To The Testaments!
Despite losing a “Peanuts” comic strip, I still recall a comment made by Charlie Brown to Linus: “I was once an expert on the book of Revelation until I met someone who had actually read the book!” The line still makes me smile.
Recently I was reading an essay about the contributions of the influential nineteenth century New Testament scholar and church historian, F.J.A. Hort. On one occasion a student asked Professor Hort: “What books would you recommend as the best introduction to the Synoptic problem?” His response was spot on: “I should advise you to take your Greek Testament and get your own view of the facts first of all.”*
I have lost track of the times I have been asked what is the best commentary on Revelation. There are some excellent ones, to be sure, but I want to answer the question with one word: “Scripture!” Or to adapt Hort’s response: “I should advise you to take your Bible, the whole Bible, and get your own view of the facts first of all.”
In fact, this semester I am challenging my students enrolled in Revelation class to be doing just that. The students are carefully examining the references to the Old Testament I list in the back of Revelation’s Rhapsody: Listening to the Lyrics of the Lamb, How to Read the Book of Revelation. I have told them that such a procedure honors a fundamental principle for studying the Bible: We must interpret Scripture by Scripture.
They are seeing that if we take the time to look up the Old Testament allusions (or echoes) and study them in their original setting, we can see how John uses them to communicate with the disciples of Jesus living at the end of the first century. If we today would take time to do the same, we would appreciate the timelessness of Revelation’s message because we have been sensitive to the timeliness of the Old Testament writings for John and his fellow disciples. Week after week the students have discovered that the Bible has much light to shed on Revelation. They are learning the message of the book without going first to the commentaries or to newspaper headlines.
The marching order for good Bible study is: “To the Testaments!”
* See Gordon Rupp’s Just Men: Historical Pieces (London: The Epworth Press, 1977), p. 161. The Synoptic problem concerns the relationship of Matthew, Mark and Luke, specifically focusing on how we can explain both the similarities and the differences we see when comparing the three.
Related posts:
This is something I wish we all, myself included, did much more often. Although I’m sure it is not perfect, there is a reason many Bibles come with a column running down the middle full of Bible references to the verses on that page. One of the biggest hindrances I see to this, however, is a lack of appreciation and/or understanding of the Old Testament.
I grew up in a church of Christ where the Old Testament was good mainly for two things: 1. Look only at passages that refer to Jesus. 2. For good “Bible Stories” for us kids to learn. There was one phrase I have heard both in the church of Christ and the ICC or churches of Christ Christian churches or whatever you want to call us, that makes my blood boil: “We are a New Testament church.” This phrase makes me quite angry and forces me to ask the question, “Why can’t we be a Bible church?”
I realize I’ve gone somewhat outside the realm of your post, Dr. Lowry, but I find it apropos to the situation. Many students, and Christians in general, will look to see what other New Testament passages say on a matter, but many are unsure of how to read the Old Testament, let alone use it in reference to the New. When did Bible study come to mean the New Testament alone anyway?
I have always thought that the phrase “a New Testament Church” meant that such church follows the design and patterns of the church described by the New Testament. Are there factual references of a church in the Old Testament as well? I shall go back to my Bible and find out. However, I entirely agree with the principle “We must interpret Scripture by Scripture.”
Habetis bona deum!!!
Daniel, your interpretation is certainly held by some, but unfortunately the statement has led many to virtually ignore the OT. I will be posting next week a follow-up in which I offer some additional reflections in light of David’s comments. With regard to the church in the OT, the word “ekklesia” is indeed used in the Septuagint to describe God’s people, a gathering or an assembly. What links the OT and NT is the idea of a covenant people of God. Let me know what you think.
oh, I certainly agree with you Dr. Lowery. I’m glad that I can still learn from you outside the classroom. It is interesting how some of us can take for granted clichés within the christian movement without thinking about their implications. The idea of the “covenant people” makes definitely a lot of sense for me. I remember that the covenant is one of the deciding factors in establishing the biblical canon. It also fits perfectly with Jesus´work on the cross and the nature of the church.
I do want to thank you for this blog and your insights. As a preacher here in Mexico I deal with people from Pentecostal churches where they interpret the Bible differently, especially with eschatology. I remember from one of your classes saying that most doctrinal problems in the church derive from misinterpretation (or something along that line). And I see that very clear every time we discuss biblical passages. You help me stay focused on figuring out what the Bible is really trying to teach. So, thanks!