THE CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

(1)

abinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2010).

THE CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

evan der Waal

The relationship between the Old and New Testaments is a subject that continues to demand our attention; and this is no surprise.

The church is called to preach the Word. To be able to do so requires a proper view and V1Slon of the Word. Now the Word comes to us in the form of the double witness of the Old and New Tes- taments.

Innumerable questions may be put in this regard: Is the Old Testa- ment inferior in comparison with the New Testament? Or is the Old Testament perhaps superior in content to the New Testament? Is the Old Testament inherently more earthly and the New Testament more spiritual? Can the Old Testament in fact be called Christian,l) or is it not a Christian book?2) Does a continuity exist between the Old and New Testaments, or is there rather a tension, a dialectical relationship?

The past history has certainly not facilitated matters. The pre- vious century I'las one of criticism of the Old Testament. Today, one is looked at askance if one puts a question mark behind all the paste and scissors experiments with which scholars have occupied themselves. Fact of the matter, however, is that the criticism of the Old Testament has resulted in its being treated less seriously than it deserves. Should one therefore read, 'Thus says the Lord!' but one has to immediately qualify it with, 'This is an interpola- tion by a foreign hand', one tends to devalue such a text, even though it were cited in the New Testament. What does a South Afri- can historian do with Voortrekker letters written between 1914- 1918? What value does a play have which Moliere conceived of in 1887? The historical critic of the Old Testament has reduced many of its parts to worthless sources, which are certainly important in the history of religion, but which at the most play only a secondary role as revelation.

This being so, the question must now be put: what is the nature of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments? Can one still talk of a relationship of equivalence or of continuity between the two?

Added to this is the fact that the greater the lapse of time, the more customary it becomes to speak of the Old Testament as the book of Judaism, the Jewish Bible. By thus allocating the Old Tes-

(2)

tament to the Jews in the same way as the Koran is allocated to the Muslims, the New Testament is reserved for the Christians. As a practical example we have the Gideon Bible, which includes only the Psalms along with the New Testament. Furthermore, as far as the Psalms are concerned, they are in the process of gradually disap- pearing from the South African liturgy, with the exception of a few that may be designated 'everyone's favourites'. Even churches which nominally adhere to the Psalms nonetheless persist with selections.

These facts cannot be dissociated from theology, for every theologian is moulded in his parental home and in the congregation where he grows up. The fact that Augustine's work is saturated with the language of the Psalms cannot be divorced from his constant handling of the Psalms in his daily life. Just so, the estrangement of the Old Testament generally, accounts for the alienation of the Old Tes- tament by theologians. This is equally applicable where they are Old Testament scholars and Hebraists. It is one thing to read the Old Testament, but quite another thing to be able to understand it.

Many a theologian today seems to suffer from a kind of paralysis.

He does not know what to make of the Old Testament. He finds everything cut into pieces and explained. But it ;s as dead as the dis- sected rabbit in DR Kleine Johannes of Frederik van Eeden. We are currently being bombarded with hermeneutics, but the trouble is that all hermeneutic solutions are written on the theme of doubt about the authority of God's Word. Thus the avalanche of hermeneutics assists us no further; on the contrary it contributes to a degradation of the Old Testament. The present hermeneutic move- ment has finally accepted the critical approach to the Old Testa- ment and decisively rejected the unity of the Old Testament. What, then, can we expect of it?

I mention these facts ;n order to del;ne3te the actuality of our subject. Perhaps never previously have there been so many aids for expounding the Bible, but if one listens to preaching, there seems to be very little evidence of this either from the right or the left. Moralism, exemplarism, all kinds of barren forms of alle- gorism are discernible in the preaching. Yet it is still true in such cases that the Old Testament is considered in the choice of a text. There is an unmistakable impotence. A further cleft is ex- posed: the discord between faith and theological science.

Pastor von Bodelschwingh in his own manner formerly expressed it thus, 'Eine Not erfuhr Ich als besonders brennend: den Zwiespa1t zwischen der Theologie als Wissenschaft und dem personlichen Zeug- nis von Christus in der praktischen VerkUndigung,'3) he who is deaf to this cry has a calloused heart. There is no via media between acceptance of historical criticism of the Bible and proclamation.

Otherwise one is suspended in midair. So von Bodelschwingh also concludes, 'Es ist klar be; einer solchen inneren-Haltung: Hier

(3)

steht unsere Front des so tapferen Bekennens bald, von der leben- digen Heeresmacht abgerissen, in der Luft!' (Moller 1938:15).

When we consider that also to black and brown students of theology in South Africa the Bible-critical approach is excessively taught, then we should not be surprised if its effects become evident in the pY'oda!TIat1:on. That sermons, 1 i ke those of Alan Boesak, are far removed from the normal prerequisites for preaching and even present a revolutionary interpretation, is an ominous sign. The problem is, however, universal. When historical criticism of the Old Testament has stripped this canon of its trustworthy character as Word of God then inevitably the question arises, what more can be done with such oriental documents which disintegrate into pri- mary, secondary, tertiary and quarternary sources? The result is that the Old Testament is either set aside or merely serves as the ground of a doubtful exodus-theology. Anyone who has looked into the matter, will know any number of relevant examples. And, if one reads the ecclesiastical press or listens to the radio, one can gather examples of impotence.4 )

All these factors are a motivation for tackling this subject. An existential reason therefore exists.

