!!

The definition of *temple* =
> has been "adjusted" to the NC covenant *reality*.  Our problem is that =
> because we are earth-bound (and fallen) creatures of "sight" we've =
> defined the Jerusalem temple as the natural reality, when in fact, if we =
> were to understand the temple implications contained in Genesis 1-3 =
> rightly, we would see Christ and his church as the true "natural =
> reality" of which the Jerusalem temple was merely a shadow.  The same =
> could be said of Christ as the new Israel, the last Adam, the new Torah, =
> etc. etc. and the church's exemplification of those realities in her =
> union to Christ.

EXACTLY! to the above statements.

In what way did I ever state the following:
      the OT authors understood the earth-bound physical shadows as ends in 
and of themselves
     I believe that non-new covenant understanding of hermaneutics says that 
the OT authors understood the earth-bound as the ends in themselves.

I acknowledge every jot and tittle of the OT is from, of, by, about, and 
points toward Christ.  This is just as I stated in the three points of NC 
Hermaneutic.

The OT is comprehensively and exhaustively Messianic in its authorial 
intent.  It is to our =
> hermeneutical (and Christological/eschatological/soteriological =
> detriment) to disregard that reality.    AMEN - you got it.
>
Ken Mick, Jr