Correcting the “Biblical Mind”
Why Knowing the Old Testament is not Knowing Jesus
Source In Question {Quoted in Italics}
Keep in mind, I will not be quoting everything from this article, but somewhat paraphrasing.
The Analogical Argument (Preface)
In the beginning of his article, Dr. Micheal, relays a story where a young man dates a young woman. He tells a story where the young man merely inquires the young woman’s hobbies and work rather than her past or childhood, or her parents. He then advises that the young woman should forsake the guy since he neglected her point of origins or family relations. He compares this analogy to the notion that many Christians “suppose that the New Testament — which recounts the life of Jesus and the teachings of those who lived with him — is enough to build a relationship with him. Old Testament background and Jewish “family history” might be great for Jews, and maybe for Bible scholars. But, it is thought, the New Testament is all we need to know Jesus. That is false. Jesus himself emphasized the importance of the Old Testament for knowing him (Luke 24:27). But sadly, Old Testament neglect has been common among Christians.”
Micheal’s analogy has several problems to consider:
Firstly, in defense of the man, perhaps family relations isn’t yet the interest of the person but wishes to preserve this when he’s deeply associated with her, or the person feels uncomfortable towards family relations as some have bad experiences with their family, which might result in reigniting traumatic experiences (not of the fault of anyone since this is a common occurrence in psychology). I know the analogy serves a theological point instead of a personal point; I am not faulting him with a faulty analogy, but explaining that some Christians wish to defer from the Old Testament temporally due to a natural progression from knowing Jesus to the Old Testament stories, or wish to defer from it due to experiencing Christians erroneously defending Old Testament atrocities and faulty depictions of God. These are legitimate excuses for deferring from the Old Testament temporally or indefinitely.
Secondly, the idea that Jesus, or the notion of a crucified messiah arising from the dead is not a biblical concept that one can derive by simply reading the Old Testament. The Jews were very familiar with their scriptures, much more than modern Christians, and they still had no concept of a crucified, to be dead, resurrected, messiah in Palestine. Knowing the history or origins of Jesus did not make them intrigued to behold Christ. The Jews made the argument that the messiah is not to perish and arise from the earth, but to live indefinitely as they have learned from the Scriptures, and Jesus offers no exegetical refutation from the Scriptures, but confers more authority to His incarnation as opposed to the Hebraic Scriptures (cf. John 12:34). Even Peter did not anticipate the fate of the Messiah to result in death; otherwise, he would have tolerated his fate for the welfare of others (cf. Matt. 16:22). I demonstrate in another article three major examples used to imply Jesus, but refute the grammatical appeal employed by misguided Christians: Isaiah 53 is not about a Crucified Messiah. Here’s An Excerpt from this article:
“The most quoted verse that Christians use is this “I will raise up for them a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them everything that I command him” (Deut. 18:18; cf. Acts 7:37). It almost seems to suggest Christ, except in context, Moses meant any prophet or spiritual successor after him; thus, we read, “[19] It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. [20] But any prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.” [21] You may say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which Yahweh has not spoken?” [22] When a prophet speaks in Yahweh’s name, if the thing doesn’t follow, nor happen, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him” (verses 19 — 22). Some will stubbornly object that Moses and God meant a prophet in the same level of authority, but even the Gospels as well as Peter places Moses in the same level as Elijah on the Mt. Transfiguration (cf. Matt. 17:1 — 9).”
Lastly, many Christians butcher the Hebraic Scriptures from their literary environment and use it to portray Jesus, and argue that Jesus fulfilled the grammatical reading, but this was not the argument or reading employed by Paul, or the Early Church. Micheal appeals to Luke 24:27 as an argument, but Jesus has been known to use typology or allegoresis to direct “the types and shadows” in the Scriptures to point to Himself (cf. Matt. 12:40; Matt. 24:37–39; Colossians 2:17; 1st Corinthians 10:4). Every time Paul cites the Old Testament, he is giving a spiritual or anagogical reading, not a grammatical or exegetical interpretation. The apostles and Paul came to the realization of Jesus, because of the revelation of His Son in the flesh and visions (cf. Luke 24:36–49; Acts 9:4–6). This proves that knowing Jesus did not result from the Old Testament.
