Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. The Mystery of God’s Will, Revealed at the Right Time
3. The Supreme Authority of Jesus
   1. Jesus’ Radical Treatment of OT Law
   2. The Standard for Being a Child of God: Loving Enemies
   3. The Implications of Jesus’ Teaching
   4. When Jesus Reveals the Purpose of OT Divorce Law
4. The Depravity of Elijah
5. Fascinating NT “Reversals” of OT Events/Theology
6. Putting it all Together
   1. Scripture Must be Our Authority
   2. The Inconsistency of Some Conservative Interpretive Principles
   3. How to Understand Differences Between the Old Testament and New Testament Teaching
      1. How Scripture Reveals Progressive Revelation
      2. OT Law Had Its Place
      3. OT Heroes Are Still Examples of Faith
      4. How To Interpret
      5. The Heart of God Revealed In Progressive Revelation
7. Notes

Introduction

Last article in this two-part series showed us some fascinating examples of inner-biblical conflict that exist in the Old Testament. In part 1 of this series we also defined the concept of “progressive revelation” as the fascinating process by which God has breathed His word (2 Tim. 3:16) with greater and greater theological clarity over time.

We also surveyed fascinating examples of inner-biblical conflict:

1. The writer of 1-2 Chronicles said that Satan incited David to sin, which is different from the writer of 1 Samuel, who says that God incited David to sin.
2. How the Psalmist added in some huge clarifying details to an Exodus passage where the Lord is said to have struck down the firstborn children of Egypt.
3. How Ezekiel and Jeremiah essentially corrected a statement made by Moses that egregiously misrepresented God’s character.
4. How God approved of a slave-master relationship with the ancient Israelites, despite His ultimate desire being one of intimacy as a husband-wife relationship with the whole world.
5. How God had originally wanted the Israelites to enter the land without violence, and how the OT equates trusting in military might as a sinful lack of trust in Yahweh.
6. Some fascinating examples from the intertestamental period where Jewish authors intentionally distanced God from violence by reframing accounts and other scriptures.

In this article, we will see that NT Scripture places the teaching of Jesus and the apostles as head and shoulders above all previous revelation. That is, they understood that God’s revelation of Himself in the OT was partially veiled, and only Jesus Christ can reveal the fullness of who God is.

Despite this teaching, most Christians still take isolated passages from the OT and give it equal force as the NT. Many people for example, see passages in the OT about war and violence and hastily make conclusions about God’s attitude towards war (in my country [USA] most people have the privilege of not living through war, hence a cavalier attitude about it). Instead, the teaching of Christ should win on every topic.

This is certainly not to suggest that the OT is not inspired by God; no, Jesus Himself affirmed it as God’s word. But where the two testaments differ with one another, Jesus and the apostles must win. This whole survey has showed us how as time went on, biblical authors received a clearer and clearer picture of God and the world. Because of this, if we are to be under the authority of Scripture, we cannot apply a unilateral, black-and-white understanding of all Scripture passages carrying equal theological force.

Some people might affirm something Moses said, for example, without realizing that later prophets might have modified or corrected it like Ezekiel and Jeremiah did!

Let’s look at how NT authors viewed prior revelation before Jesus appeared.

The Mystery of God’s Will, Revealed at the Right Time

The NT authors even teach us that God’s will was a “mystery” before Christ was revealed. This is why John can say in John 1:17-18:

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
(Jn. 1:17-18)

Hold it, did you catch that?!

It should shock us to see John saying “the one and only Son…has made him known.” To an ancient Jew, this statement would certainly be shocking, and potentially blasphemous; all the prophets certainly made God known!

Perhaps a zealous Pharisee might say, “John, you idiot, the Torah clearly says that Moses spoke “face to face with God, as a man speaks to a friend” (Ex. 33:11). Stop disrespecting the great prophet Isaiah, who told us, “I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne” (Isa. 6:1). Why are you telling me that no one has ever seen God?”

