Old Testament Theology

Paper Presentation
Topic: Relation between the Old Testament and New Testament

Submitted to
Rev. Suraj Chellaya

Submitted by: Chawngrosiem Joute (M.TH 1OT)

Date: 23/3/2022

LUTHER W.NEW JR.THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE

1
OUTLINE

I. Introduction

It is said that the Old Testament looks forward and anticipates the new, while the New looks
back and builds upon the Old. The New not only supplement the Old: it complement is as
well. Jesus himself attested that he was the realization of that which Abraham, Moses and the
Prophets had envisioned. The salvation history in the Bible is the history of God’s mighty act
on earth as he revealed himself to his people and this revelation reached a climax in Christ.
Thus, The New Testament becomes much richer in meaning when it is studied in the light of
the Old Testament.1

However, the relation between the Old Testament and the New Testament though
seems to be very clear and simple, but it also becomes an issue since long time back till to
this day. As some problem arise out of this relationship, this paper will look into what is the
problem and how the Bible itself clarify its relationship, and how the latter period of the
church deal with this issue.

II. The Problem

The New Testament had been the record and testimony of the life, death and resurrection of
its founder, Jesus Christ, and of the formation of the Christian church. However, one
fundamental problem, not the problem of other faith, but the problem of Christians
themselves is whether or not the Christian too needs an Old Testament. Is the Old Testament
to be thrown away as obsolete, or preserved as a relic or treasured as a classic and read by
scholars, or used occasionally as a change from the New Testament, or kept in a box in case it
should be needed some day? Or is the Old Testament an essential part of the Christian Bible,
with continuing validity and authority alongside the New Testament? The importance of this
problem was forcibly expressed by Bernhard Anderson (1964) in his introduction to a
symposium on the significance of the Old Testament for the Christian faith:2

No problem more urgently needs to be brought to a focus than the one to which the
following essays are addressed: the relation of the Old Testament to the New . . . it is a
question which confronts every Christian in the Church, whether he be a professional
theologian, a pastor of a congregation, or a layman. It is no exaggeration to say that on this
question hangs the meaning of the Christian faith.

Another debating point is “How much Continuity or discontinuity is there between the Old
Testament and the New? The most important debate is about whether the NT interprets the
Old in line with the original OT meaning. Does the NT show awareness of the contextual
1
William W. Stevens, A Guide for New Testament Study (Tennessee, Nashville: Braodman Press,
1977), 13.
2
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and the
New Testament (Illinois: IVP Academic, Intervarsity Press, 2010), 23.

2
meaning of the OT references to which it appeals? How much continuity or discontinuity is
there between the original meaning of the OT passages and their use in the NT? 3

Still another argument point is the Influence of Jewish Interpretation on the New
Testament Writers. One widely held position is that Jesus and the writers of the NT used non-
contextual hermeneutical methods that caused them to miss the original meaning of the OT
texts that they were trying to interpret. In doing so, they were influenced by their Jewish
contemporaries, whether in earlier rabbinic midrashic exegesis, Qumran scrolls, or Jewish
apocalyptic literature. It is said that this non-contextual method is illegitimate for today.4

III. Biblical foundation Approaches

A. Old Testament View of its relationship to the New Testament

The Old Testament itself has many things to say about its relationship to future faith. Even
scholars like; Bultmann, von Rad and others have taken the Old Testament’s ‘openness to the
future’ to be the factor in its view of God, humanity and history. This means that the Old
Testament is look forward/future. Of course the Old Testament is also very much concerned
with past and present realities.5 A significant aspect of Old Testament faith and religion is its
expectation of the future. .
A.1. Development of future expectation
Israel, their future hope has developed from the Bible itself. Several passages were given that made
them to look forward (Genesis 12:1–3; 49; Exodus 3:8; Numbers 24; Deuteronomy 33; 2 Samuel 7;
23:3–5; Amos 5:18; and Psalms 2; 45; 68; 110.) Zimmerli traces this Old Testament hope in great
detail and points to seven examples of future expectation in the primeval history alone (Gen. 1:26;
2:17; 3:14–20; 4:11–15; 6:5–8; 8:21–22; 11:4). Early Israel has optimistic view of hope physical and
spiritual, political and family realms.
Distinctively Old Testament eschatology is grounded in its view of history and
theology, in which God is seen to be active in the history of Israel. So the Old Testament’s
hopes for the future are based on:
• the certainty that God is real though life may be hard (Vriezen 1953);
• the tension between the immanence and hiddenness of God, which leads to the hope that
God’s presence will be perfected in a future coming ( Jacob 1955)
• the perception of the radical sin and unbelief of the people that can be overcome only by
God’s grace (Bultmann 1933);
• the prophetic conviction that God will act in the future as he has acted in the past, though in
an entirely new way (von Rad 1960:.
Old Testament future expectation is also based on Prophetic Eschatology. The pre-
exilic prophets attack the popular optimism of Israel and proclaim the radical and impending
judgment of God; the post-exilic prophet introduce optimism as they point to a new
beginning, a new creation and a new salvation. At least four major features of the prophetic
expectation of the future may be a people, a place and a person. Since the days of the
prophets started the “Day of the Lord” is expected they hope that God would intervene in the
history of Israel against their enemy. The prophets also look forward to a renewal of the

