Making Sense of the OT–Chapter 3: How is the Christian to apply the OT to life?

We will cite two different schools of thought as contemporary representatives of the poles of opinion on this matter, footnote:[] though there are a variety of viewpoints within these two approaches. footnote:[] At heart dispensationalism and theonomy are hermeneutical stances, but they both focus on the law in specific ways. One finds a tendency in dispensationalist writing to distinguish between the Old Testament as a time when God worked through law and the New Testament as a period of grace. To quote C. I. Scofield: "The most obvious and striking division of the word of truth is that between Law and Grace. Indeed, these contrasting principles characterize the the most important dispensations—​Jewish and Christian…​ Scripture never, in any dispensation, mingles these two principles.footnote:[] This view, which many contemporary dispensationalists do not hold to so explicitly, cannot help but lead to a minimalization of the law, a disregard for the Old Testament law as such. It does not, as Bruce Waltke points out, take into account Paul’s assertion that the law is "holy and right and good" (Rom. 7:12). footnote:[]

On the other hand, the school of thought that goes by the name theonomy (Greek for "law of God") or Christian reconstruction argues that the Old Testament laws and penalties are still in effect today.footnote:[] The influence of this school was at its height during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Fortunately, this influence is dissipating, but there is some hangover effect on the religious right.

In brief, theonomy’s approach to the law is to take Jesus' words seriously, dogmatically, and literally. The "jot and tittle" of the law is still in effect. Strict continuity is assumed between the Old and New Testaments. footnote:[] Theonomists believe that it is the job of government to enforce Old Testament law, which thereby becomes a blueprint for contemporary society.

In the light of passages like Hebrews 7—​10, theonomists acknowledge that the laws relating to the formal worship apparatus of Israel no longer apply. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, served as the ideal high priest, and manifested the presence of God, thus replacing the temple. However, the moral law and the civil law, along with their accompanying penalties, maintain their force. In other words, theonomy does not recognize any distinction between the Ten Commandments and those Old Testament laws that concerned specific situations (i.e., case laws).

Theonomy and dispensationalism represent two extreme approaches to the law. While rigorously orthodox in their theology, they radically disagree on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The former stresses the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, while the latter emphasizes the discontinuity. Through Bible schools, seminaries, and widely used Bible-study helps, dispensationalism has had a huge impact on the twentieth-century American church. footnote:[] Theonomy’s appeal increased in the late 1970s and early 1980s as Christians grew frustrated with a culture that they found hostile to their faith. As Christians became increasingly political, many wanted to ground their legal and political thinking in the Bible, and it seemed a matter of common sense that the Bible’s own laws be the basis of this system.

However, there are weaknesses in theonomy. We need to point out first that the Old Testament law addressed the people of God when they were a nation. God’s people were a distinct political entity, the nation of Israel; and a major function of the so-called case laws and particularly their penalties was to keep this chosen nation free from sin. Today God does not work through a chosen nation, but through a chosen people comprising the nations of the world. This element of discontinuity has major impact on how we should observe the law. Second, God gave Israel the law at a time before Jesus Christ was revealed to the world. We have already suggested that this has a clear impact on the observance of the ceremonial law; we shall soon see that it also affects much of the rest of the law.

In short, upon reflection we cannot assume simple continuity between the Testaments in the matter of the observance of the law and its penalties. Key passages in the New Testament confirm that something new is at work. At this point we will look at only one law, that concerning adultery. Adultery is condemned by the seventh commandment (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). The case law informs us of the penalty: "If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the other man’s wife must be killed. In this way, the evil will be cleansed from Israel" (Deut. 22:22; see also Lev. 20:10). On the basis of this Old Testament regulation, theonomy argues that adultery today deserves the death penalty. Attentive reading of the New Testament, however, indicates otherwise. We think first of John 7:53-8:11, the account of the woman caught in adultery. It is true that this episode is not found in the earliest manuscripts, yet many scholars take it as authentic material concerning Jesus' life. The woman was an adulteress. She was about to be stoned, but Jesus intervened and halted the proceeding with the challenge "Let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!" (8:7). Turning to the Woman, he told her that he did not condemn her. He then sent her away with the warning to "sin no more" (v. 11).