1 PRESUPPOSITIONS

When the continuity between the Old and New Testaments is referred to, it presupposes that the Old and New Testaments represent two quantities which individually form a unit, although each has a bearing upon the other. The terms: Old and New Testament find their origin in the Scriptures themselves. Tpstampntum is a Latin translation (in the Vulgate) of diath~k~, covenant. Here the covenant of the Lord with his people is meant, as it is described in revelation. 2 Corinthians 3:14 speaks of the reading of the old covenant, by which the reading of the law and the prophets is meant.

Already with Melito of Sardis (+ 170 A.D.) the books of the old covenant are mentioned. -

The Old Testament can thus also be called the Old Covenant. The use of this term involves the only God himself. It is the covenant document of him who is immutable and does not deny himself. For

~his reason it must be treated with respect.

It means that it should be accepted as such. The Old Testament is not a mere conglomeration of all possible sources and put together with paste and scissors. It is the official revelation of the Lord which demand~ authority. The Lord is the God of the covenant (testamentum) who requires obedience of his vassals and makes them promises in return.S ) The ppl 7inhp argument is thereby

(4)

excluded. The Old Testament is not a product of the evolution of religion or the development of an idea. Martin Buber (1953:136) writes succinctly of Isaiah, 'Er hat keine Idee, er hat nur eine Botschaft. Er hat nichts zu grUnden, er hat nur etwas auszurufen'.

What our century needs is a restored respect for the Old Testawent, the Old Book of the Covenant. If ever the saying, 'Fools rush in where angels fear to tread~ were applicable, it is here. The Old Covenant is the Royal proclamation that should be treated with respect and which may not be cluttered with what is in fact under- mining and destructive criticism. It demands the utmost respect.

The Test;(1J7iCii~Urr:> the Witness, must be accepted as the Witness of God even though - and here we discern God's accommodation and con- descension - il is imparted in human language.

The same may be said for the !'/uu,,]r, i'e.';t.arr:(i/I.W'i, the New Witness, the New Book of the Covenant. It is inadmissible to distinguish all kinds of theologies in the Old Testament which are sometimes at loggerheads. But the same is true also of the ~ew Testament.

True, there is variety within the Old and New Testaments - forms such as codex, song, narrative, requisitor, and so on. But this does not fracture the unity. On the contrary, there is a struc- tura I cohes i on.

He who speaks of the Old and New Testaments tain basic principles:

accepts cer- a. There is o~e testamentum, onp covenant, and that is the covenant of the Lord with his people. Thus Old Testament and New Tes- tament are not opposed to each other. Everything stands under the common denominator of the covenant. Already in the term 'Testa- ment' the fact of continuity is given.

b. Neither are the Old and New Testaments a collection of experiments or essays of various kinds and different theological back- grounds. He who distinguishes all kinds of theologies, will have to delete the words Old and New Testaments and substitute for them,

'Old and New Volumes of religious essays'.

c. The Old and New Tpst.()menta are Royal proclamations which demand unconditional authority. The dialectical approach causes the Bibli- cal critic to stand firm and persevere in his search for the keryg- matic interpretation. This in fact does an injustice to the Royal character of revelation. Present-day history, however, allows for this allegation. It is not possible to speak in derogatory terms of the King's revelation and at the same time adequately to pro- claim that revelation.

(5)

2 STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS An examination of the structure of the Old and New Testaments reveals considerable similarities. Meredith G Kline (1972:45-75, cf. Van der Waal 1978:121-30) has made some interesting observa- tions in this connection. The Old Testament begins with the Torah.

In it, the pre-history of the conclusion of the covenant and the conclusion of the covenant itself, are narrated.

Then follow the for'mer prophets who indicate the manner in which the covenant works itself out in history.

Then follow the latter prophets who inform us how the Lord exhorted and admonished the people through his servants, the prophets.

When it comes to the New Testament, we detect a similar pattern.

The 'gospels' assume the place of the Torah. They concentrate on the conclusion of the covenant. The Book of Acts demonstrates how the gospel of the new covenant confronts Israel. The Epistles and the Book of Revelation take the place of the prophets; the covenant proclamation of the Lord. The proclamation of grace and judgment.

This similarity is by no means coincidental. This becomes even clearer when it is observed how the gospels clearly hark back to the Torah. Matthew begins with the to the book of the 'generations' (history of generations). Mark commences with 'beginning' and John's first words are also, 'In the beginning' (as in Gen 1:1).

Matthew furnishes five blocks of discourses, reminiscent of the five books of Moses. What we find in John 1 about the Logos are words which are also appropriate to the Torah. One could go on.

Jesus' conduct is often reminiscent of Moses' deeds. The term 'the new covenant' reminds us not only of Jeremiah 31 but also of Exodus 24. The connection between gospel and the Torah is very clearly indicated.

This structural similarity between the Old and New Testaments proves that there is continuity. The New Testament purports to an- nounce the fulfilment of the Old Testament. The relationship is not antithetical as Marcion and others represented it. There is a connection but, at the same time, progression. Promises made in the Old Testament, are fulfilled, that is to say they come to pass.

are ri?G b",'come aetuaZ. are ,;ary'Iec1 out.