3
G.K. Beale, Hand Book on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation
(Michigan; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 19.
4
G.K. Beale, Hand Book on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation,
19.
5
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and the
New Testament, 26.

3
people of God. After judgment there will be restoration. There is also the hope Materialistic
blessing and the hope of Messiah.6

c. Apocalyptic eschatology
Toward the end of the Old Testament period, apocalyptic eschatology began to take the place
of prophecy. This change may be seen in texts such as Isaiah 24 – 27 and 56 – 66, Daniel 7 –
12 and Zechariah 9–14; and many apocalypses were also written in the intertestamental
period. The initial impetus for this development may be seen in the disappointment
experienced by those who returned with high hopes from exile to the Promised Land, but
found themselves still under foreign rule and with little prospect of ever being an independent
nation again. Two distinctive features of this apocalyptic eschatology are the figure of the
‘son of man’ (Dan. 7:13–14) and the picture of the resurrection of the dead (Isa. 26:19; Dan.
12), both of which become very important in later Jewish and Christian thought.7

d. Expectations and tensions

In expectation, the Old Testament looks forward to the future; according to Christian faith –
looks forward to the New Testament. However, the Old Testament ends not only with
expectations of the future but also with inner tensions that remain unresolved. There is a
tension between Jewish exclusivism and universal missionary concern, for the Jewish belief
in both the election of Israel and the world supremacy of the one God. There are also tensions
in the roles of Israel’s leaders: between the prophets, priests and the wise, and between
charismatic leaders and dynastic monarchs. Above all, there is a tension in the Old Testament
between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Whatever it might be the case, all the
Old Testament authors are convinced that God is ultimate sovereign over creation and
history, but in practice it often seems that the divine purpose will remain unfulfilled because
of on the part of human sin and failure.

B. New Testament View

The Old Testament looks forward to the New, so also the New Testament. The New
Testament writers were aware and convinced that as the Old Testament prophets had foretold,
the Messiah had been born, and the long awaited Son of Man had come. The Day of the Lord
had dawned; the world and the people of God were about to be renewed.

B.1. Jesus and the Old Testament

The use of Jesus in Old Testament has two main features; types and predictions. In persons,
institutions and experiences of Old Testament Israel, Jesus saw ‘types’ of his own person and
work which portrait the continuity between God’s acts in past and present history. And in the
messianic prophecies, as well as more general passages about the work of God in Old
Testament, Jesus found ‘predictions’, which he fulfilled in his life and future glory. However,
the portrayal of Jesus was not only limited to passages specifically reflected or fulfilled in his
life and work. In the words of Jeremiah ‘Jesus lived in the Old Testament.’ From the Old
Testament he learnt about God and humanity, worship and ethics; and he frequently used Old
Testament language in formulating his own teaching. Sometimes Jesus followed
contemporary methods of interpretation, but often his Old Testament interpretation was quite
revolutionary. On the one hand, he asserted firmly the absolute authority of the Old

6
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and the
New Testament, 27-28.
7
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and the
New Testament, 29

4
Testament (Matt. 5:17–20; 22:34–40); on the other, he ventured to sharpen or suspend some
of its provisions (Matt. 5:21–48; Mark 7:14–23).8

