Letting Scripture Connect the Dots

One of the interesting things about reading the Bible straight through is discovering how often the New Testament reaches back into the Old Testament.

Sometimes you read an Old Testament story and think, “I wonder if there is more to this than what I'm seeing?”

That can be a good question.

But there is also a danger.

We can see a detail in an Old Testament story and decide what we think it represents. Before long, we can have an interpretation that sounds good but isn't actually supported by Scripture.

Paul gives us an important example.

In Galatians 4, Paul uses the story of Sarah and Hagar to explain the difference between the two covenants. He says:

“Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants...”
— Galatians 4:24

Paul was inspired by God when he made that connection. We aren't.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't look for connections. It means we should be careful about who is doing the connecting.

Look for the Bible's breadcrumbs

Take Balaam.

If we only read Numbers 22–24, we might wonder why Balaam's later reputation is so bad. He couldn't curse Israel. In fact, he blessed them.

Then later Scripture begins filling in the missing pieces.

Jude says Balaam ran greedily after error “for reward.”

Peter says he “loved the wages of unrighteousness.”

Revelation refers to “the doctrine of Balaam.”

And Numbers 31 tells us that Balaam's counsel was involved in Israel's sin at Peor.

Now we have something more than our own theory.

Scripture has connected the dots for us.

The prophets were looking forward

Peter gives us another important clue when he writes about the prophets:

“Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify...”
— 1 Peter 1:11

The prophets were writing under the inspiration of the Spirit, yet they were also searching to understand what God was revealing through them.

Then the New Testament comes along and gives us information that helps us understand what they were looking toward.

Paul does the same thing with things written “aforetime.”

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning...”
— Romans 15:4

And then he tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:11:

“Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition...”

There is a pattern here.

We read the history.

We notice what happened.

We may have questions.

Then we look to see whether Jesus, Peter, Paul, Jude, or another inspired writer gives us more information.

If they do, we have a biblical connection.

If they don't, perhaps the safest thing to say is simply:

The passage says what it says.

A question is not a doctrine

I've been reminded of something while reading through the Old Testament.

There is nothing wrong with saying:

“Could this be connected to something later?”

The problem comes when we change “could” into “is” without Scripture giving us the evidence.

A Bible study doesn't have to answer every question immediately.

Sometimes the best note in the margin is simply:

“Check this later.”

Then keep reading.

You might find the answer in the next chapter—or you might find it in something Paul wrote years later.

And if you don't find it?

That's okay too.

We don't have to make Scripture say something just because we think it ought to say it.

The safest path is to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Look for the breadcrumbs—but let God put them there.