If we are unwilling to decide the issue on the basis of a suspect text, we may appeal to Jesus' teaching on divorce. In essence, Jesus substitutes divorce for the death penalty. If a spouse is caught in the act of adultery, divorce is permitted instead of the death penalty (Matt. In this regard we should also point out that Jesus intensified our understanding of the law of adultery. In Jesus' eyes adultery is not simply the act of illicit intercourse, it is the lustful look. Thus we would all be subject to the penalty of the law (Matt. 5:27-30).

It is clear that neither dispensationalism nor theonomy provides an adequate basis for understanding the law of the Old Testament. The former does not allow for the element of continuity that we observe in the New Testament; and the latter, in its simple assertion of strict continuity, does not take account of the discontinuity between the Testaments. To gain a proper understanding of the Christian’s responsibility as regards the law, we must closely examine the law of the Old Testament for clues into the New Testament’s guidance on this matter.

The law is the collection of requirements God imposed on Israel during the time of Moses. More than six hundred such requirements guided Israel’s obedience to God. We find them collected in three main places in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). The oldest collection is likely the so-called book of the covenant (Exod. 20:1-23:33, named in 24:7). The latest is found in the laws of Deuteronomy (4:44-29:1; "Deuteronomy" is Greek for "second law"). This law is given by Moses on the plains of Moab just before his death and the Israelites' entry into the Promised Land. Moses' purpose is to warn the Israelites not to sin as they sinned in the wilderness. Accordingly, he repeats (often with variation) elements given in the earlier law codes. Significantly, both the book of the covenant and the Deuteronomic law code begin with the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17 and Deut. 5:6-21). Leviticus and Numbers are sandwiched between the two great law codes. Like Exodus and Deuteronomy, they are books which interweave narrative and law. The legal prescriptions found in Leviticus and Numbers focus primarily on the formal worship of Israel, that is, on regulations concerning the priesthood, sacrifices and ritual purity. The laws in Leviticus 1-7, for example, either inform or remind the priests how to perform certain sacrificial ceremonies.

Some of the laws in Leviticus that determined whether a person was clean or unclean are hard for us to relate to today. For us, the matter of cleanness and uncleanness has to do with physical hygiene. For the ancient priests, it had to do with religious purity. To be clean meant to be in the right state to approach the powerful and holy God. To approach God in a state of uncleaness would mean certain doom.

Uncleanness was contagious in the sense that coming into contact with certain objects or people meant catching their uncleanneess. Such objects were not necessarily sinful. To the contrary, they may have been holy and thus protected by taboos. Blood and semen, fluids that were crucial, respectively, to sacrifice and to fulfilment of the promise of descendants, were treated with special respect (Lev. 15; 10-12). Coming into contact with them rendered a person unclean because they were so critical, not because they were dirty or sinful.

A similar consideration determined which foods were kosher (i.e. clean). Certain meats were prohibited, but not because by were considered unhealthy. It’s more likely that they were viewed as not representative of the pure species of creation. The den animals had certain characteristics that the unclean animals lacked. For instance, land animals that might be eaten had to chew the cud and have a split hoof (Lev. 11:1-8). Camels, rabbits, and pigs didn’t qualify. This division of clean and unclean animals had a counterpart among humanity, which was similarly divided into clean (Israelite) and unclean (Gentile). When the latter distinction was abolished because of the work of Christ, so was the former distinction.

A closer look at the case law reveals that these specific laws are not laws in addition to the Ten Commandments. On the contrary the specific laws flow from the general ethical principles asserted in the commandments. Let’s illustrate with the law of the goring ox and the command to build a fence around the roof of a house.

The intent of the law concerning the goring ox is to protect life. If an ox gores a person, it must be destroyed. Not having known any better at the time, the owner is not morally culpable. However, if the ox is not destroyed and then kills a second person, the situation is totally different. Not only the ox, but also the owner is put to death. The owner, through negligence or willful rejection of the law, has caused the death of another human being. He is therefore guilty of murder, breaking the sixth commandment. He deserves the death penalty. Note that the goring-ox law is a specific outworking of the commandment.