John clearly believed that in some way, God’s true nature was veiled in the OT, even in those who were considered to be the highest authorities like the prophets. It should be understood that John was not attempting to deny OT accounts where many of these prophets saw God. But we must let the force of his statement shock us. He is teaching (in a hyperbolic way) that Jesus Christ is the fullest and most authoritative revelation of the knowledge of God. His statements put Jesus head and shoulders above all the great prophets.

Paul clearly thought that God’s nature was hidden, and finally revealed in Christ, too. This is why he can say things like:

…he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment…
(Eph. 1:9-10, emphasis mine).

God’s will was a “mystery” to Paul! In his admonition to be “transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2), he says this must happen in order for us to be able to “…test and approve what God’s will is” (Rom. 12:2). The implication here is that the will of God is something we need to grow in discerning. But as Eph. 1:9-10 says, God made known to us the mystery of his will specifically in Christ! We are to look to Jesus’s life and teaching to understand the fullness of God’s “will”!

And notice that Paul also indicates that God revealing his will was meant to be fully revealed “when the times reach their fulfillment” (Eph. 1:10) and even says that Jesus died “…at just the right time.” (Rom. 5:6). The author of Hebrews also picked up on the theme of God’s specific timing when he says, “…But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages...” (Heb. 9:26, emphasis mine). So God strategically chose a specific time period to become fully known in Christ.

The author of Hebrews also points to the centrality of Jesus Christ as God’s final Word:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
(Heb. 1:1-3)

The rest of the chapter reveals how Jesus is superior to angels, Moses, and all the prophets.

The Supreme Authority of Jesus

This is why Jesus can put Himself above the authority of Moses and the law by saying “you have heard it said” (Matt. 5:21) and then immediately follow up with “but I say to you” (v. 22).

In a fascinating article theologian Greg Boyd points out:

One of the most surprising aspects of Jesus’ teaching is that, while he clearly shared his contemporaries’ view of the Old Testament as inspired by God, he was nevertheless not afraid of repudiating it when he felt led by his Father to do so.¹

I think most of us identify Yahweh more with the Father, and therefore associate OT law with the Father. But when Jesus claims authority over the law, we should not see it as Jesus alone, but the Father claiming authority over it. Jesus’ words are the Father’s:

I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
(Jn. 8:28).

For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken…whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.
(Jn. 12:49-50)

Jesus’ Radical Treatment of OT Law

While the OT law allows people to make oaths in God’s name (Deut. 23:21, Lev. 19:12), Jesus forbade taking oaths at all, to the point of saying anything beyond a mere “Yes” or “No” is from the devil (Matt. 5:33-37).

OT punishment is stated in terms of an “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”, along with the command to “show no pity” (Ex. 21:24, Lev. 24:19-20, Deut. 19:21). Far from agreeing with both the spirit and application of this OT law, Jesus, under the inspiration of the Father says,

You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.
(Matt. 5:38-39)

The force of Jesus’ statement should shock us. Jesus tells people not to follow it anymore. The law said, “eye for an eye”, Jesus said “no, love your enemy”. We are not to follow this law anymore. As theologian Eugene Boring points out,

Jesus does more than give a better interpretation of the old authority; he relocates authority from the written text of Scripture to himself – i.e., to God’s presence in his life, teaching, death, and resurrection…²

Jesus’ teaching is even more radical because he not only repudiates a law, but He goes on to give 4 practical ways to obey His new teaching. And he “ups the ante” even more, by teaching that we are actually not to require a just payment for the sins of our enemies, but rather to “love [our] enemies”! If that weren’t enough, Jesus actually makes loving enemies a condition for being considered a child of God! Jesus isn’t just repudiating a law, as bold as that is: he is soaring far above and beyond it in the opposite direction of the OT law to “Show no pity” (Ex. 21:24).

