Paul said we now see as thru a glass darkly, ie not very clearly. So we should not be disappointed that we don’t understand everything and in fact will make mistakes in interpretation.

Vynette said, as I understand her, that the bible records the serial, progressive recognition of Who God is. NT Wright, I believe, says that, too. If that is true, and I think it is, then what Paul and James and Peter knew about God was more complete than what David and Moses and Adam did. That’s hard for me to say, because two of the latter set actually talked to God. But then, talking to is not the same as knowing well.

If this is the case, then it should make sense that it would be unwise to rely primarily on the less-informed OT. The OT should be understood as the earlier part of the story, before we know as much about the characters as we will in the NT.

But speaking of characters: How many Davids and Moses and Sampsons are there in the bible? How many Israels? I’d say one of each. If God made a promise to one of them, can I assume that promise for myself?

One way to answer that is to consider how other characters regarded those promises. Did James claim the promise to Samson when he was about to be executed? Did Paul claim the promise to Moses about leading his people into their own country? If those men did not assume God’s promises were transferable, why should we?

But Dan’s discussion began with the Psalmist’s description of the blessedness of the law-delighted man. Should that be a blessing we should/could claim? First, and this may be regarded as heretical tho I don’t believe it is, the psalm was David’s statement of praise; the bible does not say God promised this. The bible certainly does not document that description to be universally true.

Second, David was referring to the OT Mosaic law. So if the psalm were a promise from God, and if it were transferable, to keep our part we’d need to observe the whole of the Mosaic law. To get into that “promise,” we’d need to do what Christ already took care of.

Intellectually, I suppose, one could argue that, since Christ took care of it, then the blessing should be mine without any input from me. Intellectually that may be true, but does any of the NT accounts show it to be successful?

When we regard the bible as a rule book or a set of timeless truths, we are apt to take whatever verse seems to promise what we want. This approach rejects serial revelation and, I believe, misses the rest of the gospel.

If the message of the OT was prosperity thru obedience, a (not the) message of the NT is comfort thru suffering.

I don’t see how the fatherhood of God blessing his children with lavish riches is something separate from what I’m talking about. Indeed, I think it horribly dangerous to ever, as a Christian, separate the promises of God from the work of Christ. Everything in the Old Testament needs to be understood in the light of Christ - every promise, every story, everything. This does not mean “spiritualizing” it. But it does mean that no riches are gained without poverty, no blessing is gained without bearing the curse, no life is gained without death.

There is Jabez’ prayer and there is Jephthah’s. Abraham was blessed and yet died without seeing the fulfillment. Moses was righteous before God and yet never saw the promised land. David was a man after God’s own heart and yet was a despised fugitive. Israel was God’s chosen people, and yet was sent into exile. Job was the most righteous man on earth, and was afflicted because of this.

There is no balance to be struck here, in my view. Rather, we need all of the extreme absurdity of the cross of Christ. The throne where he is exalted as “King of the Jews” is a cruel Roman cross, the crown is a crown of thorns. We must know Christ, in the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings and insodoing, we attain the blessings of fatih - the resurrection of the dead, life everlasting, glorious riches, the new creation itself. The cross is the means to glory. This is not a marginal theme of Christianity - it IS Christianity.

Don’t spiritualize away the blessings of God - absolutely do not do this. But don’t suppose that sharing in these blessings is done without taking up the cross.

I had Ryken as a prof at Wheaton and I can tell you that what you quoted of him doesn’t surprise me.

Great analysis!

I’m not even sure that prosperity has to come down to wealth. I know plenty of people who wouldn’t be considered wealthy, yet they have need of nothing because they’ve been so well provided for.

Also, I think that prosperity has a little tinge of good old fashioned luck. Know what I mean? Right place, right time kind of stuff. And in many ways, being blessed with the luck of God means that you clean up even when the rich man is going down.