Have the Hebrew Scriptures Become Second-Class Among Christians? Part 2
Introduction
In the last post, I compared running a race in which a runner hands off a baton to another runner to how many evangelicals view an alleged handoff between the Jewish Scriptures and the New Covenant.
In foot racing, a technique called the handoff, or baton pass, is used. One runner passes a strike (baton) to the next runner. The goal is to keep running without dropping the baton. Once the baton is handed over, the former carrier drops out of the contest and allows the handoffee to keep running.
This is how most Christians view the relationship between the two testaments. The baton is the redemption story that runs through both volumes. The Old Testament, or the first runner, hands off the redemption thread to the New Testament (second runner). Next, the Old Testament drops out of the race. Evangelicals will often say the Tenach has done its job and there is no longer a need for the Hebrew Scriptures.
Are these evangelicals correct? Did the Jewish Scriptures hand off the redemption story to the New Covenant and then drop out of the race? Does the Hebrew Bible still speak to us today, or has the ancient text completed its job?
As far as I can tell, the runner attached to the Jewish Scriptures is still part of the race and continues to speak to us today.
I propose that BOTH TESTAMENTS grasp the baton of the redemption story and run the race together, hand in hand. Despite what Christian theologians and pastoral figures teach, NT writers do not view the Tenach as outdated, discarded, or unnecessary.
I’ll address these issues in great depth in this post and the next. In the meantime, I want to clarify my terminology. The reader will note that I refrain from any overuse of the term “Old Testament.” The word OLD makes the Hebrew text appear outdated or even inferior to the NEW Testament.
Therefore, I prefer terms like Jewish Bible or Scriptures, Hebrew Text, or the Tenach. Tanakh is an acronym using the Hebrew letters that describe the three-part breakdown of the Hebrew text: Torah, Nevi’im (the prophets), and the Ketubim (the writings). The first letters of these three terms are as follows: TNK, or TeNaK, also spelled Tenach. When I do use the term “Old Testament” in this post, it is mostly for stylistic reasons.
The Evangelical Justification for Neglecting the Hebrew Scriptures
A few months ago, I enjoyed an online message explaining a passage from the letter to the congregation at Colossae, also known as the Epistle to the Colossians. The pastor/teacher did a stand-up job honoring the text. I am extremely familiar with this well-known expositor, having listened to his copious messages before. However, during this talk, the speaker referenced the need to teach the New Covenant Scriptures over and above the Hebrew text. I was puzzled and caught off guard.
The pastor further explained that the Old Testament points to the coming Messiah while the NT reveals Jesus as the promised One. Therefore, the Tenach needs to drop out of the race and allow the New Covenant to complete the marathon.
This expositor insinuated that a spiritual leader of an NT church should not spend too much time teaching through the Hebrew text. He quoted a passage from 1 Corinthians to bolster his point: “Now these things [the stories in the Hebrew Scriptures] took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did (1 Corinthians 10:6, brackets mine, ESV). From this passage, this preacher surmised that NT Christians don’t need the Jewish Bible as much as the later revelation of the New Covenant. The Old Testament, according to this spokesperson, gave us examples, but not the fullest truth.
I was bewildered by these observations. Next I looked up this expositor’s list of sermons. He has a worldwide ministry and is best known for his commentary-style approach of navigating through the NT text. Yet, despite his extraordinary expository gifts, this brother in the Lord taught in the Jewish Scriptures nearly 8-10% of his fifty-plus years in ministry. He appears to have relegated the Old Testament to the used tool shed. Now a brand-new, shiny instrument known as the NT replaces it.
To his credit, this pastor maintains Israel is the recipient of God’s promises despite their lack of faith in Yeshua as Messiah. However, when it comes to the books, chapters, and passages of the Jewish Scriptures, this expositor has knocked the OT down a few notches by sidestepping the Hebrew text in his week-to-week preaching of the Holy Scriptures.
Sadly, I believe this man of God is not alone in assigning a second-class status to the Jewish Bible. Scores of well-educated pastors across America tend to skirt the books of the Tenach each Sunday morning.
Some pulpit giants take the route of only navigating OT books that are easy to preach and more palatable to their Christian audience: Jonah, Ruth, Esther, the life of Joseph and David, and selected Psalms. Throughout their years in the pulpit, these speakers keep returning to these same “easy listening” OT books.
Please don’t think I am disparaging the work of these servants of the Lord. My concern is that expositors spend more time in their preaching on the wonderful writings in the Jewish Scriptures. Otherwise, God’s people are left starving for the deep messages found in the Hebrew text.
