The Christian Life and Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament - Essay Example

Religion Journal Anyone who would write about the teaching of Jesus first deals with the problem of ascertaining what that teaching was. The Old Testament can be seen and understood in relation to Christ. Jesus found guidance for his ministry and preaching in the Scriptures of his people. The earliest preachers used the Old Testament to show God's purpose in Christ, and interpreted the Christian faith as the divinely given fulfillment of the faith of Israel. If Christianity is true, the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament is the true interpretation. Other interpretations are either limited or erroneous; for Paul says of the veil which kept the Jews from full and true understanding of the Old Testament's ultimate meaning for faith, "only through Christ is it taken away" ( II Cor. 3:14). The Old Testament is the church's book, one with the New Testament as Scripture and guide for Christian faith and life. of common ideas. There is such a common fund of basic ideas. We have already noted how many central ideas Jesus shared with the Old Testament. The same kinship occurs in the apostolic preachers and in all the New Testament writings. This alone, however, would not give a Christian message. It would rather mean that the Old Testament is the normative part of Scripture, by which Jesus and the New Testament are controlled. But this reverses the true relation between the Testaments. The New Testament and the apostolic preaching have a new note and center. It is not necessary for our purposes to consider the methodological niceties involved in the task of sifting the teaching of the historical Jesus from the tradition, but some introduction to the endeavor would be helpful. Imbedded in this three-layered evidence are sayings of the historical Jesus, and in order to identify them three criteria of judgment may be applied to the earliest form of the saying that can be recovered from a reconstruction of the history of the tradition. he first and fundamental criterion is the criterion of dissimilarity, and it holds that sayings and parables which can be shown to be dissimilar to characteristic emphases in both the Judaism of Jesus' time and in early Christianity are probably from the mouth of Jesus. This is a minimalist criterion, since it excludes those sayings in which Jesus might have repeated elements from his religious heritage, and those which the church might have taken over from Jesus; and both kinds of sayings were surely on his lips. Nevertheless, in its scientific austerity the criterion of dissimilarity is the surest place to start in seeking to recover the teaching of Jesus. The three angels bring messages in the eternal gospel (v). Angels can be compared with messiahs who inform the audience about certain events: Babylon the Great and the warning message brought by the third angel. Historically, Bible was used to justify racism and injustice because it is always seen as the main books of moral laws and rules, cods of ethics and behavior. The Bible says something essential about God. In the present world the purpose and justice of God are not clearly apparent. A Christian will not question God's justice, but conditions in the world do not demonstrate it. Faith cannot escape the conviction that in the end God will vindicate his justice, manifest his fairness and goodness, and show his power to achieve his purpose. To regard this present tangled world situation as our last word about God would be fatal to New Testament faith. Jesus was not a figure of the past for his followers, but a living presence. He had risen from the dead and was spiritually present in his communities; his apostles and prophets spoke words inspired by his spirit, and since no strict distinction was made between the remembered words of the historical Jesus and the inspired words of the risen Christ, the tradition contains both kinds of material arbitrarily. It is also necessary to a sound faith in human destiny. It is not now obvious that life deals out fair treatment and offers wholesome fulfillment to all who seek it. Yet this is clear to Christian faith. Those who put their trust in God and seek to find and do his will are certain in the end to receive a rich, full answer to their prayer for true life. They will receive perfectly fair dealing at the hands of God 2. Using the evidence form the Bible and the New Testament, I perceive Jesus as the Lord. The prophetic role can also be assigned to this figure. Wherever men have denied the humanity and human career of Jesus, the church has roundly condemned this failure to take seriously the human life and historical ministry in Palestine. It has seen that such conclusions would be fatal to its gospel. More than once in the history of Christian doctrine, the ministry and teaching of Jesus have not been given their full and essential role in the confessions of the church. Complete and radical error on this point is fortunately impossible, because the church had the guidance and wisdom to give the Gospels a prominent place in its permanent canon of Scripture. These Gospels will not let either the Christian or the church forget the challenge, promise, and power of the historical ministry of Jesus Christ. The gospel story of the life of Jesus, while it agrees with the