B. 2. The substructure of Christian theology:

The early church when a developed method of biblical study, certain major passages of the
Old Testament (especially from Isaiah, Psalms and the Twelve) was interpreted as
testimonies to Chris. Harris and Dodd 1952 also demonstrated in their work and their work
was reviewed and refined by Albl (1999). The principles of interpretation are consistent with
all the main New Testament writers. These Old Testament passages and their New Testament
interpretations contain the fundamental ideas about Christ that form the substructure of
Christian theology. According to Dodd, sentences from OT passages are quoted not as
independent testimonies but in order to point to the longer passage of the context.9

B. 3. New Testament interpretation of the Old

Most of the New Testament writer frequently quote from the Old Testament and such
quotations inevitably involve interpretation of Old Testament texts that the historical and
theological basis for the writing of the New Testament was the Old Testament.
Amsler (1960) investigates interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews, 1 Peter,
John, Paul, Acts and the Synoptic and he concludes that New Testament interpretation is
based on the dei (‘must’) of the passion and resurrection announcements in the Synoptic
Gospels, which is summed up in Jesus’ words recorded in the third Gospel: ‘These are my
words that I spoke to you while I was still with you – that everything written about me in the
law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled’ (Luke 24:44). There are several
common characteristics in the interpretation:
• have the same basic orientation to the Old Testament, recognizing that the
significance of the Gospel events is seen clearly only in the light of the Old
Testament;
• recognize in the Old Testament a witness that corroborates their own;
• claim the Old Testament to be an advance witness, a promise that shows the
theological significance of events within the history of salvation prior to their
occurrence;
• interpret the Old Testament as a witness to God’s revelation and salvation in history.

B. 4. Fulfilment and resolution

Modern biblical study has found and shown the extent and manner of the New Testament’s
dependence on the Old. The New Testament is the proclamation of God’s work in Christ, and
the central aspect of this proclamation is that Jesus is the fulfilment of Old Testament hopes
and expectations. Moreover, the Old Testament ‘Scriptures’ were the source and standard for
the New Testament church in preaching, teaching, apologetics and ethics. 10

III. Theological Problem of the relationship between the Testaments

The problem on how far was the Old Testament to be considered valid and relevant now the
New Testament was complete, and in what way was the Old Testament related to the New?

8
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and the New
Testament, 31
9
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and the
New Testament, 32
10
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and the
New Testament, 34

5
A. The Early Church
1. Apostolic Fathers
Though not mentioned clearly, in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers it is seen that the two
testaments as one Bible. The terms ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’ are not used and
the limits of the canon not precisely defined. Scriptures are treated essentially the same
documents as were later recognized as canon. Texts from the law and prophets, Gospels and
epistles are cited in exhortation and argument, with literal and allegorical meanings each
having their place.11

A.2. Marcion
In against the apostolic fathers, Marcion of Sinope issued a challenge to the church’s
view of the relationship between the Testaments that has made him one of her most notorious
heretics. Whether or not he should be considered a Gnostic, his thought was undoubtedly
similar to Gnosticism in its dualistic emphasis. For Marcion, there was discontinuity between
flesh and spirit, law and gospel, the god of Israel and the Father of Jesus, the Old Testament
and the New Testament. Marcion followed his theory through to its logical conclusion and
eliminated the Old Testament from his Bible – together with parts of the New that he
considered inconsistent with his theory.12
However, like most heretics, Marcion gained a following but failed to convince the
majority. As his challenge was serious and several church’s greatest theologians were
working to counter his arguments. (1) Justin Martyr (c. 100 to 165), a leading apologist,
rejected dualism and argued for the unity of God’s revelation. He interpreted the writings of
the prophets as looking forward to the Messiah and the new covenant, which are attested by
the memoirs of the apostles.
(2)Irenaeus (c. 130 to c. 200) sees Jesus Christ to be the link between the Testaments, and
was probably the first to use the terms ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’.
(3) Tertullian (c. 160 to c. 225) systematically refuted Marcion’s dualism, showing that even
Marcion’s own version of the Bible presented a Christ who was the fulfilment of the law and
the prophets.
Finally, Origen (c. 185 to c. 254), perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of the early church,
and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 to c. 215) also came to the defence of the Old Testament
against Marcion, dealing with many of its difficult texts by means of allegorical or spiritual
interpretation. 13

