07. Mutual Relations of the Two Testaments

Mutual Relations of the Two Testaments

Chapter 6

These two main divisions resemble the dual structure of the human body, where the two eyes and ears, hands and feet correspond to and complement one another. Not only is there a general, but a special mutual fitness. They need therefore to be studied together, side by side; to be compared even in lesser details, for in nothing are they independent of each other; and the closer the inspection the minuter appears the adaptation, and the more intimate the association. As we have already seen, the Word of God is a unit—a symmetrical, complete structure, one organic whole. Yet it is composed of two main parts, and many subordinate and diverse members. It should, first of all, be viewed as a whole, in its essential totality and entirety; then, its consistency and harmony being seen, any apparent discord or discrepancy will lead us to distrust the accuracy of our own vision and perception rather than its own consistency and perfection.

Unity does not exclude duality. This book is in two principal parts, the Old and New Testaments, not independent of each other but, like the two sides of the human body, organically one; the two hands and feet both by their likeness and unlikeness contribute to mutual efficiency. The two Testaments must be studied together, to secure the best results, as right and left hands and feet, eyes and ears, must be united in working and walking, seeing and hearing. The whole Bible has one central idea and controlling purpose: so has each Testament, and every subordinate part. To grasp intelligently these guiding, leading conceptions is to hold the key to the contents of the inspired Word.

Broadly speaking, the Old Testament is prophetic; the New, historic; the former teaches truth, typically; the latter directly, doctrinally. In the one, the prominent, dominant feature is Law, as operative in God’s dealing with man; in the other, Grace, in fuller exhibition and illustration. The Old Testament forecasts and foreshadows, often in enigma, what the New reveals, more clearly, in substance, and with that variety and vividness of color that so differs from the dull, dead monotony of shadow.

There is a persistent attempt in some quarters, to depreciate the Old Testament, with a lamentable result that it is comparatively neglected. Yet the New Testament itself unmistakably teaches the organic unity of the two Testaments, and in various ways exhibits their mutual relations.

There are often definite statements of a practical moral and spiritual purpose and purport of Old Testament writings, as when Paul says, “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope” (Romans 15:4). Here two main purposes are hinted—warning and encouragement—records of evil doing with its penalty that we may be strengthened patiently to withstand temptation; records of well doing with its rewards that we may be comforted and encouraged in doing and bearing the will of God. And again, in reciting the history of Israel, “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples, and are written for our learning and admonition” (1 Corinthians 10:11). The two Testaments are like the two cherubim of the mercy seat, facing in opposite directions, yet facing each other and overshadowing with glory one mercy seat; or again, they are like the human body bound together by joints and bands and ligaments; by one brain and heart, one pair of lungs, one system of respiration, circulation, digestion, sensor and motor nerves, where division is destruction.

Observe how our Lord constantly quoted from, or referred to, the Old Testament, its various books, and authors; persons and places mentioned in it; how He recognized its types—like the brazen serpent; how He lent the sanction of His authority to its commandments in the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Its teachings and terms thread His own discourses and sometimes are their woof and warp as well as pattern. He does not contradict but confirms it, explaining and interpreting its true meaning, and clearing away the rubbish of tradition or superstition which has covered and obscured it, as an artist washes off the dust which hides a masterpiece of painting, or the explorer unearths ancient buried treasures. There can be no doubt what our Lord thought of the Old Testament Scriptures, their inspiration, authenticity, authority, practical value, immutable truth and bearing upon the New.

Westcott and Hort, in their edition of the Greek New Testament, have done a great service by indicating in capitals, the quotations of sentences and phrases from the Old Testament in the New. They have traced more than fifteenhundred such in the twenty-seven New Testament books. It is both a curious and significant fact that frequently these citations are in the very center of some paragraph and are a sort of turning point of the whole argument or mark the heart of the treatment, as in Paul’s great portrait of charity, in 1 Corinthians 13, where the phrase, “thinketh no evil”—from Zechariah 8:17, marks the central feature in the portrait. The verbiage of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament is so interwoven with the New, that the threads are mingled and cannot be separated. The New Testament is largely framed in the dialect of the Old, and again reminds us of the joints and bands and ligaments which make the body one. The Book of God, taken as a whole, is a seamless robe yet a coat of many colors; a grand oratorio with one musical theme, yet many orchestral performers with variety of instruments and voices.

There are not only general correspondences between the two Testaments, but between individual books, and often to a very remarkable degree, so that they serve to throw light upon each other. When placed side by side and studied as companion books this complementary character and relation become very apparent. For example we place in opposite columns some of the books having this close mutual relation:

These are a few examples of correspondence which might be carried much farther; but these suffice to show some of the ligaments which bind the two Testaments together. And the effect upon Biblical study is somewhat as in a stereoscope, companion pictures blend into one so that objects stand out in relief, exhibiting not only outlines but proportions and dimensions.

