I must admit that I am intrigued by those Christians who have no knowledge of the Old Testament. Not only do the have no knowledge of, they also have no desire to study it. I hear the same thing over and over again, "the OT is boring" and "Jesus is in the NT so all I need to know is in the NT". The last comment is particularly sad and ignorant.
The OT reveals not only God's plan of redemption, but also very much about His character as well. The person of Jesus Christ is also revealed in the pages of the OT.
Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:17-18 "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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Why then have churches devalued the OT so much?
19 comments:
Great question. I think it is because of centuries of built in anti Semitism. I get resistance when I suggest Paul, for example, never stopped being Jewish when he became Christian. The NT wasn't compiled until AD 367 anyway. So when we read that Paul "proved to them from the scriptures that the Christ had to suffer, die, and rise again," what scriptures do we think he was using?
Lots of reasons IMHO... A couple listed below.
1. As Charles stated, a thread of anti-semitism.
2. A lack of preaching it from the pulpit, often caused by a hyperdispensational aspect of dividing God's Word.
3. A lack of focus on proper hermenuetics in developing, and understanding OT Theology.
4. Quite frankly, it is not 'cool' and 'relevant' to a people steeped in their own self-importance. I mean, why read about something that has nothing to do with ME?
We plan on doing a series in the Spring on the Servant Songs as found in Isaiah, precisely for the purpose of bringing the beauty and relevance to our people.
Welcome Robert. I thought about including the story when you had the students in your theology class rip the pages between Malachi and Matthew out.
I love all this ant-dispensational talk! Ripping pages out of the Bible? How exciting! Very "Dead Poets Society." I too am not a fan of the words in red. For example, did Jesus speak John 3:16, or is that John's commentary?
I'm not a fan of the red words either. It elevates certain texts over the rest of the Bible. I don't believe that was the original intention.
Now you know the Jewish Covenantal guy HAD to throw in his two cents! :-)
As usual, the North Bros. hit the nail on the head... Short and sweet: "Are some parts of the Bible MORE inspired than others?"
If so, what do we do with the words in RED that are spoken by Messiah, but actually quotes from the Old Testament?
Do they BECOME inspired when He speaks them, or were they the binding, transcendent Word of God before that?
I once did a sermon much like the ripping out of pages described. I asked people to raise their hands if they had ever read Habbakuk... No hands -- RRRIIIPPP... An audible gasp.... "Has anyone ever read Obadiah? RRRIIIPPP.... Numbers, Deuteronomy? Actually, by the time I had gotten to the third book, people were actually yelling out: "I WILL read it, please stop!!!
I have mellowed over the years... ;-)
1 Timothy 3:16 says,
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
That then begs the obvious question, shouldn't all scripture be in red? I think the answer is that ALL scripture "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
The original reason for putting the words of Christ in red, was to help the average reader see and comrehend the importance and Holiness of the words of our Savior (and to show respect). It was not intended to take away from the rest of the text. Don't over analyze it! There are plenty of printed versions that are all in black.
But back to the original question regarding OT vs NT. I think the prior comment about using "Old" hits the mark. Maybe we should use "Original" and then use "The rest of the story ..page2".
I think Ray poses some interesting questions about the red text.
"Are some parts of the Bible MORE inspired than others? If so, what do we do with the words in RED that are spoken by Messiah, but actually quotes from the Old Testament? Do they BECOME inspired when He speaks them, or were they the binding, transcendent Word of God before that?"
Jesus Christ is revealed in the OT. We can't completely understand who He is if we don't read that part of the Bible. We are only cheating ourselves by ignoring it.
I believe that the OT is devalued becase of the antinomianism (against the law) in the western church. We don't teach accountability or responsibility anymore. I believe that we have been irresponsible with the gospel of grace. Grace does not mean we should sin all we want to so that God can forgive us. (See Romans 6:1) If we truly comprehend the price that was paid for our salvation then this would not be an issue. We would respond by observing God's laws not out of compulsion or fear but rather out of gratitude.
The problem with the words in red is just a symptom of the basic problem with interpretation. ALL translation is basically interpretation. The problem with the words in red is that it adds another layer of unnecessary interpretation to the mix. Sure, the "average reader" doesn't read Greek, but surely they're not that shallow that they need translators/interpretors to spell out the words of Christ for them. It all seems so "third grade," know what I mean?
I think How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart can really help our understanding of this. It is a great book that I recommend frequently.
I recommend Fee's book to everyone in my church!
Ah, yes. And who agve you Fee's book Ryan? I tell people that Fee's book containts just about everything I learned in graduate school!
Ok, Fee's book was a birthday gift from my brother Charles.
Hay! Don't forget me!
B-T-W, what part of "over-analyze" do you guys not get?
Chris,
You asked what part of "over-analyze" do I not get? My answer is all of it. I think the problem in modern Christianity is the under-analyzation of scripture. That's why we have no comprehension of how God wants us to live. Not only does the average Christian not analyze the Bible they don't even read it. I guest lectured in a high school Theology class today. I asked the students how many of them read their Bibles and 38% of them said they did. I asked how many studied their Bibles and 13% said they did. I imagine that these numbers are a accurate reflection of the culture at large.
I hope this provides some clarity.
Ryan,
You are right on the money... Analysis these days is saved for 'important' things such as who Brad Pitt is dating and why; however ofttimes when it comes to the Word of God, we don't do much analysis at all...
Witness what many people call church in today's society and you will discover that we spend far too little time analyzing God's Word, and far too much time analyzing the culture of the world...
Now, while the 'red' letters may not seem to be important, the question behind it most certainly is -- why the overemphasis on the New Testament and underemphasis on the Old Testament... That is what we are addressing, NOT the color of the ink on the pages, but the thought behind it...
What Chris G may not realize is that some people have taken those red letters and elevated those above all of the other letters, leaving people with a partial understanding of God's Word... It is time that we get back to handling the Word of God properly, and stop the misuse, or disuse of it.
The reality is that far too many people have a laissez faire attitude regarding the Bible and want to spend thier efforts on far lesser things such as what color the curtains are in the sanctuary, or how loud to play the music...
I don't think the ultimate issue is the dismissal of the OT. The real issue is our prideful rejection of rules and law. Why would we read the part of the Bible that contains the law? I believe that Texans are friendly until I drive anywhere. Their rejection of traffic laws and the notion that rules apply to other people is what debunks the drive friendly myth.
Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law. To truly understand Him, I believe, you have to know where he came from. Chris and I have discussed many times how we believe that the Epistles are better understood when studied in the historical context of the recipient city and church. The same applies to Jesus and the OT.
Which is more valid James 4:6 or Proverbs 3:34?
I agree with what you boys are saying entirely. There is a real problem in modern evangelical Christianity when it comes to knowledge of scripture. Chris, the words in red "over analysis" is exactly what Ray said - the symptom of a much bigger problem, a general malaise about the OT. Anyway, I'm writing my own blog about this, so I won't take anymore space here.
Oh. another great book recommendation: "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind."
Post a Comment