“The Old Testament is full of stuff that causes controversies and makes people who agree with it look bad: slavery, plagues,
genocides ... an angry God. We’re Christians. We worship Jesus. Why not get
rid of those books and concentrate on the New Testament?”
— Anonymous
Excellent question, touching on issues many struggle with. But
as difficult as the Old Testament may be for some, there are at least three
compelling reasons we can’t afford to overlook it, minimize it or reject it
outright.
① Jesus Didn’t
The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, right at the beginning of the New Testament, contains this statement:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
Jesus referred to the “Law” and “Prophets”, but his belief
in the absolute authority of the Old Testament was not limited to books
containing law or prophecy. He quoted extensively from
Genesis (which is pre-Law) and
from the Psalms eleven times, more than any other book of the Old Testament. It is evident from the way he
used the Old Testament text that while he thought it crucial to interpret it
consistently and correctly, he regarded it as authoritative, sufficient and
final in his day.
Some argue that in saying “not an iota, not a dot, will pass
from the Law until all is accomplished,” Jesus meant that the Old Testament was
useful only until the moment he would fulfill it by way of his death and
resurrection. But that will not do. As we will see shortly, the OT is brim-full of things Christians really need to read if we
are to have any hope of understanding the plans and purposes of God.
② The Gospel Writers Didn’t
It is necessary to understand the statement that Jesus
“fulfilled the Law” correctly. Though he did many of the things prophesied about him in his first “coming”,
there remains a great deal written in the Prophets that has yet to occur. It is
impossible to argue, for instance, that Jesus has broken the nations with a
rod of iron and dashed them in pieces like a potter’s vessel, as
Psalm 2 promises. This cannot be said to be true yet in any meaningful way, though the
Lord’s first coming laid in place all the necessary pieces for the arrival that great coming day.
And indeed, despite the fact that their Lord and Master
had already ascended into heaven and had taken his seat at the right hand of
God, the four men who wrote biographies of the Lord Jesus continued to demonstrate
the highest regard for the Old Testament. They were not wrong about that.
Matthew, for instance, quotes from the Old Testament a full sixty-seven
times, if Felix Just is to be believed. The words “This was to fulfill ...” preface many of
these, and strongly suggest to us that Matthew believed he (and therefore we) could
not properly comprehend the story of Jesus, the character of Jesus or the
purpose of his coming apart from careful scrutiny of the Old Testament passages
that speak of him.
To really grasp what Jesus means to us today demands that we
investigate what he meant to his disciples in the first century, and that
cannot be understood apart from the Old Testament which promised his coming. A
Jesus without an Old Testament context to anticipate him, explain him, enthuse
about his character and demonstrate the need for him is a Jesus without any
meaningful roots in human history; a puppet-Christ who could be seized by
anyone with an agenda and made to say anything at all.
Needless to say, that is not the Jesus we find in the Gospels.
③ The Epistles Don’t
To say that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets is not
the same as saying that he threw away the Old Testament once he rose from the
grave, or that he wants us to do the same. One quick spin through the New Testament
will convince us beyond any doubt that every one of its writers insisted on the
ongoing validity of the Old Testament and its continued authority in many areas
of life notwithstanding the fact that Jesus had fulfilled the Law and made
many — even most — of its ceremonial regulations superfluous for
Christians.
A couple of examples: Peter holds up Sarah’s obedience to Abraham as one reason Christian women ought to dress modestly and cultivate a “gentle and
quite spirit”. Paul says something similar (“women ... should be
in submission”),
and explicitly references the Law as his authority.
But these men did not just reference the OT in their
letters. They also used its authority to justify major decisions impacting the
church. In Acts 15, James uses a quote from Amos and Peter uses an argument from the OT history of Israel to make the case that the Gentiles should not be burdened by being required to observe
the Law of Moses. Personally, I’m very glad they did.
In fact, the writers of the NT quote the OT hundreds of
times, as this chart shows. They use it illustratively. They use it as theological authority. They use it to justify their commands about Christian behavior
(1 Peter 5:7 referencing Psalm 54:22).
It is impossible to make the case that the writers of the Epistles
regarded the OT as superfluous. They could not have made their arguments to
Christians or Jews without it.
The Proper Use of the Old Testament
Properly used, the Old Testament sets the New Testament in
the historical and theological context we need to really understand it. We are
way too far removed in time, space and culture from the first century to even
begin to comprehend the sayings of Christ or the teaching of the apostles
without the deep background the Old Testament gives us.
Sure, the OT contains lots of difficult bits. But if we
follow Jesus Christ, it is only logical to adopt the same view of the Old Testament
as he had, and the same view as his early followers held.
No comments :
Post a Comment