We may schematically express the relationship thus:

(6)

'gospels_'_----lH

A~t' ~-~ff!:;~l

.----To-ra-l-h-~~h"'lKi"g,=rFah ~alach~]

3 DID THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ADOPT THE OLD TESTAMENT

The title of J L Koo 1 e' s thes is is: ^f)( U:Ji'1'i,0]iW ",u: .' ( ' , ' j -

tament doo)' de c:hl'/n:r;i1.:,j· /{?1'" l:'m';;:./J~ 19:-':). The title of this otherwise consistently excellent dissertation begs the questions: for,liel the church deliberately adopt something? When one talks of adopting something, then it points to a deliberate act based upon a free choice. This is unacceptable. The Christian church is not an organization that was establ ished dc: lien'(), but is and was a continuation of the church, the congregation which God gathered from Israel. And that congregation had its Scripture: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.

There was no stagnation-point between ebb and flow where at a given moment the young Christian church decided, 'we may as well adopt the Old Testament'. They were themselves called by the voice of God in the Old Testament, called away to become a church. And Christ pointed them to the Scriptures (Lk 24). The entire work of Christ rested upon the Scriptures. To accept Christ was to accept the Scriptures. There was no 'appropriation' as in the case of the distribution of an estate, because the Christian church already possessed the Scriptures from its infancy just as Timothy had known the Scriptures from his mother's knee (2 Tim 3:15; cf. 1:5).

The Old Testament was the Bible of the church at Pentecost.

separate decision for this was required. It was axiomatic.

port of this we may refer (1) to the New Testament itself, (2) to the Scriptures of the early church.

No In sup- and (1) The citations of the Old Testament in the New speak unequivo- cally. We have already referred to the structural relationship between the Old and New Testaments. When, however, we go into detail, then it appears that larger and smaller sections are constantly saturated by the spirit of the Old Testament. The myth that the con-

(7)

tent of the New Testament was actually Hellenistic, for a long time obscured its decisive cohesion with the Old Testament. As an example thereof we may cite the case of the Gospel according to John which for a considerable time was expounded more or less without reference to the Old Testament. Only in recent times has there been a change of attitude due to the influence of the Qumran finds, and only now are we discovering how 'Jewish' this book is. Yet, it appears to me that the consequences have by no means been fully grasped. Thus, for example, we may also refer to the Book of Reve- lation which is indeed brought within the context of Jewish apo- calyptic, but which ought really to be expounded on the basis of the Old Testament

In summing up we may say that the Old Testament constitutes the reference plane of the New Testament. Despite a considerable number of studies in this connection, a wide field of study remains to be researched. Far too often it is alleged by exegetes that the New Testament is guilty of merely echoing the Old Testament, of treating citations allegorically, or of misusing citations for a totally different context. The investigation will also in such an instance evidence Y'cs['cr-i for the New Testament and proceed on the basis that the citations represent a meaningful treatment of Old Testament data. There must be an avoidance of 'private interpretation' (2 Pt 1:20), which means that a large amount of research will certainly have to be redone. That the young church from its inception accepted the Old Testament as its Bible appears to be evident and, what is more, it accepted the ~~tiY'c Old Testament since all of its books are referred to either by way of allusion or citation.

(2) With regard to the young church, after having taken cognizance of the New Testament, it may be said that she likewise accepted and used the Old Testament in its entirety. In doing so, the Old Tes- tament was not divided into more, or less, important layers. It was taken up and cited OR an tity in the same way as the New Testa- ment was increasingly being taken up and cited as an entity. Both the Old and New Testaments were quoted and stamped as Scripture.

There was no question of devaluing the one at the expense of the other. The patristic literature proceeds on the basis of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments which together comprise the Scriptures. Ignatius Uod. V. Iff.) is already aware of the triad: the prophets, the Lord, the apostles. The holy prophets spoke through the Spirit (1 Clem 45) as did the apostles (1 Cl em 47).

4 LAW AND GOSPEL

An important question is whether the New Testament exercised self- criticism on the Old Testament. One thinks of the relationship:

(8)

la:u) and gaspe l, as Pau 1 s pea ks of it.

It appears to me that in this regard grave misunderstanding still prevails. In the first place the stubborn idea exists that 'law' (torah) is no more than legal (codex) stipulation. The opposite is in fact true. The TOI'ah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) is the book of the covenant par excellence and reveals the benefit of redemption and promise. The mighty God of creation concludes a covenant with his people. Added to this are apodictic stipulations which govern all of life. But they are ranged under the denominator of the redemption from Egypt.

Under Pharisaic influence, however, the torah became a sort of strait-jacket as well as a text book on the art of living. It is this that Jesus opposed. He did not come to destroy the torah, but certainly to confront the rabbis with his, 'But I say to you!' Christ therefore does not push the Old Testament aside, but he is certainly opposed to the falsification of history and the law.

The same is true of Paul. He clinches with the rabbis. His letter to the Romans is an account of his dispute with the Pharisaism of the diaspora. When therefore Paul speaks of the law as that which 'puts to death' (Rm 7; 2 Cor 3), he means the law as interpreted by the Pharisees and not the good and holy law of God himself. He means the law which has become detached from the gospel.

'Selfs waar dit 1yk asof die prediking van Paulus, net soos die van Jesus, anderssoortig is as die van die Ou Testament en dit skynbaar weerspreek (vgl die voorbeeld in Mattheus 5:21-44 en Gal. 3:10-12), moet dit in gedagte gehou word dat Jesus sowel as Paulus se prediking dikwels meer gerig is op die teenstelling tussen hulle prediking en die Ou-Testamentiese boodskap soos vertolk in die kontem- porere Judaisme as wat hulle teen die gees en oorspronklike be- doeling van God se

topa

op Sinai ingaan'(Van Zyl 1970:16). Thus A H van Zyl - words full of significance. If I understand the situation correctly, then there are two grounds on which the law in the Old Testament is frequently devalued.

