My covenant I will not violate, nor will I alter the utterance of my lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David. His descendants shall endure forever and his throne as the sun before Me." (Psalm 89:34-36)
I recently learned that the Bible didn't always have chapters and verses. Starting in about the 5th century, there was some kind of a chapter system (called the kephalaia) that was implemented by the Byzantines, but it wasn't like our 'modern' chapter system, rather, it divided larger portions, or themes, within Scripture. In the 12th century Stephen Langton divided the Latin Vulgate translation into chapters. In the 15th century, a man named Robert Estienne was the first to divide the chapters into verses. Ever since then, we've had Bibles divided by chapters and verse...and I can't help but think that this sometimes hinders understanding. Ideas that belong together get separated and quite often, that leads to losing 'the forest through the trees' when it comes to exegesis.
For example, in Hebrews 5, and the end of that chapter, the writer of Hebrews is issuing a warning about falling away:
"Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (Hebrews 5:11-14, NASB)
The chapter ends there. Chapter 6 starts with "Therefore", clearly connecting itself with what was just said. And the idea that was started at the end of Chapter 5 continues into the first part of chapter 6, and really, carries on through the entirety of Chapter 6:
"Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement." (Hebrews 6:1-2, NASB)
Why make a chapter break there? Why divide up two sections of Scripture that were clearly meant to be read as a single idea? There are many, many examples just like this one, especially in the writings of Paul. So much so, that a common idiom among preachers is to say, "what is the 'therefore' there for?" Even something as central as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is divided up into 3 chapters despite a) being one single monologue and b) basically having a singular idea throughout. I understand the intent behind dividing up the Bible by chapter and verse - with the advent of the printing press and the increased availability of Scripture, it became necessary to be able to quickly reference some particular point in Scripture so that everyone could look at it together. Nevertheless, it also made it much easier to cherry-pick verses and to pluck important ideas out of their context. Just the other day, someone one Twitter was claiming that Jesus was a Socialist and cited Matthew 19:24, "Again, I tell you, it is easier to a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God." Their point, in citing this verse was that God hates riches and wealth. This person, however, ignored the context of the verse (particularly the two verses that follow 19:24) and also the many instances in Scripture where someone was considered wealthy by worldly standards, but also righteous (Job, Solomon, David, etc).
'Old' and 'New' Testaments
Having said all this, what I really want to talk about is the divisions of Scripture into 'Old' and 'New' Testaments and how this might be the most unhelpful, and perhaps damaging, division of all.
The word 'Testament' (based of the Latin Testamentum) is simply an alternative word for Covenant and so a more accurate way of talking about Scripture, preserving the original ideas, would be Old Covenant and New Covenant, referring to the covenant that God made with Moses/Israel and the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 (and alluded to in a few places in the OT, quoted in Hebrews 8, etc). Perhaps even changing that word, from Testament to Covenant, in how we refer to the major division of Scripture, would help people adjust their thinking, but I want to argue that any division at all seems to undermine the overall message of Scripture.
When we see the words 'old' and 'new', our modern mind automatically does something with that. When speaking of Scripture, nothing about what is 'Old' was meant to convey that it is either worn-out or useless. Even a passage like Hebrews 8:13, which seems to indicate that one covenant is old/obsolete isn't talking about the old covenant itself being worn out, but rather that God's way of relating to man is the thing that is worn out. The general idea that one gets when reading through Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, is that God longs to put his Word and Law directly inside of us, in the sense that we will not longer strive and war against bodies of death (Romans 7:24) but that every inclination of our hearts will be towards pleasing and worshiping Him. Nothing is wrong with the law or the Covenant, it is the fact that humanity itself is broken. Don't take my word for it though, read the words of someone far smarter and well-studied than me; Skip Moen, who wrote an excellent article on what the writer of Hebrews means when talking about the "Old" covenant vs. the New. Just as the earthly temple was a copy and shadow of what is to come, so the covenant with Moses is a copy and shadow of the real deal - the covenant that will animate all relating to, and worship of, Yahweh Elohim (The King of Kings, The LORD of Lords).
Juxtaposing old and new almost subconsciously suggests that there is a different thing happening in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and beyond. If I send a new contract to a client of mine, they might correctly assume that there is something that is different in it from the old contract. When speaking of Scripture, however, there is no new message. I would argue that it is the same message, reinforced and confirmed by Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and then confirmed even further by the release of the Spirit in the early part of Acts. The arc of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is one continuous narrative, telling the same story and pointing in the same direction - that is, to the END, to the Day of the Lord, when Jesus returns to sit on his throne in Jerusalem, the dead are resurrected, everyone is judged and the righteous are separated from the wicked. The entire thrust of the message is to "repent and believe, for the Kingdom of God is near" (Matthew 3:2). If you are reading the story of the Israelites being brought out of bondage in Egypt, or of the prophets speaking to a captive Israel or reading one of Paul's epistles, they all demand a response from the hearer, to turn to God in humility and to put your trust and faith in God's promises.
But What About Jesus?
