CONTINUITY AND INTEGRATION OF THE BIBLE WITH A FOCUS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

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.

THE SCOPE OF ROMANS 13

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

The Scope of Romans 13

Discussions of Romans 13 have arisen significantly considering the vast manifestations of executive orders that have been offered during the prevalence of COVID-19. I dare suggest that Romans 13, along with a few other passages and verses of Scripture, is one of the most misused scriptures in the entire biblical canon. Submission to authorities is vital to godliness; yet, the scope of Romans 13 is perhaps not what many understand.

            In the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, government was corrupt and even persecuted Christians. Paul, however, instructs believers to submit or be subject to the governing authorities. The Greek word for “be subject” is hupotasso, which literally means to place or rank under. The term implies an intentional effort. It is similar to what Paul commands believers in Philippians 2: to have the same mind as Christ Jesus, namely a mind of humility considering others better (Phil 2:5). These instructions do not mean that one certainly is less than another person but that Christians are to act as if that is the case, as Jesus did in his earthly ministry; no greater example of humility may be found except that of Christ Jesus. To be subject to the authorities then is to consider the governing bodies God ordained to be higher in rank.

            Understanding that being subject to the authorities is an explicit instruction given to God’s people, Romans 13 must be interpreted. Are Paul’s instructions part of a blanket command to blindly obey the governing authorities, or is the scope narrower? To answer this question, there are four primary elements to consider. I will examine these elements here and then determine the scope of Romans 13.

An Individual Basis Rather Than over the Church

            Paul begins his instructions in Romans 13 with, “Let every person…” (Rom 13:1), i.e. the Apostle is directing individuals rather than a group of people, although the letter was certainly written to a group of Christians. Christians (individually) are surely called to be subject to the governing authorities; yet, even Romans 13 is seemingly directed toward individuals rather than the church as a whole. Furthermore, as John MacArthur recently contended, the Bible nowhere grants the government authority over the church. In fact, the three institutions presented in the Bible are the government, the family, and the church; in Scripture, they seem to be separate from one another so that one does not control the other. When a government or executive issues a decree or order, individuals should comply assuming it is not unethical, immoral, or against the commands of God;[1] yet, employing such orders is the responsibility of individuals to comply rather than the church. When considering the scope of Romans 13, one’s hermeneutic must include the fact that the portion of Paul’s letter is addressed specifically to individuals in the church rather than the entire body. A church’s civil disobedience, in times in injustice, then is right. Determining when, nonetheless, is a matter of seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Romans 13 Assumes Just Laws

            In the scope of Romans 13, Paul obviously contends for a government which executes justice; yet, one might question what should be done in the case of unjust laws. Certainly, degrees of unjust laws subsist. Nonetheless, Romans 13 is not an overarching grant for the government to decree anything desired; nor, is it a requirement for Christians to blindly abide by such laws of injustice.[2] A recent example is the closure of public worship gatherings in local churches by many state and municipal governments. Christians hold the responsibility to determine whether such a decree is just or unjust.[3] Edicts which violate the commands of God should surely be considered unjust and offer believers the opportunity to stand and fight for the cause of the Lord.

I tend to err on the side of freedom when determining what is just and unjust. There are surely blatantly obvious injustices, e.g. murder, racism, etc.; nevertheless, there are also issues which are not as clear, e.g. forsaking the assembling for public worship, wearing masks, etc. (to use recent examples). The US Constitution was constructed with individual liberty in mind and, further, individual liberty based upon the liberty God affords; thus, it is based with Judeo-Christian principles at its foundation. My personal criteria for justice then leans toward decrees that do not violate individual liberty, not only those that include slightly inconvenient practices, i.e. to suggest that inconvenience does not constitute a violation of individual liberty is false, for the loss of freedom occurs slowly rather than rapidly.

While many in modern society, including professing Christians, would suggest futility in the practice of civil disobedience by the church, it is good and right to stand for the causes of the Lord and to even cause divisiveness (between the church and society) on such issues. Believers should remember the call to holiness or being set apart, i.e. a catering to society on issues which violate the commands of God is not only unnecessary but also wrong. Under just laws, Romans 13 commands Christians to be subject to the governing authorities; yet, under unjust laws, Christians have the responsibility to defy orders and civilly disobey, for governing authorities hold no power except form God (Rom 13:1).

