Scholars have long wrestled with the task of seeing a whole composed of these two parts.
The term “Old Testament Theology” appears in academic literature. What does it mean? Otto Eissfeldt suggests that it describes “the revelation of God as it has occurred and occurs ever anew for faith in relation to the Old Testament,” and “can never take the form of a historical presentation, because faith has not to do with things past but with the timeless present.”
To fully explore the phrase “Old Testament Theology” would take a long discussion. For the present, it will suffice to indicate that the Old Testament is not secondary or ancillary to the New Testament. The Old Testament stands on its own as a theological document. Neither Testament is complete without the other, as Otto Eissfeldt writes:
Of course, this kind of Old Testament theology, structured on the basis of faith, is influenced throughout by the central faith experience of its author and his religious community, but it is not required that every assertion must be expressly related to this. In other words, Old Testament theology does not always require “fulfillment” in New Testament theology. There are elements in the Old Testament - for example, the psalms that praise God’s majesty as it is unfolded in creation - that can also be direct revelation to the Christian, all the more since such are almost wanting in the New Testament. In this case, the otherwise self-evident schema of placing the religion of the New Testament above that of the Old must be replaced by a schema that sets them alongside each other. Here the Old Testament serves to complement the New.
The Old Testament — or Tanakh — represents a number of absolutely unique developments. On a social level, it placed women on a higher level than had previously been documented in any ancient text; it asserted that even slaves were human beings, and as such had certain rights, and that their masters did not have limitless arbitrary power over them; it expressed a humane attitude toward, and legislated decent treatment for, the poor, the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan.
Indeed, it expressed a privileged status for, and God’s favor upon, the poor, the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan. This was a revolutionary overthrow of the existing hierarchies in the ancient nations of that time.
On a spiritual level, the Old Testament was positively iconoclastic vis-a-vis other ancient religious texts, pronouncing that the possession of earthly and material blessings was not necessarily a sign of God’s favor, and that enduring earthly and physical hardship was not necessarily a sign of His wrath.
The Hebrew word anawim can be rendered as the “needy” (Psalm 9:18), the “afflicted” (Psalm 10:17, 22:26), the “humble” (Psalm 25:9, 147:6, 149:4), or the “meek” (Psalm 37:11) — depending, of course, upon translation. These are the people for whom God has special favor.
The concept of the anawim blossoms in the New Testament in the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 5:3-12; Luke 14:7-14), and in the letter written by James (2:1-9). So it is that the Old Testament is foundational for the New, according to Otto Eissfeldt:
This applies above all, as Karl Holl has justifiably stressed (“Urchristentum und Religionsgeschichte,” Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 2 [1924/25] 387-430), to conceptions regarding the relation of God to sin and the sinner. The New Testament idea of a God who offers himself to the sinner is actually foreign to the Old Testament. But it is equally correct and worth noting when Holl adds this conclusion: “Indeed, in the question of evil, Judaism came to a similar recognition never attained elsewhere among humankind. Recalling only Isaiah 53 and the anawim in the Psalms - Judaism broke through the conventional wisdom which held that the best person must also be the most fortunate. Just the reverse: precisely the most pious can suffer the harshest troubles. The unfortunate one does not necessarily despise God; he may stand closer to God than the one who gains everything.” With respect to overcoming evil, the Old Testament must here be placed alongside the New.
Eissfeldt outlines a mode of thought which he calls “religious pragmatism” or “theological pragmatism,” a view in which “the way of the world can be evenly calculated in such a way that piety and fortune, conduct pleasing to God and success - or the reverse, sin and suffering - always go together.” Eissfeldt argues, convincingly, that such a view “corresponds in no way at all to what can be recognized at the high points of Old Testament religion as the nature of faith. There, faith always entails struggle and daring, and precisely where an incongruity between piety and fortune is discovered and must be overcome, faith displays itself in its full power.”
Thus, Eissfeldt urges the reader to
Compare Holl’s statements with what was said above concerning the religious pragmatism of the Old Testament’s historical books.
It is high praise indeed to say that the Old Testament contains, in chrysalis state, but also in a more developed concept, the Theologia Crucis which is both an essential part of, and an enduring mystery regarding, the Gospel as presented in the New Testament.
