Scot McKnight, I just finished reading this book yesterday. It only took an hour and half to read anyway. A lot of truth in 100+ pages. And as a Campbellite (we have a love hate relationship with the Hebrew Bible, it was after all "nailed to the cross!), I have heard everyone of those lies from Sunday School to undergraduate school. I have long rejected all of those. And now Andy Stanley has out Campbelled, Alexander Campbell on the OT! Great little book. May leaders wrestle with it and begin to preach (responsibly) the Hebrew Bible.
His book is called Irresistible. His contention is that the OT is a hindrance to the Christian church and needs to be seen as rendered obsolete. So we need to spend our time in the NT not OT. I think he'd publish the OT after the NT if he could!
-The book is focused on healthy biblical interpretation for the PURPOSE of apologetics. Andy's primary concern is that a mis-use/lack of understanding in this realm (particularly of the OT) is a dramatic cause of leading people away from Christ. I don't usually comment on posts, but one of the reasons I did here was because while he may or may not want to disagree with all of Strawn's list precisely, the purpose is actually very much the same: See The OT properly. Value it as God's word in it's proper understanding. What you heard or didn't hear from your teacher/preacher growing up might be getting in the way!
-Fundamentally, Reclaiming Irresistible does emphasize that the foundation of our faith (the resurrection) should be the foundation of our apologetic. Everything rises and falls on that. And everything you believe is built out of that. Andy commonly says he trusts the OT as God's word...because Jesus did...and he trusts what Jesus says because he rose from the dead.
-He emphasizes how the impact of the early church is unmatched evangelistically (and because of that sociologically). The book title (Reclaiming Irresistible) is a reference to this. A central focus on Jesus, the selfless love of his new covenant, and the reality of the resurrection made them fearless (and magnetic/inspiring) in a way that is so foreign to us. This was before there was "The Bible." The documents of course already existed or were being written, but it had not been assembled (His phrase: "chaptered, versed, mapped, and wrapped").
-So he emphasizes that how we got our Bibles is different than how the world got The Bible...and it could be tripping us up for proper interpretation. We tend to "mix and match" the old and new covenants without any distinction for their purpose/historical context, etc. our own agendas in our preaching/teaching. We talk about it in a way that leads people to think: If you can find a problem on page 234 of the OT, all of Christianity falls apart (or to use his word, becomes RESISTABLE). And Andy says he can defend whatever that thing is on page 234 if you'll give him enough time and attention (because he believes it is God's word).
-But apologetically we losing the frontline battle and aren't given the chance to explain. Because we are sleeping in the bed we made -- WE make it sound like if you find something on page 234 that you believe is wrong/despicable, all of the Christian faith collapses. Apologetically, he shows how easy it is for Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/New Athiests to dismantle all of Christianity in people's minds by doing this. And we are letting them -- because they are using our poor interpretation principles against us. Apologetically, he makes a compelling case that "we dug our trench in the wrong place" -- on "The Bible" (specifically this elementary understanding that doesn't appreciate different parts of it) instead of the resurrection.
-I understand people may or may not agree with his precise interpretation of the covenants relate to each other (Hebrew/Christian, Abraham/Christ, Old/New, First/Second). But his view is within the mainstream interpretations. And language does trip up the conversation -- for example I often find myself emphasizing that the "Old Covenant" is contained within what we now call the "Old Testament" -- they are not synonyms.
-You might be right that he'd publish the OT after the NT if he could. Or at least frame it as the backstory to the central event of our faith. But he teaches/preaches from the Old Testament as often as most anyone I know. And does it with a healthy interpretation method as well as anyone I know. Not at all avoiding the OT or rendering the OT obsolete. (Though he does observe from the New Testament that the old covenant contained in the OT has been fulfilled and is now obsolete for those in Christ's new covenant.)
That's more than I imagined I write. I hope it is helpful. Again, lots of respect for you. Your thinking/writing has shaped me in healthy ways.
Thanks for sharing this post. I am a new subscriber. I have stopped using the term OT because of how the word "old" conjures ideas of useless in American culture. As a member of an interfaith clergy group, referring to the text as "old" creates barriers and feels disrespectful. I refer to the OT as the Hebrew Scriptures or Tanakh. It is difficult to re-image or resuscitate meaning in words, and I think right now, in my cultural context, "old" conjures up images that are unavoidable. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if "old" deserves to be used positively. There are plenty of ideas that have lasted millennia not worth keeping. There are other ancient ideas that are so important and relevant to life, that their merit stands up without dating them. Saying something is old doesn't really validate anything. Though for better or worse it may convey an important sense of continuity through time. Just thinking out loud :)
John Goldingay's title for his translation may be the secret: "first" testament. I don't think "Hebrew" is that effective unless we combine it with "Greek."