Two great texts on Faith, both quoted from the Old Testament, thrice in the New, are introduced each time in a separate epistle, and at the turning point of the argument.

Compare Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23; Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38 and the relation of each to the Epistle it appears in may be indicated by the emphasis on a particular word. Thus, “Abram believed and it was counted for righteousness.” In Romans the emphasis is on “counted.”

Galatians, on “believed.”

James, on “righteousness.”

“The Just shall live by his faith.” In Romans the emphasis is on “just.”

Galatians, on “faith.”

Hebrews on “live”—i.e., made alive and kept alive. The correspondence between the two Testaments extends to so many very minute particulars that one is a commentary upon the other. How often, for example, the Old is both interpreted and illuminated by the New. Casual references to Old Testament characters and events bathe them in a flood of light. When Melchizedek is first mentioned (Genesis 14:18et seq.) there is scarce a hint of historic character, dignity, and relation to our blessed Lord—a simple narrative with no suggestion of its mystic meaning. But in the Epistle to the Hebrews the very names, “Melchizedek,” or “King of Righteousness,” and “King of Salem,” or “King of Peace” are shown to be typical of Christ, and even in their order, “first righteousness; after that peace” (Hebrews 5:6 to Hebrews 6:20).

Similarly as to Balaam. His real character and vile conspiracy are only hinted in the narrative in Numbers (Numbers 22-31). But the comments of Peter, Jude and John lend new meaning to the whole story (2 Peter 2:15, Jude 1:11, Revelation 2:14). Thus not until we turn to the last of the sixty-six books, the very close of the whole volume of Scripture, do we know how much this soothsayer of Mesopotamia had to do with that awful plunge of Jehovah’s people into the abyss of sensuality. In Numbers the facts are registered of their sin and crime, followed by an obscure hint of Balaam’s complicity with it; but the Apocalypse finally withdraws the veil and discloses his full agency as the chief conspirator. The word “stumbling-block,” in Revelation 2:14, means, literally, that part of a trap wherein bait is laid, and which, when touched by the animal as it seizes the bait, caused the trap to spring and shut so as to catch the prey. What a darkly suggestive word to describe that human bait of female charms that made this trap so seductively effectual! Here also, for the first time, we learn that Balaam set a double snare, entangling Israel in idolatry as well as immorality. And so, after many centuries, evil reappears in its older forms and complications. As Balak and the Moabites had literally been Balaam’s followers and accomplices in encouraging idol sacrifices and sensual sins, so the Pergamites had in both forms followed Balaam’s doctrine, and accompanied these literal sins of the flesh by spiritual idolatry and adultery, corrupting the worship of God, and encouraging infidelity to the sacred bridal vows of the church to the heavenly Bridegroom! In many like cases, the language of the New Testament finds its explanation and interpretation in the Old. In the midst of our Lord’s hour of betrayal and the agonies of the passion week, He reminded the impetuous Peter that He had infinite resources of power had He chosen to draw upon them. “Thinkest thou not that I could pray to My Father, and He should presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53).We have but to turn back to 1 Chronicles 27:1-15, to find a hint of why He referred thus to “twelve legions,” and get an illuminative illustration of His meaning; for there we read how David, His kingly type, surrounded himself with twelve legions of servant-soldiers, each legion numbering 24,000, and all together, therefore, 288,000, or, including the 12,000 officers that naturally waited on the chief princes, an immense bodyguard of 300,000! How beautifully our Lord thus taught His disciple who was eager to draw a sword to smite His foes, that David’s greater Son had at command resources far greater than Judea’s King; and if in one night one angel of the Lord had smitten with death a hundred and eighty-five thousand Assyrians, what might not twelve legions have done in that hour of distress! Such a host could depopulate thirty-seven worlds like ours!

Psalms 68:18 is an example of the illumination shed upon an Old Testament obscurity and perplexity by New Testament quotation and application.

“Thou hast ascended on high!

Thou hast led in procession a body of captives;

Thou hast received gifts among men;

Yea, among the rebellious also; That Jehovah Elohim might dwell with them.”

“Thou hast ascended on high”: It is referred to, in Ephesians 1:20-23—and indirectly expounded in Ephesians 4:8, where it is referred to the ascension of our Lord, raised far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, seated at God’s own right hand in the heavenlies. In fact, the whole epistle sheds light upon it.

“Thou hast received gifts”—compare Acts 2:33. “Being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He hath poured forth this.” The Spirit seems to have been the great gift received to be distributed among men, giving apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, etc.—not only that the Body of Christ might be built up and perfected, but that even the rebellious might be turned into disciples and habitations of the Spirit. The Old Testament enigma is thus solved—the mystery becomes a revelation, an apocalypse.