Reading the Bible in the Right Direction
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son… (Romans 1:1-3)
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith… (Roman 16:25-26)
What the previous posts about the flesh/spirit conflict bring out is my conviction that the order of the Bible must necessarily be heeded. By this, I do not refer to the order of the books, as there has been a variety of such orders throughout the history of Biblical usage. I simply mean the order Old Testament first, New Testament second. Far from being derogatory, the term “old” in Old Testament refers to its being foundational to the New Testament rather than something that is replaced or superseded. The Bible must be read in the right direction.
In the above quoted passages, which form a bracket around the book of Romans, both mention the dependence of Paul’s gospel on the previous testimony of the Old Testament scriptures. This does not simply mean that the Old Testament is a repository of predictions awaiting proof which have now been provided in the New Testament. Rather, Paul’s gospel is based on the entire Old Testament narrative, which although taking some surprising turns, still remains intact as its foundational element. Paul, and all the other authors of the New Testament, understand that what happened in and through Jesus was in dynamic continuity with the OT narrative, beginning with the creation of the world, through Abraham and the covenant made to him, Moses, David and the covenant made to him, and the proclamations of the prophets before, during and after the exile. All of these elements are clearly drawn upon specifically in the book of Romans (Rom. 1:20; 4:1ff; 1:3-4; 9:14-17; 9:25; 15:9-12) and throughout the New Testament writings.
We should not expect the New Testament (hereafter NT) authors to repeat the entire content of the Old Testament (hereafter OT). Not only would this make the NT three times longer, it would be redundant. The respective aspects of the OT narrative did not need to be and were not repeated in the NT, because they were already developed in the OT and first-century Jews were well acquainted with them. The NT authors built on this already assumed understanding. They start from this foundation (i.e., formidable acquaintance with the literature of the Old Testament) and then explicate the new developments and difficulties that are brought about by the decisive action of God in and through Jesus the Messiah.
If this is the case, then in order to understand the NT, one must understand the OT first. Then, the direction of interpretation must flow from the OT into the NT. After being acquainted with the framework of thought in the OT, that then forms how we understand and interpret the NT. The narrative of the OT and the meaning it gives various concepts sets what is normative for interpreting the NT. We must remember that before anything else, the Bible is a story and the gospel is an announcement of good news, i.e., events have occurred whereby God has been faithful to his covenant people and fulfilled his promises to them. In order for stories to make sense, the beginning and middle must be read (not necessarily before reading the end, but at least at some point). True, the fulfillment of the promise can give illuminative insight into the original promises (just as reading the end of a story can clarify some nuances of the story’s beginning), but how can we adequately understand the fulfillment in abstraction from the originating history of promise? How does the conclusion of the story make any sense apart from it being the consummation of something that has long since begun? It often seems as though what God did in the NT is completely new and bears no relation to the OT. If this is the case, we have not understood the Bible aright.
It strikes me that there is a widespread avoidance of the OT, possibly due to its large amount of content, or to its seeming opacity, or the seeming discontinuity between the vision of God and life between the two testaments. We then settle in the more comfortable world of the NT, which is “more easily understood” and is relatively more tame. This then cultivates the opposite approach of interpretation, where our “understanding” of the NT becomes normative for our interpretation of the OT. Suddenly, nothing in the OT is about Israel, creation, the covenants, the land, the exodus, and the exile, but is now about Jesus, and the spiritual life of the soul on its journey to heaven. The former are simply external trappings for the “deeper” “spiritual” message of the OT, which often enough winds up being identical to the OT-free interpretation of the NT.
I would like to suggest naming this phenomenon “quasi-Marcionism.” Marcion was a man decisively denounced as a heretic in the second century. He taught that the god of the OT (Yahweh) was a different god than the god of the NT (Jesus). The god of the OT was a god of wrath, while Jesus was a god of love. He developed an alternate canon of Scripture which included only ten of Paul’s letters and one gospel (a chopped up version of the Gospel of Luke) and eliminated everything else (including the entire Old Testament). It seemed to him that Paul’s gospel was radically different than that declared in the OT. The early church refused to accept such an idea.