What about the Deuteronomic law about building fences on the roof of a house? Why should anyone build such a fence? We must realize the function of a roof in ancient Palestine. People used the roof as if it were a room of the house. Its role was some thing like that of a porch today. Because houses in the hilly areas of Israel were built on inclines, the possibility of falling off a roof was real. So the case law served the purpose of protecting human ake the law of the goring ox, it was an outworking of the mandment, "Do not murder."

Those two examples illustrate the relationship between the haigue and the rest of the law. The latter flows from the former. A number of studies have demonstrated this on a grand scale, at least in regard to the Book of Deuteronomy. The most convenient study, and one with an evangelical view of Scripture, is that done by Walter Kaiser, footnot:[18] He argues that the entire law section of the Book of Deuteronomy flows from the fountainhead provided by the Ten Commandments. He begins by showing that Deuteronomy 5—​11 is a commentary on the first commandment. The following chapters similarly serve as commentaries on specific commandments:

While the case laws in Exodus do not have the same sequential precision, it does not take a great deal of ingenuity to suggest connections with the Ten Commandments. We conclude that the case laws of the Old Testament are applications of the Ten Commandments to the specific situations of the Old Testament people of God.

At this point we must mention an important principle that through Old and New Testaments. We are not saved by the law or by our obedience. For the ancient Israelites in slayery in Egypt and for modern American Christians, salvation comes only by the grace of God. As Paul forcefully stated, "No one can ever be made right in God’s sight by doing what his law commands. For the more we know God’s law, the clearer it becomes that we aren’t obeying it" (Rom. 3:20). The role of the law remains the same today as in the past: it is our gracious God’s guideline for living that pleases him and is good for us.

As Christians, we know in a special way our inability to keep the law. We know we are lawbreakers. Paul reaffirms the univer sal sinfulness of humanity by quoting a pastiche of Old Testament texts:

And it is not a matter of quantity of sin. James reminds those of us who might try to get by on our relative goodness that "the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as the person who has broken all of God’s laws. For the same God who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' So if you murder someone, you have broken the entire law, even if you do not commit adultery" (James 2:10—​11).

But the human plight is even more desperate. In the light of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5—​7), where Jesus intensifies the law, it is hard to believe that there are many people who have not committed adultery. In his teaching, all the law takes on a radically internal understanding. Consider, for instance, his.comments about the seventh commandment:

After reading a passage like this, it is good to remind ourselves that Jesus is our perfect high priest as well as our once-and-for-all sacrifice. In other words, Jesus took our sins on himself and offered himself as a sacrifice in our place (Heb. 5:1-10; 7:15-8:13; 10:1-18).

But how, then, does the Old Testament law affect us? Clearly Jesus and the apostles appealed to many of the provisions of the Decalogue. Idolatry, blasphemy, cursing one’s parents, stealing, adultery, murder, lying, and coveting were still wrong. The gencral ethical principles of the Ten Commandments were incumbent on the New Testament believer. But what about the case law?

As we investigate the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, we must recall that in its Old Testament setting the case law was best understood as the specification of the Ten Commandments. In particular, the case law was the application of the Ten Commandments to the sociological and redemp tive-historical context of the people of God at the time-the nation of Israel. The Old Testament case law, then, is not directly applicable to Christians today. For we differ in at least three fundamental ways from the ancient Israelites. First, they were pri marily agriculturalists. Second, it was as a nation that the Israelites were the people of God. Third, and most significantly, they lived at an earlier point of redemptive history than we do. In a word, they lived in the period before Christ’s earthly ministry, and we live in a period after Christ has come. Consider also that there is no specific Old Testament case law concerned with, for example, the selling of illicit drugs. We look in vain for such a law. Furthermore, we look in vain for laws that specifically deal with abortion, thievery via computers, and pornography, though most orthodox Christians consider such activities immoral or criminal. Of what relevance, then, are the Old Testament case laws?

