Is the Old Testament truly old?
By Adesoji Fasanya
Image from clearbible.org
I grew up amidst Christian circles who esteemed all scripture as inspirational and relevant. The opinion of the Bible is to be taken as standard and final. They took the scripture so literally that Old Testament dictates are often interpreted in the light of modern trends and the practices are often upheld.
Examples range from the “white garment” circles that upheld barefooted worship in accordance to Moses’ encounter on Mount Horeb/Sinai (Scholars posit that Horeb and Sinai are two names for the same place) as documented in Exodus 3. We also have the Charismatics who take tithe and sacrifice as a practice and others who avoid the use of gold and jewelry. The list is endless.
As my sojourn through the Christian circles continued, I was met with those who posit a wedge of divide between the Old Testament canon and the New Testament. The dichotomy that they advocate isn’t minimal as some take the Old Testament as “done away”, it is over with. Some of them are labeled “Christocentric” as they often seek to elevate Christ as the focus of their theology (whether they do it accurately or not is a matter of another day). There is even a debate amongst many in these circles on where truly the New Testament began. Some favor the book of the Acts of Apostles, while other favors the Gospel of Matthew.
These debates will keep raging. However, as I transited in the walk with God from a nominal Christian to a theology-invested believer, I found inconsistency on both ends of the divide. Those who take the Old Testament as literal in this New Testament context are as myopic as those who discard the ancient texts, favoring the first-century counterpart. In this polemic, I posit that barring elemental changes in both testaments, the revealed divine principle in the Old Testament canon is as consistent as that of the New Testament. To put simply, the elements used to pass divine principles in the Old Testament vary from the elements used in the New Testament but the principles remained the same.
As you will see from the examples that follow; divine principles are eternal but due to the transient nature of mundane life, the elements upon which divine principles rest change in time.
Firstly, the act of murder is a disdain for God in effigy. God reiterated his covenant with man in Noah and verse 6 of Genesis 9, God’s reason for the illegitimacy of murder is because man carried the divine image. More so, in the Levitical system, no sacrifice purged the sin of murder. Leviticus 24:17 teaches that anyone who kills another (intentionally) deserves the death penalty. Numbers 35:31–34 is also another verse that emphasizes the death penalty for murder. Why? Because to kill is to sustain a disdain for God. It is to devalue the divine life; in murder, you desecrate God whose imager you killed. This shows that at the crux of murder is divine disdain, it is the pollution of God’s sacred space. This is why Jesus lashed on to the idea in Matthew 5:21–22. However now, he taught the element is not just physical but of the heart. According to Christ, to be angry or cause another is to commit the act of murder and it is to disdain God’s holiness. The logic is simple; by taking a life or abusing God’s imager, you inadvertently are in rebellion against God. You are telling Him, he does a poor job and He is in the wrong to give life. Ultimately, you take the role of God by taking life that you didn’t give. Only the giver of life can take it.
Another example is that via the Tabernacle/Temple, divinity longs to fellowship with humanity. In Genesis, we read about the Creator enjoying communion with His creation (Adam and Eve). The wedge that sin brought didn’t stop God from instituting the tabernacle/temple which further strengthens God’s desire to enjoy the relationship with the world that He created. This is why He came to redeem the world and this is why He will come again to judge and set up the tangibility of His kingdom.
Even the sacrificial system in the Old Testament is to pass divine principles of fellowship, atonement, consecration, trust, dependence on God, and so on. I’ll stop here due to the size of the article.
However, the point remains true; the Old Testament isn’t really old. The elements may be old but the principles aren’t. How can the principles that preceded the Old Testament become obsolete because the elements of the Old Testament got old? The New Testament’s elements are better in influence, requirement, and impact but the principles remain the same.