The Standard for Being a Child of God: Loving Enemies

We should note that Jesus taught that responding lovingly to enemies (Matt. 5:45, Luke 6:35) is the condition for being a child of the Father. If this is the condition Jesus gives, one might legitimately wonder how ancient prophets and various OT characters might measure up to this standard. In light of Jesus’ standard for being a child of the Father, Boyd pointedly states that,

…it seems that anyone who acted in the violent way Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and other OT heroes acted would be considered by Jesus to be disqualified from being considered a child of God.³

A 1st century Jewish audience deeply respected ancient prophets like Elijah and saw them as examples, but Jesus’ teaching would force them to rethink what counted as a “good example”. For our purposes, this is also meant to show us how Jesus saw His teaching as inherently more authoritative than not just OT law, but all the prophets, and was bringing “new” revelation.

One response to such a radical teaching from Jesus is to suggest that He was just trying to raise the bar of “righteousness”, only for the purpose of showing us how much we need God; that is, Jesus’ teaching here was targeted at those who were not saved yet in order to show their need for salvation. Another response is that Jesus was just being hyperbolic. But both of these responses does not take into account the fact that Peter and Paul taught already redeemed believers to follow Jesus’ same teaching, literally (Rom. 12:21, 1 Pet. 3:9).

To be sure, Jesus did not have a disrespectful attitude toward OT law: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them…” (Matt. 5:17). But He certainly had His own understanding of OT law that He considered to be right, and He felt free to ignore, supersede, or even change the meaning of OT law when He felt led by the Father to do so:

• Jesus refused to follow the OT law that commanded a woman caught in adultery to be stoned (Jn. 8:1-10, Deut. 22:22).
• Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:7-8).
• Jesus changed the meaning of “unclean” by saying, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” (Matt. 15:10-11), even though after describing unclean creatures to avoid eating, the Lord commanded, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures” (Lev. 11:43, and also all of Leviticus 11).

How could God say that eating certain creatures would defile them, and then later say it doesn’t defile them? We’ll get to that in a moment, but first we need to consider other ways Jesus asserted His authority over OT law.

The Implications of Jesus’ Teaching

If Jesus completely flipped the meaning of a core law that demanded equal punishment (the “eye for an eye” law), one would legitimately wonder what His attitude would have been towards other laws that required essentially similar levels of punishment.

Are we to think for example, that Jesus (and the apostles) want us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies, but would still affirm that we should stone rebellious and disobedient children (Deut. 21:18–21)? Are we to affirm that, the Father inspired Jesus to reverse the natural implications of “an eye for an eye”, and also inspired Paul to bless those who curse us (Rom. 14:14), but that the Father still believes that anyone who violates the Sabbath should be executed (Ex. 31:14)? Nonsense!

As Boyd points out,

…in replacing the “eye for an eye” command with his love command, Jesus is not merely repudiating three verses of the OT. He is, at least indirectly, undermining the inherent violence of all retributive laws in the OT. For the principle embodied in the “an eye for an eye” is not essentially different from the commandments to execute children who slander their parents, to cut off the hand of any woman who touches a man’s genitalia, and the like. His teaching, clearly, is quite at odds with a significant portion of the OT law.⁴

When Jesus Reveals the Purpose of OT Divorce Law

Again, why does God inspire some laws only later to “update” them?

It turns out that we have a very similar question in Scripture, and Jesus gave a fascinating answer. The Pharisees asked why OT law allowed divorce, and Jesus said that this law was given only because of their hardness of heart!

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning…”
(Matt. 19:7-8)

Jesus here gives us the purpose God gave this law, and reveals its entire purpose. As R.T. France notes,

Note that whereas the Pharisees take the Deuteronomy text as a “commandment”, Jesus will give it only the status of “permission”.⁵

Jesus’ statement requires us to reject the natural implications of reading OT law on divorce. If someone read the laws on divorce in the OT, they might conclude that God condoned divorce, but without Jesus’ statement, they wouldn’t know why. This shows us how we are dependent upon the teaching of Scripture in the NT in order to properly interpret the Old Testament. The Bible cannot be treated like a wooden set of codified laws; it requires interpreting the OT in light of the NT.

