Continuity and Integration of the Bible with a Focus on the New Testament
Disparities of Scripture-reading and
interpretation subsist within the life of the church. On one extreme, one may
read mere portions of the Bible with preconceived notions and make grave errors
in interpreting the text. On the other extreme, however, one may pursue scholarly
excellence and yet still with preconceived notions, which lend themselves to a
negative and even false interpretation. Regarding New Testament study, it is
clear that its writings should be examined with the metanarrative of the entire
Bible in mind.
Culturally, the New Testament was
written in a vastly different era and from an exceedingly different perspective
than modern Western civilization. Often, Bible students are guilty of studying
the New Testament in “much the same way as it would operate in our own society”
(Malina, 2001, xi). Cultural perspectives are inevitable and, therefore, give
every reader of the New Testament a hermeneutic, i.e. no uninterpreted
extrabiblical text or commentary is possible to exist. The danger is that such
interpretations are often the bedrock of shaping an entire people.
Interpretation then should be as accurate and informed as possible.
Discrepancies found in the New Testament are often boldly noted by critics; contrarily, those who only understand New Testament writings based on singular passages or verses run the risk of perpetuating and perhaps enhancing the arguments of those critics. The paradoxical issues of the New Testament may be reconciled, however, on the basis of its overarching thematic content and its continuity of such thematic material in content. In this essay, I will submit the basis for both the New Testament’s continuity and integration to conclude its persuasion by the resilience of the text.
Continuity in
Quality
The New Testament’s continuity
primarily comes in the way of quality. To examine the New Testament properly is
to consider it as a part of a whole, i.e. the metanarrative of the entire Bible
must surely be considered when examining individual passages or even verses
within the New Testament writings. When this occurs, paradoxical issues tend to
become clearly connected and sensible to even the most skeptical of readers.
Often, skeptics seem to disconnect New Testament writings from those of the Old
Testament. Unless the New Testament is viewed in light of the entirety of
Scripture, it will certainly seem disconnected. The foundational reasons for
this are 1) the employment of metaphor in the New Testament and 2) the seeming
chasm between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament; both
include the same God; yet, the difference in the old covenant and the new
covenant require reconciliation.
The New Testament is replete with
metaphorical writings. Even Jesus’ use of parables often includes metaphor.
While metaphors could easily create the illusion of contradictions, determining
what texts include metaphor and how to interpret them is vital to a proper
understanding of New Testament continuity. Scripture often uses metaphor or
even poetry to suggest a key theme. “…biblical poetry
offers a precise language for focusing on the narrative’s central
themes, themes that are extended throughout the plot—throughout the
various actions of the characters—but then gathered and compacted together
into poetic lines” (Whitlock, 2015, p. 87). Jesus claims to be the door (John
10:9). One would be a fool, however, to believe that his claim references a
literal door. Although the dividing line between metaphor and literal
interpretation could be blurry, I contend that most instances are clear;
nonetheless, one must determine these instances to see the continuity of the
New Testament.
Further,
the New Testament uses many metaphors to reveal an overarching theme within the
framework of Christianity. The New Testament, for example, speaks of Jesus as
light (1 John 1:5), as the shepherd (John 10), unbelief as darkness and night
(John 3:19), and Christians as fruit-bearing trees (Matt 7:17-18) (Kamagaraj,
2006, pp. 121-122). When the use of metaphor is separated from the New Testament’s
use of literality, one may more easily see and understand the continuity of
quality that exists in its text.
The
second solution to understanding the New Testament’s continuity is reconciling
the disparate approaches of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. Both
testaments include the same God; nothing about him changes (Heb 13:8).
Arguments against Christianity often include references to Old Testament laws
which do not seem to apply in the New Testament. One should, however, know and
understand the threefold division of the law under the old covenant: the moral
law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. God’s moral law includes edicts
which are transcendent through time as a part of his character; ceremonial and
civil laws are not necessarily linked to God’s character. Such is the reason
homosexuality is still considered to be sin in New Testament writings but
eating (what was once considered) unclean food is no longer sinful (Acts
10:9-16). “Uncleanness is perceived in its essence as disorder, a threat to
social harmony and decency, an element tolerable only at the margins, but
preferably completely beyond the borders maintained by a society” (Passakos,
2002, p. 277). Such rules against eating unclean food were given by God for a
specified time and people under Old Testament law and greatly (and perhaps
unnecessarily) enhanced by religious leaders. Under the new covenant in Christ,
however, laws like this, which are not connected to God’s character, are
nullified and void.
It
is incorrect to say that God changed in the New Testament, for even under the
new covenant, his wrath is understood to be given to those who do not receive
Christ. Under Old Testament laws, ceremonial animal sacrifices were made in
atonement for sin; under the new covenant, Christ has become the permanent and
better atoning sacrificial lamb. Therefore, the God of the Old Testament and
the New Testament is reconciled as the same God. Moreover, the Old Testament
laws which are seemingly absent from the New Testament may be reconciled with
an understanding of the complete plan of God, i.e. the finalized new covenant
in Christ. In the new covenant, laws which were not connected to God’s
character were fulfilled by Jesus (Matt 5:17); laws which are transcendent
through time as a part of God’s character, however, remain in effect and should
be employed by God’s people as an extension of his nature.