A. 3. Theodore and Augustine (Orthodoxy)

Countering Marcion was continued and orthodoxy prevailed with the coming of the
two biblical interpreters Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 to 428) and Augustine of Hippo
(354– 430). Theodore was an outstanding commentator of the Antioch school of
interpretation, who emphasized the importance of the literal meaning of the text in contrast to
the Alexandrian school (e.g. Origen), which emphasized the allegorical meaning. Theodor
understood the relationship between the Testaments primarily in terms of historical
development. Augustine on the other hand did not follow one school but drew on any kind of
interpretation that served to illuminate the Bible, though he clearly had a liking for allegory.

11
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and the
New Testament, 36.
12
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and the
New Testament, 37
13
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and the
New Testament, 37.

6
The work of Augustine marked the transition from the early church to the middle Ages. He
expressed his view of the relationship between the Testaments in these classic words:
To the Old Testament belongs more fear, just as to the New Testament more
delight; nevertheless in the Old Testament the New lies hid, and in the New
Testament the Old is exposed.

2.2  Middle Ages
Like the Church Fathers, Biblical interpreters of the Middle Ages understood the Bible as a
unity that witness to Christ. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090– 1153), Hugh of St Victor (c. 1096
to 1142), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 to 1274) and Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270 to c. 1340) were
the known scholars of the time. The fourfold interpretation of the Middle ages– literal,
allegorical, moral and anagogical.. Generally the Middle ages scholars believed the New
Testament to be the continuation of the Old Testament but the New is superior than to the
Old because the meaning of OT can be seen only after the coming of NT according to
“Hugh”. Aquinas also considered the Old Testament to be imperfect and the New Testament
perfect, like a seed compared to a tree…….. 43

2.3 Reformation
The central issue of the Reformation was the Bible and its interpretation, whether Christians
should rely on church interpretation to establish the meaning of Holy Scripture, or go back to
the Old and New Testaments themselves to study them afresh. Luther and Calvin breaking
away from the traditional view, held that Scripture should speak for itself, liberate from the
clutch of ecclesiastical tradition.. On the one hand, literal interpretation was emphasized the
whole Bible was understood to be Christocentric.. However, the two great reformers had
rather different views about the relationship between the Testaments….… 43

Martin Luther (1483–1546) & Calvin (1509–64)

Luther recognized both unity and diversity in the Bible. For him the unity was in
God, who revealed himself in Christ; and the diversity is in the contrast between law and
gospel. For Luther the contrast is the dominant factor. According to Luther “The Old
Testament is a book of laws, which teaches what men are to do and not to do and the New
Testament is gospel or book of grace, and teaches where one is to get the power to fulfil the
law. What Luther really believes is that the chief teaching of NT is the proclamation of grace
and peace through the forgiveness of sins in Christ while the teaching of OT is really laws
that show up of sin, and the demeaning of good. He further emphasize in saying that the Old
Testament law is not binding for Christians. --- 44
John Calvin on the one hand, though recognized the similarities and differences
between the two Testaments but, unlike Luther, he stressed and gives more importance to the
similarities. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536–59) he devoted twenty-three
sections to the similarities and fourteen differences by comparison. Both law and gospel are
understood as aspects of one covenant:
As he says
Christ, known to the Jews under the law, clearly revealed only in the Gospel. (§2.9, title)
The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two
are actually one and the same ... First, we hold that carnal prosperity and happiness did not
constitute the goal set before the Jews to which they were to aspire. Rather, they were adopted into
the hope of immortality . Secondly, the covenant by which they were bound to the Lord was
supported, not by their own merits, but solely by the mercy of the God who called them. Thirdly, they

7
had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share in his
promises. (§2.10.2)