If we find it difficult to reconcile the “god” of the OT with the god of the “NT” as well as their respective themes and world-views, then I would contend that we are quite possibly, sorely misunderstanding the NT, and falling prey to quasi-Marcionism. I call the phenomenon described earlier quasi-Marcionism because it does not outright reject the OT, it simply reinterprets it as the NT in slightly more allegoric fashion (i.e., the OT is simply stories that illustrate NT principles). Instead of reinterpreting the Old Testament as being about Jesus and the salvation of souls, it is better and more consistent with the NT itself, to see the NT — i.e., our understanding of Jesus and the “salvation of souls” as being precisely about Israel, creation, the covenants, the land, the exodus, the exile and the Jewish hope for the future of life on earth. These are not merely the external trappings the NT sheds, they are central to the message of the entire Bible. In my opinion, we need to become less familiar with the NT, less comfortable in its soil which is truly more foreign to us then we imagine. As long as the OT, its story, world-view, themes, expectations and hopes, are confounding to us (or overly familiar to as affluent 21st century Westerners), we do not have a comfortable resting place in the NT, for it is a profoundly Jewish book embedded in the thought of the former.
In my next post I will illustrate this principle briefly…but first – I must mention that my intention is not to be down on this or that interpretation of Scripture. My hope is that many Christians will be captured by the Old Testament. These books invite us to be caught up in the drama of a story that is so much bigger than ourselves, the conclusion of which is magnificent far beyond our wildest imaginations. Rather than mechanize the Old Testament as a repository of proof-texts and principles, we are beckoned to become pilgrims on the way of promise, hope and expectation. We are freed to embrace and acknowledge the concrete realities of our lived lives, celebrating its joys, mourning its sorrows, and by faith in God’s future, to gather together those joys and sorrows, lifting up our eyes with hope, eagerly looking towards the yet outstanding future where God will wipe away tears from all faces and renew the face of the earth (Is. 25:8; Ps. 104:30).
Related posts
Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 2) »
Comments
Comment from William
Time: July 2, 2008, 2:20 am
so where does one begin on this journey of rediscovering the full context of the bible through the old testament
Comment from admin
Time: July 8, 2008, 2:58 pm
William – great question. I think to answer it I will write a separate post and tease out a few practical suggestions.
–Richard
Pingback from Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 4) – The Overarching Story of Scripture | On the Road to Emmaus
Time: November 7, 2009, 7:47 pm
[...] to earlier parts in the series Reading the Bible in the Right Direction: Part 1 Part 2 Part [...]
Comment from Gary
Time: January 10, 2010, 11:19 pm
Brilliant Post Richard! I whole-heartedly agree with they points that you make. However, I do have some questions that have been brewing up in me. Wasn’t Paul’s letters written predominately to Gentile believers? Did Paul take time to lay out the entire flow of redemption history while converting pagans to “the way?” I really enjoy taking studies that I have done in the OT, whether from Abraham’s covenant, the Exodus, or the Prophets, their hopes, expectations, fears, and worldview, and reading the NT in light of such things. I, as you can tell from the post I made a year and a half ago, have had my own love/hate journey with the Old and New Testament convergence project.
Comment from Nathalie
Time: January 11, 2010, 6:04 am
I loved what you said about the soil of the New Testament turning out to be much less familiar than we first imagined. The more I read it stripped from my preconceived ideas the more I realize I don’t even have a clue as to what some of the most common (soteriological) terms Paul uses really means.
Having said that I do have a question. Much of the view that promotes reading the New Testament in light of the OT narrative is based on the premise that when Paul throws out short words, phrases or quotes from the Old Testament that the mention of those words or verses would immediately evoke a whole story or the entire context from which the quote was taken. Almost as if Paul was using certain words as a short hand for a much bigger drama underlying his writing. My question is: How do we know that Paul really does intend to speak of the entire context when he quotes one OT phrase? And like Gary asked, if Paul did intend that how do we know his readers would have understood it that way? And why do we actually here so little straightforward mention of the return from exile and new creation in Paul’s letters if it is such a prominent theme in his theology?
Comment from Jeff
Time: January 12, 2010, 1:12 pm
New Tribes Mission for decades has preached the Gospel to remote tribes by beginning with the creation of the world, showing the people where Israel is in relation to themselves (e.g. in Papua New Guinea), and then proceeding to tell them the whole story of the Bible, culminating in the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, and what’s going on now. It wasn’t theology that convinced them to take that approach – it was practical necessity. It turns out that walking into a village of stone-age cannibals and telling them “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life…” isn’t very effective in producing authentic disciples of Jesus.