The Depravity of Elijah

Once while traveling through Samaria Jesus some locals didn’t not welcome him there (for ethnic reasons?), to which the disciples asked Jesus, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” (Luke 9:54). Jesus rebukes his disciples for wanting to call down fire from heaven on this group of Samarians, even though they got this idea from one of the most famous prophets of Israel, Elijah. Elijah called down fire from heaven, killing 50 men (2 Kgs. 1:10).

Other manuscripts add that Jesus also said to the disciples, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” (Luke 9:56, NKJV, also NASB1995).

What is clear is that Jesus rebuked the disciple’s attitude, and, if the NKJV and NASB1995 version are correct, considered their request to call down fire as potentially demonic. Theologian Greg Boyd is surely on the mark when he says,

…it is apparent that Jesus would have rebuked Elijah for this murderous supernatural feat had Elijah carried it out during Jesus’ ministry. In fact, as I have mentioned several times, Elijah would not even have met Jesus’s criterion for being considered a “child of [the] Father in heaven,” for incinerating enemies is not consistent with loving and blessing them (Matt. 5:44-45, Luke 6:27-35).⁶

Boyd then proceeds to give a scathing, yet truthful critique of Elijah’s behavior that warrants full citation:

First, in contrast to the fire that Elijah called down from the sky on Mount Carmel to prove that Yahweh, not Baal, was the true God (1 Kgs. 18:16-39), this narrative does not specify that the fire that fell on these unfortunate messengers came from God. Second, it says something about Elijah’s character that immediately after Yahweh refuted the four hundred fifty prophets of Baal by raining down fire on Mount Carmel, Elijah, of his own accord, had them all slaughtered (v. 40). One might legitimately wonder why Elijah did not surmise that if Yahweh had wanted these prophets slaughtered, he would have simply included them in the fire he had just rained down…

…Third, and more significantly, Elijah was about to incinerate a third battalion of fifty men sent from King Ahaziah when the captain pleaded with him to “have respect for my life and the lives of these fifty men” by sparing them. Fortunately for these men, the “angel of the Lord” suddenly appeared and instructed Elijah to “not be afraid” and to go ahead and allow this captain to take him to the king, who was at the time dying of a fatal injury (2 Kgs. 1:15). Once Elijah met the dying king and reiterated an earlier given prophecy that he was not going to recover, the king died (2 Kgs. 1:16-17). From this, it is apparent that far from Elijah’s murderous supernatural feat being a part of Yahweh’s plan, Elijah’s mass murder was entirely unnecessary and accomplished nothing. Indeed, the angel’s response to Elijah makes it clear that his destructive use of the supernatural power that resided within him was motivated by his baseless fear of a nearly dead king. It was this fear that caused him to show no respect for the lives of the previous hundred men the king had sent - men who were simply following the dying king’s orders.

On this note, it is surely significant that the Lord had already confronted and addressed Elijah’s tendency to fear ruling authorities (1 Kgs. 19:1-8). The fact that Yahweh had to do so again in this narrative to keep him from killing more people than he already had indicates that, as is true of all the violence carried out by God’s people in the OT (see. Vol. 2, ch. 14), Elijah’s fear-motivated act of destruction was predicated on a sinful lack of trust in Yahweh.⁷

Elijah’s slaughter of the prophets of Baal is even more unnecessary when we read that when “all the people saw” Elijah’s miracle, “they fell prostrate and cried, ‘The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!’” (1 Kgs. 18:39). Presumably, the people crying out include the prophets of Baal, since the text says “all the people saw”. If this is accurate, Elijah slaughtered people who had just confessed faith in Yahweh and abandoned Baal!