The Anabaptists:
It agreed the principle of Sola Scriptura, but in its application, tend to give more
concentration on the New Testament. For them, OT was understood to be preparatory for the
final revelation of the New. OT can have authority only in case it witness to Christ, and
agrees with NT and is relevant Christian living. Therefore, the Anabaptist though did not
completely reject the OT and often interpreted it allegorically or spiritually to find Christian
teaching in it, they considered the New Testament normative for Christians. ---- 45

d. Council of Trent
The Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation has common acceptance with the Reformers on
ground that the Gospel as promised of Old through the prophets in the sacred scripture, Jesus
Christ testify it and command it to preach through the apostles to all creatures. But the
Council differed decisively from the Reformers on two issues: the relationship of Scripture
and tradition, and the restriction of biblical interpretation to the church . The implication is
that no one can interpret the scripture in a way contrary to the unanimous consensus of the
Fathers. Understanding the relationship between the Testaments were that the unity of the
Bible was recognized, with a relationship of promise and fulfilment between the two
Testaments, but there was little room for further investigation since acceptance of the
traditional interpretation was mandatory. There was little change in this outlook until the
twentieth century. ---- 46

View of Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

These centuries witness the big polarization between the upholders of orthodoxy and more
progressive thinkers. The period may conveniently be bisected for study, with the figure of
Schleiermacher standing at the juncture of the two halves.
a. Orthodoxy
In the following centuries of the reformation the predominant characteristic of Protestant
biblical study was orthodoxy. During these centuries, creeds and confessions were formulated
to define orthodox faith more precisely; and a systematic kind of study developed, which had
some resemblance to that of the Middle Ages and is often termed ‘Protestant Scholasticism’.
Calvin’s view of the relationship between the Testaments was widely followed and the Old
Testament highly regarded. ….. 46
b. Reaction to orthodoxy
In seventeen and eighteen centuries number of theologians become dissatisfied with
traditional ways of Biblical interpretation. The influence of grammatical-historical biblical
scholarship, federal theology developed by Cocceius, (1603–69) and rationalism (by Hobbes,
1588– 1679; Spinoza, 1632–77) led to more humanistic approach to the Bible and
consequently led to rejection of parts of the Bible (particularly the old Testament). This trend
continued into the eighteenth century in the works of Lessing (1729–81) and Kant (1724–
1804), though there were also many who combined traditional piety with scholarly biblical
study (e.g. Bengel, 1687–1752; John Wesley, 1703–91) …. 46

8
c. Friedrich Schleiermacher
Schleiermacher (1768–1834) was the second to reject the Old Testament since Marcion. With
a background of Pietism, Rationalism and Romanticism, he wrote voluminously and widely
his dogmatic theology (1830: §12) in which he virtually denied any theological relationship
between the Old Testament and the New. Though he did not disparage the former as Marcion
had done, he placed it on the same level as heathenism (Greek and Roman thought).
According to Schleiermacher, the Old Testament scripture has its place in our Bible when
New Testament appeals to it partly to the historical connection of Christian worship with the
Jewish Synagogue but does not share its normative dignity or the inspiration of the New. His
suggestion was not to eliminate elimination the Old Testament from the Bible but to show the
priority of the New and the Old Testament would be retained as an appendix. …. 48
d. Historical criticism:
As the dominant influence in nineteenth-century biblical interpretation was historical
criticism, the relationship between the Testaments was also understood in historical rather
than theological terms. The Old Testament was viewed as the history of the theocracy, and
the New Testament as the record of the coming of Jesus Christ to bring this history to
completion.

e. Conservative reaction: When Historical criticism become more accepted in the nineteenth
century, Some conservative scholars also felt the need for defending and developing more
traditional approaches to the Bible. Their reassertion of the orthodox belief in the inspiration
of the Bible did not exclude consideration of new ideas, as such, they made a lasting
contribution to biblical interpretation. For example, von Hofmann (1841–4) developed the
idea of ‘salvation history’, which influenced much later theology based on this concept; while
Hengstenberg’s Christology (1829–35) and Franz Delitzsch’s commentaries on the Old
Testament are still in print more than a century later. ……48

Developmental Approach
The most widely accepted way of understanding the relationship between the Testaments at
the beginning the twentieth century was a developmental approach, this approach is based on
evolutionary idea of history and historical criticism with the concept of ‘progressive
revelation’. Some of the proponents of this approach were:
a. A. F. Kirkpatrick (1891) pointed out that the New Testament affirms the permanent value
of the Old Testament by explicit statements (e.g. Matt. 5:17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Tim.
3:14–17). He argued that the Old Testament is valid for the church only in so far as it is
fulfilled in Christ. ……….. 49
The next is Ottley, according to him, the New Testament understands the Old Testament
revelation as fragmentary, varied and rudimentary. The Old Testament is the record of a
developing religion and revelation, and is therefore to be interpreted historically. New
Testament recognizes that much in the Old is imperfect and must be assessed by the standard
of the gospel. --. Christ is prefigured in law, history, prophecy, song and wisdom. Moreover
much of the Old Testament is idealistic, and this is sufficient to describe it as messianic…… 50

c. Analysis
Similar view on the inter testament relationship is held by many scholars at the end of the
nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. Historical-critical method, at least
accepted in principle, and assumed that the Bible to be both human and divine – an account
of human history and God’s Revelation. As balance was generally maintained and it was
belief that two are essentially a unity. The fundamental concept underlying this approach was

