[W]hat did and should it mean for
the role of the Old Testament in the church, that in some new way it is now
"directed to Christ"? We see that our question must be limited: we
cannot ask why the Old Testament is Scripture after Christ's resurrection, but only
about the way in which the Old Testament canon actually functions within the
risen Christ's community.
...
When the narratives of the
patriarchs' adventures, of the exodus, of the conquest of Canaan, or of the
Lord's judgments and restorations of Israel are felt as alien, one of two
things is likely to happen; both have actually happened, and both undermine the
faith. One possible and currently actual outcome is that preaching and
teaching construe "the New Testament's God" simply by constructing a
contrary of the supposed Old Testament God: the God of the gospel is pacific,
nonjudgmental, and in general a really nice person. In much of the liberal
church, in many Evangelical groups, and indeed among many
"progressive" Catholics, theology has thus been replaced by
sentimentality ....
...
We must therefore be careful in
stipulating the difference that the crucifixion and resurrection made for the
role of the Old Testament. In the New Testament itself, the Old Testament's
theological authority is unaffected. The Old Testament's identification of the
Lord as "the one who rescued Israel from Egypt" is
indeed completed by "the one who rescued the Lord Jesus from
death"; but it is not replaced (Soulen, God); and in general the New Testament
simply assumes the whole of Israel's story about God's works with his people.
Whatever problems the Old Testament law made for a soon predominantly Gentile
church, Jesus' own remembered words confirmed that the law reveals God's will.
And Israel's prophets were the very teachers from whom the primal church
learned why Jesus is needed.
by Robert W. Jenson (Westminster John Knox Press 2010).
No comments:
Post a Comment