The critical question of the Christian use of the Old Testament has been revitalized in recent days due to the popularly publicized Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World by Andy Stanley. You can read a formal critique by Michael Kruger and by Tom Schreiner. Andy has also responded in an interview with Christianity Today. It is not my intent to comment on Andy’s book or those who critique his work. My aim in writing is to further the discussion started and answer the question, “What is the Christian use of the Old Testament?” I will argue that the New Testament cannot be understood apart from the Old Testament, thus making it imperative for Christianity to maintain a two-testament vesture of Scripture that makes up the one Scripture of the Church. In part 2 I will answer the question of a two-testament canon, but we will save that for part 2.
There are two main Scriptures that I want to bring to our attention. Both familiar but both rich with meaning as we consider the question of the Christian use of the Old Testament. First, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. Second, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After reading those passages that both use the word Scripture, we should ask a question, “What Scripture?” The Scripture Paul is referring to would be what we know as the Old Testament.
These verses give us the apostolic perspective of the Old Testament and reveal that the only way to understand the New Testament is through the Old Testament.
The above distinction is an important one. We don’t understand the Old Testament through the New, but we understand the New through the Old. Often when approaching the question of the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament, we think of the New Testament as the more authoritative and the Old Testament as fulfilled and therefore is less profitable. We see this practiced by many preachers who never take their congregations through the Old Testament and by many parishioners who never consider reading the Old Testament. Given Paul’ words in the above-quoted passages, he would disagree with such an approach and would encourage any who practice avoiding the Old Testament to consider learning the Old Testament.
This begs another question. If the Old Testament is authoritative, then how do we arrive at a Christian, or apostolic, interpretation of the text? Instead of reading the New Testament back into the Old, the meaning is derived when we allow the Old Testament to guide our interpretation of the New.
Christians would do well to remember that the centerpiece of our faith is a Cross, but not just a Cross, a Cross that bears a sinless Son, who was born of a Virgin, who himself was the embodiment of expectant hope. Why a Cross? We have no way to answer that question if not for the Old Testament. One of the earliest of theologians was Athanasius. When answering the question, “Why did Jesus die on a cross?” he said,
These remarks are for those outside the Church, who pile argument on argument for themselves. But if any one of us, not in a contentious spirit but as a lover of truth, were to inquire why he endured in no other way that the cross, then let him hear that in no other way than this was it for our advantage, and it was right that the Lord endured this for us. For if he came to bear the curse, which had fallen upon us, how could he have “become accursed” in any other way except by accepting the death which follows on a curse? And that is the cross, for so it is written: “Cursed is he who hanged on the wood” [Deut 21:23]. Furthermore, if the death of the Lord is a ransom for all and by his death “the wall of partition” [Eph 2:14] is broken down and the call of the Gentiles is effected, how could we have called us had he not been crucified? For only on the cross does one die with hands stretched out. Therefore it was fitting for the Lord to endure this and stretch out his hands, that with the one he might draw the ancient people and with the other those Gentiles, and that he might join both in himself. This he himself said when he indicated by what manner of death he would ransom all: “when I shall be raised up, I shall draw all men to myself” [Jn 12:32]. (On the Incarnation, 25)
John Behr, reading this quote from Athanasius makes the following assertion, “In other words, the proper medium for understanding the crucifixion is the scriptural matrix, the texts and their images that illuminate its significance.”[1] As John Sailhamer suggests, the Old Testament becomes the Messianic searchlight. Sailhamer says, “The New Testament is not so much a guide to understanding the Old Testament as it is the goal of understanding the Old Testament. Unless we understand the Old Testament picture of the Messiah, we will not understand the New Testament picture of Jesus. The Old Testament, not the New Testament is the messianic searchlight.”[2]
When we read the Bible, we are to do so with a single subject in mind. Scripture’s single subject is Christ. The gospel confirms what Scripture is all about and the only way to understand the gospel is the Old Testament.
As Christians, there are at least two warnings we must keep in mind as we use the Old Testament:
1 – If Christians disregard the Old Testament we undermine the foundation of our faith. The images that give our faith meaning are rooted in the Old Testament. The Creation, the Fall, the story of Redemption, the story of Restoration, are all stories that the Old Testament not only anticipates but proclaims.
2 – Christians should read the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. Jesus has fulfilled not abolished the Law. This warning will be made more explicit in the second post as I attempt to argue the necessity for a two-testament cannon.
[1]John Behr, Nicene Faith: Part One, 203.
[2]John Sailhamer, The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible, 11.
Photo by Tobias Aeppli from Pexels