While the Old Testament case laws are not directly applicable to us, they do illustrate ethical principles that are relevant today By studying how they worked in ancient Israel and asking what in them pertains to today, we can discover their continued relevance. Let’s again consider the case of the goring ox, which was an outworking of the sixth commandment. Even in its Old Tes tament context it was a concretization of a general ethical principle that would need flexible application by the courts of Israel. For instance, what if the offending animal was not an ox, but a butting goat that killed a child? Surely the same principles applied in that case. And today, even in our cities, we can see cases. We may not have goring oxen in urban areas, but we do have people who keep pitbulls. A number of these dogs have seriously maimed and even killed. The case could be made that the owner of such a dog (or any malicious dog) is responsible on the analogous second attack. In addition, a breed of dog that shows a propensity toward doing serious bodily harm could perhaps be prohib ited by legislation.

Our second example, the law that requires a fence around a roof, likewise shows us that while Old Testament case law does not give us a blueprint for contemporary regulations, it does give us principles that we can ponder, debate, and ultimately apply to contemporary society. It is true, of course, that a literal application of this law to modern American society would be foolish, since we do not use our roofs as a room of the house. But we can immediately sense the relevance this law today by asking the question, Where would a fence protect human life? One obvious answer is, around a swimming pool. Someone who builds a pool but fails to construct a fence around it should be held liable if a neighbor child wanders into the area and drowns.

These two examples illustrate how the Old Testament’s general ethical principles continue to the present as guides to behavior that pleases God and protects us from harm and danger. The case laws retain their relevance by giving us ideas about how the general principles should be applied to a specific society. Developing the ability to move from general principles to specific situations is especially imperative in view of the massive changes that have occurred since Old Testament times. The people of God are no longer a nation, and the Messiah is no longer anticipated; he has come in the person of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the application of the law has changed as well.

As we move from the Old to the New Testament, we note a fundamental difference in the nature of the people of God. In a phrase, people of God in the Old Testament are a nation, a political body, but in the New Testament the people of God are a spiritual entity made up of individuals nations. Israel as a nation was chosen by God. God had told them, "For you are a holy people, who belong to the LORD your God. Of all the people on earth, the LORD your God has chosen you to be his special treasure" (Deut. 7:6). No other nation of the ancient or modern world matches Israel’s place in redemptive history. Even if a majority of American citizens were sincere

Christians—​or even if everyone were—​America would not be like Israel in terms of God’s redemptive history. In this connection it is significant to note that in the Book of Leviticus God presses obedience upon Israel because of their special status. Leviticus 11:45 is typical: "I, the LORD, am the one who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God. You must therefore be holy because I am holy."

In view of the foregoing considerations we must, before applying a case law or insisting on a penalty from the Old Testament today, take into account not only cultural adaptions, but also discontinuities attributable to Israel’s unique status in redemptive history. How, for instance, would the difference in status Israel and America change the laws that concern the divine-human relationship? Since God chose Israel as a nation to be his elect people, it was intolerable that a blasphemer or idolater or witch be allowed to live. God caused his special presence to rest in the midst of Israel; his holiness would not allow such blatant rebellion to continue. However, God has not chosen America as a nation. He does not dwell on the banks of the Potomac as he did on Mount Zion. It would be wrong to seek legislation authorizing the execution of witches, idolaters, apostates, heretics, and blasphemers in the United States or even to hope for a time when such legislation will be enacted. ^[5]

As has been traditionally recognized, the proper analogue to the nation of Israel is the Christian church. God chooses to make his special presence known in the assembly of the saints. He will tolerate no blasphemy, heresy, or idolatry in the midst of his priestly people. God has given spiritual weapons to his spiritual people to fight these spiritual enemies. Thus, instead of seeking the death of blasphemers the church proceeds with their excommunication.

God communicates his will for our lives through the Bible. The law of the Old Testament, with its explicit and direct demands on behavior, seems the most obvious place to go to discover what God desires in terms of behavior. Upon close examination, however, we have seen that it is not a simple thing to apply the Old Testament law and its penalties to the New Testament period. We must take into account not only cultural differences, but also redemptive-historical differences. The latter will have a definite impact on how the Old Testament civil laws, which have to do with the relationship between God and Israel, will be brought over into modern society. Each law and each penalty need to be studied in the light of the charges between Israel and America, the old covenant and the new covenant. Theonomy tends to grossly overemphasize continuity to the point of being virtually blind to the discontinuity. But we must be sensitive to the issues of discontinuity Christians today are not a chosen nation in the period before the Messiah. Nonetheless, while wary of the extremes of theonomy, we must also keep in mind that the Old Testament law, when properly read in its canonical context, informs our understanding of God’s will for our lives.

