The Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments

An argument has erupted between two denominationalists on the value of the Old Testament. Both make good points, but neither has a grasp on the relationship between the two covenants. One thing that would eliminate most of the controversy would be to ask and answer the question, "To whom was each covenant made?" The Old Covenant was made by God with the nation of Israel—not the entire world. The New Testament has no such limitations; God gave it to the whole world.

In one corner is Andy Stanley who operates a "flock of mega-churches in suburban Atlanta." [All the information in this article comes from an August 11, 2018 post on the Internet. No author's name is attached to the article.] Stanley purportedly has 32,000 followers. In the other corner challenging him is Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Back in May, Stanley taught his adherents that it was time for them to "unhitch" themselves from the Old Testament.

Mohler thought this was very close to the heresy of Marcion (A.D. 85-160). Marcion was the originator of a doctrine that is still believed by many "Christians" today—that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament. To Marcion's way of thinking, Jehovah in the Old Testament was "a vindictive law-giving Creator deity who bears no resemblance to the merciful redeeming God revealed in Jesus Christ." Apparently, he never read about redemption under the Old Covenant, along with the prophecies of Jesus, the Redeemer to come. He must have further "passed over" Malachi 3:6: "For I am the Lord, I do not change…." Or maybe the heretic just rejected those words. Similar in the New Testament is Hebrews 13:8: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Stanley insists that he neither believes nor teaches what Marcion did. It may be that he is in even worse shape, however.

Acts 15

The article quotes Stanley and a third man, Joseph Farah, on Acts 15, usually referred to as the Jerusalem conference. The Judaizing teachers were troubling the churches with their doctrine that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas met with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to determine the truth of the matter (Acts 15:4-6). What Peter says about the matter is very clear. The Gentiles were saved in the same manner as the Jews—without being circumcised. Furthermore, regarding the idea that the Gentiles should be obeying the Law of Moses, Peter offered the following protest:

"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (v. 10).

In other words, Peter argues: 1) We Jews never obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly. 2) So why would we want to bind on the Gentiles that which we could never do? James agreed that these new Christians should not be troubled by the precepts of the Law. He submitted four things that they should observe, however, and they involved abstaining: 1) from things [which included food] offered to idols (Paul deals with this subject in 1 Corinthians 8-10, and John concludes his first epistle with a warning against idolatry—1 John 5:21); 2) from sexual immorality (which was frequently part of pagan religious rites); 3) from things strangled; and 4) from blood (both of which involve the eating of blood, which was forbidden even before the Law of Moses came into existence—Genesis 9:4).

So Stanley is correct to say that Peter, James, and Paul recommended that the church unhitch from the Law. Another scholar named Joseph Farah is absolutely wrong in his take on this passage. He claims that the apostles just provided some baseline laws for the Gentiles to keep—while they attended synagogues every week and were given a chance to learn the rest over time. What?? One truly wonders how he could be so confused? Where did he get the idea that Christians went to Jewish synagogues to be taught Judaism and that they would be expected to obey those laws? When were they to be taught Christianity?

Just as no one in Corinth was baptized into the name of Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, no one was baptized into the name of Moses, either. Not after Pentecost. They were baptized in the name of Jesus and taught Christian doctrine. Where is the verse that substantiates what Farah said? He is way off base, and not one verse of Acts 15 implies his "baseline" theory. In the written letter, it specifically says that "no greater burden" be required than the four necessary things already listed (v. 28). No follow-up statement mentions synagogue instruction or additional laws to keep. How can one be so far off base and get a book published with the title, The Gospel in Every Book of the Old Testament?

Are We Still Under the Law of Moses?

Mohler also makes a horrific blunder. He says: "At no point in the New Testament is the Old Testament dismissed." Has he never read Galatians 5:1-4, Ephesians 2:14-16, Colossians 2:14, or Hebrews 8:6-7? In describing the old and new covenants, the writer of Hebrews said in 8:6-7:

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for the second.

The writer compares the two covenants—the Law of Moses and Christianity. The Old possessed faults. If it had been perfect, it would not have needed to be replaced. The Law of Moses was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). It has been put to death and is no longer valid as a covenant. Jesus abolished the Law so that Jews and Gentiles could be reconciled in one body—the body of Christ (Eph. 2:14-16). As did Peter, Paul referred to the Law as a yoke of bondage. He stated vehemently that to insist on circumcision or any other part of the Law made one a debtor to keep the whole Law. Anyone attempting to do so has fallen from grace (Gal. 5:1-4).

