The Old Testament's Relevance for Today's Church
/
The so-called problem of reconciling the writings of the Old Testament with what is recorded and taught in the New Testament is not unique to the twenty-first century. In fact, this so-called problem has existed since the days of the early Christian church. In the middle of the second century, “for the first time in the faith’s early history,” a man named Marcion “dissociated the two testaments of the Bible, preferring the New Testament over against the Old Testament.”[1]
Controversy continues to abound concerning how Christians today should understand and apply the Old Testament. A few of years ago, Andy Stanley, a well-known and widely influential author and pastor, was criticized by many conservative Christians after he called believers in Jesus “to unhitch [their] Christian faith from the Jewish Scriptures.”[2] Perhaps some of the criticism Stanley received lacked nuance and took some of his statements out of context. But the overall posture he exhibits toward the Old Testament in his preaching and writing continues to be a matter of concern for those with a high view of Scripture.
In the light of such controversies, it is helpful to survey and evaluate some common critical viewpoints concerning the Old Testament and to demonstrate some of the ways in which the Old Testament remains profitable for Christ’s church today.
Common Critical Viewpoints
The ancient view of Marcion regarding the inferiority of the Old Testament, as well as various reformulations of his view, continue to resurface. A common critical viewpoint concerning the Old Testament pertains to its depiction of God, particularly when contrasted with the New Testament depiction of God and his Son, Jesus Christ. One of the focal points of such criticism centers on Israel’s conquest of the Canaanites in accordance with God’s command (Josh 1:10–15).
In his online response to statements made by John Piper, Pete Enns writes, “It is unguarded to make a general principle of God’s character on the basis of the treatment of the Canaanites in the Old Testament…The insider-outside premise that undergirds Canaanite slaughter (and the killing of many of Israel’s enemies in the Old Testament…) is the very thing Jesus squashed.”[3] One can see in Enns’ analysis how he (intentionally?) pits the Old Testament’s depiction of God over against the New Testament’s revelation concerning Jesus and his gospel. Enns explains further in that same article: “It is not at all clear that these biblical stories [about the conquest of Canaan] were even written to depict ‘what God did.’…The conquest stories are symbolic narratives that point to theological truth.”[4] Enns attempts to remove the apparent difficulty of God exercising judgment upon wicked nations through the instrumentality of his old covenant people by saying that the writers of the Old Testament recorded their religious history in a way that communicates how they viewed the world and their actions in it, not necessarily what God actually desired Israel to do.[5]
There are also critics who are hostile toward the Bible in its entirety, both Old and New Testaments. However, regarding their criticisms of the Bible, there is almost always greater disdain expressed toward the Old Testament than the New Testament. One example of this is found in the writing of Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and well-known representative of the so-called New Atheism. Regarding the Old Testament’s depiction of God, Dawkins writes:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[6]
For Dawkins and others who share his commitments to atheism and naturalism, all aspects of the Old Testament, from God’s character to his commands to his personal actions, are deemed as being not merely inferior to the New Testament but altogether immoral, at least according to their own standards of morality.
Another common critical viewpoint concerning the Old Testament pertains to the ethical commands God called his old covenant people to obey. In her book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood, Rachel Held Evans attempted to obey the commands God gives to women throughout the Bible, including the commands found in the Old Testament, for an entire year. Trillia Newbell reviewed the book and observed the following: “Evans selects various Old Testament laws regarding women and discusses the horror of such laws, yet she never rises to the place where the purpose of these laws is made sense of. And yet she never introduces the redemptive history of Scripture…Evans will not allow redemptive history into her courtroom.”[7]
Neglecting the truth that the Bible, including the Old Testament, has been progressively revealed by God within the context of redemptive history often leads critics to distort and even dishonor God’s character as well as his commands. A more thoughtful approach must be undertaken by those who seek to understand God and his Old Testament revelation. Stephen Wellum offers the following observation and corrective: “In using Scripture to do ethics, it is crucial to unpack the Bible’s own intrasystematic categories, which involve both the Bible’s progressive unfolding of the covenants and the larger biblical-theological framework of creation, fall, redemption, and new creation.”[8] This necessary work of understanding the redemptive-historical context of God’s commands, especially those revealed in the old covenant law, are typically ignored by critics who seek to disparage or discredit the Old Testament.