First of all, there is the humanistic opinion of ~1elancthon, who deeply imbibed the reformed theology, that the so-called covenant of works was to be equated with the lex naturae, and that the lex

nat~PQP was reiterated at Sinai.

We find this conception with Ursinus and Olevianus and it meanders through reformed theology (Diemer 1933). Moses' law is thus a ZaJ

"f~O a (,C'l'eVIQYiL of INJr/{s. Coccejus's doctrine in fact held that God gradually abolished the covenant of works and replaced it with the covenant of grace (Greijdanus 1946:196). Paul would. according to this view, have accepted that the law assumed

(9)

a covenant of works. This is clearly a misconception but it con- tributed to discrimination against the tOlvh.

There is in addition Luther's point of view about which Heinrich Bornkamm (1948) has written an honest book! Luther regards the law as executioner ('Henker') which slays us. The law has value within the framework of the acknowledgment of sins, but that is all: Inevitably Luther is guilty of conflicting statements, but the cardinal issue is that the law slays us and it is the gospel that makes us alive. Luther did not grasp the fact that the law is expressed in gospel tenns, 'I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt'. As a result of his conception of it, Luther viewed the Old Testament through dark glasses. This has had a tremendous influence on theology right up to the present. The

la\~ was contrasted with the gospel, resulting in a dialectical relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

Von Harnack later joined Marcion. Alfred Rosenberg emphatically discriminated against the Old Testament. These aberrations are not a direct result of Luther's opinions, but have a bearing thereon.

This distressing situation regarding the Old Testament was promoted by Luther. By distancing himself from the Old Testament, recog- nition of the continuity provided by the covenant suffered injury.

It was then impossible to halt the Holocaust.

It is the task of reformed theology to Testament/New Testament and thereby to Melancthon and the visions of Luther.

remain obscured.

5 THE CHURCH AND ISRAEL

rethink the relationship Old rid itself of the legacy of Otherwise continuity will

The Holocaust has boomeranged with the result that today an Israel cult has arisen. This means that as far as the relationship Old Testament/New Testament is concerned, it is being debated whether the church is the New Israel. On the contrary, the church is seen as filling an interim period, whereas the future actually belongs to Israel. An entire system of all kinds of chiliastic ideas en- tangle and confuse people. Even in the most orthodox circles in the Netherlands it is currently being confessed: a great future has been apportioned to Israel (cf. Graafland 1978). The Old Tes- tament becomes Israel's book and the New Testament recognizes the provisional nature of the 'Church Age'. Romans 11:25 is a favou- rite text, 'So all Israel will be saved'. By 'Israel' is meant the contemporary. physical people of Israel.

This in itself is strange, namely to speak in terms of an empirical ethnological quantum. The Eastern European Jews appear to be descendants of the Khazars, a Russian clan that became Jews through

(10)

proselytizing (cf. Koestler 1978). We know that the East European Jews constitute the greatest segment of Israel's populati"n, the Ashkenazim. Even more remarkable is the recent discovery that Christian Arabs in Israel are actually descended from Jewish

Christians of the first century.6) ~Jho, today are the Jews? It is impossible to establish who they are. Far too much proselytizing and intermingling has taken place. As a matter of fact the term

'Jews' today is indicative of a cultic group, whether or not they are true to their religion.

Nonetheless everything is suspended from the silken cord of Romans 11:25; yet in that context Paul speaks of the Jews of ~is day who were still a covenant people (i ) (cf. Van der Waal 1971b:127-44 and 1977:49f.). They were beloved according to the election for the father's sake, but enemies as far as the Gospel was concerned (Rm 11:28). No one has the right therefore to make a generaliza- tion.

The translation of Romans 11:25 in which it is stated that a partial blindness had happened to Israel ~~ 7 the fulness of the Gentiles came in, favoured a futuristic explanation: one day, at the end of time, when the eschaton arrived, the Jews would convert as a nation.

But the translation 'untU' should in my opinion be replaced with

'whU,e'. Compare in this connection Psalm 110:1 where 'iJlzn",' (regarding the enemies as the footstool of the Messiah) fits the meaning better than 'until'. /i(·hyv/ in Romans 11:25 can well be trans- lated 'uh/lp'. And that woul d refer to the decisive period befoY'e

70 A.D., the forty years of grace following pentecost. While the fulness of the Gentiles was entering the kingdom, a blindness came over a of the Jews. A remnant. however, remained which did subj itself to the Gospel (Rm 11:1-5).

The error committed in the exegesis of Romans 11 is due to the fact that the covenant relationship is left out of the discussion. The result is that the Old Testament thereby attains a superior value to the New Testament, a plus-value.7 ) Promises made to Israel thus do not follow through to the New Testament church but become, as it were, a mere undercurrent of the New Testament, only to reappear and come to realization at the end time. Those promises therefore do not fit in with A A Van Ruler's understanding of New Testament fulfilment. We may depict it schematically as follows:

Old testament promises re

restoration of the land to INEW TESTAMENT

Israel. CHURCH - INTERIM

Return of the twelve tribes'"l"--_________ ~ Restoration and conversion of I s rae 1

(11)

Another factor needs to be taken into account. There is the idea abroad that the promise of land to Israel is negated by the New Testament in that it is actually spiritualized. Hence it is necessary to allow for a separate period (dispensation) in order to make provision for these promises.