‘Functional Marcionism’ and the Early History of Old Testament Neglect — Rebutted
In particular, one of Paul’s early readers misunderstood this angst over the works of the law. He thought Paul had renounced the Old Testament altogether! This man’s name was Marcion (85–160 A.D.). He lived a generation after Paul and never met the Apostle in person. But in his zeal for Paul’s epistles, Marcion rejected the Old Testament. By trade, Marcion was a shipowner at the Black Sea port Sinope. But he is remembered to history for developing a canon that lacked the Old Testament. Today, few who call themselves Christians would outright deny the Old Testament as Marcion did. Paul himself wrote that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable” (2 Timothy 3:16). And with close to a thousand citations of the Old Testament in the New, it is hard to justify Marcion’s disparagement. But even though we retain all 39 Hebrew books of the Bible along with the 27 in Greek, many Christians today approach the Bible as “functional Marcionites” — Christians who esteem the New Testament but consciously or subconsciously think less of the Old Testament, resulting in its neglect.
The problem in appealing to Marcion is that he has many similarities with both fundamentalist and liberal Christians; for example, Marcion affirms a strict grammatical, even a literal, reading of the Old Testament, as do fundamentalists, but he also morally criticizes the god of the Old Testament as do liberals and proto-orthodox Christians. Christocentric believers, or proto-orthodoxy do not forsake or abandon the whole of the Old Testament, but only Marcion has done this.
Paul said in the original Greek, “Every God-breathed writing is profitable,” but he never employs the term “aptaistos”, which literally means “non-stumbling” or conceptually means “infallible”. Origen himself uses this term in reference to the mystical principle of interpretation, instead of the Scriptures in a contextual or grammatical setting (cf. Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Chapter 14). The Church Fathers have always taught that the grammatical reading from the Scriptures, instead of the anagogical interpretation, have often brought death than life with a Pauline citation of 2nd Corinthians 3:6, which demonstrates that early Christians, including Paul have somewhat-than-not intentionally neglected the Old Testament narrative in favor of anagogical or symbolic appeals. Here’s a list of patristic examples, but I will provide more later:
It seems right to some church leaders, however, to stand by the letter of the Holy Scriptures in all circumstances, and they do not agree that Scripture says anything for our profit by way of enigmas and below-the-surface meanings. For this reason, I judge it necessary first of all to defend my practice against those who thus charge us. In our earnest search for what is profitable in the inspired Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), there is nothing to be found that is unsuitable. Therefore, if there is profit even in the text taken for just what it says, we have what is sought right before us. On the other hand, if something is stated in a concealed manner by way of enigmas and below-the-surface meanings, and so is void of profit in its plain sense, such passages we turn over in our minds,..By all these different modes of speech and names for intellectual discernment, the apostle is pointing us to a single form of instruction: one ought not in every instance to remain with the letter (since the obvious sense of the words often does us harm when it comes to the virtuous life),…This moreover is why he says, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). — Gregory of Nyssa: Homiles on Song of Songs, Preface.
I was also delighted that the ancient writings of the law and the prophets were no longer presented to me as something to be read with that same perspective in which they had previously seemed absurd. Back then, I used to argue against them as if they held beliefs that they actually did not hold. And as if he were carefully recommending a guiding principle, I would often listen with joy to Ambrose in his popular sermons, saying: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” By removing the veil of literal interpretation, he would spiritually unfold those passages that seemed to teach a twisted understanding, without intending to offend me, even though he said things whose truth I was still unsure of. — Augustine of Hippo: Confessions, Book VI, Section 6.
And it is not surprising that the divine discourse, delivered from the mouths of prophets and apostles, greatly deviated from the customary human mode of writing, having easy and evident expressions on the surface, but containing profound meanings within. This was indeed fitting, so that the sacred words of God could be distinguished from other writings, both deservedly and in appearance. This way, the dignity of celestial mysteries would not be openly and indiscriminately revealed to all, and the holy things would not be cast before dogs or pearls given to pigs, as truly the manner of that silver-plated dove, whose rear parts radiate with the appearance of shining gold, so the initial parts of divine Scripture might glisten with silver, while the more concealed parts gleamed with a hidden gold. —Eucherius of Lyons: Formulas on Spiritual Insight, Preface.
