The New on the Old

It has been suggested by the latest "modern scholars" that the Church and the Jews before them have always been wrong for reading the Old Testament as if it was genuine history, a reliable record of accounts prior to Christ. It is epic, allegory, myth, legend, even fantasy, but certainly not real. At least, not as written. The fact that the Jews before and the Church since have always seen it that way is irrelevant. They were all wrong. Fortunately, we are much smarter now and we've figured it out.

Is that the case? Are we the beneficiaries of better scholarship that was denied all who went before us? Or are we the victims of a fraud perpetrated by enemies of God? I would like to look at the best interpreter of the Old Testament to answer that question -- the New Testament.

Early in the New Testament we begin to get references to the Old. Matthew references Isaiah (7:14) in the first chapter (1:23). But no one is talking about the prophets. What about those first 17 books, the books that appear to be historical in nature? Do New Testament references treat them as factual accounts or epic and allegory? Jesus in Matthew 4 quotes Scripture several times. It is Deut 8:3 that says, "Man shall not live by bread alone ..." He references Deut 6 when He warns Satan not to test God (4:7) and to only worship God (4:10). Apparently Jesus believed that the commands of Deuteronomy were valid commands rather than simply the opinions of a nomadic desert race trying to justify their actions. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus goes on to expand on the Old Testament laws rather than diminish them. Murder was a sin, sure, but anger against a brother was classified as murder. Adultery continued to be against God's law, but lusting after a woman was classified as adultery. God had told His people not to swear falsely in His Name (Lev 19:12), but Jesus warned to always speak with integrity rather than relying on oaths. Jesus made a practice of referencing the Pentateuch, treating it as not merely legendary, but genuine.

One prime example is the story of David and the shewbread. In 1 Sam 21, David went to Ahimelech the priest and asked for bread. The priest told him that there was nothing but consecrated bread. Jesus referred to this story in Matt 12 when He explained to the Pharisees that "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." No one then regarded it as a mere story. It was looked at as an actual event. Later in the same chapter Jesus used the 3 days that Jonah spent in the great fish as a parallel of the 3 days He would spend in the grave. He warns that the Queen of Sheba who came to hear Solomon's wisdom would rise up against that generation, a reference to 1 Kings 10. Over and over and over again, Jesus harkened back to the Old Testament as sources for truth, as references for reality, as examples of ongoing principles. Rather than explaining that that stuff wasn't really true, but just principles to live by, Jesus assured us that "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away" (Matt 24:35). Indeed, "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law" (Matt 5:18)

But it wasn't just Jesus (like "just Jesus" is a small thing). The rest of the New Testament kept that theme. Peter assured his listeners that God had promised (mythical?) King David that his descendants would sit on the throne (Acts 2:30). Now, no matter how you read it, there are no practical "descendants" of a person who wasn't genuine. "Descendents" is as genuine, literal, down-to-earth as you can get. There are hundreds of references in the New Testament to Old Testament characters and events without the slightest hint of "epic" or "legend" or "myth" -- Adam, Abraham, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, David, and on and on.

Paul bases many of his principles on the Old Testament. "Death reigned from Adam until Moses," (Rom 5:14) he assured us. He refers to Adam as "the first man". In his controversial "I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) section, Paul gives this rationale: "It was Adam who was first created, and then Eve" (1 Tim 2:13). Now, if the Creation story listed in Genesis is "epic", some sort of legend or lore written to expound on a reality that is not actually presented in the text, then Paul's argument isn't merely questionable, it's pointless. If there was no actual Adam who was the first man, created chronologically before Eve, then the entire argument is null and void and Paul needs to surrender his claim to writing Scripture.

One of the classic passages of the New Testament that references the Old is the marvelous Faith chapter. Hebrews 11 takes a quick walk through early history to demonstrate what faith looks like for the reader. In this "faith walk", such "fanciful" Old Testament characters as Abel, Enoch (who never died), Noah (Who believes in a flood? Apparently the author of Hebrews does.), Abraham, Sarah, and on it goes. One of the much maligned stories of the Old Testament is God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. The author of Hebrews doesn't seem to think it's a difficult story at all. Abraham "considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead" (Heb 11:19), so what was the big deal? Jacob, Esau, Moses, the parting of the Red Sea, the fall of Jericho, the judges, prophets, and kings, these are not regarded as some distant stories about which we can't be certain. They are referred to as actual events and real people.

Well, maybe now we can begin to see why the Jews first and the Church that followed viewed the Old Testament not as merely "epic" literature, a fanciful representation of principle and exaggerated events, but as genuine historical narrative. It's because the Bible views it that way. Start to strip off this literal nature of the Old Testament and you start to strip off the underpinnings that built Christianity itself. Jesus, the Apostles, the authors of the New Testament, every writer and almost every book all quote from the Old Testament without a hint of viewing it as anything but genuine, historical fact. So, are we the beneficiaries of better scholarship that was denied all who went before us, or are we the victims of a fraud perpetrated by enemies of God? Based on the New Testament, I'd say we need to cry, "Fraud!"