Correctly Know the Familiar — Seminary in 5: New Testament Survey

Save money. Learn theology. Become a better writer. Minister more effective. That’s my hope for you. In this second year of my column, The Ministry of Writing, I want to take you to seminary — writing seminary. If you have had the chance to go to seminary, then let this be a refresher. If you haven’t please soak up this tuition free theological education given each month in 5 points. God has called you to write. You want to glorify Him and reach the world, but the problem is that we can easily be false teachers and not know it. Therefore, growing and learning in biblical and theological knowledge is vital to your writing ministry.

In the previous Seminary in 5 post, I urged that as Christian writers we would not forget about the Old Testament. You can find that article here. Just as the Bible instructs pastors to preach the whole counsel of God, so should writers. I spend time each week with multiple pastors around the country. One of the issues I have begun to see consistently from pastors and especially members of their churches is that most contemporary Christian preaching focuses on the New Testament. On several occasions I have been told that Old Testament is obsolete all that matters now is the latest half of Scripture. This is far from the truth — unbiblical. We will deal with how the two parts of the Bible interact in the first point, but I believe my findings prove that the New Testament is familiar.

Familiarity often breeds misuse. We feel we have such a handle on interpreting familiar passages and aspects of Scripture that we often fail to adequately study them thoroughly. I realize due to being accustomed to later testament a basic survey is not necessary, so these five points on the New Testament are to point areas in which we can easily develop incorrect views. Please take a moment a consider these points and let them strengthen your writing ministry.

 

1. The New Testament Did Not Replace the Old Testament.

One common assumption about the New Testament is that it replaced the Old Testament. This far, far from the truth. I could present lots of arguments to express how that is not the case, but I believe one is sufficient. Jesus said that He and His ministry was not a replacement, but a fulfillment of the Old Testament. Jesus’ words are recorded in Matthew 5:17-19, he said,

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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. – Matthew 5:17–19 (NIV84)

“The Law” Jesus refers to is the Old Testament especially the first five books. He says what He was doing and going to do did not replace the first half of the Bible.

Not only did Jesus explicitly give us this insight, but the writers of the New Testament and those who first received those writings understood that the Old Testament under-girded everything in these newer passages. The New Testament is deeply saturated with allusions and direct quotes from the Old Testament. The Book of Revelation can not be understood without having a strong foundation from the major and minor prophets.

Understanding this point helps provide credibility to the Old Testament in present times, but more than that I hope it would provide a framework for interacting with both testaments.

 

2. The New Testament Does Not Teach the Church Has Replaced Israel.

Following suit with the previous point is this idea that the Christian church in the New Testament has replaced Israel in the Old Testament. The implications to this theological miscue has a huge reach. By taking this view one completely throws away the promises God has given the nation of Israel. Yes, many things that happened with Israel can be applied to our personal walk with the Lord, but God is in no way done with the Jews. He will keep the unconditional covenants that He made with Abraham about the land, and with David about having a descendant on the throne. These will be realized in the coming Millennial Kingdom.

One of the factors that cause people to believe this is that Jesus states that He is making a New Covenant. He does, but this was not a surprise to anyone in His day. The Old Testament prophesized that God would make a New Covenant. This New Covenant would allow them to possess and enjoy the previously made Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. This New Covenant also miraculously involves the Gentiles who had been outside looking in on the promises of God.

In Romans 11:25-27, the Apostle Paul explicitly explains the present relationship between Israel and the Gentiles. The church has not replaced Israel rather the gentiles within the church have been invited to participate in the promises still to be fulfilled to Israel. Here are Paul’s words,

 

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” – Romans 11:25–27 (NIV84)

 

3. The New Testament Was Canonized.

To fully appreciate the Bible we hold in our hands we must realize that the inspiration of the actual writing of the New Testament books are not the only level of inspiration of this latest testament. But the early church sought the Lord and followed a set of principles to select what writings actually were placed in the New Testament. This process was called canonization. We find even in the readings of the New Testament that there were other letters at that time. There are other works that have survived that time period. All though these other works exist we can confidentially trust that not only were the words guided by the Holy Spirit, but so was the composition of Scripture as a whole.

 

4. The New Testament Has at Least 4 Divisions.

In the five points from Old Testament Survey, I stressed the importance of recognizing the different genres in that first half of the Bible. Recognizing the style of writing is vital to its interpretation. The New Testament also contains different genres, although these books may share a closer resemblance in style than those in the Old Testament. Many would list more divisions in the New Testament, but I believe there are four to view as essential.

The first four books are called Gospels. They are accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. I will say more about their connection to one another in the final point, but these should be recognized as histories or eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ time on earth. The book of Acts is the history division of the New Testament. It follows from where the Gospels end until the end of Paul’s ministry. The rest of the books are considered epistles and most of them were penned by the Apostle Paul. An epistle was a letter that was circulated throughout multiple churches or multiple home churches. These would have been brought to the church by messenger and then read in its entirety before the body.

I am nearly alone among Bible teachers to include Revelation in the epistles. Most classify the final book as an Apocalyptic book. In that time period there was a “genre” of apocalyptic books. There were certain characteristics that described that type of writings. Revelation definitely fits, but it was circulated as a letter at least to seven particular churches. I find it helpful to approach Revelation as an epistle that way one is encouraged to interpret it more straightforwardly.

 

5. The Gospels in the New Testament Do Not Contradict Each Other.

There are four books that tell about Jesus’ time on earth — Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John. They are the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, & Luke are very similar and are referred to as the synoptic Gospels. John provides a stark difference. Because each Gospel covers the same time period, but do so differently many have felt they are contradictory. This is far from the case. One of the most helpful tools a student of the Gospels can have is a Harmony of the Gospels. I prefer the classic written by A.T. Roberson. A harmony seeks to show how the events in each Gospel fit with one another.

Although the subject is the same in all four books, they are told from four different eye witnesses. So there are variations, but no contradiction. Also each writer has a different purpose. Matthew writes to prove Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. So he involves a lot of the Old Testament prophecies. Mark seems to stick with just the facts and events. He provides the most action packed Gospel. Luke is focused on sharing with Gentiles Jesus’ humanity. John writes to prove that Jesus is the Son of God. With such different purposes, one can easily see how they would be different.

Conclusion

The Bible has two testaments, but it is one book. It is awe striking how that across so many centuries the Holy Spirit could move human writers to write these works that vitally connect. I can not stress enough how amazing God’s Word is for us. We have in print the reality of this world from its Maker. We need to know it, and then teach it correctly.