This post brings back memories of my heritage that was deep into Dispensationalism. Some of us believed that even the Gospels were not relevant for today---only the Epistles, but even there we discounted James, that "Epistle of Straw," as Martin Luther did, though he was no Dispensationalist. And, of course, Revelation was the go-to source for things to come (and we managed to give Daniel a shout-out from the Hebrew Bible). John Nelson Darby was our hero, and we held tight to our chests those Scofield Bibles.
Ruth, I grew up with the same sensibility: the OT was for Jews who had to somehow earn favor with God by works but we were the lucky grace people. I don't recall sermons on the OT or much about it in teaching at the church. I remember this expression: "But that's in the Old Testament." My church was locked down in dispensationalism.
This is an excellent and much-needed book, and I’m glad you’re blogging through it, Scot. Another strong point made by Strawn is that if one were to take all of the explicit references and quotations of the OT out of the NT there wouldn’t be much left, and what little would remain wouldn’t make much sense.
As it relates to the Torah and the Christian life, I’m reading a fascinating book by the Reformed feminists OT scholar Johanna H.W. Van Wijk-Bos called, Making Wise the Simple: The Torah in Christian Faith and Practice. The applicability of the Torah to Christians is one of the most important topics we can study, I think. And, as you’ve pointed out, it touches on our understanding of Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings.
Ben, I'm working on Revelation these days and some think there are as many as 1000 echoes of the Old Testament in that book alone! Many of its visions are mosaics of prophetic language.
I don’t want to minimize the in-breaking nature of the apocalypse of God in Jesus. Rather, I want to emphasize the fact that it was a distinctly *Jewish* apocalypse. The God of the Jews revealed Himself in Jesus to the Jews for the sake of the world.
Yes, that's one of the points I have made for years: apocalyptic for the NT is not absolutely new but new in the sense of Isaiah: new fulfillment of what's in the divine plan.
He uses "Old Testament," and I don't recall his discussing that. Using Hebrew Bible is kosher and Old Testament most common among lay people, for whom this book is written.
When I'm teaching spiritual formation stuff I always say that you can't fully get the NT without understanding the OT. Always loved reading the OT. 🤔😎
Scot McKnight, I just finished reading this book yesterday. It only took an hour and half to read anyway. A lot of truth in 100+ pages. And as a Campbellite (we have a love hate relationship with the Hebrew Bible, it was after all "nailed to the cross!), I have heard everyone of those lies from Sunday School to undergraduate school. I have long rejected all of those. And now Andy Stanley has out Campbelled, Alexander Campbell on the OT! Great little book. May leaders wrestle with it and begin to preach (responsibly) the Hebrew Bible.
Love it. Yes, Stanley has.
Can someone offer a little summary of Andy Stanley's views?
His book is called Irresistible. His contention is that the OT is a hindrance to the Christian church and needs to be seen as rendered obsolete. So we need to spend our time in the NT not OT. I think he'd publish the OT after the NT if he could!
Lots of respect for you, but that's not an accurate representation of what Irresistible contends. At all.
Greg, how would you summarize that book?
Thanks for asking. Here's my summary:
-The book is focused on healthy biblical interpretation for the PURPOSE of apologetics. Andy's primary concern is that a mis-use/lack of understanding in this realm (particularly of the OT) is a dramatic cause of leading people away from Christ. I don't usually comment on posts, but one of the reasons I did here was because while he may or may not want to disagree with all of Strawn's list precisely, the purpose is actually very much the same: See The OT properly. Value it as God's word in it's proper understanding. What you heard or didn't hear from your teacher/preacher growing up might be getting in the way!
-Fundamentally, Reclaiming Irresistible does emphasize that the foundation of our faith (the resurrection) should be the foundation of our apologetic. Everything rises and falls on that. And everything you believe is built out of that. Andy commonly says he trusts the OT as God's word...because Jesus did...and he trusts what Jesus says because he rose from the dead.
-He emphasizes how the impact of the early church is unmatched evangelistically (and because of that sociologically). The book title (Reclaiming Irresistible) is a reference to this. A central focus on Jesus, the selfless love of his new covenant, and the reality of the resurrection made them fearless (and magnetic/inspiring) in a way that is so foreign to us. This was before there was "The Bible." The documents of course already existed or were being written, but it had not been assembled (His phrase: "chaptered, versed, mapped, and wrapped").
-So he emphasizes that how we got our Bibles is different than how the world got The Bible...and it could be tripping us up for proper interpretation. We tend to "mix and match" the old and new covenants without any distinction for their purpose/historical context, etc. our own agendas in our preaching/teaching. We talk about it in a way that leads people to think: If you can find a problem on page 234 of the OT, all of Christianity falls apart (or to use his word, becomes RESISTABLE). And Andy says he can defend whatever that thing is on page 234 if you'll give him enough time and attention (because he believes it is God's word).