I’ve thought many times that we should probably use the same approach in the US. But alas, I too have heard far too many sermons contrasting “Old Testament holiness” with “New Testament love.” If we do not understand the continuity of the two testaments, we will inevitably misunderstand what actually did change when Jesus came. And worse, we will superimpose the supposed change that Jesus brought onto our own essentially heathen worldview. I’m pretty sure this is where we get the “gospel” of cheap grace – a caricature of love and forgiveness superimposed on a worldview that is allergic to the very concept of sin.
Comment from Gary
Time: January 13, 2010, 5:58 am
Nathalie… Dont ever say that New Creation isn’t a huge part of Paul’s theology ever again- It is virtually everywhere in Paul 
Comment from Jennifer Ferree
Time: January 13, 2010, 8:47 am
I thought this was a good post. I agree we need to focus on the OT. Actually when I started seriously reading the Bible I would actually only stay in the OT because I had heard the stories of the NT so much they were boring to me. I actually had a hard time for a while seeing that God in the OT and Jesus were the same. In my reading it felt to me that God was so loving and yet Jesus loved us only out of duty. I felt as if Jesus just went to the cross because that was his duty not his joy. I agree that all of us need to focus on understanding the OT it will help open up the NT.
Comment from Jesse
Time: January 13, 2010, 10:18 am
This is great stuff. I am particularly aware of the impact “reading the bible in the right direction” will have on our hearts as we read and study the NT. I was in Stephen Venable’s Chirstology 2 class this past year and I wept as he took a whole session to expound upon the theme of Jewish expectation for the promised seed to come forth from Genesis to the coming of Christ. I felt as though I was hearing and feeling the Gospel for the first time. Without clarity and an intimate connection to the promises and overarching story of God revealed in the OT, the coming of Christ loses much of it’s impact. I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that, “these books (OT) invite us to be caught up in the drama of a story that is so much bigger than us.”
Comment from Nathalie
Time: January 13, 2010, 2:20 pm
Gary -okay…when he talks about resurrection he is talking about new creation, but what I meant was that he doesn’t talk about it much in the way that Isaiah did.
Comment from Sarah Beale
Time: January 13, 2010, 2:23 pm
Reading this post I keep thinking of my self in middle school and high school really wanted to read the old testament because i wanted to read the whole Bible but just being so bored because i didn’t understand the point of it. I would kick myself because i would always fall asleep before finishing my allotted chapter and would end up starting back at the beginning as punishment so i really never made it out of Genesis! But in our various classes on the old testament has really opened my eyes to the beauty of the old testament and has even opened my eyes more to the new testament that i formally thought i knew so well. the old and new testament truly is the One Word of God and there is no separation between the two.
I always knew that the God of the OT and the God of the NT was one in the same but i always had so much trouble reconciling the two. Further study in the OT and the NT confirms that his characteristics really are unchanging. This is a really good post- it is so crucial to mend the 2 testaments that are often ripped apart in modern church in the west.
Comment from Joshua
Time: January 13, 2010, 2:49 pm
Concerning preferring the NT to the Old, I have struggled with the fact that the old is centered more on life this side of death (“the land of the living”). You say at the end of your post, “We are freed to embrace and acknowledge the concrete realities of our lived lives, celebrating its joys, mourning its sorrows…” I’ve been wrestling with the balance between “kingdom now” and waiting for the sweet by-and-by when we will know as we are known. I hate to pour out my ugly inner struggles but if people go to heaven or hell when they die then who cares if they know how they’re future ties into Israel and the land? You make the point that we make the OT mostly about Jesus and souls. I think the brevity of life and a “simple” heaven-or-hell soteriology can push us to do that. OT writings don’t seem to share the burden… the burden Paul had.
In other news…
I totally agree that we are more comfortable with the NT than we should be. David Pawson points that out often. If the Bible is really one book then my consternation with the OT directly relates to my misunderstanding of Jesus.