Keep in mind I cited Eucherius of Lyons to demonstrate by “allegory”, they meant interpretive or spiritual allegory (i.e. allegoresis), not contextual allegory (i.e. strictly intended by the author). Eucherius demonstrates that the Holy Scriptures are distinct from other writings, because of its profound hidden meanings concealed by God. He also taught that the divine utterance often went beyond the contextual or plain reading intended by the authors, which demonstrates a hidden form of inspiration, rather than plenary, verbal inspiration.
The Importance of the Old Testament for New Testament Faith
When Christians misunderstand the relationship between the Testaments, they tend to read the New Testament for their theology and turn to the Old primarily for illustrations and morality lessons. Neglecting or minimizing the Old Testament in this way can be a form of Marcionism. If we turn to Romans to learn about atonement and neglect careful study of Leviticus as well; if we read the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to show that polygamy causes problems, but pay little attention to the covenants God established with them; and if we read the Psalms as Jewish hymns we admire, but not as Christian hymns we confess: we are at risk of Marcionism.
The irony here is that it is recommended for Christian converts to understand the New Testament as much as possible before venturing stupidly or naively into the Old Testament. Because by defaulting intentionally to the Old Testament runs the risk of denying Christ, as did the Jews deny Christ due to their contextual reading of their scriptures; furthermore, we have many atonement theories (in some contradiction) because of deriving ideas or certain stories from the Old Testament (e.g. Penal Substitution Theory, Governmental Theory, Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory, Christus Victor, Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory). There is no risk of Marcionism; only vagueness and irrational ideas.
A loss of Old Testament engagement creates deeper problems than a mere lack of knowledge. Functional Marcionism breeds many dangers. For example, “Christian” anti-Semitism has often been fueled by a devaluation of the Old Testament and neglect of the church’s Hebrew ancestry. American “Evangelical” politics frequently cherry picks Old Testament verses to support certain political goals (e.g., policies on homosexuality), while remaining ignorant of major Old Testament themes (e.g., the calling upon God’s people to show hospitality to foreigners or other outsiders).
There are also Christians who idolize the Old Testament, to the extent that they should support the Jewish people, rather than Palestinians or Gentiles. The plain reading of the book of Ezekiel, in the suggestion of a restored temple (and her revived sacrifices), motivates Christian evangelicals to support Zionist agendas to the detriment of many Palestinians. And those who idolize the Old Testament end up “cherry picking” anyway. I can agree that the Old Testament serves some purpose in understanding Jesus’ and the apostles’ allusions, but not as a primary, undisputed guide for interpreting Jesus or Christian theology; in fact, Saint Ignatius of Antioch (i.e. Paul’s disciple) taught his critics that the primary interpretive guide is Christ, not the Scriptures of old. He relays this in his epistle, “For I heard some men saying, “If I find it not in the archives (archeiois/αρχειοισ), I do not believe in the Gospel,” and when I said to them that it is in the Scripture, [but] they answered me, “That is exactly the question.” But to me, Jesus Christ is to be the magisterial record (archeia/αρχεια): the inviolable records (archeia) is His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is through Him…But the Gospel has its own superiority: the appearance of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion, and the resurrection, because the beloved prophets proclaimed [or foreshadowed] into Him, but the fulfillment of the Gospel has become incorruptible” (Philadelphians 8.2; 9.2). However, some will object by saying that Ignatius meant the grammatical reading proclaiming Christ (instead of the anagogical reading), which is a faulty interpretation, because if Ignatius meant this, then his dialogue with his critics wouldn’t exist, Christ would not be the primary guide for interpreting the Old Testament since they’re “supposedly” evident of Christ, and the Gospels would not be considered superior or preeminent according to Ignatius. In other words, the apostolic, or namely, the patristic tradition does not support the fundamentalist understanding of the Old and New Testaments. And since Ignatius is a disciple from Paul’s tutelage, this interpretive argument carries more weight than the modernist/fundamentalist understanding.