Hermeneutics Must Be Mindful of Cultural Differences

            Cultural differences between modern Western society and the society of Romans 13 should be considered in the scope of Paul’s letter. Not only is the era vastly different, so also is the type of government to which the Apostle refers. The US, for example, is a Republic, which was non-existent in the time of Romans 13. Moreover, Paul’s idea of government in the chapter centers around a federal-style government, whereas US ideas include federal, state, and municipal. The concept of municipal police is absent from Romans 13. In biblical Roman society, the government’s role includes execution of the law rather than mere enforcement of the law. An example of this is the following: when a police officer stops a driver for speeding, he or she often makes a decision to issue a citation. The citation, however, is not the execution of the law but the enforcement; the execution of the law comes in the judgment. While many use Romans 13 to justify police actions, the concept of local (state or national) police does not exist in Romans 13, and modern police roles are limited to enforcement rather than execution of sentencing requirements. This is not to say that Romans 13 may not be applied to police; it should, however, be considered in the scope of the chapter. The people to whom Paul writes abided in a vastly disparate culture and society; further, governing authorities held a greater ability to execute justice, i.e. their role was one of execution rather than mere enforcement.

Degrees of Law Apply

            A common usage of Romans 13 is that of applying it to every instance of breaking the law. Speeding, for example, is a common hypothetical situation discussed when referring to Romans 13. The idea is usually that if one speeds, he or she is sinning because they are, in fact, breaking the law of the land. Varying degrees of law, however, should be considered when examining the scope of Romans 13. There surely exists a threefold division of the law in Scripture: the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. Jewish culture would (rightly) consider breaking any part of this threefold division sinful in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. breaking the law is breaking the law no matter which part is broken.[4] One might wonder why certain Old Testament laws do not seem to apply in modern society. The threefold division of the law is an excellent explanation. God’s moral law is certainly transcendent through time because it is related to his character, whereas the ceremonial and civil laws might change over time depending on circumstances.

            Furthermore, laws hold varying degrees. God’s moral law is surely the most vital and nonnegotiable. Thus, breaking a civil law should not be considered inherently evil as is breaking the moral law. It is certainly possible (and common) for a civil law to have nothing to do with godliness. This is not to say that civil laws are always unjust, although many are; there are, nonetheless, vast differences in breaking God’s moral law and a manmade civil law. In relation (specifically) to speeding, for example, I suggest that speeding is not evil as murder is, although the two are often equated when using Romans 13 to justify corrupt governmental authority actions. Moreover, disobedience (especially) to the civil law does not negate subjection to authority, for even when one breaks the law, he or she is still subject to authority and may face the consequences of disobedience. When determining the scope of Romans 13, however, the degree of law must be considered.

To Use Romans 13 as a Blanket Argument for Blindly Honoring the Request of the State Is Both Lazy and Idolatry

            Christians should certainly be mindful of Romans 13 and heed the instructions of the Apostle Paul; yet, to use the chapter as a blanket argument for blindly honoring the request of the government and its authorities is both lazy and idolatry. To truly do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Mic 6:8) is to honor God first and then honor governmental authorities within the parameters of justice. The US celebration of Independence Day occurred last month. Many churches chose to display nationalistic items and center their supposed services of worship around the event. Many are offended by those who refuse to pledge allegiance to the American flag. I do not believe that the Pledge of Allegiance in itself, is wrong nor that celebrating American freedom is wrong. Early Christians, however, would likely be baffled and angry at the thought that Western Christians would dare bow or give allegiance to the state, especially in the context of Christian worship. We must be careful that patriotism does not become severe nationalism and, therefore, idolatry. Romans 13 certainly applies to modern life. Its scope, nevertheless, should be considered before using it as a blanket passage to support injustice.

---

[1] It is my opinion that many of the broad-sweeping executive orders issued during the global pandemic we now face are against the commands of God, e.g. churches neglecting to meet together for worship.

[2] I openly admit that the line between just and unjust laws may be blurry and interpretive at best. In most cases, it is clear; yet, there are surely times when people must determine, for themselves, what constitutes a just or an unjust law and, furthermore, pick which issues upon which to act.

[3] I personally take this as a blatantly (and likely intentionally in many cases) unjust decree.

[4] I argue that Christ came to fulfill the law rather than abolish it (Matt 5:17) so the law no longer applies. Rather, obedience to the law continues in that Christians, from an overflow of holiness, conform to God’s transcendent character rather than a set of rules.