I need humility :/
Comment from Richard
Time: January 13, 2010, 3:23 pm
Joshua – my point precisely is that if the Old Testament cares about the earth, then perhaps the “heaven-or-hell soteriology,” that thus trivializes the God-inspired burden and concern of the OT, that we think we see in Paul is not actually there the way we think it is. Paul talks about judgment indeed, but does he talk about hell? I’m not sure. Also, does he ever talk about going to heaven? Try to find one verse in Paul that explicitly mentions a believer going to heaven when they die – furthermore that such is remotely related to the goal of Christianity. Heaven is not the goal of Christianity. The earth is. Human beings are literally “earthlings” (the OT/Hebrew word for human, “adam” comes from the word ground/earth, “adamah”). We were created to rule the earth and our destiny is tied to its future. Nothing outside the world we know trivializes the broken state of the world God created and loves, and indeed died to redeem and restore. A soteriology that trivializes life is neither Jewish nor Christian – it is nihilism. Christianity is a faith enraptured by the God of Life, is thoroughly pro-life (in the fullest sense of the word) and is fully engaged in the life of the world, that it too along with God, deeply and compassionately loves and suffers with, “celebrating its joys, mourning its sorrows.”
Comment from Chris Wharton
Time: January 13, 2010, 11:43 pm
As blogging is a kind of “new frontier” for me, I have to say that I quite enjoyed the post and agreed with the idea of “reading in the right direction.” I have held this same view recently in my own life as I have entered into a deeper study of the scriptures. I have found that as I have gained more understanding of the OT principles, that I have actually been able to see what Paul, John, and even Jesus were talking about. For example I came from a church that held the view that when we die we went to heaven and “stayed there” or escaped this evil, sinful world, and with my hermeneutical skills at the time that were limited to “popcorning” from familiar passage to familiar passage I failed to see many obvious references to the coming kingdom to the earth. However only after I had read the bible “in the right direction”, did I see the plan of redemption from beginning to end, and my heart and mind was led into a deeper encounter with who God really was and how I relate to him, and how to rightly see the End Time events. I fully agree that one cannot rightly interpret the NT with out the OT.
Comment from SilverRain Lee
Time: January 14, 2010, 7:28 am
I have already read this post quite long time ago. At that time when I read it I thought it was insightful and impressive, but that was it. I didn’t take sufficient time to seriously examine my thoughts. I didn’t take the process of making it as my own clear understanding. This assignment which doesn’t accept cursory reading made me to intensely consider how my view on OT has been. How in the world have I viewed OT? …… After many different ideas and words concerning mere facts of OT that I happened to pick up in the past coming to my mind, I finally came to the point that I need to admit that I DO NOT HAVE concrete, clear, and articulable understanding of OT. I’m not really acquainted with the framework of thought in the OT. This is frustrating and convicting! I’ve been in Bible School for 3years already, feeding myself with the Word of God in a committed way, took OT survey class, talking about OT’s all different themes quite often with fellow Night Watch Students, but I don’t have my own words to make smooth connection from them to NT’s respective themes. I acknowledge that my view on OT, just within itself, not even with the connection to NT is very choppy and antinomic.
A lot of thoughts are rambling in my minds but the biggest question that keeps resounding is “what would be one phrase that portraits the purpose of OT’s existence?” I’ve always always always heard and automatically agreed without a question that OT was written to reveal what is going to come. It is an incomplete picture of full picture which is Jesus, therefore it’s all about Jesus from the beginning of the Bible to the end. It is ALL about foreshadowing of coming Messiah. (now I’m questioning “Messiah? Savior? Saving whom from what? to what? to where? Then..what in the world does Salvation mean?”)
I agree that there is dynamic continuity between OT and NT also that NT is not just a repetition of OT, but a new level of development of epical plot which was already developed in OT as a foundation. In that agreement I have hard time understanding this sentence from my Church History Class’ note, “Hermeneutically, the incomplete progressive OT revelation must be interpreted and applied ALWAYS in the light of the fullness of God’s revelation in His Son and in the NT.” To me this sentence sounds like we must grasp NT’s message in order to interpret OT rightly. It seems like it is affirming the idea that OT is mainly talking about Jesus, we need to bear Jesus in our mind WHENEVER we read ANY scene of OT passage. Otherwise it could be interpreted and applied in a wrong way.
You said that NT is dependent on the previous testimony of OT scripture but it seems like OT is also greatly dependent on NT.
Comment from Emily
Time: January 14, 2010, 9:34 am
I think this was my main problem back in High School. I had a desire to read the word, but stayed mostly in the New Testament, and yes, the Lord gave me revelation, but its true how if you know the OT and get familiar with the first part of the story, it has much more meaning. Starting in the NT doesn’t give us the whole picture and then our perspective is off.