Replaced, Purged, Re-interpreted, or Fulfilled Covenant
The relationship between the Testaments is often mischaracterized as replacement or obsolescence. It is true that the Old Testament Temple and its rituals have been discontinued. The old practices as practices are now “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13). But the cross of Jesus did not repeal the Old Testament faith. The cross fulfilled — and thereby upheld — the Old Testament faith (Matthew 5:17–18). And the church still needs the Old Testament to know Christ and his kingdom fully.
The Old Testament faith was purged, re-interpreted, and fulfilled simultaneously. Because the Judaic practices have been made obsolete, this demonstrates to us that the Old Testament has been repealed. Micheal’s citation of Matthew 5:17–18 is easy to misunderstand, because Jesus does not specify as to how “the law and the prophets” were fulfilled. It is best understood as Jesus fulfilling the moral law, and He fulfilled the types and shadows and parabolic nature behind the stories and unrelated prophecies. In order to support my interpretation, the Didascalia Apostolorum (i.e. an early church order from the mid 200s) makes this very same affirmation as I have said, “But the Lord our Saviour, when He was come, fulfilled the types and explained the parables, and He showed those things that are life-giving, and those that cannot help He did away, and those that cannot give life He abolished” (Didascalia, Chapter 26, translation by R. Hugh Connolly). The Didascalia has also argued that Jesus repealed or abolished certain things, as I have argued previously. Clement of Alexandria also understood that the prophecies in the Old Testament prefigured Christ, or proclaimed Christ symbolically, instead of the context or letter:
“This, then, is the type of “the law and the prophets which were until John; “ while he, though speaking more perspicuously as no longer prophesying, but [John] pointing out as now present, Him, who was proclaimed symbolically from the beginning, nevertheless said, “I am not worthy to loose the latchet of the Lord’s shoe.” For he confesses that he is not worthy to baptize so great a Power; for it behooves those, who purify others, to free the soul from the body and its sins, as the foot from the thong. Perhaps also this signified the final exertion of the Saviour’s power toward us — the immediate, I mean — that by His presence, concealed in the enigma of prophecy, inasmuch as he, by pointing out to sight Him that had been prophesied of, and indicating the Presence which had come, walking forth into the light, loosed the latchet of the oracles of the [old] economy, by unveiling the meaning of the symbols” —Clement of Alexandria: Stromata Book 5.8
For example, the book of Hebrews states, “Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. . . . For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book’” (Heb. 10:1–7).
Micheal states unknowingly another principle of the anagogical interpretation starting with “Since” and ending with “realities” in the epistle to the Hebrews (cf. 10:1). What Micheal doesn’t understand is that the author of Hebrews is taking a verse from the Old Testament out of its original context, and conferring a spiritual reading that symbolically points to Christ. The psalm that’s being quoted is Psalm 40. It reads as follows:
Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
My ears You have opened [Hebrew Masoretic-Mt] || yet a body You have prepared for me [Greek Septugaint-LXX].
Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require (verse 6).
Because this psalm is attributed to David, I’ll just say David for the sake of articulation. David claims that God never desired offerings or sacrifices, but instead has desired attentiveness to the moral law (from my ears), or God has prepared his body for obedience to righteousness (from a body).
Then I said, Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written [of/concerning] me.
I delight to do Your will, O my God,
And Your law is within my heart (verses 7–8).
David claims that the scroll of the law has required him to live a holy or righteous life, which is why he says the law is within his heart.
I have proclaimed the good news of righteousness {or truth from LXX}
In the great assembly;
Indeed, I do not restrain my lips,
O Lord, You Yourself know.
I have not hidden Your righteousness within my heart (verses 9–10).
The last verses confirm my statement that the psalmist or David meant living a holy or righteous lifestyle, not an act of ritual sacrifice, or the act of dying by crucifixion. Now, how do any of these verses relate to Jesus symbolically? We must understand that Christ is not a ritual or legal sacrifice made to God the Father or the law of Moses. Christ is a moral sacrifice, that is, one who acts as a moral exemplar, which is the theme of this psalm. Micheal attempts to tie these verses to the Levitical priesthood, which is the antithesis of what Hebrews is conveying. The author of Hebrews (cf. 7:17) cites another psalm, saying, “For it has been testified: ‘You are a priest indefinitely after the order of Melchizedek,’ ” but why Melchizedek? The author, like when Paul argued for antiquity through Abraham rather than Moses, is arguing for Melchizedek rather than the order of the Levites in a polemic against Mosaic Judaism, and so, he makes an appeal that there is a sacrifice that surpasses the customs of the Mosaic law. But what is the sacrifice of Melchizedek? Here we read Genesis 14:18–20:
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.