Before looking at the various genres of the Old Testament, it will be well to briefly develop the idea that the Bible as a whole functions as a seed and a mirror in our lives. The first metaphor is suggested by the parable of the sower, which Jesus told to a crowd by the lakeshore. Drawing from everyday experience, the story depicts a man flinging seeds out onto the ground. In those days of hand seeding, farmers would scatter the seeds in a wide are on their small plots of land. Since the Galilean soil was fertile but extremely rocky, the seeds met different fates as they landed on different parts of the field:

Thus Jesus ended his story for the crowd on the shore, and they were left to contemplate what it all meant. However, when he withdrew with the small circle of his disciples, Jesus interpreted the parable. The seed is "the word," and the different fates of the seed correspond to the different ways people receive it:

Most important for our purpose is Mark 4:14, "The farmer sows the word." Here Jesus identifies the seed with the gospel. The Word of God is a living seed that germinates in our souls and sends its roots down deep, transforming our whole being. Note that one of the essential qualities of the Word is that, like a seed, it is the agent of life. Some think of the Bible only as a book that prepares us for death. Yet the Bible is the place where we meet and develop a relationship with Jesus, who offers abundant life. Without Christ, life may have its short-term enjoyments and successes, but deep down we all know that there is as much pain in life as there is joy. The Bible equips us to deal with life may bring.

A second essential quality is that the seed of the Word is a catalyst for growth. The Word is the place we go if we want to mature, to reach our fullest potential in all areas of our lives. If we earnestly read the Bible with an openness to its divine Author, it will change our minds, enrich our spirits, and guide us through each day. Nothing else is so powerful for change or so deeply fulfilling.

The Old Testament, as well as the New, can be an agent of change in our lives. Indeed, the Bible as a whole is the most powerful agent available today for transforming a life. Reading and studying the Old Testament in the context of the whole canon will transform each of us into someone truly beautiful.

Of course, if we are to change, we need to know who we are, and that is very difficult. Our hearts are so deceptive that we find it hard to know what is going on inside. We may struggle and fot know the reasons that hinder Our why. Or we may be oblivious to the issues growth in the Lord. Fortunately, God does not let us wallow in our ignorance. His Word reveals to us what is going on internally, the state of our soul.

Speaking of the invaluable role of the Word, John Calvin evokes the metaphor of a mirror: "What various and resplendent riches are contained in this treasure, it were difficult to find words to describe…​. I have been wont to call this book, not inappropriately, an anatomy of all parts of the soul; for there is not an emotion of which anyone can be conscious that is not here represented as in a mirror." ^[6] We all know how a physical mirror works. Before leaving the house in the morning, we glance in the mirror to see if we are presentable. As a result, we may shave, comb our hair, straighten our tie. Calvin says that when we read the Bible, we get a close look at our inner selves and emotions, a gauge of our attitude toward God.

We will keep the metaphors of seed and mirror in mind as we turn to the other major genres of the Old Testament to see how history, poetry, wisdom, and prophecy (including apocalyptic) intend, like law, to transform our lives. History is the predominant genre of the Old Testament. Starting with its first chapter and the creation of a formless mass that God shaped into the universe, it presents us with accounts of events that occurred in space and time. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Jonah all purport to narrate space-time events. Even poetical books like Job tell a story that is set within a certain time period. Today history is often wrongly thought to be a simple record of past events. Historians, however, are fully aware that it is impossible to report the facts of history apart from some kind of interpretive framework. Biblical history is no different. It does not simply register events; it provides an interpretive framework to guide our understanding of those events and to motivate us to a certain course of action. In this way, history becomes a stimulus to obedience toward God. As we recognize this function of biblical history, we become aware of our responsibility to apply the Old Testament to life.