Don’t worry. At the end of this post, I will pay my respects to the many admirable Christian scholars and leaders who are exceptions to my observations and show the highest respect for the entire Hebrew text.
The Evangelical Tendency to Christianize the Hebrew Scriptures
Many times I am enjoying a baseball game between two teams vying for first place. Each at-bat is a major battleground between the pitcher and the hitter. Suddenly, the ESPN broadcast crew switches to another game. What happened? Perhaps some producer decided another matchup has a more important impact for the postseason, or an alternate contest plays to a larger market that will please the advertisers.
I feel many pastors switch teams while teaching from the Tenach. They may teach from a passage in Micah or Habakkuk that addresses a historical problem in Israel. Because they think the New Testament is superior (I’m speculating), or they realize they are speaking to a non-Jewish audience, they switch teams in their preaching and start talking about the Church.
Here the pastor strips the Old Testament passage of its relevance to Israel. Consequently, Israel in an Old Testament book becomes the Christian Church. Consequently, the message of a text in the Hebrew Bible no longer applies to Israel, but to New Testament believers. In my previous post, I designated this phenomenon as “replacement hermeneutics.” I also like to think of this approach as “Christianizing” the Jewish Scriptures.
Much of this switcheroo preaching is influenced by a pastor with a replacement-theology perspective. In traditional replacement theology, there is little room to believe God has brought the Jewish people back to the land of Israel, nor does the God of Abraham have an eternal covenant with Israel (despite the plethora of OT texts that state the contrary).
In other words, to the RT proponent, the Jewish people are no longer the Lord’s chosen people. In fact, only Christians are God’s elect ones. This idea of the Church replacing Israel trickles down into a Sunday sermon quite frequently. The switcheroo is subtle and often easy to miss.
In no way am I discounting any legitimate application of an Old Testament passage to New Testament believers. Of course, the spiritual messages of the Hebrew Scriptures apply to followers of Yeshua. I would be remiss to deny this truth. Yet I would also be in error if I failed to admonish biblical expositors preaching from the OT to honor the original context of a passage AND to punctuate the original message to the Jewish people.
God’s love and commitment to Israel did NOT come to a screeching halt with the close of the New Covenant canon.
Bottom line: the purveyors of replacement hermeneutics are often seeking ways to transform the Jewish Scriptures into the Christian Scriptures by ignoring the message to the original audience-the Jewish nation.
Let me explain from the New Covenant itself. In 1 Corinthians 10:11, Paul encourages his readers that the events and stories of the Jewish Bible serve as examples or lessons for New Testament Christians.
Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come (1 Corinthians 10:11, bold formatting mine, ESV)
Here the Jewish Apostle refers to the events of the Tenach, such as the wandering in the wilderness, supernaturally drinking water from a rock, eating the manna in the wilderness, and passing through the Red Sea as examples (τύποι, types, signs, or patterns) to teach ALL messianic believers.
Neirfy | Dreamstime.com
Rabbi Shaul is writing to a mostly Gentile congregation in Corinth. For his non-Jewish audience in Corinth, Israel’s experiences in the desert were NEVER part of their history. Still, Christians can benefit spiritually from these historical accounts. However, Paul never implies that his terminology would reduce the Jewish Scriptures to mere stories and examples to teach NT followers of Yeshua. If so, this approach would give NT interpreters the freedom to Christianize the Jewish Bible.
As a Jewish follower of Yeshua, the events, places, experiences, and people of the Torah are spiritual examples and lessons for my Gentile fellow believers and myself. Yet the examples found in the Tenach are much more. They are an important part of my messianic Jewish identity-the history of the Jewish people. Unlike the Gentile believer, these HISTORIC circumstances constitute an essential part of my heritage-nationally and spiritually.
When Stephen recounted the spiritual history of the Jewish people in Acts 7, he spoke to a Jewish audience. He addresses them as “brothers and fathers” in Acts 7:2. Throughout his speech in Acts 7, Stephen did not review Bible stories or examples; instead, he recounted incidents that formed the history of the Jewish people.
In fact, no less than nine times in Acts 7, Stephen used the phrase “our fathers” (See Acts 7:11, 12, 15, 19, 38, 39, 44, 45 [2x]). Because of this national connection he had with his fellow Jews, this Jewish follower of Yeshua was able to candidly admonish his Jewish audience not to be like “our fathers” who rejected God’s message through the prophets. Stephen viewed this spiritual resistance to the Hebrew prophets as “our problem.” Stephen did not speak as an outsider, but as a member of the spiritually failed Jewish nation.