Comment from Melissa
Time: January 14, 2010, 10:47 am
I think that your point that the audience that the NT authors were writing to were already familiar with the OT is very helpful. I’ve found that I assume I know what the authors are saying and referring to when, in reality, there are so many nuances and concepts that I miss since I am not better acquainted with the OT. I agree that we must have a much better and more thorough understanding of the OT if we are going to study the NT and rightly grapple with its concepts. My only question is, how should we go about this in an effective way? Specifically as students taking classes on NT books?
Comment from Chris Minch
Time: January 14, 2010, 11:21 am
Richard, I agree with your point that the entire story of God’s redemptive plan for humanity begins in Genesis and finds its conclusion in Revelation. (OT first then NT) If Jesus fulfilled what is written about him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44), shouldn’t we look to those first and understand those if we are to have understanding of what Jesus fulfilled? [Not to mention the diversity of “fulfilled” which would require inquiry into: first coming / second coming / partial fulfillment / completed work / etc.] Philip, when he spoke to Nathanael, recognized that Jesus was the one that Moses in the Law, and the Prophets wrote about. (John 1:45) This underscores that our faith has distinctly Jewish roots and, as the wild olive branch that has been grafted in, it would be foolishness to disregard our entire root system – the supporting structure of our faith and the very “sap” that gives us life.
And yet… that is exactly what I have done and experienced in the Church since coming to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Hand… reaching… for… delete… button (again). Good thing there’s grace.
Comment from Alex Nauta
Time: January 14, 2010, 9:25 pm
*already posted but messed up so re-tying*
I agree with you mostly richard! I mean when I got saved, the way the bible was presented to me really made it seem that the NT was way more important than the OT. I got saved in a program, and the NT was heavily stressed, with the OT not so much at the beginning. I had to memorize a few verses here and there to have a least a litte ‘pocket change’ old, but for the most part I viewed the NT as dominate, more important, and much more necissary. But for some reason as I progressed, I found myself caught up in the OT stories more and more. Of course, now I don’t hold the same viewpoint as I did when once saved, and am wishing it had been like that since the beginning. I want to view the bible the right way, much like a painter sets up to do when painting a picture. It’s about applying the right layers at the right time to come out with the right picture. You don’t start with the things that go on top and then work your way down. Its the other way then turned around. I liked what you had to say, and really am looking forward to this class.
Comment from Jeff
Time: January 15, 2010, 10:25 am
Richard wrote:
>Human beings are literally “earthlings” (the OT/Hebrew word for human, “adam” comes from the word ground/earth, “adamah”). We were created to rule the earth and our destiny is tied to its future.
For some reason, this created a sudden desire in me to be a farmer. Earth = land = dirt, and we were made from it and for it (though we were not intended to turn back into it like we do now! Gen 3:19). There is an amazing miracle that has happened every year all over the world for millennia, in which dead-looking seeds are put in the dirt and God turns them into living things that feed all the amazing diversity of life on the planet. We are so disconnected from that “dirt” reality as post-modern urban/suburban people – we are not “grounded” (pun intended) in the reality of the way that God sustains life on the planet He made.
Anyway, that was very tangential, but I’ve been thinking about the disconnect between post-modern/post-industrial life and the agricultural context of the Scriptures off and on in the past year.
Comment from Gary
Time: June 29, 2008, 1:57 am
I have actually been convicted about this lately. When I am in the prayer and meditation am I meditating on the full revelation of God or am I meditating on the parts of Him that I agree with? For most of my Christian walk I pick out my 10 favorite Psalms, Proverbs, the Gospels, Epistles, and maybe Genesis (with the exception of the flood… or maybe if I fill the ark with cute stuffed animals it will be more manageable). I simply do not understand the rest, therefore I would simply avoid them. My problem isn’t so much that I didn’t understand it, but I disagreed with what I understood. Because I studied, meditated, and thought about all the things I liked about God and neglected all the things that I disagreed with; I made a god in my own image. God is love…. But when I have misinterpreted love, I have misinterpreted God. I know this probably isnt where you were intending your audience to go… but that is where I went. I guess what I meant to say was; In most of my Christian walk I have avoided the OT and took much of it out of context A) because I am selfish and i want it all to apply directly to me and B) If I read it for its face value it would reveal my offense for God’s leadership.
Anyway, great post