As we study the history books of the Old Testament, it is important to view them as a theological history. In other words, the ideology that shaped them focused on God and his plan for the world. Thus the Old Testament presents us with a history of God’s redemption of sinful humanity. This point is not to be confused with what German scholars of past generations meant by Heilsgeschichte, though that term can be legitimately translated "salvation history." Heilsgeschichte sometimes distinguishes between what the Bible reports as history and actual events. That is not our point. Our point is that all history is selective, shaped, and interpreted, and that the focus of Old Testament history is on what God is doing in the world, not on the political or military or economic forces in themselves. That history is presented from a certain interpretive perspective, namely, conviction that it is God who is moving the events of the world. For that reason biblical history is also called prophetic history; it was written by men who had received God’s interpretation of history.

The theological nature of biblical historiography and the organic nature of God’s plan for the salvation of his people explain why so much of the history anticipates the coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the center of that history because he brings to a climax the plan of God’s salvation.

There is a school of thought that would stop at these crucial nights and say that they are not only the main, but the exclusive function of biblical history, ^[7] Specifically, members of this school rail against those who would take the Old Testament historical narratives and turn them into moral lessons: "Be courageous like Joshua!" "Don’t be like Samson!" Unfortunately, it is true that much preaching on the Old Testament focuses on simple moral lessons and misses how the text under consideration elaborates on great redemptive actions of God. Advocates of preaching that concentrates on redemptive history therefore do the church a great service by prodding preachers and teachers toward the bigger picture. However, as often happens in such situations, in their zeal to improve preaching they lose the benefits achieved through simple moral lessons. Their teaching and preaching are purely the ological, and they look down on anyone who tries to teach a moral lesson from the Old Testament.

Paul himself would have us think otherwise. He is most clear on this in 1 Corinthians 10. Worried that the Corinthian church is being tempted to worship idols, he recalls an analogous situation in the past and applies it to the present:

Paul goes on to describe what the Israelites did to deserve destruction, and he warns the Corinthians to avoid similar behavior (vv. 6-11). A comment that bridges the hermeneutical horizons justifies Paul’s application of Old Testament history to Corinthian situation: "These events happened as a warning to us" (v. 6a). ^[8] In other words, part of the purpose of the record of the wilderness wanderings in Exodus through Deuteronomy the is to serve as an object lesson for our behavior. These accounts are intended to keep us from pursuing idols, whether the stone and metal idols that tempted the Israelites and the Corinthians, or the less tangible idols of power, control, and wealth today.

However, we must be careful as we read the Old Testament and apply it to the present day. We have already had ample caution that there are both continuity and discontinuity between the two Testaments. Joshua’s holy wars may not be used to justify contemporary wars, for there is no elect nation today. Some historical records do not portray normative behavior that God expects of all of his people all of the time. As we read the Old Testament for moral instruction, we have to ask ourselves whether the lesson still applies today. The best guide to answering this question is to see if the ethical teaching is presented in a more straightforward manner elsewhere in the Scripture, particularly in the New Testament.

Once again a brief look at Genesis 39, the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, will serve to illustrate. Clearly, the author presents Joseph as a paradigm of a virtuous young man. When his Egyptian master’s wife invited Joseph to sleep with her (Gen. 39:7), he resisted by saying he would not betray his master or God (vv. 8-9). She then framed him, and he ended up in jail. Now this episode is extremely important in the history of redemption. After all, Joseph’s meeting with the two Egyptian royal officials in jail propelled him and his dream-interpreting gift into the presence of the pharaoh and landed him in a position where he could care for his family during a horrible famine. And of course his family was not just any family, but the family of the promise, Joseph could later look back over his life and in response to his brothers say, turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position Thave today so I could save the lives of many people" (Gen. 50:20).

But as we study the story of Joseph in the framework of redemptive history, we should not lose sight of the fact that Joseph illustrates how a wise young man should act when tempted by sexual sin. This lesson is forcefully taught elsewhere in Scripture. By resisting Potiphar’s wife, Joseph observes the seventh.commandment, "Do not commit adultery" (Exod. 20:14). He also, at least from our later perspective, illustrates someone who has heard the advice of the sage in the Book of Proverbs to avoid immoral women (Prov. 5 and 7). Indeed, this connection is so strong that many have argued that Joseph is a historical incarnation of the wise young man of Proverbs.