This dispensational approach seriously threatens the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. It is not true that the New Tes- tament is less earthly and more spiritual. Christ heals people and he ushers in the resurrection. He brings peace to the cosmos and redeems the travailing creation. That is why He will bring to pass the fulfilment of all the 'unfulfilled prophecies' relating to land and people at his final parou8ia. Revelation 22:1,2 may not be spiritualized (e.g. the river of life = the Gospel, and so on).e) Here- in, however, the true fulfilment of all that was native to the Old Testament is spelt out. 'Oas Ende der Wege Gottes ist Leiblich- keit' .

Every form of Chiliasm is in facta limitation of the promises of God. The New Testament on the other hand carries forward the proclamation of the Old Testament concerning the redemption of the creation. And the church is heir to it. The chuY'eh is heir to 18- Y'a?!l's pY'omi81?c:. Continuity: That is why there is no place for a separate homeland for the Jews in a millenium. They are invited, just as all other nations are, to share in the salvation of God in the gospel which the church proclaims, and that salvation is definitely cosmic.

A testing ground for all this is surely the Christian literature of the first centJries. A cult of Israel finds no place there.

There is indeed a confrontation between ecclesia and synagogue.

M Simon (1964) has ~ade a comprehensive study of this problem. He concludes, 'Ainsi, Eglise et Israel sont synonymes, christianisme et judaisme authentique se confondent' (104). In addition he re- fers to Revelation 2:9, 3:9. '11 n'est plus question des lors, puisque les separations chronologiques s'estompent, d'opposer 1 'Ancienne Alliance et la Nouvelle qui sont, dans leur fond, iden- tiques' (104f.). 'In lege et in Evangelio cum sit primum et maxi- mum praeceptum diligere Oominum Oeum ex toto corde .,. unus et

idem ostenditur legis et Evangelii conditor' (Irenaeus, Adv Haer, IV, 12,3).

The gnostics played off the Old Testament against the New Testament and set them in antithesis to one another. But the church defended the unity between them.

At the same time we nowhere find in the early writings any indica- tions of special expectations regarding Israel. The constant af- firmation there, is that the church is the New Israel. When today

(12)

a kind of Christian Zionism is heard, it assumes an extraordinary a-historical stance. Arguments based on the patristic literature are simply negated. One is left asking whether any notice is ta-

ken at all of the patristic data, the Advey'sus Judaeos literature, the early Easter addresses such as those of Melito and others.9 )

A lack of professional proficiency could offer a partial explanation, while fashion also makes its contribution. Poor exegesis and little congeniality towards Calvin could also be reasons.

It remains a matter of surprise, however, that patristics apparent- ly carry no weight. If the restoration of Israel did comprise a part of the early Christian kerugma, so that many would even wish it to be included in the Confession, then surely it should have found some expression in the early Christian literature.

But it is not so. The New Testament carries forward the Old Testa- ment themes and applies them to the church. Continuity! The book of Revelation reveals to us how Christ removes the privileges from the synagogue and gives them to the church. The congregations are the candlesticks (menor3th) around Jesus Christ (Rv 1).

6 THE TYPOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP

There are grounds for speaking of a typological relationship between the Old and New Testaments. By this is meant that the Old Testament affords models (tupoi) which are realized in the New Tes- tament, executed in and through Jesus Christ.

The ceremonial service of worship abounds in such models. Think for instance of the sacrifice, the lamb, the temple, and so on.

The offices in Israel were such models: priest, prophet, king.

Even Israel's history itself pointed in its turn to a future. Al- ready within the Old Testament we see a typological-salvation history approach in regard to the Exodus. The Exodus from Egypt becomes the assurance and guarantee for the exodus from Babylon.

Again the New Testament follows through with the argument: Jesus Christ leads the decisive exodus as Mosel) f'edl:v7:VUS. The great crowds throng the shores of the crystal sea and sing the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb (Rv 15).

So, too, the calamities which befell Israel are capable of typological interpretation. 1 Corinthians 10 reminds us that the judg- ments which befell Israel happened as examples for us upon whom the ends of the age have come.

It is precisely by such a typological relationship that a strong bond has been forged between the Old and New Testaments. The one illuminates the other. Without the Old Testament, without the

(13)

models, the New Testament is inexplicable. What Marcion did with regard to the Old Testament, was nothing less than the murder of the New Testament: Conversely, the Old Testament is unintelligible without the proclamation of the New Testament. For this very reason it is important not to refer to the Old Testament as a Je- wish book, a book belonging to Judaism, but as a worthy part of the canon of the Christian church. Viewed from the nature of fulfilment in which the congregation stands, the Old Testament becomes a constant preaching of Jesus Christ.

We happen to observe in the early church that such an application of typology clearly takes place. Alas, allegory intrudes at an early stage, yet even in the dark Middle Ages relics of typology survive, as anyone may establish not only via writings, but also in sculp- ture and paintings.

Even more remarkable is that even after the Reformation the understanding of the term 'truth' was maintained, which, however, had become well-nigh devoid of knowledge. Truth in certain cases does not mean: reality or fidelity, but p~~!i~a execution of the plan drawn in the model. In John's Gospel Jesus thus designates truth and we find a reference to worship which is in spirit and in truth. Thereby the fulfilment of the shadows is indicated. In Article 25 of the Netherlands Confession of Faith we read that Christ Jesus is the substance and li,:"-,h of the ceremonies and shadows of the law. There, the typological use of tputh as it occurs in the Easter address of Melito, is maintained (cf. Van der Waal 1972:28-47 and 1979:56-65).