Fascinating NT “Reversals” of OT Events/Theology

The following chart shows us some “divine reversals”, that point us to God’s “highest” will.

Putting it all Together

All of the biblical data we’ve observed in this article should make it obvious to us that God’s word contains inner-biblical conflict, and reveal a progress of revelation over time. We should understand that the NT and OT are not on the same authoritative “level”, and where the OT clearly teaches something that is at odds with the NT, the Lord would require us to reject the plain-sense reading.

Scripture Must be Our Authority

Evangelicals and anyone who respects Scripture as our authority would be able to immediately see a problem with this, however. You can imagine that some conservative Christians would rightly be concerned that, if we are free to reject the plain-sense reading of some OT passages, what is to restrain people from twisting God’s word to their own designs? I also agree here, that there is a danger that people may reject God’s word in the OT whenever they “feel” like it. Conservatives rightly elevate God’s word as being authoritative over whatever we “feel”; we are under God’s word, not over it.

While some people intuitively understand that God character is not as vengeful and retributive as it appears He is in the OT, these people often have no Scriptural basis for their conclusions. This survey attempts to show that this intuition is based on Scripture.

Conversely, as this survey has shown, people who treat all Scriptural revelation with equal force haven’t fully considered the biblical data and seen how the OT critiques itself, and how the NT critiques the OT. Rarely, if ever, have I heard a major Evangelical pastor even mention the concept of progressive revelation.

But the concern that people can twist Scripture to their own designs is a valid one that should be addressed. So, how can we eliminate the danger of interpreting the OT however we want, and let Scripture be our authority? Here’s how we can properly respect the Lord’s voice through Scripture:

1. Our own opinions on what we think God should or shouldn’t do should always be left out when interpreting Scripture.
2. We must humbly admit different levels of difficulty in different biblical genres. Poetic, apocalyptic, and prophetic Scripture employs a lot more metaphor than we realize, and must be balanced with easier-to-interpret genres, such as Jesus and Paul’s teaching.
3. We cannot discard the “plain-sense” meaning of any Scripture unless we have good, biblical evidence for doing so.
4. Conversely, based on the biblical data we have surveyed in this series, we are obligated to search for another meaning of a text that seems to violate later biblical revelation, especially when a given text appears earlier in the biblical record.
5. We must also consider the original context of the hearers of Scripture; that is, we must let historical context inform our understanding of a plain-sense reading. Our own plain-sense reading might contain modern philosophical biases we don’t even realize we have. For example, while I might think that God commanding war is morally repugnant and would be a bad witness to my non-Christian friends, an ancient non-believer might not think this at all; in fact, they would probably see it as completely normal. They might even think that some depictions in the OT were actually merciful instead of violent!

While the OT is under the authority of the NT, it would be foolish to think that the OT shouldn’t be studied deeply. It is a vast treasure trove of revelation from God! In fact, when Paul said that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for instruction and “training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), he was probably referring primarily to the OT; there was no compiled New Testament when Paul wrote his letters! We should also not fall into the trap of the Marcionites, an ancient heretical group who wanted to say that the OT was not even inspired by God. Jesus affirmed it as Scripture. I think that some passages and examples of the OT contain even deeper aspects of God than the NT.

The Inconsistency of Some Conservative Interpretive Principles

Conservative principles of respect for Scripture must be maintained, but most conservative commentators seem to have overlooked the fact that Scripture does not always “behave” like they want it to. God’s word is not a nice and neat set of propositional truths, like codified legislation. To properly respect it, there must be a truly objective look at the biblical data. It seems like the conservative tendency to try and always reconcile seemingly “contradictory” biblical statements is based on both an ignorance of the biblical record, and an unawareness biased opinions of what God’s word “should” look like. This is, by definition, making God in our own image; or in biblical terms, idolatry. When we do this, we miss out on the truth that can set us free to be transformed into the likeness of God (2 Cor. 3:18). It’s about seeing Him!

