____________________________________________________
Dear Jonathan (and Chasing Yoder readers),
It’s a joy to devote some time and typing responding to
the question in the title of this post. Thanks
for the invitation! I hope what follows
at least serves as good discussion fodder, and perhaps is even true. Let me know what you think.
To begin, the question “Why does the Old Testament matter
to Christians?” could be asked in at least two ways.
Unfamiliarity might lurk behind the question. Just as a low-church Christian stumbling upon
an Advent wreath for the first time might ask with curiosity and openness “Why
do Advent wreaths matter?,” our question might be asked out of unfamiliarity but
with openness towards the Old Testament itself.
Or, the question might imply a value judgment: “Why does
the Old Testament matter to Christians… when we have the New Testament?” or “…when
we believe the Old Testament points to Jesus?” or some other suggestion that
for Christians the Old Testament is no longer necessary because something
better has replaced it. This view
expresses what is typically called supersessionism.
I have 5 responses.
1) The Old Testament matters for Christians because it
informs our “Rule of Faith.” In the 2nd
century AD, Ireneus, the
Bishop of Lyons, wrote that Scripture has an order, which he called the “Rule of
Faith.” This Rule of Faith makes a claim
about the order of Scripture, though it is not necessarily articulated in Scripture
itself, but rather has been passed down through the church from the apostles. Ireneus articulates this Rule of Faith in
various ways, so it’s clearly not quite as set and defined as our Creeds, but
Ireneus’ account always follows the same narrative path from creation, through
Christ, to everlasting glory. Two
contemporary examples of a Rule of Faith might be the Reformed articulation of
Creation, Fall, Redemption, Kingdom of God, or one developed at the Duke Youth
Academy using 7 Cs: Creation, Crisis, Covenant, Christ, Church, Calling,
Coming Reign of God. But what’s most
important for Ireneus is that whenever Scripture is used, it must be
interpreted in accordance to and never contrary to the Rule of Faith – this is
the “rule” or “measure” of how faithful an interpretation is. What’s important for us is that Scripture and
the Rule of Faith have a cyclical relationship: the Rule of Faith is derived
from Scripture, and Scripture can’t be interpreted faithfully unless it’s done
in accordance with the Rule of Faith.
And the Rule of Faith has always situated Christ somewhere between
creation, God’s covenant with Israel, the church and everlasting glory, as if
Christ was the climax of Scripture’s grand narrative – or, Rule of Faith. So logically, if our ability to read
Scripture faithfully depends on understanding the Rule of Faith, and our Rule
of Faith is derived from Scripture – including the Old Testament, than the Old
Testament matters for Christians because it informs our Rule of Faith.
2) The Old Testament ought to matter to Christians because
the church catholic still believes that the Old Testament is part of our canon
of Scripture. Karl Barth in his Church
Dogmatics offers a helpful description of “God’s Word,” “Scripture,” and
the “canon.” For Barth, “God’s Word” is
the second person of the Triune God, who revealed God most concretely in the person
of Jesus Christ. “Scripture” is the
medium by which the church recalls the revelation of God’s Word in Christ, but
Scripture itself is not exactly God’s Word.
Rather, from time to time Scripture becomes God’s Word, when God is
pleased to speak to the church by means of the words of Scripture and when
God’s Word grips us and enables us hearers to say and believe “The Bible is
God’s Word.” In other words, Scripture
itself is not God’s Word, unless God is pleased to act through Scripture. And our “canon” of Scripture is the set of
texts through which the church catholic has regularly heard God speaking. In other words, the canon is not a set of
texts that the church has chosen for itself, but rather a set of texts that God
seems pleased to speak through and through which the church has received and is
receiving God’s Word. So, unless the
church catholic suddenly stops hearings God’s Word through the Old Testament
and discerns that God is no longer pleased to speak God’s Word through the Old
Testament – and as far as I am aware this is not under serious consideration in
any part of the church catholic – then the Old Testament matters because God
seems pleased from time to time to speak God’s Word through the Old
Testament. In other words, the Old
Testament matters because God seems pleased to use it.
3) Relatedly but directed more pointedly to the
supersessionist version of our question, the Old Testament matters just as much
as the New Testament, neither of which contain or possess the fullness of God’s
revelation. Again Barth is helpful. As
noted above, Barth thinks that God revealed God’s self most concretely when
God’s Word took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, and that Scripture is a
means through which the church recalls God’s revelation of God’s self in Jesus
Christ, but is not itself the revelation.
Second, Barth differentiates between the Old and the New Testament
describing the Old Testament as pointing forward to the fullness of God’s
revelation in Jesus Christ, and the New Testament remembering the fullness of
God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Therefore,
because the Old and New Testament both point to the fullness of God’s
revelation in Jesus Christ, but neither contain nor possess this revelation, Jesus
is not in the New Testament any more than Jesus is in the Old Testament, and
the New ought not to be privileged over the Old. I have a story to help illustrate this idea.
