The questions and issues surrounding Jesus are numerous, and have been outlined, debated, and often answered over the history of the church. The creeds (specifically the Apostles' Creed and the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed) lay out the foundation of our faith as it was then understood, and define some important boundaries concerning what makes up the content of our faith. An important issue which these creeds address is the identity of Jesus Christ. He is emphatically proclaimed to be One with God (as the scriptures make clear), and at the same time human. He was crucified, and he died, but he also rose again. These affirmations make up the core of what we believe about Christ. At the same time, though, they certainly do not answer all of the questions concerning Christ, or the implications of these beliefs.Jesus and the Old Testament
There are many today who are calling into question the Christian understandings and use of the Old Testament. Most orthodox Christians view the canonical scriptures as a unit, subdivided into two parts, but none the less a unit. They together tell the story of God's saving activity, first in its particularity with Israel, and second, in its further particularity in Christ, then expanded globally. The Bible as a whole tells us who God is and what God is doing in the world. As Christians, we believe that neither testament stands on its own. In the early centuries after Christ, the Gnostics and Manichees sought to remove the Old Testament, and references to it in the New, from Christian practice and faith, because they thought it told of an old, angry, lesser God who had been superceded in Jesus Christ and in the Father of Jesus Christ. This move was rather quickly and decisively put down, even though Gnostic tendencies do linger in many fringes of the church as well as outside its limits. Thus, for the early church, the Scriptures encompassed both what became to be the Old Testament, and what eventually settled as the New, based upon the apostolic tradition.
One can also look to Jesus Christ, and his own self-understanding, as well as his understanding of the siginifcance of the OT. Ben Witherington and N.T. Wright make clear that Jesus understood himself to be the messiah, an essentially meaningless category apart from Jewish Scripture. Further, the Gospels recount numerous places where Jesus quotes the Old Testament, making clear reference to himself. You could argue that this was just Jesus using words and tools available to him in his Jewish setting. Yet, looking more broadly at Jesus ministry, and what he came to do and say, he clearly understood himself to be firmly in line with the Old Testament scripture, and understood himself in relationship to the God of the Old Testament. NT Wright has persuasively argued that the kingdom of God is a key aspect of Jesus ministry. This is a category that is almost meaningless apart from the Old Testament, and clearly Jesus understood the kingdom in Old Testament terms. He also saw himself as sanding firmly in the line of prophets told of in the Old Testament, even if he also saw himself as something more.
Probably one of the best passages to look at as we discuss Jesus's relation to the Old Testament is Luke 4. This passage falls immediately after the temptation narrative, and serves to inagurate his earthly ministry. Jesus goes into the synagogue, and reads from the scroll of Isaiah, which speaks of the Lord's annointed, and the preaching of the good news of freedom, release, and the Lord's favor. He then follows this reading by saying, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21). Jesus clearly saw himself to be intimately connected to what we call the Old Testament. In fact, although some have indeed tried, it is impossible to understand Jesus apart from the Old Testament, and apart from the Second Temple Judaism of his day. In Mark 4, he explains the parable of the sower, and in fact explains the reason he uses parables at all, by quoting a passage from Isaiah about seeing but never perceiving, and hearing but never understanding. This particular quotation is from Isaiah's vision of the throne of the Lord, and is intimately bound up with the expectation of the kingdom of God, a theme which is absolutely central to Jesus life and death (N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God gives a very clear historical discussion of Jesus life, with a special focus on this theme of the kingdom which is so central).
But, even so, there are some today who would wish to stop this "violence" to the "Hebrew Scriptures" or "Older" Testament. Some even assert that this Christian understanding is anti-Jewish, and that it perpetuates anti-Jewish sentiment and violence. What can be said to this view? As we have made clear so far, Jesus saw himself to be in line with the Hebrew prophets of Old, and in fact saw himself as the promised Messiah. He came to fulfill Israel's destiny, and inagurate the kingdom of God by his preaching, through his actions, and ultimately in his life, death and resurrection. He constituted the new Israel in his followers. He was in no way denying Judaism, even though he did bring a critique of the Judaism of his day, but instead he was affirming the law and the prophets, as he came to fulfill them. This should not be thought of as anti-Jewish teaching. It is instead, as "pro-Jewish" as possible, though many Jews of Jesus day, and obviously Jews down to this day, have not seen it as such.
What does the understanding we have just sketched mean for the study of the Old Testament? First, it affirms the essential unity of the Old and New Testaments. Christianity is not a New Testament religion, and Judaism an Old Testament one. The Old Testament, as a very quick look will tell, is intimately associated with the Old Testament. The message of Jesus, and of Paul and the rest of the New Testament writings, is incomprehensible apart from the Old Testament. Jesus identity is firmly rooted on the expectation of the Messiah, the coming of YHWH's kingdom, and salvation to the nations, foundational ideas and stories we as Christians too often take for granted.
Second, our discussion affirms that the two testaments, although they are intimately related, and in fact for a unity, are distinct. There is a fundamental sense in which there is an Old covenant and a New covenant. Although Jesus clearly saw himself to be in line with the Old Testament, he also inagurated a new age, bringing fulfillment, as well as a more complete revelation of God's person and will. Thus, even as we affirm the unity of the two testaments, we must not merge them into one either. It is perfectly appropriate to be mindful of the New Testament fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies, for instance, but this should not be the only thing we read out of these passages. It is appropriate to investigate the Old Testament in its own setting, affirming the meanings of the passages for their own authors and hearers.
Biblical Studies is a challenging and promising area. It is important to acknowledge the copmlexity of the issues involved, or we will close ourselves off from some of the depth and beauty that they contain. This assertion comes clearly from our understanding of who Jesus is, and how he (and belief in him) relates to the Old Testament. Let us continue to learn from these texts, which speak to their own day, which spoke in Jesus's day, and which continue to speak to us today.