There is also another inconsistency in the conservative insistence on letting Scripture be our authority; commentators fail to the impossibility of excluding our own feelings/intuition in the interpretation of Scripture. Everyone does this, whether they think they do or not.

It would be a violation of conservative interpretive principles to grant, for example, that our own intuition or “feelings” (as if feelings are not based on thoughts!) should be involved in interpreting and applying Scripture. It sounds more humble and “objective” to say “God’s word should determine our interpretation, not our own feelings.”

There is certainly some truth in this statement, but it is an over-simplification. All of us agree that we should obey commands of Scripture, but why do we refuse to apply Paul’s command for women to wear head coverings (1 Cor. 11:13-16), greet each other with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thess. 5:26), drink wine for stomach issues (1 Tim. 5:23), and that widows should only receive church support if they are at least 60 years old (1 Tim. 5:9)? As the biblical scholar Craig Keener says,

Paul provides many direct commands that we do not observe today, and some that we cannot observe today. How many Christians put money into savings the first day of every week for a collection for the saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1-3)? Paul commands his readers to receive Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:29), but since the latter is now dead, we cannot fulfill this command literally. Paul exhorts his readers to pray for the ministry of himself and his companions (2 Thess. 3:1-2), but it is too late to pray for their ministry today. Instead we learn more general principles about hospitably receiving and praying for God’s servants.¹³

If we are to consistently let Scripture and Scripture alone determine our interpretation, and we are obligated to always remove our “intuition”, we should always be following these commands! It sounds nice to say “No ifs, ands, or buts about God’s word!”, but it is impossible to remove intuition from biblical interpretation; rather, our intuition must be informed by Scripture, in the same way our intuition about, say the motivations and intentions of our spouse or loved ones should be based on good evidence, especially through one-on-one conversation.

There is no Scripture that ever tells us, for example, to just “know” that Paul didn’t intend some of his commands to apply for all time to every circumstance; rather, we discern universal principles like love and affection to apply to our current situation.

It also means we need to do more work in order to hear God through Scripture. People generally don’t want to take the time to do this work, but this is what it takes to grow in relationship with the Lord. No good marriage for example, can grow without each person putting in the work to know the other.

How to Understand Differences Between the Old Testament and New Testament Teaching

Lastly, I want to address how we can understand why God could have inspired previous revelation in one way, only to have Jesus change it later, for example with the ancient “Eye for an eye” law. We should avoid the two ditches our modern worldview tries to push us into: thinking Scripture is untrustworthy, or attempting to bend the truth in order to reconcile two seemingly “contradictory” Scriptures.

First, the teaching of Jesus demands us to submit our intuitions and interpretations about God to Him, not the other way around.

Second, we must let the biblical data inform our understanding of God’s seemingly contradictory inspiration of Scripture. It is not an option for us to think that God did not inspire OT law.

How Scripture Reveals Progressive Revelation

But given we have already seen how the OT equated military violence with a sinful lack of trust in Yahweh, how God approved of a slave-master relationship with the Israelites, even though His highest purpose was a husband-wife relationship, how biblical authors distanced God from violence, how God could not relate to Israel how He wanted because of their stubborness, how God accommodated rebellious tendencies like wanting a king, and even allowed them to divorce because of the hardness of the hearts, we should understand that God inspired some OT law more because of the fallen, culturally conditioned state of the Israelite people, rather than God’s “highest” will. God appeared to have condoned a “slave-master” relationship because that is what Israelites needed and expected, not because God wanted it; there is no other way around this biblically, since God made it clear that He desires a husband-wife relationship rather than a slave-master one (Hos. 2:16-23, see also Rom. 9:24).

We must also remember that God’s “will” was considered a mystery by Paul, fully revealed in Christ. Prominent figures in Church history like Augustine, John Calvin, and Thomas Aquinas all agreed that God revealed His Word according to the capacity of those hearing.