Jesus’ View of the Old Testament
A common thread that is often woven into criticisms of the Old Testament, particularly from professing Christians with a low view of Scripture, is the superior nature of Jesus’ character and teaching as revealed in the New Testament. At times this is even true of the criticisms from agnostics or atheists who readily dismiss the deity of Jesus Christ but acknowledge that he was a good teacher of morality and ethics. While it is always tragic to see a person conclude that the Old Testament’s teaching about God and his revealed will is inferior to the New Testament, or worse, altogether immoral, it is as least understandable how one who is committed to atheism and naturalism would arrive at such a conclusion. The more difficult thing to understand is when someone who professes faith in Jesus Christ and esteems his moral teaching dismisses or denigrates the Old Testament. What makes a position such as the one just described utterly untenable is that the New Testament reveals Jesus Christ as unwaveringly committed to the Old Testament Scriptures.
Jesus is recorded in the gospel accounts as making several different statements which reflect his high view of the Old Testament. During a tense exchange with some of the unbelieving Jews who accused him of blasphemy, Jesus not only quoted Scripture but also said of the Old Testament, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).[9] Andreas Köstenberger explains, “Jesus’ statement that the Scripture cannot be broken is evidence for his belief in the inviolability of God’s written word (in the present instance, the Hebrew Scriptures).”[10]
During his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke of the Old Testament in the following manner:
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. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:17–19).
There is debate among interpreters when it comes to understanding exactly what it means for Jesus “to fulfill [the Law and the Prophets]” (Matt 5:17). However, it is agreed upon by virtually all conservative, evangelical interpreters that this passage demonstrates Jesus’ high view of the Old Testament. Concerning Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:17–19, Don Carson observes, “Jesus here upholds the authority of the OT Scriptures right down to the ‘least stroke of a pen.’ His is the highest possible view of the OT.”[11]
Kevin DeYoung aptly summarizes Jesus’ view of the Old Testament when he writes:
Jesus believed in the inspiration of Scripture––all of it. He accepted the chronology, the miracles, and the authorial ascriptions as giving the straightforward facts of history. He believed in keeping the spirit of the law without ever minimizing the letter of the law. He affirmed the human authorship of Scripture while at the same time bearing witness to the ultimate divine authorship of the Scriptures. He treated the Bible as a necessary word, a sufficient word, a clear word, and a final word. It was never acceptable in his mind to contradict Scripture or stand above Scripture.
He believed the Bible was all true, all edifying, all important, and all about him. He believed absolutely that the Bible was from God and was absolutely free from error. What Scripture says, God says; and what God said was recorded infallibly in Scripture.[12]
The New Testament is remarkably clear regarding Jesus’ view of the Old Testament, and that should profoundly impact how professing believers today approach the Old Testament and seek to understand and apply it.
The Apostles’ View of the Old Testament
Having observed how highly Jesus esteemed the Old Testament Scriptures, it should come as no surprise to learn that his apostles shared his high regard for the Word of God. After writing about the reliability of his eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus Christ’s transfiguration, the apostle Peter also remarked on the nature of Old Testament prophecy: “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21). Peter’s words clearly speak to the divine origin of the inscripturated words of the Old Testament prophets.[13]
Perhaps the clearest and strongest affirmation of the Old Testament’s divine inspiration and authority comes from the pen of the apostle Paul when he writes in 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.” The Greek word translated “Scripture” in v. 16 is γραφή, about which William Mounce notes the following: “While γραφή can refer to any ‘writing,’ within the context of the NT and also 2 Timothy it must refer at least to the OT. This is the case with every other occurrence of γραφή in the NT (used some forty-nine times).”[14] The apostle Paul describes “all Scripture,” which here refers to the entirety of the Old Testament, as being “God-breathed” (v. 16, NIV); a word that “occurs only here in the Greek Bible” and “accurately reflects…its meaning as asserting the divine origin of Scripture.”[15] Both Jesus and his apostles understood the Old Testament to be the very Word of God.