If we view the Tenakh only as a lesson book for Christians, we miss its overall purpose: to show how God called the historical nation of Israel into being, through that nation brought forth the Messiah, and blessings to the nations. If one’s theology lacks these components and sees the Old Testament only as a repository of stories to enhance the Christian life, we sadly miss the larger meta-narrative of the Word of God.
Furthermore, without this viewpoint, the Christian might ignore the Jewish background of the Tenach and CONVERT the Jewish Scriptures into a book ONLY meant for Christians. The temptation for the pastor to Christianize the Hebrew Scriptures in his weekly messages is that much greater.
The Evangelical Need for the Interpretive Guidance of Yeshua
Bible scholars estimate Yeshua quoted 60-70 verses from the Jewish Scriptures. If you include allusions and verbal echoes He made from the OT, the number rises to well over 100. He quoted from Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Daniel, Joshua, and Malachi.
After His resurrection, Yeshua accompanied two disciples traveling on the road to Emmaus, a village located 7 miles from Jerusalem. Instead of gravitating to Jerusalem, where the events of Yeshua’s death and resurrection took place, these disciples were heading elsewhere.
These two men appeared downtrodden and disappointed because of the recent death of Jesus. Perhaps His death may have dashed their messianic hopes. The text recounts, “But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened” (Luke 24:21 ESV). These two followers also recalled reports that Yeshua might have been raised from the dead.
To straighten these two disciples out, Jesus taught them everything the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied of Him. He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ [Messiah] suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in ALL the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:25-27 bold and uppercase formatting mine, ESV).
Several observations must be included here.
First, Yeshua used the Hebrew Bible as His only source for His messianic claims. To support His messianic credentials, Yeshua did not recount His miracles and many supernatural signs. He did not boast about the large number of Jewish people following Him. He could have cited encounter after encounter in which He refuted the Pharisees’ objections to His messianic claims. Instead, Yeshua ONLY used the Hebrew text to validate His claims.
Second, Yeshua urged His followers to search for very specific messianic themes in the Tenach. Yeshua told the two followers to examine the Hebrew text to discover passages that specifically speak of the Messiah’s suffering and resurrection (Psalm 16, 22; Isaiah 53; Zechariah 12).
These two uninformed disciples failed to see that the events of the past few days surrounding the Messiah’s suffering and death and eventual resurrection were predicted in the Hebrew text. Luke describes them as “looking sad” (Luke 24:17). In response, Jesus corrected their defeated outlooks: He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ [Messiah] should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26 ESV)
Third, Yeshua never implies that non-messianic texts are subpar to the messianic prophecies. In other words, Yeshua never suggested the sections of the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets that did not prophesy of the Messiah were no longer important.
In contrast, Yeshua referenced Israel’s continued place in God’s future prophetic program, both indirectly and directly. These prophecies did not drop off because they did not reference the Messiah’s first coming. Much to the chagrin of the replacement theology crowd, Yeshua still emphasized God’s commitment to Israel in reference to both the first and second advents.
Here are a few examples to support my premise.
In the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25), Jesus assumed the Jewish people would be back in the land when end-time events unfold during the Tribulation period, and He returns to earth. In Matthew 24:15-16, Yeshua speaks of a Temple standing in Jerusalem, which assumes the Jewish people have returned to the land post-70 AD: “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24:15-16, bold formatting mine, ESV).
In addition, the Messiah cautions that the tribulation events before His return do not occur on the Sabbath (24:20), which again demands a Jewish presence in the land. Jesus also speaks of His twelve apostles ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel in the future kingdom: “Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28 ESV). Here Yeshua assumes the Jewish people will be gathered into their twelve tribes in the land of Israel (see Revelation 7:1-8).
In the Book of Acts, Peter admonished Jewish people to accept Yeshua so that God may kick-start His program of messianic redemption for the nation of Israel, “that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ [the Messiah] appointed for you, Jesus, (Acts 3:20, bold formatting mine, ESV).
Don’t forget the future-looking promises God made through Rabbi Shaul in Romans. Paul clearly taught that in the end times God will save the entire nation of Israel, not only a remnant (Romans 11:26). He also doubled down on the fact that Israel’s failure to accept Yeshua brought blessing to the Gentiles. Read Romans 11:11-12: “So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! “(Romans 11:11-12 , bold formatting mine,ESV).
If Israel has been replaced by the Church, according to RT, how can these passages make any sense?