New Testament paradoxes are seemingly problematic; yet, when examined considering the entirety of the Bible, the continuity in quality is evident. God’s complete plan of salvation is made evident through all writings in the Bible. Perspectives certainly vary, e.g. the disparate approaches of each gospel writers; yet, each perspective points to the same overarching theme: namely the lordship and deity of Jesus Christ around whom all of Scripture centers.
Integration of
Christ the Son
By way of integration, the New
Testament centers around Christ, his lordship, and his Sonship. John’s Gospel
even begins by presenting Jesus as the word from the beginning who made all
things (John 1:1-2). The metanarrative of Scripture extends from Jesus, who he
is, and his work in the lives of his people. All of Scripture then holds the
same theme; even individual portions of the Bible
ultimately point to Christ. “…this is what unified the two Testaments: it was
not simply content, pulled apart from the seams of its narrative, but the
narrative itself that was important” (Embry, 2002, p. 103). All content within
the Bible centers around Christ. What the New Testament then does is offer God
as a person: Jesus. While Christ is certainly present in the Old Testament, in
the New Testament, the Christ is Jesus.
Critics
might point to a discrepancy between the means of salvation in the Old
Testament and that of the New Testament. Nevertheless, “New Testament authors
took over both the terminology and theological implications [of justification] from
the Jewish heritage” (Popkes, 2005, 121); therefore, reconciliation is offered
there. Furthermore, James seems to differ from Paul on the means of
justification, for the author speaks of works in a significant manner. When
James’ letter is examined closely, however, it becomes clear that his concept
of works is that of what is derived from something deeper: namely justification
by Christ alone.
New Testament writings surely include paradoxes but paradoxes which are reconciled in light of the gospel and the entirety of the Bible. The overarching theme throughout the New Testament is Jesus Christ. While the details of New Testament paradoxes should certainly be addressed, one should not lose sight of the theme: Jesus, his lordship, and his Sonship. Christ the Son is replete throughout the New Testament. Thus, the integration thereof is certainly plain.
Persuasion by Resilience
of the Text
What the biblical canon has overcome historically is a feat of endurance in itself. The fact that the text has been preserved for thousands of years should grant readers a sense of security in its reliability. The resilience of the text speaks volumes to the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament. While various approaches are taken in interpreting Scripture, it is right for professing Christians to question those who ridicule the Bible and its legitimacy. “It is indisputable that the Holy Bible forms the basis and foundation of faith for all Christian churches and confessions. At the same time we cannot overlook the fact that with the passing of the centuries this foundation has continually suffered from various alterations, misinterpretations, and distortions” (Nikolakopoulos, 2002, 339). The New Testament holds a secure continuity in its quality, i.e. despite a plurality of paradoxes, reconciliation thereof is possible and necessary when the New Testament is read with the metanarrative of the gospel and of the entire Bible in mind. Additionally, the integration of Christ’s lordship and Sonship is replete throughout the New Testament writings as a resounding theme worthy to be studied, read, and believed. When New Testament seeming discrepancies are resolved, the reader must decide for himself or herself which course of action to take: believe on the name of Jesus for salvation or continue to reject the one who indisputably lived and died for the sins of his people.
References
Embry, Brad (2002). The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament:
Intertextuality and the Need for a Re-Evaluation. Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 13 (No. 2), 99-136.
Enuwosa, Joseph (2005).
African Cultural Hermeneutics: Interpreting the New Testament in a Cultural
Context. Black Theology, 3:1, 88-98.
Epp, Eldon Jay (1974). The
Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 93 (No.
3), 386-414.
Kanagaraj, Jey J. (2006).
Use of New Testament Metaphors in Mission. Transformation,
Vol. 23 (No. 2), 118-128.
Kinyua, Johnson Kiriaku
(2013). A Postcolonial Translation of Bible Analysis and Its Effectiveness in
Shaping and Enhancing the Discourse of Colonialism and the Discourse of
Resistance: The Gikuyu New Testament – A Case Study. Black Theology, Vol. 11 (No. 1), 58-95.
Malina, Bruce J. (2001). The New Testament World: Insights from
Cultural Anthropology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin
(2002). An Orthodox Critique of Some Radical Approaches in New Testament
Studies. Greek Orthodox Theological
Review, 47 (1-4), 339-355.
Passakos, Demetrios, C.
(2002). Clean and Unclean in the New Testament: Implications for Contemporary
Liturgical Practices. Greek Orthodox
Theological Review, 47 (1-4), 277-293.
Popkes, Wiard (2005). Two
“Interpretations” of Justification in the New Testament Reflections on
Galatians 2:15-21 and James 2:21-25. Studia
Theologica, 59, 129-146.
Whitlock, Matthew G. (2015).
Acts 1:15-26 and the Craft of New Testament Poetry. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 77, 87-106.