And praise be to God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand.”
So then, the sacrifice Melchizedek gave was prayer and nourishment, which are acts of charity; hence, Jesus like Melchizedek is a moral sacrifice, or as Paul has said, “Therefore I urge you, brothers, on account of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (Romans 12:1). Christ’s “sacrifice” or moral example was unique, because it was the only act in history that brought people closer together (e.g. dividing racial barriers, cf. Ephesians 2:14), and bringing nearly everyone to God (cf. 2nd Corinthians 5:18). And verse 19 from Hebrews 17 demonstrates that the customs of the law did absolutely nothing for their mystical and moral condition. Clement of Alexandria would interpret the offerings prescribed in the Old Testament as symbolic readings:
“For the sacrifices of the Law express figuratively the piety which we practice, as the turtle-dove and the pigeon offered for sins point out that the cleansing of the irrational part of the soul is acceptable to God. But if any one of the righteous does not burden his soul by the eating of flesh, he has the advantage of a rational reason, not as Pythagoras and his followers dream of the transmigration of the soul…Wherefore we ought to offer to God sacrifices not costly, but such as He loves. And that compounded incense which is mentioned in the Law, is that which consists of many tongues and voices in prayer, or rather of different nations and natures, prepared by the gift vouchsafed in the dispensation for “the unity of the faith,” and brought together in praises, with a pure mind, and just and right conduct, from holy works and righteous prayer. For in the elegant language of poetry — “Who is so great a fool, and among men So very easy of belief, as thinks
The gods, with fraud of fleshless bones and bile
All burnt, not fit for hungry dogs to eat,
Delighted are, and take this as their prize,
And favour show to those who treat them thus,”
though they happen to be tyrants and robbers?
But we say that the fire sanctifies not flesh, but sinful souls; meaning not the all-devouring vulgar fire but that of wisdom, which pervades the soul passing through the fire” — Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 6.
Conclusion
The problem with Dr. Micheal’s insights is that neither of them can be proven from a grammatical reading of the Old Testament, nor from the literature of the New Testament, and even the Fathers specify as to what Paul and Jesus really meant. The dogma of contextual or grammatical inerrancy is a later deviation from Church History or Church Tradition. The Fathers would not affirm the Old Testament as this infallible text in a grammatical setting, because such an appeal would render Jesus as a void. The author of Hebrews has taught that the old covenant was not infallible, which contradicts the understanding of many Christian fundamentalists (cf. Hebrews 8:7). Some will blame this fallibility on the covenantal observance of the Jews, but the author of Hebrews blames both the given covenant and the people, so my argument still stands (cf. verse 7–8). Patristic Barnabas (from 90–125 AD) has stated that the Jews misunderstood their law by taking it plainly rather than observing the parabolic nature induced by hidden inspiration, and he has also stated that Christ came to end the human origin of their sacrifices (cf. Barnabas 2.6, 9.3). Origen of Alexandria (from 185–254 AD) has taught that the divine legislation in the Torah isn’t revealed by the textual surface, but only by means of the symbolic interpretation (cf. Contra Celsum V.60). Athanasius of Alexandria (from 293–373 AD) has conceded that God never bestowed the customs to the Israelite people, but allowed them to use it to avoid pagan idolatry, and to pave the way for the spiritual reading that symbolized Christ (cf. Letter 19, Sections 3–4). Methodius of Olympus (from 270–312 AD) has argued that human weakness invented these signs, and that as Christians, we read the law according to the Spirit and not the letter (cf. De Ciibis XI.1–2). If the Fathers’ had a view of inerrancy, it was anagogical or mystical, not contextual or grammatical as Christians wrongly profess today. The Old Testament “paradoxically” points to Jesus.
