Theology / Apologetics

Is the Old Testament Important?

Micah4 Comments

(This is more or less the prompt on which I’m supposed to write an essay for theology class. Figuring I could kill two birds with one stone, I thought I’d share my answer to this question right here.)

The Old Testament ought to be the subject of careful study and meditation for Christians. It chronicles the acts of God towards the nation of Israel. It records an extremely detailed (sometimes monotonous) history of the Jewish people. It is unique in the fact that the historical accounts are recorded with meticulous accuracy. At first glance, much of the Old Testament seems irrelevant to modern Christians. We shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss its value and usefulness.

It’s true that the New Testament is the most important proclamation of the Gospel that God has given us. It clarifies the promises that God made in the Old Testament. It reveals to us the identity and actions of the Messiah. However, without the Old Testament, the New Testament would hardly have a foundation to build upon. So much of the New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old – it completes the entire narrative of God’s love towards all people.

The Old Testament gives us much of the needed information we need to understand the New. In it, God reveals the creation of the earth, His covenants with Abraham and Moses, the Messianic prophecies of the prophets, and how He brought His plan of salvation into action.

The book of Genesis reveals to us why we are sinful and naturally enemies of God. It tells us how the first man, Adam, brought sin into the world through his disobedience. This event is referenced by Paul many times throughout the New Testament. One such example –

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…”
Romans 5:12 (ESV)

The written account of the Fall of Man provides the reason we need a savior. In a sense, the first few chapters of Genesis set the narrative for the entire Bible. Not only do we see the origin of sin, we also see the very first promise of God’s plan of salvation:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
Genesis 3:15 (ESV)

God gives the promise of the Messiah in the first book of the Bible. The rest of the Biblical narrative explains the means by which God accomplishes His plan. The rest of Genesis chronicles the covenants God made with our fathers in the faith. To Abraham, He promised that all nations would be blessed through his offspring, Jesus. God changes Jacob’s name to Israel, which would become the name of His chosen nation. We see how this nation grows and develops. We see the times they obey and disobey God.

In Exodus, God reveals the Mosaic covenant, the laws through which He would bless Israel. The giving of the Law is very important to all Christians – it shows how sinful we are, and describes what Jesus has fulfilled for us with His perfect obedience to the Law.

In the books of the prophets, God speaks of sending a Messiah who will suffer for Israel and all people. It gives us a clearer picture of who Jesus is and what He has accomplished for us. These prophesies give us exceeding confidence that Jesus is the Messiah.

There is a whole wealth of information to be found in the Old Testament. It is a beautiful account of God’s love and faithfulness. For these reasons, God blesses us and works faith in our hearts as we read His words in the Old Testament. Ultimately, it points us forward to the work of Christ on the cross. As Jesus tells us –

“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.”

Matthew 5:17 (ESV)

 

Interpreting the Biblical Text – Hermeneutics

Micah1 Comment

Hermeneutics
How can we make sense of the Bible? How can we know what it really means? One of the growing philosophies in American Christianity is a reflection of postmodernism – “Well, that’s what you think the Bible says. But that’s not what it means to me.” It is the notion that we can never really know for sure what the Bible is saying. Now, of course, humans make errors frequently. The same thing can happen when we try to discern exactly what the Bible means. Do we take it literally? Is it a figurative allegory? Is it filled with mysterious myths constructed by primitive minds?

There is a whole area of theology devoted to the study and interpretation of the Biblical texts known as Hermeneutics. The most basic definition of this word is –

The science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures.[1]

Methods of Interpretation
To start at the basis of Biblical hermeneutics, we should look back at the methods and interpretations of the Christian Church across all of history. Since the founding of the New Testament texts, Christians have, with few exceptions, interpreted the Bible in a literal and historical sense. There were a small number of the Church fathers that interpreted stories like the creation account as merely symbolic. However, there’s a slight hermeneutical nuance apparent in many of the writings of the early Church fathers: they really liked to allegorize the text. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t also take it literally. This means that they understood the text of the Bible as real, historical, literal truth, but also liked to apply every story and detail to the Christian life. While the Bible certainly does contain examples and situations we should reflect with our actions, we also have to accept that not every single sentence in Scripture is supposed to apply to our daily lives. Ultimately, the reason the Bible was written is not to tell us how to live. Rather, the narrative of the Scriptures is primarily there to point the reader to Christ and His cross.

Starting with the philosophical era of the Enlightenment, many scholars began to look at the Bible through the lens of a type of hermeneutics labeled as the “historical critical” method. At the very core of this principle is the human reason and secular thought. Instead of looking at the Bible as historical and inerrant, interpreters began to question the actual meaning and accuracy of the Scriptures. Real events like the Flood were painted as ancient myths that were just there to symbolize Biblical concepts. When miracles were mentioned in the Bible, they weren’t perceived to be true, supernatural acts. They either didn’t happen at all, or they had a reasonable explanation. This shift from the inerrancy of Scripture to a method of higher criticism is still used by liberal Bible scholars that make up much of the academic landscape of America.

The hermeneutic principle used by Confessional Lutheranism, as well as (most of) Roman Catholicism and (most) Reformed churches, is that of the “historical grammatical” method. This principle is the same one held by the Church throughout history, until people began questioning the historical accuracy of the Bible. The main emphasis of this method is on the history, context, and grammar of the text. This view holds up the inerrancy of Scripture as the sole determining factor. However, it also focuses on the historical context in which the book was written, which gives us greater insight into the text.