rest of the New Testament that the Christian message is and always must be centered on the Bible, prevents any idea that Jesus is a rival of God or is independent of his will and work. The Christian message understands God through Jesus Christ; the Christian comes to God through his Son. But the God-centered focus of the teaching and life of Jesus forbids the Christian to think that Christ replaces God or excuses man from clear loyalty to God. The ministry of Jesus gives the gospel story its healthy roots in the background and life of Israel. The detailed account of that ministry makes clear the Jewishness of Jesus, his indebtedness to the Old Testament and his forefathers, and the continuity of his work with God's previous work in Israel. To find the gospel rooted in that strange ancient setting creates problems of study and interpretation. But the roots and meaning of the gospel become clear only when we see it in the setting of first-century Judaism. The gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of David, who lived and taught in Palestine and ministered to human need among his people until he died for those he loved, still rings with reality. The great affirmations of Christian faith, its great creedal declarations, its dedication in worship to the Lord Christ, are possible and have meaning only because the teacher and prophet, the healer and friend, steps forth from the pages of the Gospels to confront us and compel our loyalty. To despise the humble life of the prophet of Nazareth would be to lose the exalted Lord of the church. This Gospel tells who Jesus is; he is the Christ, the Son of God. It tells what he offers men; he offers them eternal life. It tells them what they must do to receive that divine gift; they must believe in Christ the Son. We do not learn from this Gospel what Jesus said on numerous religious, ethical, and social questions, nor does it tell what he did in varied life situations which could guide his followers in meeting such problems. It has a central interest and sticks to its specific chosen theme. The church has always known that on that theme, this Gospel says what Christian faith must say. But this Gospel does not give us the full tradition of Jesus' teaching and ministry. For the range and focus of that teaching, we must turn to the Synoptic Gospels. Only against the background of their more detailed account does the figure of Jesus in the Gospel of John possess its memorable vividness and power. Evil appears powerful and threatens to win triumph after triumph until it completely controls the field. The weakness of much thinking about the future is right here; it is too easily content with assurance of isolated personal salvation. The New Testament breathes continually the conviction that the cause of God, the cause of human justice, will win out over every force of evil. Jesus is the Lord because he exhibits all virtues and moral values unachievable for a common man. The New Testament is concerned first of all with the work and purpose of Jesus; it could never rest content with the assurance to individuals that they at least will not be dragged down in the general defeat that may overtake God's cause. It has to assert that God is just; that his good and gracious purpose will be fulfilled; that individuals find their assurance as they find their place in that work of God which is moving to certain victory. 3. Part of the significance of Jesus' miracles lies in their evidence to Jesus that this effective rule of God was beginning. We usually think of these miracles as expressions of Jesus' compassion, and so they are. His human kindness, his care for health of body and mind as well as of soul, find winsome expression in these powerful acts. But Jesus saw more in them. He saw the triumphant power of the Spirit of God at work to banish sickness and death as well as sin and frustration (Matt. 12:28). To those with eyes to see, they were clues that the kingdom of God had begun to be effectively established in their midst. This prelude pointed to the certain and not too distant coming of the full Kingdom, where God's will would be fully done and his people would find perfect blessedness as God's gift to those who trust him. Evil would be defeated and eliminated, the right would be vindicated, and the justice and goodness of God would be clear. That power found expression in many ways. It appeared in the endurance with which the church faced hardship and persecution. It prompted courageous public preaching and bold defense under varied and difficult situations. It explains the miracles of the church. The "signs and wonders and mighty works" which Paul had done in his ministry ( II Cor. 12:12), he twice ascribes to the powerful working of the Holy Spirit ( Gal. 3:5; Rom. 15:19). Our modern study of the New Testament miracle stories might well begin with these three passages. They are firsthand testimony of one who knew that remarkable events had occurred during his ministry. They could rightly be called mighty works or miracles. He knew he had not done them by his human power. That the Spirit of God had worked through him was the only explanation with which Christian faith could rest content. The Book of Acts fully confirms this point of view of Paul. Great acts were done, but it was "the name of Jesus Christ" (3:6) or the power of the Spirit (4:29-31) which brought