My Grandpa began giving me Savings Bonds when I was two
years old. My Grandpa knew what he
intended these bonds to be used for and so did I: for college or for a house in
the future. But this does not mean that
my knowledge as a child was the same as my Grandpa’s knowledge; my Grandpa knew
from experience what paying for college or a house was like, but I had no clue. But as I grew closer to the moment in which I
would buy a house or go to college, I began to appreciate these Savings Bonds
more and more. Finally, when I needed money for a down payment on a house
(really needed it!) and I cashed in the Savings Bonds, when I was, therefore,
in the concrete moment to which my Grandpa’s gift had originally pointed, then
and only then did I fully understand and experience the goodness of my
Grandfather’s gift. And now, at this
moment, I can recall the moment I received the fullness of this gift, but I no
longer possess this gift itself and I am no longer receiving this gift. For, the gift was given in its fullness at a
particular moment in time that is now past, and no story no matter how faithful
or vivid will enable me to again grasp this gift.
Similarly, while the Old Testament points ahead to the
fullness of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and the New Testament recalls the
event of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, neither contains nor possess the
fullness of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.
The Old and New Testament certainly have different vantage points on
Christ, but there is no reason to privilege one Testament over the other – as
our question seems to do.
(For example, I have a Good Friday sermon that uses both
Psalm 22 and John’s Gospel as my routes to the cross, though the passive
objectification of Christ in Psalm 22 could not be any more different than the
active subject Christ seems to be in John.
Both routes lead to the cross and both routes illumine the cross in a
unique way. Sermon available by
request.)
4) The
Old Testament matters for Christians because it offers us a starting point in
interreligious dialogue with Jews and Muslims.
(Admittedly, I’m now writing about something of which I know very little,
but hope it to be true.) The Christian
Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible share common books, though we arrange these
books differently. The Quran shares
common stories with the Old Testament and Hebrew Bible, though the Quran tells
these stories a bit differently. Might
these commonalities be a starting place for dialogue among Christians, Jews,
and Muslims? If we think interreligious
dialogue matters, then the Old Testament matters for Christians.
5) Finally,
the Old Testament will not matter for Christians unless we begin to read it
with more regularity. Just as prayer or
exercise become vital for those who do them regularly but seem inconsequential
for those who do not do them regularly, the Old Testament will matter more to
Christians the more we read it and hear it preached on. There are many ways to begin reading the Old
Testament, but in order to set yourself up for success you may want to start
with something accessible or short, like reading a psalm a day, or reading
through all the minor prophets over the course of a month. Like any new discipline, you may not love it
or get anything out of it at first, but over time you’ll grow familiar with the
psalmist’s cries for help or words of praise, or you’ll grow familiar with the
prophets calling God’s people out on their faithlessness and calling them back
to their faithful God. Or if you preach,
make a commitment to preach once a month on the Old Testament, or perhaps even
preach for a whole month on the Old Testament.
And help yourself out by starting your sermon prep a tiny bit earlier
than normal, because you’ll have to work hard to preach on a text with which
your congregation is unfamiliar.
And perhaps
if we begin to read and preach on the Old Testament with a bit more regularity,
not only will we begin to discover for ourselves that the Old Testament
matters, but we may even discover that the Old Testament is one of God’s great
gifts for God’s people.
Paul lives in Durham, NC with his wife and two daughters, studied at Duke Divinity and the University of Wisconsin, works as the Youth Minister at Church of the Holy Family (Episcopal) in Chapel Hill, NC, and blogs at http://otlampsandlights.blogspot.com.
____________________________________________________
Jesus also might have spoken approvingly about the Law & the Prophets :)
ReplyDeleteFor example, in Luke 16, Jesus said:
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."
And
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Hi Kyle,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your important addition.
On Facebook, Randy Melton made a similar comment on this post: " The OT was also the only Scripture that Jesus knew and gave authority to. He said that he did not come to abolish it but to fulfill it. It's the only Bible he quotes, and often he deepens it's meaning with laser focus. It's really hard to understand the fullness of the NT story without the background that sets the context for it. And God does make himself known in the OT just as he does in the NT...note when the Risen Jesus meets the two despondent guys on the road to Emmaus and opens their hearts to all that the scripture (OT) said about him...their hearts burned within them and they understood."
Interestingly, you both cite Luke... I just learned that Ireneus, in his writings against the Gnostics - and Marcion in particular, describes Marcion as throwing out the Old Testament altogether and cutting up the gospel of Luke in order to reconstitute his own Scriptures. This means, historically as early as the second century, Jesus' use of the Old Testament was seen as one reason why the Old Testament mattered for Christians.
Best,
-Paul