A Right Use of the ‘Old Testament’?
Posted on 05 August 2009
How are we, as Christians, to rightly make use of the Old Testament? In my experience, most of us have no idea how to do it, and refrain from reading it altogether if possible, instead hiding behind cliched phrases that betray a lack of understanding, at best, or a lack of faith, at worst. The question is, what is the right use of the Old Testament for us, as Christians? What commitments should guide our reading(s)?
9 responses to A Right Use of the ‘Old Testament’?
I like the way Jesus used the Old Testament prior to but especially after the resurrection: Luke 24:13-26; 36-49. Likewise Paul, Phillip with the Ethiopian eunuch etc… used the Old Testament to point people to Christ, to fully explain or unfold Jesus Christ.
Secondly, I think we must keep in mind what Paul told us about Scripture in II Tim 3:16: “ALL scripture is given by inspiration…”
So if we do in fact believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible and that it is in fact “profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness” then it makes sense to interpret or approach the Old Testament in view of righteousness which is ultimately revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe the great Baptist preacher W.A. Criswell noted: “there is a scarlet thread of redemption that runs from Genesis through Revelation.”
Personally, I approach the Old Testament looking for Jesus and when I teach/preach the Old Testament it is more often than not with the express purpose of finding Him there and pointing people to Him. Anyhow, that may not apply universally but I can tell you I have taken Spurgeon’s advice and regardless of the topic or text, I make a B-Line for the Cross as soon as I can.
Michael,
Agreed on Jesus’ use of the Scripture. Quite obviously, if we are Christians Christ’s reading of the ‘Old Testament’ takes precedence over all other readings. And his reading is unique.
About the ‘all Scripture is inspired…’ passage; that is not as clear as one might think. For instance, we don’t know definitively which books were included in Paul’s ‘canon’. It is possible that he considered some books Scripture that we do not, and that some of the books that we have as Scripture were not available to him. Then, obviously, we have to ask which canon is inspired. And which translation(s). No easy, uncomplicated discussion.
Of course, I do believe in the sufficiency and authority and profitability and potency of Scripture, and some of these discussions are not for everyone. Nonetheless, some of us must have them, at least occassionally, so that we can credibly and meaningfully speak of Scripture and its place in the church’s life.
Chris, you said:
“About the ‘all Scripture is inspired…’ passage; that is not as clear as one might think. For instance, we don’t know definitively which books were included in Paul’s ‘canon’. It is possible that he considered some books Scripture that we do not, and that some of the books that we have as Scripture were not available to him.”
I suppose we do make some customary assumptions regarding the canon. However, I would like to offer a couple of observations all of which I am sure you are familiar with:
The Holy Spirit who inspired the Word was also instrumental in Preserving the word.
As I see it and perhaps this is too elementary:
Principle reasons governing preservation of the Bible:
All have sinned and need redemption: Rom 3:23; 6:23; Rom 7:7; I John 1:8, 10
God desires to have all men turn from sin and be saved – Acts 17:30-31; I Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; Tit. 2:11-12
Jesus went to the Cross to purchase salvation – I Tim 2:6; Heb. 2:9; John 3:16; Matt 11:28-30
To be saved, men must hear, believe, and obey the gospel – John 6:44,45; 8:24,32; Heb. 5:9; 2 Thess. 1:8,9; I Pet. 1:22; Rom. 6:17,18; 1:16; 10:14,17.
So God desires to have all men learn the gospel so they have the opportunity to believe and obey it – I Tim. 2:4; Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38,29; 17:30,31; Lk. 24:47; Col. 1:28.
The gospel, revealed in the first century to the apostles, is complete, providing all that we need to please God – John 14:26; 16:13; 2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Acts 20:20,27; Matt. 28:18-20; Jas. 1:25; Jude 3
I suppose the idea of preservation rests to some extent in His nature and character.
If God loves the world, is it logical to believe that He would keep the world in the dark by not preserving His word?
God intended to preserve His word: Psalm 119:152;160; Isaiah 30:8; 40:8
God had the Scriptures recorded as written word was so the message could be copied, circulated, and made available to other people in addition to those to whom it was immediately addressed
God intended for the written word to be used to guide and instruct future generations of people
God’s intentions made it necessary to preserve the word in an accurate form
As to how specifically it was preserved, that would probably take up much more space.
I suppose for me, it does not matter if Paul believed certain scriptures to be in the canon over what we would believe should be in the canon. He too was a man subject to error (though obviously not in his epistles which were superintended by the Holy Spirit)
What we have now, is a consistent, sufficient revelation for the knowledge of God and the salvation of men/women from Genesis to Revelation. Sorry for the novella
Someone said that if we had a good doctrine of providence we wouldn’t need a doctrine of inspiration. Perhaps that’s right.
perhaps a start would be to retrain ourselves to not call it “Old Testament”. Language can create reality so “old” connotes uselessness, out-dated-ness, and so forth. Perhaps calling it the Hebrew Scriptures or the First Testament could teach us to take it more seriously because the words mean more to us…maybe.
To call them the Hebrew Scriptures is a mistake, I think, even if it is commonly done by academic types. This is so for many reasons, but a few predominate: the ‘Hebrews’ – those committed to following Torah apart from Christ and the Spirit – do not own these Scriptures, as the faithful among them would be the first to say, I suspect. If ‘they’ or ‘we’ are right about anything, it is that the Scripture is NOT ours but belongs to the One who speaks in and through it. Further, if we as Christians are right about who Jesus is and what his career means, and if the church by which we have received the message of Jesus is what he claims her to be, then the entire canon (this is a minefield, but one we don’t have to try to navigate at this point) is Christ’s, as all things are, in fact. Finally, Scripture has in our tradition so long been referred to as the OT that we can’t too quickly dismiss the term. Color me conservative, but in these situations I tend to side with the ancient form and not the new.
“Color me conservative”: Green – Done.
**My beginning a new Response Thread was accidental- this should have followed Chris’s response to Jill concerning naming the OT the FT.
Could you elaborate on whether or not you approve of the hue?
Considering green is a primary color it would be silly to voice disapproval of the hue. Doing so is to evidence ignorance as to what makes other colors possible and while I’m not the sharpest crayon in the box I’m not the blunted edge useful only for the broadest strokes. That said, I approve. Not out of some sense of enjoyment, satisfaction, or favoritism, but out of recognition of necessity- without green so much is impossible.
As to this discussion on the proper use of the Old Testament: The body of literature that has emerged from the Jewish traditions of story and legends, poetry and song, history and law, parable and play are in my opinion- to stay with a metaphor of previous mention- primary. Rather than paint more with the metaphor I’ll let you play at the canvas of your own imagining.
I am more inclined to think our “use” of the texts have little to do with our understanding of words and more to do with our handicap as artists. If I am still finger-painting and coloring in the lines where Jesus has shown me I must allow the colors to bleed. That fault is mine.