Did the Old Testament Prophets Know What They Were Saying?

"When reading Scripture, the tendency of many Christians is to think in terms of what this verse means to me. What the Bible means to a given individual, however, is completely irrelevant, for the true meaning of Scripture is found not in the subjective impression of the contemporary reader but rather in the specific intention of the original author. For this reason, we often speak of “authorial intent” as the goal of Bible interpretation.

But this only raises a further question: exactly whose intent are we seeking to ascertain? The intent of the human author or the intent of the divine author? Or is it possible that there is actually no tangible difference between the two? Herein lies one of the key issues in the field of hermeneutics today—the question of whether the human intention and divine intention of Scripture are one and the same.

A Closer Look at a Difficult Passage
Some interpreters point to 1 Peter 1:10 as evidence of a sharp distinction between of the human and divine intention of OT prophecy. In this passage, the apostle Peter writes:  (10) As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, (11) seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. (12) It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.

According to this view, 1 Peter 1:10-12 teaches that the OT prophets did not understand the meaning of their own prophecies. For this reason, it is said, the human and divine intent of Scripture cannot be regarded as one and the same.

How New Covenant Believers Relate To Old Testament Law?

Photo Credit: https://jamiesheardotcom.wordpress.com

Perhaps more than any other genre in Scripture the place of the “Law” in New Covenant preaching is the most challenging, demanding, and controversial.  Many different solutions have been proposed with various degrees of overlap between the major camps.  Certain Reformed Baptist preachers following the pattern of the Westminster Confession of Faith divide the Mosaic Law into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. Many in this camp argue that the civil and ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ but that the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law is still binding.[1]   New Covenant theologians and Progressive Dispensationalists often teach that the entire Mosaic Law under the Old Covenant was fulfilled in life, death, and resurrection of Messiah Jesus. New Covenant believers are now under the “Law of Christ.”[2]  Some in the Classic Dispensationalist camp teach that the “law of God” and the “law of Moses” are one and the same and that no distinction between them is justifiable.[3]  A few Classic Dispensationalist also believe that New Covenant believers are now under grace (without law).  Such statements, without appropriate qualifications, have been rightly labeled “Antinomian.”[4]  Finally, the Theonomist camp rejects the traditional Reformed belief that the civil laws of Moses have been abrogated.  As such Theonomists believe that the moral and civil law codes of Moses remain in effect today.  Suffice it to say, before “preaching Law” the student of Scripture needs to have some understanding of the proper relationship between the Old and New Covenants.[5]  Without a larger understanding of biblical and systematic theology a preacher may teach a variation of "Theonomy" or "Antinomianism" and not even know it.