The fulfillment of passages pointing to the suffering and glory of the Messiah in the FIRST COMING does not cancel or eliminate passages that point to events about Israel that take place after the coming of the Messiah.
Fourth, Yeshua Himself interpreted the messianic prophecies that support His messianic claims. Luke noted that Yeshua explained or interpreted the Scriptures to the two disciples. The word used in Luke 24:17 is διερμήνευσεν, or diermayneusen (Luke 24:27 GNT28-T), to indicate interpretation or explanation. This word also appears in Luke 24:27; Acts 9:36; 1 Cor. 14:5, 13, 27. The lexical form of this word is diermēneuō, from which we get the word “hermeneutics,” which is the discipline of interpreting the Scriptures,
Yeshua did not merely READ the Scriptures to the disciples. Yeshua expounded the passages to them. He offered these two eager learners a mini-course in hermeneutics. Yeshua’s treatment of the messianic prophecies challenges us not only to read these passages to seekers, but to explain them in depth.
The Evangelical Contradiction to Their High Regard for Scripture
This August, I listened to a message from a pastor in Simi Valley, California. The sermon was from a summer track in which the church staff presented an exposition of Ezra and Nehemiah. The series showed great respect for the Hebrew text of these historical books. One of the elders concluded the presentation with a brief survey of the prophet Malachi-the final book of the Protestant canonical sequencing.
To help his congregation understand the relationship bedtween the two testaments, the speaker compared the books of the Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) canons as a two-act play. He compared the 39 books of the OT to the first part of a stage play, with the intertestamental period as a 400-year intermission. Next, he portrayed Act II, the play’s closing finale, as the New Testament.
In light of the revelation of Yeshua as the Messiah as prophesied in Act I, His appearance gave greater meaning to the closing act of the play. In other words, Act I had as its purpose to point to the second Act. Because the curtain closed on the final act, the first part of the play was no longer as important.
I thought this analogy was helpful, but upon further contemplation, I winced at its nuance. Has Act I, aka the Hebrew Scriptures, become unnecessary or second-class? After all, according to the pastor, most people don’t go back to the opening scene of a play once it has concluded.
Is it correct to compare the relationship between the two testaments to a two-act performance? Did the emergence of the New Covenant render the older Tenach to a lesser status?
As I see it, Act I, or the Old Testament, is still alive and speaking to us.
For example, check out the message to Israel in Hosea 2:19-20: “And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD (Hosea 2:19-20, bold formatting mine, ESV).
Since the message of the prophet Hosea is included in Act 1 of this biblical spectacle, are Hosea’s words still applicable to Israel, or do they belong ONLY to the opening scenes? Is Israel no longer the wife of the Lord God?
Are you beginning to see why this analogy eventually falls apart?
Has the arrival of the New Testament canceled God’s marriage to the Jewish people? The words “forever” that describe Israel’s relationship to the God of Israel demand that Christian theologians not write off Israel as God’s chosen nation.
Let’s get down to brass tacks: Is all of Scripture inspired, or is the inspired status changed with progressive revelation? To gain clarification from the New Testament, let’s read 2 Timothy 3:16:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17, bold formatting mine, ESV).
If ALL the Word of God is God-breathed, then Replacement Theology defenders must admit that some parts of the prophetic scriptures remain unfulfilled or whitewashed using replacement hermeneutics. The unfulfilled sections of Hebrew prophecy should still be viewed as God’s holy word and treated as such. Right?
Is God’s covenant with Noah not to ever destroy the earth with a worldwide Flood still applicable, or was that only a performance in the early scenes of Act 1? Are God’s eternal promises to Israel no longer applicable because the nation has not yet embraced their Messiah? If so, how does this stance affect one’s view of the character of God? Can His word be trusted, and does His “truth” change in light of further revelation?
Let’s pull some principles from 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which establish the high view of God’s word:
First, the biblical authors view ALL Scripture as God-breathed. “All Scripture” [πᾶσα γραφὴ] includes the Jewish Scriptures found in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and perhaps some New Testament books or letters available when 1 Timothy was penned and circulated.
Paul is saying the WHOLE Bible is God-breathed. Thus, a pastor who neglects teaching from the Old Testament exposes his tendency to place the Hebrew text on a lower tier, despite what he says in his doctrinal statement.
Second, all 66 books of Scripture are of divine origin. God inspired the Book of Jonah as much as He breathed into Paul’s letter to the Romans. Yes, the messages are different. Their importance carries different weight. Regardless, God inspired both books, and we should treat them as such. God breathed into both the Book of Exodus and the Gospel of John. Both books are God-breathed, though each book serves a different purpose.