OT Law Had Its Place

So laws like the “eye for an eye” law had its place, but now Jesus sets it aside in order to destroy the “dividing wall” of hostility its application (and the law itself) could create (Eph. 2:15, NASB).¹⁴ Paul compared OT law to a “guardian” of a boy, and when Christ came, the time had come for maturity for the “boy” to no longer need a guardian (Gal. 4:1-6). When Jesus came, it was time to move on from the mere natural outward form of the law, to the deeper, spiritual meaning of it, which was God’s true purpose (Heb. 8:5, Heb. 10:1, Col. 2:16-17).

OT Heroes Are Still Examples of Faith

This series has also evaluated Old Testament heroes like David and Elijah according to Jesus’ standards, which shows how they would have certainly fallen short. But we should not pretend that these OT heroes did not display dramatic trust and faith in God; they certainly are examples of faith in God (Heb. 11). In my view, ancient prophets are commended for their faith because they responded so well to the limited revelation they had of God, and certainly exhibited deep trust in God. I don’t think the author of Hebrews is trying to show us examples of morally superior people (e.g., Rahab the prostitute is included), but is rather highlighting examples of those who lived lives of faith. All OT heroes had obvious moral flaws, but it is also true that most of them exhibited trust and faith in God more than any of us has, and perhaps more than any of us ever will. We should look to the places in their lives that show that trust, and let their lives disciple us.

How To Interpret

So when we come to something in the Old Testament that seems to be at odds with the teaching of Jesus or the apostles, we must re-interpret the “plain sense” meaning and see what God was really up to, while still placing our intuition under the authority of Scripture. I can imagine some might want to discount all of God’s “wrath” simply because Jesus doesn’t seem “wrathful”. No, Jesus and the apostles affirmed a final judgement for all humanity. But our understanding of “wrathful” must be informed by the NT understanding, which is different from the OT “plain-sense” interpretations (an article for another day!).

The Heart of God Revealed In Progressive Revelation

The biblical survey we’ve conducted should also reveal the depth of God’s patience and His love and commitment to humanity. In the same way that God does not force us to have perfect knowledge of Him and might even let us misrepresent Him to our friends, family, or strangers, God also did not force ancient Israel and even the prophets to have a perfect understanding of Him; as a faithful and patient God, He walked with ancient Israel with great patience, to include mis-representations of His character to be included into the biblical witness, that the Lord knew people would use to revile Him, as is the case today when atheists malign various depictions of God in the Old Testament.

I don’t know about you, but I see the Father’s heart through it all. I see a good father who maintains an undying commitment to children who continually disobey, misrepresent, and even hurt their father. This Father is not an overly demanding one who requires absolute perfection in His word, the way that God is particularly with Islam and the Qur’an; Islam teaches that the entire Qur’an was dictated by God to Muhammed. But God does not do this, but chose rather to include the faults of His own family into the written record of Scripture, reflecting the deep patience and love of a faithful “husband”:

“In that day,” declares the Lord,
        “you will call me ‘my husband’;
        you will no longer call me ‘my master.’
    I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips;
        no longer will their names be invoked.
    In that day I will make a covenant for them
        with the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky
        and the creatures that move along the ground.
    Bow and sword and battle
        I will abolish from the land,
        so that all may lie down in safety.
    I will betroth you to me forever;
        I will betroth you in righteousness and justice,
        in love and compassion.
    I will betroth you in faithfulness,
        and you will acknowledge the Lord.

“In that day I will respond,”
        declares the Lord—
    “I will respond to the skies,
        and they will respond to the earth;
    and the earth will respond to the grain,
        the new wine and the olive oil,
        and they will respond to Jezreel.
    I will plant her for myself in the land;
        I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’
    I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’;
        and they will say, ‘You are my God.’”
(Hos. 2:16-23, see also Rom. 9:24)

Notes