We Don't Go By the Old Testament....Or Do We?

Consistency is difficult. Inconsistency is one of those things we hate and criticize in others but rarely see in ourselves. It's one of those things I need to patiently endure in others because they have to endure it in me. Nevertheless, it really stinks.

A theological example is our (conservative "Christendom")  treatment of the Old Testament. Is it binding? How much is authoritative? How do we decide what is authoritative?

I once cited a principle (not a command...a principle) from an Old Testament example and was met with the complaint, "Where is your authority for that?" Somewhat confused, I said, "Uh, right there (OT text)." The reply was, "Well, we don't go by the Old Testament." Strangely, this individual would have had no problem with me citing Psalm 119:105 in support of the importance of the Bible.

One of my professors startled me when he said, "The New Testament is the little appendix at the end of the Bible." I was a little offended at first, but I believe he was correct. The OT is way longer than the NT in size but, more importantly, it is the introduction to Jesus (Gal. 3:24). Without the OT, how much would we know about God? How would we understand the significance of the Nazarene? The Old Testament is more important than some may think:

Some considerations:

• Paul said "all scripture is given by the inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16), which includes the Old Testament (and seems to be Paul's main focus, cf. v. 15). Though he often rebuked churches for putting too much emphasis on the OT (Galatians 1:6-9; Acts 15:1; Col. 3), Paul never lost sight of the Old Testament's value.
• Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:17-19 ESV). This last verse has always given me trouble. I know that the "handwriting of ordinances" was "nailed to the cross" (Col. 2:14), but Jesus seems to indicate here that the OT still has a purpose in the kingdom of heaven, which makes me think of two possibilities...
• Following the OT Scriptures that will make a Christian "great"  now in the kingdom and not following the OT Scriptures will make a person "least" in the kingdom. OR...
• Jesus was referring to the period during his life and before His death, during which time His followers would be justified by the Law of Moses. This view, however, requires that the kingdom of heaven exists before Acts 2 (cf. Luke 11:20).

I really don't know what the solution is....I'm probably not even clear on the question. All I know is that saying "the law was nailed to the cross" or "we don't go by the Old Testament" does not answer all the questions about the Christian's relationship to the OT. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Galatians, and Romans have much to say about this, indicating that the Law never had the ability or purpose to redeem man (Heb. 7:19) but it was a "schoolmaster" until Jesus came (Gal. 3:24). The question is, "How much of the schoolmaster's teaching should we forget now that Jesus has come?"

In the end, the OT is not given enough credit by some. I am definitely not saying that the sacrifices of the OT or anything like that are acceptable to God today. What I'm proposing is that the Old Testament may be of more value than simply "pointing" to Jesus, but may help us in our walk with God because our Lord said, "Whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."