Scripture was not written inside of a vacuum – the books in the Bible were written by real, historical people who were writing for a specific reason. Many books were written to specific groups of people, like Paul’s epistles. The grammatical part of this method examines the structure of the language used in the texts, and uses the known rules of human languages to determine meaning. For example, when we read the word “day” in Genesis 1, we take it to literally mean a single day, because the literary and grammatical context of the word points to this interpretation.

This isn’t to say that we don’t take anything in the Bible as symbolic. Rather, we only take portions of Scripture as symbolic if Scripture tells us that they are symbolic. In the beginning of Revelation, Jesus clearly states that the lamp stands and stars that John sees in his vision represent something else, and are not to be taken literally. Above all, the historical grammatical method of hermeneutics uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. When we come across a verse with an unclear meaning, we look to other clear verses of Scripture to interpret the unclear ones. We realize that Scripture is inerrant, so we take the interpretive steps needed for Scripture to remain harmonious.

So, as a summary:

Historical critical – Bible is not always historically accurate, and the “supernatural” cannot really occur. There are many myths and exaggerations in the text that need to be recognized.

Historical grammatical – The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Scripture is used to interpret Scripture, and historical and grammatical context are very important for determining the meaning of the text. Human reason is used and is valuable, but it is not used to disregard portions of the text that our minds can’t comprehend.

P.S. While writing this article, something occurred to me: If the Bible were not a religious text, it would likely be used by secular scholars as one of the most accurate and complete historical records of ancient history. Because of the presence of supernatural elements, they disregard the whole book as inaccurate. We should be reaffirmed that the Scriptures are exceptionally historically accurate.

“All Scripture is the Word of the Holy Spirit and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Micah Jahns Paraphrase)

[1]Definition from dictionary.com

The Nicene Creed – Uniting Christians Across History

MicahLeave a comment

I’ll be honest – church wasn’t a passion of mine when I was a kid. (Hard to believe, right?) I didn’t hate it, I just didn’t completely understand its importance. I can still remember certain things happening in church when I was just a few years old. One of them feels more vivid than the rest: my reaction to the Nicene Creed.

I had always understood that there were two main creeds we confessed in church – The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. Of the two of them, the Apostles’ creed was shorter, and easier to understand. Every time our congregation recited the Nicene Creed, I became slightly frustrated. To me, it was just a long-winded version of the Apostles’ Creed. Half the stuff in it didn’t even make sense to me. God from God? Light from Light? What was the point of adding this language when the Apostles’ Creed was a perfectly good summary of Christianity?

The Apostles’ Creed definitely is a eloquent summary of the Christian faith. It highlights all three persons of the Trinity, briefly describing their areas of work and purpose. It predates the Nicene Creed, being an early confession of the Church. Early Church tradition stated that it was actually written by the Twelve Apostles, though realistically it was just a statement formulated later in the Church, having its roots in the true confession of the Apostles. It served the Church well as a confession of the true Christian faith.

The Council of Nicaea
Flash forward to the year 318 A.D. An elder of the Church, named Arius, began teaching and proclaiming that Jesus was not actually God. Rather, He was an exalted servant of the Father, not actually being divine Himself. Arius had a variety of reasons for believing this, citing Jesus’ humanity, death, and display of human emotion as reasons Jesus couldn’t actually be God. At the time that this heresy arose, the Church had not yet officially and explicitly stated the doctrine of Christ’s two natures. The ideas of Arius made sense to many Christians, giving it momentum within some of the Church.[1]

In a reaction to the spreading of this heresy, known as Arianism, a council was called together in the city of Nicaea. The council was a meeting of elders, bishops, and presbyters of the Church. The meeting consisted of a great deal of debate and discussion over the divinity of Jesus. Because His divinity was the main issue, the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit were not a main focus.

What does this Mean?
The council ultimately ruled against the teachings of Arius; Jesus was declared to be God, just as were the Father and the Holy Spirit. However, the council didn’t just write a simple or vague statement on Jesus’ divinity. The specific wording found in the Nicene Creed was chosen so that there would be no room for another heresy to develop concerning Jesus’ divinity. The Nicene Creed specifically states:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

The objective of the phrases “God from God,” “Light from Light,” “True God from true God,” and “begotten, not made, of one being with the Father,” is to emphasize the fact that Jesus and the Father are “of the same substance.” (Known as homoouisios, from the Greek word “μοούσιος,” meaning “same essence.) Jesus’ unity with the Father was emphasized, while still confessing that He is the Son of God. Jesus is confessed as the true and eternal God, just the same as the other two persons of the Trinity. It is also stated that the world was created through Him. The portion of the Creed that is quoted above is the most significant addition to the general template of the Apostles’ Creed.

The implication of Jesus not being God can be discussed at great length, but in summary it has to do with our salvation. No mere human or created creature could be the one to atone the sins of the entire world. It is imperative that God Himself was our atonement.

It is difficult to actually wrap our minds around the fact that Jesus is both God and man. It’s impossible to comprehend that there are three persons, yet only one God. Instead of attempting to understand the great mysteries of the Lord, we humbly submit to the amazing Truth he has revealed to us.

Needless to say, I no longer get upset when confessing the Nicene Creed. It’s my prayer that you, too, would contemplate and recognize the importance of this confession. Ultimately, it unites modern Christians with the historical Church in one faith. Let us rejoice in the fact that Jesus has preserved the one holy and apostolic Church through all of history, and will continue to do so until he returns in glory.

“Therefore Pilate said to Him, ‘So You are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.’

John 18:37

 

1. Justin S. Holcomb, Know the Creeds and Councils, Grand Rapids, 2014, p. 34.