them about. These expressions of the Spirit occurred in groups where worship and search for the will of God were preparing the Christians to receive divine guidance. They came through one or more participating members of the groups. The human mind and voice had their part to play. We may shrink from such a picture and see immense possibilities for self-deception and mistake in such circumstances. The early church knew the pitfalls of such Spirit-led life in the churches. A man could pretend to a piety he did not have ( Acts 5:3). Unfit men could try to do miracles in the name of Jesus ( Acts 19:13). Prophets could lead in worship and yet fail to express the true will of God; other prophets needed to discern whether the utterance was a genuine word of the Spirit to the worshiping church ( I Cor. 14:29). Even the risks which this brings must be readily accepted. The use of intelligent judgment is not excluded but rather required. The church has a duty to single out and reject utterances, proposals, and choices which are not the will of the Spirit. But it would be fatal to Christian faith, worship, living, and leadership if the church were to renounce the leadership of the Spirit in the choice of its leaders and in their work. The church cannot live by the independent human thought and decisions of even its best members. The grace and work of God initiates, supports, and guides all Christian faith, worship, action, and leadership. Miracles are important for the Bible and followers because they prove divine nature of Jesus and his supernatural abilities. The Spirit makes that divine work effective in the church. To seek and follow the leading of the Spirit is absolute necessity for every Christian and for all genuine church leadership. But this is far from being the whole truth. They could not say that the Kingdom had fully come, that God's will was being done on earth as it is in heaven. (Matt. 6:10.) Jesus spoke of the fully realized kingdom as future. This change of emphasis was not an essential change in Jesus' message of the Kingdom. To be sure, if Jesus had spoken of the eternal Kingdom, present before he came and continuing in and beyond his ministry, then stress on the fresh privilege of eternal life, given to the believer only now through the earthly career of Jesus, would be a noteworthy difference between the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. 4. Mark's Gospel records the examples of poor discipline in order to teach followers and show them possible consequences of poor discipline. In many case, Jesus could not speak of himself as Messiah for what people would hear in such a statement would be a claim to political kingship. The claim would expose him to arrest and execution as a rebel by Rome. This was no imaginary danger; it was on that very charge that he finally was put to death upon the cross (Mark 15: 26). To avoid intervention by the Romans, to avoid misunderstanding of his purpose by the people, to concentrate upon his prophetic message, and win the voluntary allegiance of men to the will of God, Jesus said nothing of his conviction -- which had come to vivid consciousness at his baptism by John -- that he was chosen by God to be Israel's Messiah (Mark 1:11). Even when Peter discerned the secret, Jesus did not want it noised abroad. It would still be misunderstood; as the sequel proved, even his own disciples did not yet understand him. Jesus had penetrated into the secret of spiritual victory; he had to look forward to the Cross. The victory God would win, the only victory to which Jesus could look forward, would come by the path of willingly accepted suffering. When on his final visit Jesus entered Jerusalem with a mute reference to the humble scene described in Zech. 9:9, he showed that he was ready for those who had insight to learn his secret, but he did not force it upon them. The certainty that the word Christ would be misunderstood if he used it openly in his ministry, the desire to put God's claim before men free from distracting features, and the political danger involved in using the term of himself sufficiently explain the reticence of Jesus. But the early church understood from the first that he was the Messiah and had known himself to be such. The gospel writers all know that he held this view. The placard on the Cross shows that the Jewish leaders charged him with claiming messianic kingship, and Pilate condemned Jesus on the pretext that he had made that claim. When we consider the witness of the early church in which eyewitnesses held a prominent role, the witness of the Gospels -- which have eyewitness testimony as a basis -- and the charge of the high priests and the decision of Pilate, we can only conclude that Jesus held himself to fulfill the messianic expectation. He was the source of the view of the Apostolic Church. This is the only natural explanation of their prompt and unhesitating identification of the crucified and risen Jesus as the Christ of Israel. Even so clear a passage as Mark 3:6, which tells of a definite plot against Jesus' life, must be used with care. The form critics have taught us that most units of the gospel tradition were handed down without clear and explicit information as to just when and where the events and sayings took place. Mark 3:6 is the climax of a series of controversies. In them opponents attack Jesus for his