God does not require Christians to obey the Law of Moses, and, in fact, no Christian in his right mind would want to (read Leviticus 1-5). "Oh," some protest, you are doing away with God's moral law." No. All the moral precepts God wants us to obey are clearly revealed in the New Testament. Actually, many of them were operative before the Law of Moses. Joseph knew that adultery was wrong and fled Potiphar's wife. Esau knew that it was wrong for Jacob to lie and steal his blessing. God had destroyed the world with a Flood for violence, among other reasons (Gen. 6:5,11). Those same types of immorality are wrong under the Christian system, also.

Mohler cites Matthew 5:17-19 as support for the Law still being in effect, but like everyone else who tries this defense, he overlooks the critical word in the passage. Jesus taught that the Law would not be done away "until all is accomplished." The New King James says: "till all is fulfilled." Jesus did fulfill all that was prophesied of Him. On the cross, He declared, "It is finished" (John 19:30). For that reason the Law was nailed to the cross. With the death of Jesus, the Testator, the new will could go into effect. "For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives" (Heb. 9:17).

Jesus lived and died under the Old Covenant, but the Law died with Him, and the New Testament came into effect. Jesus could not in His lifetime just teach that the Law was not valid. It was in force—until He died. But He was teaching the principles of the New Covenant in advance. Most people in the denominational world do not understand this simple concept.

Farah and Mohler are wrong in thinking that the Old Covenant is still in effect. That would put us under two covenants at the same time, which is absurd. Did not Jesus Himself say, that we cannot obey two masters? Yes, He was talking about God and the world (or materialism), but the principle applies more broadly than just that one situation. The apostles recognized that new Christians were not under both covenants. So, in that sense Stanley is correct in saying we should unhitch ourselves from the Old Testament. It has no authority; we are not required to obey its laws. However it is not to be discarded because it serves as the foundation of the New Testament—both in information and its numerous prophecies which we find fulfilled in the New.

A Bridge Too Far

However, in constructing the proper path, Stanley got carried away and blazed a trail too far in the other direction. He is quoted as saying: "I'm convinced that we make a better case for Jesus if we leave the Old Testament or the old covenant out of the argument." What? This makes no sense. It is one thing to say we are not under Old Testament Law and quite another to argue that we don't need the Old Testament. Do we not need Genesis 3:15, 28:13-14, Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 53? Seriously? Do we not need Genesis 1-2 to explain the creation of the world, as well as the origin of mankind?

But it gets worse. Stanley reportedly says that "we have to rethink our apologetic as Christians." For what possible benefit would we want to do that? The scientific evidences provided in the Old Testament are invaluable. How else would men have known that the stars were numberless (Gen. 22:17), that there were currents in the seas (Psalm 8:8), or that the earth was a sphere (Isa. 40:22)? It took scientists centuries to discover what God knew all along. Since He revealed it in His Word, then mankind (at least, those who paid attention) knew it, also. The Old Testament is integrally involved in the Christian apologetic.

But it gets still worse. Two years ago Stanley said: "If the Bible is the foundation of your faith, here's the problem: it's all or nothing. Christianity becomes a fragile house of cards religion." Whoa! What on earth does he mean by these words? If the Bible is not the foundation of one's faith, then what is? Some subjective feeling? Some inner voice? Muslims have subjective feelings and inner voices, too, and they believe in Allah—a version of God quite different than the One taught by Jesus.

Has Stanley been listening to "Higher Criticism," which takes potshots at the Bible continually? Has he been listening to the "experts" and "scholars" on the History Channel? What would lead him to make such a foolish statement? The accuracy of the Bible is all we have as a foundation for our faith.

Several of Mohler's statements concerning the Old Testament are false, but he is right in this assessment: "Jesus himself makes the point that without the Old Testament as the Word of God, we really do not know who he [sic] is." It is, in fact, the Old Testament that foretells of the prophet to come (Deut. 18:18-19; cf. John 1:21). It also prophesies of Jesus as the coming King from David's lineage (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Psalm 110 declares the resurrection preceding this kingship (v. 1) and proclaims that He will be High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (v. 4). And Stanley would have us discard these truths? No, the Old Testament states in advance that Jesus will be Prophet and Priest and King!

Stanley, with 32,000 followers in the Atlanta area, is leading those people astray. The president of a Baptist Seminary does not understand the difference in the two covenants. Why not listen to those who believe and follow only the Bible and can use it properly?