9
‘progressive revelation’. The Old Testament was considered to have permanent value both as
preparatory revelation and in looking beyond itself to the perfect revelation in Christ. …. 52

d. Conservatism
The developmental approach characterized by progressive revelation was generally accepted
to be the solution for the problem of the testaments relationship. Even conservative and
fundamental group accepted this view. However, Protestant Fundamentalism could not accept
many of the presuppositions, methods and result of the historical criticism/ example the use
of “considered divine guidance” rather than natural evolution to be the principle of
development. In the Roman Church at the beginning of the twentieth century there was a
stronger reaction to historical criticism than that in Protestantism. …. 54

 Appearance of Neo-Marcionism
As the result of the developmental approach, there was devaluation of the Old Testament.. In
the 1920s two well-known German scholars took this devaluation to its logical but extreme
conclusion and resurrected the proposal of Marcion, only temporarily revived by
Schleiermacher, that the Old Testament be excluded from the Christian Bible. …. 54

a. The Problem of Nazi Bible

After the first w orld war, anti-Semitic thought began to develop in Germany, Inevitably
they aided its growth and penetration into biblical studies. The Nazis and ‘German
Christians’ (Deutsche Christen) aimed to eliminate every trace of Judaism from Christianity.
They rejected the Old Testament and its God, and encouraged people to read Nordic and
Aryan literature instead. Luther was also invoked to support, who they claimed would have
done the same, had he lived in the twentieth century. Rosenberg despised the Old Testament
completely; others e.g. Leffler acknowledged its historical and religious value but
recommended that serious Germans should forget the Old Testament and study their own
history and piety. As a result, the Nazi ‘Bible’ was a very select collection of extracts from
the Christian Scriptures, and the Nazi ‘Christ’ was very different from the usual referent of
the word. Tanner comments, ‘The crucifixion was only the first in a long series of devices by
which the Western world has attempted to be rid of Jesus . . .the most subtle of these devices
has been reinterpretation. ….. 55

b. Defence of the Old Testament

Naturally, the attack on Old Testament in Jermany provoke a reaction among biblical
scholars, many of whom sided with the Confessing Church. Some openly condemned the
anti-Semitism of National Socialism and its adherents, but most simply reaffirmed in
different ways the value of the Old Testament for the Christian faith. Vischer, Barth,
Hellbardt and Procksch claimed the Old Testament for the church by interpreting it as a
witness to Christ, thus diverting attention from its connection with the Jews. Brunner argued
that ‘the understanding of the Old Testament is the criterion and the basis for understanding
the New’…….

The Relation Between the Testament

The Old Testament quotes in Mark.:
/.Mark's opening quotation in 1.2-3 opens his Gospel with what seems to be a title ('The
beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God'), which is linked ('As it is
written in the prophet Isaiah') with a composite quotation of Mai 3.1, Exod 23.20 and Isa 40.3
“I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of one

10
crying out in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."'). The
ascription of this composite quotation to Isaiah has caused problems, both for ancient
copyists and modern interpreters. Ancient copyists dealt with the discrepancy by omitting the
word 'Isaiah' and turning 'prophet' into. The Parable of Mark 4.12 which is quoted from Isaiah
6.9-10, it explains why this has not led to universal salvation. Isaiah was told that Israel
would reject his message. Indeed, his proclamation would serve to harden Israel so that they
cannot escape the coming judgement: Go and say to this people: 'Keep listening, but do not
comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.' Make the mind of this people dull, and
stop their ears, and shut their eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with
their ears, and comprehend with their minds, and turn and be healed. (Isa 6.9-10) 14