I don't mean to dismiss the fact that clearly, something different does happen in the New Testament. Never before had God himself come to Earth, and so that fact alone obviously demands our attention. However, the questions that must be asked are, "what was Jesus' message? What did he come to Earth to say and do?" Volumes and volumes have been written on this subject and far be it from me to suppose that I possess some never-before-heard revelation. I am not claiming that - what I am suggesting is simply reading Jesus' own words and then asking ourselves if there is some new message He is bringing. If you would say, "he brought the Gospel", then we have a quick answer. Mark 1:14-15 reads, "Now after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God. "The appointed time has been completed," he declared, "and the King of God is drawing near! Repent and keep putting your faith in the promises!"" What strikes me here is a) Jesus is preaching the Gospel BEFORE his death and b) His message is to repent and believe in the promises. The Gospel, therefore, can't simply be, "Jesus died so that by believing in Him, we could be with Him in Heaven when we die". Second, the message Jesus is preaching here sounds a lot like the prophets that proceeded him. "Repent & believe!" Additionally, you have to contend with the fact that in Luke 24 road to Emmaus account, Jesus explains himself using the Hebrew Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament) which suggests that the OT context is important for understanding who He is and what He is doing.
There is no question that Jesus' death on cross is the climatic moment of history (past, present, future), but his death and resurrection, it seems to me, was not the End. The way I see it, His death and resurrection were a confirmation, or first fruits, of what is to come, and by saying that, it is a confirmation that God is going to follow through on EVERY promise He made to Abraham, Moses, and David (and Noah and Adam/Eve before that). When viewed in that light, it becomes absolutely critical for the modern believer to understand what is said in the 'Old' Testament. To know what the promises of God are, we have to know what was said (and how it was understood), and what God promised. Without that, we are likely to boil the Gospel down to something that disconnects Jesus from his Jewishness; that is, his connectedness to the narrative that preceded his first appearing. In my estimation, that would be a cheapening of the message and the Hope - it would make it less concrete and more vulnerable to misunderstanding.
Moving Forward
I figured that if I was going to tear something down, I should have a clear proposal for what to do instead. In the best case scenario, you would just have "The Holy Bible", and The Bible would have no major division in it. It would be continuous from Genesis to Revelation. If, however, we must have a division, I will go ahead and defer to someone much smarter than me. Dan Gruber, a Messianic Jew and talented writer/thinker, wrote about this very thing in his book "Copernicus and the Jews" and proposed that we call the Old Testament the 'Tanakh' or The Hebrew Scriptures, which are the Scriptures Jesus would have had (Genesis to Malachi), and call the New Testament the 'Messianic Writings' (Matthew to Revelation). This way of talking about Scripture rightly connects the two parts AND preserves the inherent Jewishness of the whole thing.
Why Does This Matter?
If, like me, you really want to dig deep into this question - read Dan Gruber's book that I linked above; I am making my way through it and it is technical reading to be sure. To boil it down, the simple fact is that without Jesus' Jewish context, what he does/says makes no sense and has no complete and concrete meaning. It only holds full meaning with the context and with the narrative that preceded His appearing. Understanding 'sin', 'atonement', 'repentance', 'forgiveness', righteousness', 'justification', 'salvation', or any number of other theological terms absolutely REQUIRES a Jewish context. I say 'Jewish' because the Hebrew Scriptures are Jewish. There is simply no divorcing them from that context. God identifies himself as the "God of Israel" and "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" repeatedly throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. He refers to Israel has His 'Chosen People'. "I will be their God, and they will be My people" (Gen 17:8, Ex 6:7, Ex 29:45, Lev 26:45, Ezk 14:11, Zech 8:8, Jer 32:38, Isa 43:3, Hosea 12:9, etc, etc, etc).
This is not to somehow exalt the Jewish people, to exalt Hebrew culture, to assign value judgements to different ethnicities or groups of people, or anything like that. Rather, this is an acknowledgement that this is how God himself has chosen to set things up. This is the way that He has chosen to redeem humanity. I started out this entry by quoting Psalm 89 - "my covenant I will not violate". What are God's words to Abraham in Genesis 12?
"Go forth from your country, and from your relatives, and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all of the families of the Earth will be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3)
If I am reading that straight-forwardly, God chose Israel for himself through Abraham (the nation of Israel is the one that comes from Abraham) and ultimately promised to save/bless ALL of the families of the Earth THROUGH Abraham/Israel. You might say, "well, Jesus fulfilled that - he saved everyone through his death on the cross." What about Hebrews 9:28? It says, "...so also, Messiah was offered once to bear the since of many, and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him". The 'salvation' part is still coming - it's a future hope - which means, to bring this full-circle, that God still intends to follow through on His covenant with Abraham, down to the last letter. That includes land (Gen 15:18, 17:8) for His people and also, if we bring in the further Covenants made with Moses and David, involves a descendant of David (Jesus) sitting on a throne in Jerusalem forever (2 Samuel 7:13). If God does not do this, He is not God. Put another way, if He somehow changed His plan in the middle, abandoned His people Israel, and set up a new thing called the Church, then he is not God because He will have violated His Covenant. The promises of God are what matters and that is why our right understanding of who He is and what He is doing is paramount. It determines how we respond, and that is where the rubber meets the road.