Reading the Joseph narrative can empower us today to resist sexual temptation. Similar episodes in the various historical books of the Old Testament can have transformative power in our lives. In particular, they serve to shape Christian behavior by illustrating the blessings of obedience and making concrete the observe that the wages of sin is death.

Poetry is the language of the heart, a mirror of our soul. It is the medium of love and intimate conversation. That is why it is the preferred style of the prophetic books and the prayers of Israel.

We will focus on the Psalms, the intimate prayers of Israel. ^[9] The psalmists share with God their most private feelings. They express the whole range of human emotion: joy, love, confidence on the one hand, and anger, shame, fear, contempt, jealousy, envy on the other.

While the Psalms were written in response to specific events in the lives of their composers (see, e.g., the so-called historical titles to Pss. 3 and 51), were not written as historical records of these events. Rather, they are models of prayers for other worshipers who have had similar experiences. In this sway, are a mirror of our soul, articulating our own emotions better than we ourselves can.

Psalm 61 is a superlative example of a prayer that mirrors our own deepest feelings:

The Bible describes the world as fallen (Gen. 3; Rom. 8:18-23), a fact that we, like the psalmist, know experientially as we encounter hostility and indifference on a daily basis. We long for the stability and safety that only God can provide. Psalm 61 puts into words our deepest feelings as the psalmist uses the images of a rock of safety and a mother bird to depict the sheltering comfort of God. By reminding us of God’s protecting nature, the psalmist not only comforts us, but moves us so that we too will "always sing praises to your name" (v. 8).

Wisdom in the Old Testament is a more profound concept than mere intelligence. To oversimplify, wisdom is more than a knowledge of facts; it is an ability to take those facts and make them mere work in the world. Wisdom is knowing how to do something, a skill. It is insight into navigating life on a daily basis.

There is a debate about the extent of the wisdom genre in the Old Testament, but everyone would agree to include Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job in this literary-theological category. Today we identify biblical wisdom primarily with the pithy, practical sayings in Proverbs 10-31. These are short maxims that seem motivated by experience and common sense and, on the surface, easy to apply to life. The very first proverb is a good example: "A wise child brings joy to a father; a foolish child brings grief to a mother" (10:1). The obvious purpose of this observation is to motivate wise behavior, which is fleshed out in the proverbs that follow

The proverbs often take on an imperitive form: "Teach your children to choose the right path, and when they are older, they will remain upon it" (22:6). When read in isolation, such proverbs seem similar to law, but not so clearly connected to theology. Indeed, the proverbs have often been characterized as secular or simply good advice. The book is then mined for practical insight into living.

However, such a viewpoint misleads in two crucial ways. First, it forgets that Proverbs is very clear about the religious foundation of a good life: "Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowl!edge" (1:7). A careful reading of the first nine chapters of the book confronts the reader with a basic choice between a relationship with Lady Wisdom, who represents Yahweh himself, and one with Lady Folly, who represents a lifestyle that emanates from the worship of false gods. ^[10] Living life in the light of proverbial wisdom is more than a response to good advice; it is deeply theological. Wisdom is fearing God in our everyday actions. Here, then, is the most important lesson of the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. Being wise, at bottom, does not entail a mass of facts to be learned; it is a relationship with God. God is the repository of all wisdom (see Job 28 and 38-42). To become wise, human beings must turn to God. The second common misconception is that proverbial wisdom, like moral law, is always and everywhere applicable to life. On the

contrary, proverbs are context-sensitive. It takes a wise person to know when a particular proverb applies, to know when to speak a particular word: "Everyone enjoys a fitting reply, it is wonder ful to say the right thing at the right time!" (15:23). Misapplica pon of proverbs is ridiculed in Proverbs 26:7 and 9: "In the mouth of a fool, a proverb becomes as limp as a paralyzed leg"; "A proverb in a fool’s mouth is as dangerous as a thornbush brandished by a drunkard."

