Comments on: Reading the Bible in the Right Direction

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:25:36 +0000

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.

By: Alex Nauta

Alex Nauta — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:25:49 +0000

*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.

By: Chris Minch

Chris Minch — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:21:10 +0000

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.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:47:30 +0000

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?

By: Emily

Emily — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:34:57 +0000

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.

By: SilverRain Lee

SilverRain Lee — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:28:10 +0000

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.

By: Chris Wharton

Chris Wharton — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:43:38 +0000

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.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:23:21 +0000

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.”

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:49:50 +0000

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 :/

By: Sarah Beale

Sarah Beale — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:23:58 +0000

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.

By: Nathalie

Nathalie — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:20:38 +0000

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.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:18:34 +0000

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.”