The Hypocrisy of the Pharisees in Mark 7.6-7 They question 'Why do your disciples not
live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?' is met by the
accusation 'Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites', followed by the words of Isa
29.13: 'This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do
they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.'. Interpretation of the law in 7.10;
10.6-8; 10.19; 12.18-34 Though Mark does not reproduce much of Jesus' teaching, he does
present Jesus as a powerful teacher (They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them
as one having authority, and not as the scribes.').15
Messiah's entry into Jerusalem in Mark 11.9-10, Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on a donkey
was greeted with this acclamation: Hosanna! (Psalm 118.25) Blessed is the one who comes in
the name of the Lord! (Psalm 118.26) Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!
(Comment) Hosanna in the highest heaven! (Psalm 148.1) Psalm 118 is a festive Psalm, used
at the feast of Tabernacles and the Passover. The line 'Blessed is the one who comes'
originally applied to the pilgrims but the focus here is clearly on the one who comes, that is,
Jesus. Purpose of the temple in Mark 11.17. is quoted from Isa 56.7, in combination with Jer
7.11 ('My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have made it a
den of robbers.') Rejection of the stone in Mk. 12.10-11 is a quotation from Psalm 118.22-
23.16
The Puzzle of David's Lord in 12.36, a quotes from Psalm 110.1 as a riddle, for if David
calls him Lord, how can he be his son? Apocalyptic sayings in 13.24-26; 14.62. Jesus
predicts the end of the world and his own return to earth when quoting (or alluding to) Isa
13.10; 34.4; Dan 7.13 in Mark 13. Striking the shepherd in 14.26 is quoted from Zech 13.7 ('I
will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.'). Words from the cross in 15.34 “'My
God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' quoted from Psalm 22.1 itself.17

Jesus and scripture according to the book of Mathew

The first is the temptation narrative (Matt. 4.1–11), where instead of the single statement that
Jesus ‘was in the wilderness for forty days, tempted by Satan’ (Mark 1.13), Matthew has
three specific temptations, each of which is answered by a quotation from Deuteronomy—see
Table 2.1 overleaf.18
The tempter came and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command these stones to
become loaves of bread. What was the reply of Jesus? Jesus’ reply’ ‘It is written, “One does
not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”’ (Deut. 8.3)

14
Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New (London, new York: Continuum, 2001), 21
15
Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New, 24
16
Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New, 25-26.
17
Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New, 27-30
18
Steve Moyise, Jesus and Scriptures: Studying The New Testament Use of the Old Testament
(Michigan, Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2001), 38.

11
Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying
to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, “He will command
his angels concerning you”, and “On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not
dash your foot against a stone.”’ ‘Again it is written, “Do not put the Lord your God to the
test.”’ (Deut. 6.16) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the
kingdoms of the world and their splendour; and he said to him, ‘All these I will give you, if
you will fall down and worship me.’ ‘Away with you, Satan! for it is written, “Worship the
Lord your God, and serve only him.”’ (Deut. 6.13)19

Jesus and Scripture According to Luke’s Gospel

In one occasion Luke 14.1–6, Jesus is eating a meal on the Sabbath with ‘a leader of the
Pharisees’ when a man with dropsy appears. As with the man with the withered hand, Jesus
challenges them: ‘Is it lawful to cure people on the sabbath, or not?’ (14.3). They do not
answer and so Jesus cures the man and then asks, ‘If one of you has a child or an ox that has
fallen into a well, will you not immediately pull it out on a sabbath day?’ (14.5 John Meier
concludes: ‘Far from rejecting the sabbath, Jesus wished instead to make the sabbath livable
for severely pressed Jewish peasants, who could hardly afford to stand by when they were in
danger of losing one of their livestock, to say nothing of their children.’[2] With this in mind
‘ ‘Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful’ (Luke 6.36). Jesus is portrayed as keeping the
Sabbath, but ‘mercy’ determines what can or cannot be done on it.20