-But apologetically we losing the frontline battle and aren't given the chance to explain. Because we are sleeping in the bed we made -- WE make it sound like if you find something on page 234 that you believe is wrong/despicable, all of the Christian faith collapses. Apologetically, he shows how easy it is for Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/New Athiests to dismantle all of Christianity in people's minds by doing this. And we are letting them -- because they are using our poor interpretation principles against us. Apologetically, he makes a compelling case that "we dug our trench in the wrong place" -- on "The Bible" (specifically this elementary understanding that doesn't appreciate different parts of it) instead of the resurrection.
-I understand people may or may not agree with his precise interpretation of the covenants relate to each other (Hebrew/Christian, Abraham/Christ, Old/New, First/Second). But his view is within the mainstream interpretations. And language does trip up the conversation -- for example I often find myself emphasizing that the "Old Covenant" is contained within what we now call the "Old Testament" -- they are not synonyms.
-You might be right that he'd publish the OT after the NT if he could. Or at least frame it as the backstory to the central event of our faith. But he teaches/preaches from the Old Testament as often as most anyone I know. And does it with a healthy interpretation method as well as anyone I know. Not at all avoiding the OT or rendering the OT obsolete. (Though he does observe from the New Testament that the old covenant contained in the OT has been fulfilled and is now obsolete for those in Christ's new covenant.)
That's more than I imagined I write. I hope it is helpful. Again, lots of respect for you. Your thinking/writing has shaped me in healthy ways.
Thanks for sharing this post. I am a new subscriber. I have stopped using the term OT because of how the word "old" conjures ideas of useless in American culture. As a member of an interfaith clergy group, referring to the text as "old" creates barriers and feels disrespectful. I refer to the OT as the Hebrew Scriptures or Tanakh. It is difficult to re-image or resuscitate meaning in words, and I think right now, in my cultural context, "old" conjures up images that are unavoidable. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if "old" deserves to be used positively. There are plenty of ideas that have lasted millennia not worth keeping. There are other ancient ideas that are so important and relevant to life, that their merit stands up without dating them. Saying something is old doesn't really validate anything. Though for better or worse it may convey an important sense of continuity through time. Just thinking out loud :)
John Goldingay's title for his translation may be the secret: "first" testament. I don't think "Hebrew" is that effective unless we combine it with "Greek."
thanks for the feedback.
I will probably just go with Tanakh then.
This is such a good summary Scot!!!! So many preacher make a divide between old and new, law and grace...... we have to get past that. Great post!
Thanks Kurt.
This post brings back memories of my heritage that was deep into Dispensationalism. Some of us believed that even the Gospels were not relevant for today---only the Epistles, but even there we discounted James, that "Epistle of Straw," as Martin Luther did, though he was no Dispensationalist. And, of course, Revelation was the go-to source for things to come (and we managed to give Daniel a shout-out from the Hebrew Bible). John Nelson Darby was our hero, and we held tight to our chests those Scofield Bibles.
Ruth, I grew up with the same sensibility: the OT was for Jews who had to somehow earn favor with God by works but we were the lucky grace people. I don't recall sermons on the OT or much about it in teaching at the church. I remember this expression: "But that's in the Old Testament." My church was locked down in dispensationalism.
This is an excellent and much-needed book, and I’m glad you’re blogging through it, Scot. Another strong point made by Strawn is that if one were to take all of the explicit references and quotations of the OT out of the NT there wouldn’t be much left, and what little would remain wouldn’t make much sense.
As it relates to the Torah and the Christian life, I’m reading a fascinating book by the Reformed feminists OT scholar Johanna H.W. Van Wijk-Bos called, Making Wise the Simple: The Torah in Christian Faith and Practice. The applicability of the Torah to Christians is one of the most important topics we can study, I think. And, as you’ve pointed out, it touches on our understanding of Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings.
Ben, I'm working on Revelation these days and some think there are as many as 1000 echoes of the Old Testament in that book alone! Many of its visions are mosaics of prophetic language.
I don’t want to minimize the in-breaking nature of the apocalypse of God in Jesus. Rather, I want to emphasize the fact that it was a distinctly *Jewish* apocalypse. The God of the Jews revealed Himself in Jesus to the Jews for the sake of the world.
Yes, that's one of the points I have made for years: apocalyptic for the NT is not absolutely new but new in the sense of Isaiah: new fulfillment of what's in the divine plan.
Scot, does Strawn use the term Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) interchangeably with Old Testament? Some scholars do. Is that kosher?
He uses "Old Testament," and I don't recall his discussing that. Using Hebrew Bible is kosher and Old Testament most common among lay people, for whom this book is written.