The Old Testament’s Profitability for the Church
In their work on the Old Testament, Eugene Merrill, Mark Rooker, and Michael Grisanti have pointed out “three areas illustrative of the abiding value of the OT to contemporary times”:
First, the OT is a rich source of theology and doctrine that is presupposed by the NT and without which Christian theology would be seriously deficient…Second, mastery of the OT is crucial to an understanding of the New Testament…Third, the OT offers, by teaching and example, practical principles of belief and behavior for contemporary times.[16]
The “abiding value” of the three areas above can be summarized by the second adjective the apostle Paul uses in 2 Timothy 3:16 to describe the Old Testament Scriptures: “profitable.”[17] Mounce explains Paul’s line of reasoning in this passage when he writes, “Paul goes on to talk about the applicability of Scripture to Timothy’s life, and although never stated, the assumption is that because Scripture comes from God, it is therefore true, and because it is true, it is therefore profitable.”[18] What must be kept in mind at this point is that the “Scripture” to which Paul refers here is the Old Testament. Even though Jesus Christ, the One to whom the entire Old Testament pointed, had already come and accomplished salvation for his people, the Old Testament writings were still “profitable” for Timothy and the church he served.
Mounce makes another keen observation regarding 2 Timothy 3:16: “The four prepositional phrases may form two groups, the first dealing with doctrine (‘orthodoxy’) and the second with behavior (‘orthopraxy’).”[19] This means that the Old Testament continues to play a role in helping Christians know what to believe and how to behave as they follow Jesus in this fallen world.
The Old Testament Is Profitable for Christian Doctrine
Regarding the first category of terms in 2 Timothy 3:16, the apostle Paul teaches that the Old Testament is “profitable for teaching…[and] reproof.” Denny Burk explains how Scripture, including the Old Testament, teaches and reproves Christians: “Scripture tells readers positively what they must believe; it gives them sound doctrine…[and] Scripture tells readers negatively what they should not believe; it disabuses readers of unsound doctrine.”[20] The writings of the Old Testament continue to teach Christians about who God is, what he is like, and how he has worked to advance his kingdom in this fallen world throughout redemptive history. Additionally, the Old Testament teaches its readers about idolatry and false ways of looking at the world that they might be brought to repentance.
The Old Testament Is Profitable for Christian Living
Regarding the second category of terms in 2 Timothy 3:16, the apostle Paul teaches that the Old Testament is “profitable…for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Once again, Burk helpfully explains when he writes, “Scripture tells readers negatively what not to do…[and] Scripture tells readers positively what they must do.” This point requires a bit more nuance because, “although all Scripture is our standard, its moral instruction requires careful application depending on our covenantal location.”[21] Wellum expounds this important distinction by writing, “Some specific commands under the old covenant such as circumcision, food laws, gleaning laws, and so on, which are all moral laws, no longer apply to us today in exactly the same way…This is why it is crucial to distinguish between biblical morality and Christian ethics.”[22]
One illuminating example of applying the Old Testament to the lives of Christians comes from 1 Corinthians 10:6–11 where the apostle Paul writes:
Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.
Here the apostle Paul cites examples of Israel’s ungodly behavior from Exodus 32, Numbers 25, and Numbers 14 in order to instruct and equip new covenant believers in Christ, those “on whom the end of the ages has come,” to walk in righteousness and avoid evil. Even though Christ is resurrected and reigning and the Spirit has graciously breathed out the New Testament Scriptures, the Old Testament is still able to correct the conduct of Christ’s people and train them for righteous living.
Conclusion
Stephen Wellum summarizes the matter well when he writes, “The entire OT, including the law covenant, functions for us as the basis for our doctrine and ethics. Although Christians are not ‘under the law’ as a covenant, it still functions as Scripture and demands our complete obedience.”[23] The Old Testament is not merely ancient history. It is not merely religious literature that provides information about how Israel lived and worshiped. The Old Testament is the progressive unfolding of redemptive history, “the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15), and the profitable, God-breathed writings that he still uses to complete his people and equip them for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
[1] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Tough Questions about God and His Actions in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2015), 9.
