Article VII
OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT[1]
The Old Testament is not contrary
to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is
offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and
Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore
they are not to be heard which feign that the old Fathers did look only
for transitory promises. Although
the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites do
not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity
to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian
man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which
are called Moral.
It has often been said that the Gospel was
rediscovered at the Reformation, but it is certain that with the widespread
movement against the degeneracy of the Western Church many fanatical
sects arose which restored heresies going back almost to the beginning
of Christianity: the association of these by‑products of spiritual
revivals with heterodoxy is a curious feature of Church history.
The error repudiated in this Article, that there is an opposition
between the Old and New Testaments, appeared as early as the first half
of the second century and is chiefly associated with the name of Marcion
(c. 135 A.D.). He wrote a book
called Antitheses, and as the title denotes, it dealt with the contrasts
between the respective teaching of the Testaments.
In Marcion’s view creation and redemption were the work
of two different Gods: the God of the Old Testament was an inferior
Creator. God, ‘the god of this world’, was
the God of the Jews and their Law; the Christian’s God was the
supreme Saviour‑God, ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ,’ the God of grace. The Old Testament was not the account of a
divine preparation in history for Christ; He appeared suddenly on earth
with a message of redemption from the true God.
On the evidence of the New Testament, and especially
with our Lord’s testimony to the witness of the Old Testament to
Himself in mind, such a distinction between the two parts of the Church’s
Scripture is altogether inadmissible.
And if the Old Testament history describes a providential ordering
of events with a view to the revelation of Christ, then it must be anticipatory
of, and in harmony with, that end – in short, there is a tendency
towards the New Testament in the Old.
From the Christian standpoint this tendency is due to the direction
of the Spirit of Christ. Under
that influence, St. Peter says, the prophets eagerly looked forward
to the time of salvation and the manner of its accomplishment.[2] It is in this sense that the Article rightly
states that ‘both in the Old and New Testaments everlasting
life is offered to mankind by Christ.’
For an appreciation of the Old Testament and its bearing on the New, it is important to trace that meaning that is seeking expression in the characters of its leading personalities and institutions, and in the wonderful prophetic insights, with their feeling of inadequacy and frustration and yet of certain hope. In our discussion of Article VI we noticed that one of the vital ideas in thinking of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New is that of ‘fulfilment’. But how that term is to be understood is very important. It is a mistake to suppose that prophetic vision or insight contained a clear picture of the future, every detail of which was realized in the event; prophecy is never equal to fulfilment like that; fulfilment is always richer and more meaningful than prophecy. Fulfilment in relation to prophecy is like Life in relation to its material support. Scientists tell us that after ages of evolution matter became organized in a way that fitted it to be a bearer of Life. But this is not to say that Life is the natural product of the process which preceded it, that it can be resolved into the material synthesis it occupies, and described in terms of physics and chemistry; this is just what cannot be done. No one could foretell from a lifeless world that one day Life would appear in it.