Preaching, and exegesis, would benefit if the typological relation- s hip ccm t.i!!upr] to be ta ken into account. It is no opt i ona 1 hobby which can be left to lovers of salvation history. The New Testa- ment compels us to approach the Old Testament in this way and only

in this way. Leonhard Goppelts' study (1939) is one which every minister ought to possess and know thoroughly. South African theo-

logy would benefit if the exercise of salvation history were to become more than just a name (cf. Holwerda 1953; Greidanus 1970 and Van der Waal 1974). What is more, the misuse of texts as mot- toes, pegs, samples and other creepy-crawly things would thereby become something of the past and would make room for a Christo- centric proclamation.

7 ~10RE AND LESS

The typological preaching makes it possible to speak about a more and a less. More and less, not: nothing and all. The church in the Old Testament was no herd of swine, as Servetus and certain Anabaptists alleged, but (typologically) the Lord's people, a cove-

(14)

nant people, laos. In the Old Testament we also have the Spirit and the structure of salvation. Unquestionably, a definite ^/!I(/h' has come into the new covenant. The old prophecies abou~ the nations have come to fulfilment. The boundaries of the church have at long last been extended. So too has the coming of age of the church people become greater now that the bands which tied them to special mediators (such as prophet, priest and king) have been loosened. Along with this 'more', however, has come a greater re- sponsibility. There is also a 'more' in respect of the Ju,!, ^1.

He who despises the Spirit and tramples under foot the blood of the covenant will be liable to greater judgment than would have been the case under the old covenant.

It is precisely this relationship that injects new life into contemporary preaching. He who would preach from the Old Testament - so full of the note of judgment - is called to make clear to the New Testament congregation that all that the Lord promised and threatened, is even more applicable today.

8 ONCE MORE: SURPLUS VALUES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?

When we come to the books Job/Song of Songs, can their continuity be detected in the New Testament? The answer must be

The New Testament links up with the question of suffering (Job).

What is more, the Psalms feature in innumerable places and the New Testament itself presents us with Psalms. It is noteworthy that even the so-called Psalms of revenge which are sometimes labelled as sub-Christian, are cited with approval in the New Testament, even Psalm 137 (Lk 19:44; Rv 18:6).

It may be pointed out that, so far a~ the Wisdom literature is concerned, the New Testament also adapts and relays it. One thinks for example of the Letter of James. There are also echoes of the Song of Songs.

To this, however, something needs to be added. The continuity does not only exist when the New Testament clearly quotes or relays the Old Testament. The Old Testament was actually used by the early church. It was not 'taken over', but it was a⁷.l'eady in use from the beginning. The New Testament did not arrive with its own Psalter;

the Psalter was simply maintained! And the same happened in the case of the (~(1I,t1:C'LeD such as the Songs of Moses, Hannah, Debora, and others. The Roman Cathol ic breviary still contains them thereby reflecting the ancient situation from which, alas, we have de- serted. The introduction of 'hymns' into the liturgy was a fatal blow to the understanding of Scripture. It was in fact the Psalms which taught Luther the meaning of and opened up for

(15)

him the Letter to the Romans.

The Psalms are an unending source of knowledge for the Biblical ABC. Leave them out or - similarly - limit yourself to selected

harmless verses, then immediately the congregation's volume of knowledge is decreased. The congregation is no longer 'clued up', its power of discrimination disappears and what happens to the poor exegetes who emerge from the congregations but who, unlike Augustine, did not grow up with the Psalter?

The differentiation between Old and New Testament must not mislead us into formulating the proposition: the New Testament is for the New Testament covenant church and in addition there is, as an ap- pendage, the problematic Old Testament. Both Old and New Testa- ment are the Two Witnesses which guide the New Testament church.

The Proverbs are heY' Proverbs and the Psalms are heY' Psalms. Here the 'more and less' principle retains its validity. An ignorant person in the new Israel is worse than a fool in the old Israel.

And the rejoicing over redemption in a psalm under the old covenant is surpassed by the redemption in Jesus Christ. He is the

Ty'uth of all Psalms.

9 HINTS FOR EXEGESIS AND PREACHING

It is axiomatic that exegesis must be done thoroughly. Structural analysis will also have to be applied. Due regard for the context must be shown. But even then the matter is incomplete. Should an Old Testament text come up for discussion, it will be necessary to diligently enquire whether or not there are strands which connect it with the New Testament. Is the said text ^q~otedin the New Testa- ment? Are matters included which are also discussed in the New Testament (e.g. righteousness, covenant promise, covenant threat)?

Is the typological relationship discernible? What does the text have to say about Christ, the Truth?

The abovementioned questions must first be put before the exegete or the preacher puts pen to paper. Otherwise he correctly discusses a piece of literature, but fails to serve the Christocentric preach-

ing. How, within the Old Testament text, the 'more-and-less' is re- flected is a matter that will also have to be carefully researched.

The relative poverty of the old covenant and the wealth of the new covenant must be indicated.