Jesus and Scripture According to John Gospel

Jesus discourse begins with accusing the crowd for following him only because they enjoyed eating
the bread. He urges them not to ‘work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for
eternal life’ (John 6.27). This puts them in mind of the manna that sustained the Israelites in the
desert, and they quote from either Exodus 16.4 (‘I am going to rain bread from heaven for you’) or the
reflection of this event in Psalm 78.24 (‘he rained down on them manna to eat, and gave them the
grain of heaven’). Jesus then makes the point that it was not Moses who gave them this bread, but ‘my
Father who gives you the true bread from heaven’ (John 6.32). They are interested, and ask Jesus to
give them this bread, but when he explains to them that he himself is the bread of life, they take
offence. He then quotes from Isaiah 54.13 (‘And they shall all be taught by God’) before introducing
the crux of his interpretation: ‘Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is
the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die’ (John 6.49–50).
Because the Israelites died, the manna could not have been the promised ‘bread from heaven’; rather,
this is fulfilled in Jesus.21

Primary Ways the New Testament Uses the Old Testament

a. To Indicate Direct Fulfilments of Old Testament Prophecy
Example: Matthew 2:5–6 When Herod inquired from the priests and scribes where it was
prophesied that the Messiah would be born, “they said to him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea; for
this is what has been written by the prophet: “And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no
means least among the leaders of Judah; for out of you shall come forth a Ruler who will
shepherd My people Israel.”’” This is a quotation of Micah 5:2 (with a few changes). In the
context of Matthew 2, this quotation functions to indicate the fulfillment of direct prophecy
since the following verses show that Jesus indeed was born in Bethlehem. 22

19
Steve Moyise, Jesus and Scriptures: Studying The New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 39.
20
Steve Moyise, Jesus and Scriptures: Studying The New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 56.
21
Steve Moyise, Jesus and Scriptures: Studying The New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 70.
22
G.K. Beale, Hand Book on the Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Michigan, Grand
Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2012), 73

12
b. Indirect Fulfillment of Old Testament Typological Prophecy
One example we can see Psalm 41:9 (10 MT) IN JOHN 13:18 is typology i.e indirect
fulfillment of Christ. With respect to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, John 13:17–18 reports
Jesus as saying, “If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. I do not speak of
all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He
who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’” Psalm 41:9 (10 MT) reflection of
David of his betrayal by trusted counselor Ahithophel’s (“lifting up his heel against”him)
This is clearly not a direct verbal prophecy of the Messiah. However, Jesus sees in the
historical relationship of Ahithophel to David a pattern foreshadowing Judas’s deceptive
relationship to Jesus. Accordingly, Judas’s betrayal “fulfills” that to which Psalm 41:9 (10
MT) points forward.23

c. Affirmation That a Not-Yet-Fulfilled Old Testament Prophecy Will Assuredly Be

Fulfilled in the Future
Example we can see is Second Peter 3:11–14: The phrase “according to His promise we are
looking for new heavens and a new earth” (v. 13) refers to the promises in Isaiah 65:17 and
66:22, which are virtually identical: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth”
(65:17). Though Paul views these new-creation prophecies to have been inaugurated (2 Cor.
5:17; Gal. 6:15), According to Peter is yet future consummation. He comforts and encourages
the readers to persevere in godly conduct now by assuring them that a new creation will come
in which only those who are prepared now by being righteous will be able to enter.
Interestingly, the same two Isaiah prophecies of a “new heavens and a new earth” are referred
to in Revelation 21:1 as being completely fulfilled in the future, in a very similar manner as
in 2 Peter 3.24

Conclusion
In speaking the relation between Old Testament and New Testament, there’s a lot of
problem to be seen from the scholarly writings. Some speaks of the unity and considered
importance to both of the testaments, while there’s also some who denied the validity of the
Old Testament. However, whatever might be the case, the proof of its relationship is at best
to been seen from both of the testaments. If we see and compare the two, there are inter
linkage as roots and the fruits. What we can conclude is like a coin-sided, either any one of
the two can never be ignored and lay aside. What Old Testaments prepared, New testament
brings out to fruition.

Bibliography
23
G.K. Beale, Hand Book on the Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation, 77.
24
G.K. Beale, Hand Book on the Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation, 85.

13
Beale, G.K. Hand Book on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation
Michigan; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

Stevens, William W. A Guide for New Testament Study (Tennessee, Nashville: Braodman & Holman Press,
1977.

Baker, David L. Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and the
New Testament. Illinois: IVP Academic, Intervarsity Press, 2010.

Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the New. London, new York: Continuum, 2001.

Moyise, Steve. Jesus and Scriptures: Studying The New Testament Use of the Old Testament.
Michigan, Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2001.

14