Third, all Scripture carries divine authority. I’ve spent several summers revisiting the powerful message of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. These three chapters carry divine authority and teach us what makes a follower of Yeshua different from someone who chooses not to follow Him.
In the same Greek canon, Paul pens a one-chapter letter to his friend Philemon about a runaway slave, Onesimus, who has fled to Paul. Paul urges Philemon to welcome Onesimus as a messianic brother after his recent spiritual conversion. Do we toss out or downplay the letter to Philemon as less inspired than the Sermon on the Mount because the former does not include all of the eight beatitudes? Of course not. Both segments of Scripture have their own purpose among God’s people and should not be seen as less inspired or ignored because of this differentiation of purpose.
Fourth, all Scripture is sufficient to equip believers for the spiritual life. Look at what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says about the sufficiency of Scripture: “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV).
According to Paul, ALL Scripture is profitable or beneficial for moral and doctrinal teaching. The Moody Bible Commentary suggests, “Scripture can be used to instruct those who believe, reprove those who do not, and correct those who have been led astray” John Koessler, 2 Timothy, The Moody Bible Commentary; eds. Michael Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham; (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1909.
Even after Yeshua fulfilled many messianic prophecies found in the Hebrew prophets, Rabbi Shaul maintained that followers of Yeshua-Jewish and Gentile-are to uphold the Hebrew canon as their source for godly living. The Greek scriptures offer no evidence that the First Testament is less important, has faded away, or has been replaced by documents not yet canonized.
Let us not neglect the fact that 2 Timothy 3:16 was written to Gentile believers as well as Jewish followers of Yeshua. This means Gentiles who know Yeshua are to uphold the Jewish Scriptures “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” I would add that it is incumbent on Gentile followers of Yeshua to understand the Jewish background of the very Scriptures they adhere to.
Conclusion
I do not want anyone reading this article to think I am down on all evangelical teachers who exposit the Jewish Scriptures. Not ALL Christian pastors are guilty of “replacement hermeneutics.” In fact, many Bible teachers who use replacement hermeneutics are not even aware of what they are doing. I hope this article encourages many of these well-meaning expositors to examine their attitude toward the Jewish Bible.
More importantly, I want to tip my cap (even though I don’t wear one normally) to the Gentile pastors I know who preach through the Hebrew Bible and allow the ancient inspired text to breathe.
I deeply admire these brothers in the Lord. I mean living expositors like Pastors Alan Jackson, Jack Hibbs, Shawn Thorton, and many others I don’t know who teach from the Jewish Scriptures while showing the text the highest respect. Other teachers, some of whom are no longer with us, consistently preached through the OT: J. Vernon McGee, Chuck Swindoll, James Montgomery Boice, and Charles Spurgeon. I apologize for leaving out other worthy Bible expositors.
Many Hebrew Scripture scholars in the evangelical and non-evangelical world have influenced my journey through the Scriptures.
I am still learning from books and commentaries written by John Sailhamer, Bruce K. Waltke, Tremper Longman III, Ben Witherington III, Kenneth Barker, Joyce Baldwin, Carl Friedrich Keil, Franz Delitzsch, and Walter Kaiser. I do not agree with everything these intellectuals have penned. However, I have always been able to pull something valuable from these contributors.
I have poured over Hebrew Grammars and Hebrew Syntax volumes written by co-authors Bruce Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, as well as grammarians like T. Muraoka and Miles Van Pelt. I’ve consulted research books on the Septuagint compiled by Karen H. Jobes, William A. Ross, Albert Pietersma, Alfred Rahlfs, Peter Gentry, Alfred Jellicoe, and Moisés Silva.
I deeply appreciate the scholarship of G.K. Beale, Craig S. Keener, and D. A. Carson on how the New Testament uses the Jewish Scriptures.
Why have I included these scholars? All of these biblical scholars are Gentile. I deliberately left out messianic Jewish scholars and traditional Jewish commentators who have added to my understanding of the Tenach.
Yes, I am deeply indebted to countless Gentile scholars whose works on the Jewish Scriptures have shaped my thinking.
In the final installment of this series of posts, I plan to examine the important issue of biblical interpretation, or hermeneutics. I plan to challenge those who subscribe to replacement hermeneutics. Hopefully, they will reconsider how they are unknowingly placing the metanarrative about Israel in the OT on a lower shelf.
Leave a Reply