Should ai'PBiamenL text be under discussion, then the exegete/

preacher must diligently enquire as to what connections there are with the Old Testament. If it is to be borne in mind that the miracles of Jesus were intended as of the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, as in Isaiah 35, then it is imperative that

(16)

every treatment of a healing miracle should carefully keep in mind the 01 d Testament. Words such as 'peace', 'grace', and others cannot be treated without bringing the Old Testament into consideration. 'Peace on earth' is peace on the land, the heritage of Is- rael, as promised in Leviticus 26.

There is consistently insufficient regard for the references within Scripture. The prophets for example cannot be explained without regard to passages such as Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 32. In addition, they consantly hark back! In an even more remarkable way is this the case also with ... the prophecy of Revelation: It is composed on the basis of Leviticus 26, Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy 32 (cf. Van der Waal 1956:123f.; 1971a:258 and 1978:85). There is also mutual reference within the New Testament. Paul for example constantly harks back to the gospel, without expl icitly stating it (cf. Lategan 1967:183-8 and Resch 1904). 2 Thessalonians 2 is for example an adaptation of Matthew 24/Mark 13 (cf. Van der Waal 1970:

63-9 and 1978:74-9). But in just as good a fashion the Old Testa- ment again forms a plane of reference. This needs to be indicated.

The exegete/preacher will have to take these factors into account, whether or not the congregation likes it. Everyone who operates on these principles will be rewarded. The exercise of salvation history must not depend on passing fashion. This is a 'm:lpt' for everyone who accepts the continuity between the Old and New Testa- ments.

FOOTNOTES

1 Eybers (1963:9) puts it as follows, 'Daarom is daar ook 'n werk- like eenheid tussen Ou en Nuwe Testament en geld hulle saam as die een Woord van die enige Here. So gesien is die Ou Testament dan ook vir die Christen nie net In bron van godsdienshistoriese gegewens nie, maar 'n "Christel ike boek" waarin die God van die Ou Testament Hom openbaar net soos in die Nuwe Testament'.

2 In the words of Oepke (1938:29), 'Die geschichtliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments hat uns in steigenden Masse darUber belehrt, das dieses, als Buch verstanden, kein christliches Buch ist. Das hergebrachte christliche Verst~ndnis wird dem Eigenleben dieses Buch nicht, mindestens nicht in jeder Hinsicht gerecht'. Oepke himself opts for a dialectical relationship between Old and New Testaments(31).

3 Pastor Von Bodelschwingh, cousin of the leader of Betnel in a circular to the earlier candidates of the Kandidaten-Konvikt at Bethel (22 I~ov. 1936). Quoted in Moller (1938:18). A contemporary example. In 1972 A J Krol sat for his candidates' exa~ination at the Free University of Amsterdam. On that occasion he handed out

(17)

a sermon to those who wished to read it. In it he summed UP the results of his studies as follows, 'Een hoofd vol kennis, een handjevol vrienden, een mondvol anekdotes, dat is het batiq saldo van mijn studie. ~aar mijn hart is koud gebleven en mijn ~eloof

is verflauwd' 'Dwaze, dwaze VU, blijf maar slapen en dromen, re- deneren en theologiseren, tot je ooit tot de ontdekking zult ko- men dat al je mooie oraatjes slechts ijdelheid en vuilnis zijn.

Dan zal God je vijand zijn geworden, omdat je Hem verloochend hebt, omdat je je studenten en de kerk stenen voor brood gegeven hebt'. (Dagblad.;;", 25 (Ipril 1972).

4 Andries Odendaal (1977) Dublished the results of an investigation into 50 conse cut i ve sermons wh i ch \~e re pri n ted in !f/e Kerkbode.

He established that 44~ of the sermons were definitely not Chris- tocentric, whereas a mere 4% were partially Christocentric(!) 26% were allegorical. 'Origen's hand still rests heavily upon us'. 48% of the preachers did not bother to place the text within its context, 32% did not confine themselves to the text, and 52% gave no clear indication that the preacher had earnestly sought to establish the true meaning of the text(!). Further commentary is superfluous.

5 Oepke (1938:5) maintains in connection with th?!ke, 'Dies bedeutet "Bund", aber nicht im Sinne eines Vertrags zwischen Gleichstehenden, sondern im Sinne der Rechtssicherheit, die der Starkere dem Schutzflehenden gewahrt, im Sinne also eines Schirm- herrn- und Vasallenverhaltnisses'. These latter words from 1938 - taking into consideration the later research regarding covenant in the light of the Old Testament texts - are worthy of special note. It proves that even without that ancient oriental context it is possible to establish from the Bible itself the Vassal!

Great-King relationship in the covenant.

6 'Het staat dus vast dat een groot deel der palestijnen 'Israel- ieten' zijn, van joodse, kanaanit1sche en samaritaanse afkomst, zelfs al zijn ze nu Mohammedaan of Christen' (cf. Willebrands 1978:8). Many 'Palestinians' are thus descendants of Jews!

7 'To the very depths of Old Testament expectation, the people of Israel as a people, the land, posterity, and theocracy playa role that cannot Dossibly be eliminated. This role cannot be altered by regarding Christ and his church as the fulfilment, in other words, by spiritualizing. There is a surplus in the Old Testament, a remnant that cannot be fitted into the New Testament fulfilment'. See van Ruler (1971:45). It appears to me that by these remarks Van Ruler opened the way for the current dispensa- tionalism and 'Israelphilism' in Dutch theology. A presupposi- tion of these allegations, however, is a scholastic understanding of eternity; in short: a soiritualising of 'the age to come'.

a 'Deze stroom is het water van Gods genade in Christus, het water des 1 evens, het E vange 1 i eheil' .. , 'Dit geboomte ... ve rzi nne bee 1 dt

(18)

de heillame uitwerking van het Evangelie en het heil Gods'. Cf.

