Grace to the Gentiles: Rooting our Theology in the Hebrew Scriptures (Part 1)
It could be argued that the central debate surrounding the Protestant Reformation was that of Authority and where it lies. Following the invention of the printing press in 1440, the translation of the Bible into common language (early 1500’s) and the spreading of Protestantism across the Western World (16th Century), it became ordinary for the average Christian to appeal to the Bible as the sole authority. However right this may feel in our modern context, there is little evidence that the early church, upon its formation, had a “new collection” or testament in mind, much less the idea that it could compare in authority to oral tradition. Culturally and religiously, the 1st-century world highly esteemed oral tradition, and the early Christians were not ready to abandon that. Besides, by the time Jesus walked the planet, not even the Hebrew Bible[1] had definite canonical boundaries, of which was little concern to a culture that elevated the spoken over the written. Plus, Christians supposed that they had all they needed: the Hebrew Scriptures, the oral tradition of Jesus and his apostles, and the Advocate who would “guide them into all truth” (John 16:13).[2] It didn’t take long, however, for God to divinely orchestrate the writing and circulating of what would come to be known as the New Testament, an organic and spirit-led process. Another aspect of the 1st century Judeo-Christian world that differs from ours is “the rule of antiquity,” this idea that the authority of a document or story or religion lies in the age of it; “the older the better,” so to speak. With the rise of postmodernism, and still today, the attitude “newer is better,” certainly prevails. How many people do you know that have written off the validity of the Bible simply because its 2,000 years old, as if that makes it less true? We can’t escape this cultural shift, though, and ought to be careful not to mistake the language of “new” (testament) with “superior.” Though, as hyper-christocentrism dominates the church front and pastors continue to shy away from expositing the Hebrew Scriptures, it’s not unlikely that many Christians see and read the Old Testament as if it were, well, old, or better yet, outdated, inferior, or irrelevant. This mindset causes all sorts of problems when it comes to interpretation, preaching/teaching, and missions, but we must learn from the early church; taking what value we can from our culture while allowing God to take us in a different direction if He wills.
Backward Reading Produces a Backward Theology
If you’ve been a Christian for a while, you’ve probably noticed that the teaching, preaching, and evangelizing work of the modern Church reveals a serious neglection of the Old Testament and an elevation of the New, both in its authority, value and relevance. Perhaps there are many reasons for this, but, in any case, Christians don’t feel that the Old Testament is needed. Consequently, this leads to a deep ignorance of the Old Testament as the supporting substructure of the whole house; to ignore it, in the words of Dr. Michael Brown, is to cut the torso from the legs.[3] The New Testament provides the detailing work of the foundation laid in the Old Testament.[4] I mean, if we care at all about the New Testament, we ought to at least have as much reverence for the Old Testament as it does. Don’t get me wrong, the grounding of our faith is the death and resurrection of Jesus - I certainly don’t wish to dismiss that - but let’s not forget that Jesus is primarily a Jewish Messiah foretold by the Hebrew Prophets, a Savior promised to Israel, a Rabbinic High Priest and a Davidic King; the core identity of our Rescuer is inextricably rooted in a Jewish, Old Testament-based worldview, and so must ours be. If we continue to abandon the Old Testament - the very gravity that binds the the New Testament - it will only result in a failure to acknowledge our own heritage and true identity in Christ.
The Old Testament is Inspired, Too
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but perhaps the most obvious problem with living, believing and doing theology in a way that writes the Old Testament off as old-fashioned is that it fails to acknowledge its present relevance and extreme importance; not merely as an ancient document but as a living witness of the eternal God. We all know Paul’s famous declaration in 2 Timothy: “All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV). Did you ever stop to consider the nature of these “scripture[s]” here that Paul refers to? He certainly wasn't talking about the New Testament, which wasn’t yet compiled, much less labeled as such, but rather the same Law and Prophets that Jesus so greatly esteemed; the Hebrew Bible. Whether or not Paul recognized the God-inspired authority of his own epistles, we can be sure that he viewed the Old Testament, which is quoted or alluded to in his writings well over 100 times, in the highest regard - breathed by God and profitable for life - and we should too.
Jewish Messiah; Jewish Mission
As mentioned, our Lord Jesus was Jewish, not merely culturally, but in his very earthly purpose and identity. From his title to his ministry, every bit about him mirrored the Jewish tradition from which he spawned. In Luke 4:16 and following, Jesus reads from the Prophet Isaiah in a Synagogue. The passage from which he quoted, coming largely from Isaiah 61, reads in the first-person singular. The speaker in Isaiah 61:1-3 identifies himself as an anointed servant of God. (The context and text itself is unclear whether Jesus was purposefully applying this pericope to himself, as if he was the fulfillment of it.) Jewish scholars hardly agree on the identity of this unique servant; some believe it's an extraordinary prophet - others a great high priest; some correlate the language of “anointed” with kingship, and still others argue that the figure is a metaphorical representation of the perfect Israelite. While the Isaian text and context keeps Jewish scholars from any definite conclusion, it just so happens that Jesus is all of the above. We serve a Jesus who was the perfect prophet, sent from God bearing a message of both judgment and hope. We serve a Jesus who is the perfect great High Priest, mediating between God and man and giving his people direct access to the throne room. We serve a Jesus who is the King of Eternity and of whom all earthly rulers will bow. We serve a Jesus who was Israel in flesh - embodying and fulfilling all that she was called to be. We serve a Jesus who is not only the messenger and mediator, but the very God who saves -the same God who powerfully declares in Isaiah 43:11: “I, yes I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior” (NIV).
Conclusion
The vast disagreement among the best of Jewish thinkers only reflects the beautiful complexity of our Lord and the gospel. It is none other than the tradition of the Torah, the poetry of the Psalms, the mystery of the Prophets and the mighty story of God calling a people for himself that speaks life and wonder and majesty into the person and mission of Jesus Christ. Without it, we remain blind to the inconceivable depth of beauty and meaning that brings the New Testament into another dimension entirely.
For Next Time
Part 2 of this essay will contain a deeper discussion into the Christian doctrine of salvation. It will briefly analyze Old and New Testament texts pertaining to salvation for both Jews and Gentiles, accompanied by dangerous theologies that either gives the Old Testament story an unwarranted preeminence or abandons it altogether. Part 2 will give special attention to the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles as it relates to God's salvific plan for both. As we approach a deeper analysis of scripture, let us keep these deep-seated truths in mind, seeking all the more to glean from the context by which our faith was built, one that is both rooted in the Old Testament story of Israel and informed by it.
[1] Hebrew Bible, here, is synonymous with Old Testament.
[2] Irenaeus (ca. 180) is the first to reflect this shift from an emphasis on spoken word to an emphasis on the written - (Reference from Dr. Dave Nienhuis, Professor of New Testament Studies at Seattle Pacific University)
[3] Dr. Michael Brown, No Pastor Stanley, We Should Not “Unhitch” Ourselves From The Old Testament, par. 1. https://askdrbrown.org/library/no-pastor-stanley-we-should-not-unhitch-ourselves-old-testament
[4] Ibid.