[2] Andy Stanley as quoted by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Getting ‘Unhitched’ from the Old Testament? Andy Stanley Aims at Heresy,” AlbertMohler.com, Accessed December 14, 2020, https://albertmohler.com/2018/08/10/getting-unhitched-old-testament-andy-stanley-aims-heresy.
[3] Pete Enns, “John Piper on Why ‘It’s Right for God to Slaughter Women and Children Anytime He Pleases’ and Why I Have Some Major Problems with That,” PeteEnns.com, Accessed on December 14, 2020, https://peteenns.com/john-piper-on-why-its-right-for-god-to-slaughter-women-and-children-anytime-he-pleases-and-why-i-have-some-major-problems-with-that.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Enns has elsewhere described Israel’s conquest of Canaan as recorded in the Old Testament by quoting Al Groves, his Hebrew professor in seminary: “God lets his children tell the story.” Enns elaborates on this idea when he writes: “When God lets his children tell the story, the way that story is told is deeply and thoroughly influenced by the ‘rules of the schoolyard’; in the case of the Old Testament that means ancient tribal societies that valued in their people and in their gods such things as taking land, vanquishing (i.e., killing or enslaving) their foes, and generally bragging about who has the best gods and the best kings. That is how people thought, and this ‘rule’ is stamped all over the Old Testament. This is a way of understanding why the Bible behaves the way that it does.” Enns, “‘God Lets His Children Tell the Story’: An Angle on God’s Violence in the Old Testament,” PeteEnns.com, Accessed December 14, 2020, https://peteenns.com/god-lets-his-children-tell-the-story-an-angle-on-gods-violence-in-the-old-testament.
[6] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York, NY: Mariner, 2008), 51, quoted in Kaiser, Jr., Tough Questions about God and His Actions in the Old Testament, 15.
[7] Trillia Newbell, “A Year of Biblical Womanhood: A Review,” Desiring God, Accessed December 14, 2020, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/a-year-of-biblical-womanhood-a-review.
[8] Stephen Wellum, “Progressive Covenantalism and the Doing of Ethics,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course Between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, eds. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 226, Kindle.
[9] All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
[10] Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 315.
[11] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 145, Logos Bible Software.
[12] Kevin DeYoung, Taking God at His Word: Why the Bible Is Knowable, Necessary, and Enough, and What That Means for You and Me (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 109.
[13] Thomas R. Schreiner explains further what it means for the Old Testament prophets to be “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21): “We have strong biblical support here for what B. B. Warfield called concursus. Both human beings and God were fully involved in the process of inspiration. The personality and gifts of the human authors were not squelched or suppressed. We can detect their different literary styles even today. And yet the words they spoke do not cancel out the truth that they spoke the word of God. Concursus means that both God and human beings contributed to the prophetic word. Ultimately, however, and most significantly, these human words are God’s words.” 1, 2 Peter, Jude, The New American Commentary 37 (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2003), 324.
[14] William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary 46 (Dallas, TX: Word, Inc., 2000), 565, Logos Bible Software.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2011), 10–11.
[17] Mounce observes that the word “profitable,” meaning “‘valuable, advantageous, beneficial,’ occurs two other times in the [New Testament], both in the [Pastoral Epistles].” Pastoral Epistles, 253, Logos Bible Software.
[18] Ibid., 566.
[19] Ibid., 570.
[20] Denny Burk, “2 Timothy,” in ESV Expository Commentary, Vol. 11: Ephesians–Philemon (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 487.
[21] Wellum, “Progressive Covenantalism and the Doing of Ethics,” 217, Kindle.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid. Wellum later clarifies how “complete obedience” to the old covenant law can be faithfully carried out by Christians when he writes, “What is needed is a ‘whole Bible’ hermeneutic, unpacking the Bible’s own internal categories, placing texts in the Bible’s unfolding story line according to their covenantal location, and then thinking through their relation to Christ” (226, Kindle).