Greijdanus (1938: 326).

9 Melito. Per'i Pascha; De kZcirLc 'i'YVrTil'cL~en, a series of Easter addresses wrongly attributed to Hippolytus and Chrysostom, pu- blished in: SC 27, 36 and 48.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amsler, S 1960. L'ilncien i'estUJ1lenL chns {/,sr: eDDai d'herme- chretiennc. Neuch!tel: Delachaux & Niestl§.

Bijlsma, R 1959.

van de L. Nijkerk: Ca lenbach.

Bornkamm, H 1948. L&:t;hel' und das .,1lie 'J'estamer:L Tubi ngen: Mohr.

Buber, M 1953. Die Forderung des Geistes und die geschichtliche Wirklichkeit (Inaugural address, Jerusalem 1938), in E~n~~iD2:

gesammeZte . Zurich: Manesse Verlag, 121-47.

Diemer, N 1933. Het (JerkenJ: bij

Duitseh

met (,daJTi (hel, vCl'bond der

de~ JC8, 17e l8e eeuw in Zwitzer- iJedep[cmd en ,r.,'ri.g8lcmd. Kampen: Kok.

Dittmar, W (ed.) 1903. Vetus Testamcntwn 2:n Novo: D1:e aU-testa- ment lichen Para lZr? l i,en dt:s NeiAen 'j'estarnen tD im r'/OjJt laLA. t der^l Urtextc und der . Gatti ngen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Dodd, C H 1952. to the scriptures: the sub-sty~cture of New Testament theology. London: Nisbet.

Ellis, E E 1957. l'avii's "s(" o,r' the Old Testament. Edinburgh:

Oliver & Boyd.

Eybers, I H 1963. Hermeneutiese ls v1:r die Ou Testament in die Zig van die verhoudinq Ou Testament - Nuwe Testament.

Pretoria: Unisa. (Mededelings van Unisa, A28).

Goppe It, L 1939. Typos: die t'Y!Jo logische ments im Neuen. GUtersloh: Bertelsmann.

des ill t,en Testa-

Graafland, C 1978. Het vaste verbond: israel en het oude testa-

ment bij Cal en het tantisme. Amsterdam:

Bolland.

Greidanus, S 1970. SoZa . problems and les in preaching h1:storieal texts. Kampen: Kok.

Greijdanus, S 1938. De des Heren aan Johannes. Kampen:

Kok, (KVHS) .

Greijdanus, S 1946. Sehi'iftbeginselen histor-isch over,zIc:ht over theorieen en

. Kampen: Kok.

(19)

Holwerda, B 1953. Begonnen hebbende van Mozes ... Terneuzen: D H

L ittoij.

HUhn, E 1900. Die alttestamentlichen Citate und Reminiscenzen im Neuen Testament. TUbingen: Mohr.

Kline, M G 1972. The stY'1,leture biblical, authority. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans.

Koestler, A 1977. The thirteenth tribe: the Khazar Empire and its heritage. London: Pan Books.

Lategan, B C 1967. Die aardse Jesus in die prediking van Paulus volgens sy briewe. Rotterdam: Bronder-Offset.

Longenecker, R 1975. Biblieal exegesis in the apostolie period.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Michel, 0 1972. Paulus und seine Bibel. GUtersloh: Bertelsmann.

Moller, W 1937. Biblisehe Theologie des Alten Testaments: in heils- gesehiehtlieher Entwieklung. Zwickau (Sachsen): Hermann.

Odendaal, A 1977. Alles nie pluis met ons prediking nie. Die Kerkbode 119(21h 662ff. and 119(22),692ff.

Oepke, A 1938. Jesus und das Alte Testament. Leipzig: Deichert.

Perk, J 1947. Handbuch ZWTi Neuen 'I'es tament: alttestamentliche Parallellen. Angermund: Der Pflug.

Resch, A 1904, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu in ihren gcgen- seitigen Verhaltnis. Leipzig: Hinrichs,

Simon, M 1964. Ver-AS Israel: etCAde sur les relations enf;re ehY'etiens et ;!zd,"'s dans l romain (] 35-4 2,~). 2e ed it i on.

Paris: Boccard.

Smi ts, C 1952-57. Oud-Testameniir;che citaten in het m:euwe testa- ment I - I I I. 's Hertogenbosch: Malmberg,

Smitt, J W 1975-77. Opdat vervuld zou ,,)orden I-II. Groningen: De Vuurbaak.

Tasker, R V G 1945. The Old Testament in the New Testament. Phila- delphia: Westminster.

Van der Waa 1, C 1956, OudtestcuTientif'che pr1:Cstel'lijke mot,:even 7>1

de Apocalyps. Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre.

Van der Waal, C 1970. Die hermeneuse van die 'apokalipties'-profe- tiese gedeeltes van die Nuwe Testament, in Aspekte van. die ^/Vi1(,)0- Tc,stamentiuw herrneneut1.:ck. Pretoria: NTSSA, 52-79. (I~eotesta

mentica 4).

Van der Waa 1, C 1971a. Operj):TP1~ng t'} e z:u~ c';~aI7~S f:)Jj." ~:v: ~

. Groningen: De Vuurbaak.