The context-sensitive nature of proverbs explains why we encounter seemingly contradictory advice in the book. This is nowhere illustrated more strikingly than in 26:4, 5:

In other words, the wise person will take the context into consideration and respond accordingly. That wisdom literature does not consist in laws but in context-sensitive principles does not lesen its relevance as we try to make our way through a difficult world. The purpose of wisdom literature is to give us principles for living and to shape our minds so we might be sensible in the of those principles.

The books of Job and Ecclesiastes serve to restrain us from other common misconception about proverbial wisdom, amely that a lifestyle of wisdom is a formula for success and pros perity If one makes the mistake of reading the proverbs outside of their broader context, it is easy to fall into this error Consider, instance, the general principle enunciated in Proverbs 10:22: The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, and he adds no trouble (NIV). Yet Job was a wise man who suffered horrible His the comforters believed that someone who truly follows God ter experiences such misfortunes. Their conclusion was that Job had to be a sinner, so their counsel was for Joh to repent. But the first chapter of Job lets us in on the divine secret: Job is not suffering because of his sin.

The Teacher in the Book of Ecclesiastes affirms the utility of wisdom in navigating life:

But note further that wisdom does not always mean a joyous and prosperous life:

This truth depressed the composer of Psalm 73, a wisdom psalm Having suffered, Asaph wondered about the usefulness of godly living, that is, until he adopted a long-range perspective. On earth it often appears that the foolish and evil person wins and prospers, while the godly suffer. In faith, however, the psalmist is assured that God’s counsel is "leading me to a glorious destiny (x 24). Such truths of wisdom literature have shaped the lives of people through the ages and can offer much insight to Christians living at the dawn of the twenty-first century

From Abraham (Gen. 20:7) through Malachi prophets dot the landscape of Old Testament history While their backgrounds and roles differed, they all served the purpose of communicating God’s will to his people. What Moses, Isaiah, Nahum, Micah, and the others wrote had implications not only for their contemporaries, but also for us today.

We today tend to think that the prophets' chief role was to predict the future. And in fact God did reveal to many of them what would happen in the near as well as distant future. Since only the true God has such knowledge 44:6-8), the prophet’s predictive role naturally intrigues us. But study demonstrates that the prophets were only rarely interested in the future. Their message was directed to their contemporaries. They invoked the future either to console those suffering in the present or, more commonly, to call upon those sinning in the present to change their ways.

It is precisely in their role as harbingers of judgment that we see the ethical teaching of the prophets most clearly. Why did the prophets spend so much time chastising their audiences? The people of Israel had broken the covenant and the laws that God gave them after he entered into a relationship with them. He had warned them at the time that if they broke the law, they would be afflicted by the curses of the covenant. But before he activated those curses, he sent prophets to warn the people to change their ways before it was too late.

Given the nature of the covenant/treaty as a legal relationship, it is not surprising that the prophets often used legal language as they called their contemporaries to obedience. Micah 6:1-2 well illustrates this: "Listen to what the LORD is saying: 'Stand up and state your case against me. Let the mountains and hills be called to witness your complaints. And now, O mountains, listen to the LORD’s complaint! He has a case against his people Israel! He will prosecute them to the full extent of the law."" It is no wonder that the prophet in Israel has often been described as a covenant lawyer. He was sent by God to press his case againsthis disobedient people. The charges leveled against Israel were as broad as the law itself. They were sexually immoral, oppres sive of the poor, exploitative, abusive, neglectful of religious obligations, murderous. At heart they rejected God. They broke all the commandments. The prophets' speeches of judgment were warnings to Israel and to us to follow the Lord closely.

So the prophets too are an important source of divine revelation telling us how to obey God. We should read them not just as a historical report, but as counsel on how to follow God more closely

We began this chapter by asking the apparently simple question, "How is the Christian to apply the Old Testament to life?" We have seen that the answer is rich, but not easy. It is not simply ya matter of putting ourselves in the position of the first audience and acting just as they did, for there are both continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments. Rather than discourage us, this truth should excite us to dive even more passionately and deeply into God’s Word.