disregard of Jewish law and customs, and he gives a telling reply which the church has used and preserved in the Gospels. Two things, however, are quite clear. One is that Jesus throughout his ministry encountered opposition. Great crowds thronged about him on occasion, but when the full extent of his demands became clear, many turned back, and even when the crowds were enthusiastic, the background of official opposition persisted. Jesus had challenged the validity of the oral traditions which to Pharisees formed part of the revealed Law of God ( Mark 7:9-13); he had challenged the authority of established leaders and spoken for God without official support or authorization (Matt. 5:20). He had rebuked men who profited by the sufferings of their fellows (Mark 12:40), and had asked those satisfied with respectable, lukewarm religious observance to give complete obedience to God (Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46). The martyrdom of John the Baptist was a warning. The continued and even intensified opposition of the religious leaders was a warning clue to danger ahead. Quite likely these events were collected in this series to serve the teaching needs of the church. 5. The most challenging ethical standards for me is "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". In real life, it is very difficult to follow this rule because everyday we face crucially and inequalities and try to resist them. This change of emphasis is not an essential change in Jesus' message of the Kingdom. Such real personal life has to have for us a conceivable center and means of expression. With the law of God written in their hearts, they will live in willing and glad obedience and in rich fellowship with God and Christ. Their life will be wholesome and happy and given to the worship and service of God. Jesus had presented the Kingdom as purely future and not yet present in any real sense, the emphasis on present possession of eternal life through faith would be a radical alteration of his teaching. But when we once see that in Jesus' view the Kingdom has already begun to come in his work and movement, the change of atmosphere in the Gospel of John is not radical. For most people it is difficult to believe in future but pay no attention to material gains and wealth. The American dream and values of society are based on material possessions and prosperity. The passage stresses the future note, while the Gospel of John accents the present privilege, but these two aspects appear in both forms of the message of Jesus. To us today, the term kingdom may seem uncongenial. Our political outlook does not make a kingdom seem the best form of life. So we may tend to prefer the phrase "eternal life." For our present purpose, it is worth noting that the term kingdom protects three aspects of Jesus' mind which the phrase "eternal life" does not specifically state. For one thing, the term kingdom states clearly that God is our King and Lord, and not merely our elected official. Moreover, the reference to God, whether directly or in Mathew's substitute "Heaven," reminds us that we are not talking merely about our personal state of well-being. In the way of life Jesus presented, God is the central figure and his rule is the basic interest. Furthermore, while eternal life could easily be understood today in purely personal terms and lose its intended sense of community, the word kingdom clearly reminds the Christian that he is one of God's people, and that his life is lived in the mutual relationships of that community. The word kingdom forces us to recognize the social as well as the basically religious aspect of Jesus' message. Of course, the phrase eternal life, when used by those who know the biblical message, will suggest both the religious and the social aspects of Christian life. We only point out that the expression kingdom of God explicitly includes both of these essential points. This life with God is life in a fellowship of worshipers. In both the Old and New Testaments the people of God furnish the setting of individual faith and worship. So, too, in the final order it is not as hermits, but as sharers in a human fellowship that men know and worship and serve God. But such good life exists only where man obeys God's will. Man is so made that he is not himself, he cannot find happiness, unless he accepts God as his Lord and lives in obedience to the divine will. But, as the New Testament sees, man has not yielded this acceptance and obedience. He is a sinner. His need roots in this fact. And this need is universal. No stress on the initiative and work of God excludes or obscures the responsibility of man to make the right response. To recognize the primacy and completeness of God's work through Christ puts the focus where it belongs, and gives the credit where it is due. But God has made man as a person, responsible for right decision and action. The gift of redemption does not relieve man of responsibility, but rather creates the urgent responsibility to respond promptly in the way which God intends. Man must respond in honesty. He is not what he should be. The Christian life, therefore, is shaped by loyalty to Christ; it is given guidance and power by the Spirit. The whole life is involved in this dedication. Every phase of life is included in this loyalty. Works Cited 1. The Bible. www.bible.com Read More