The online journal of Luke Dockery

Neglecting the Old Testament


I am still a fairly young guy (despite what my youth group thinks!), and I do not claim to be the most experienced minister in the world. Having said that, I have been a minister long enough to witness a distressing number of Christians display ignorance, misunderstanding, and in some cases, outright disdain for both the Old Testament and the covenant between God and Israel which the Old Testament explains and portrays.

This is trend is unfortunate, and I think it stems from two separate, but related, problems:

  1. Christians tend to confuse the “Old Testament” with the “Old Covenant”
  2. Christians tend to not understand the fundamental nature of the “Old Covenant” very well.

Honestly, this topic probably deserves an entire series of posts, but I have decided instead to list some common statements that I have heard that reflect the problems I mentioned above, and then briefly respond to them.

The Old Testament vs. the Old Covenant

 A lot of times people will use these terms synonymously, but that is unfortunate, because they are not synonyms.[1]

You’ll hear people say things like:

“Why should we study the Old Testament? Wasn’t the Old Covenant nailed to the cross?”


“I am a New Testament Christian.”

Most likely, some of my readers are wondering right now what could possibly be wrong with the quotations I have listed above. I have no doubt that they are made with good intentions, and depending on what the speaker means, I might actually agree with the idea that is being presented. But both statements make the mistake of confusing the terms testament and covenant.

Simply put, when discussing the Bible and the theology revealed therein, testamentcovenant. The word testament refers to a body of literature within the canon of Scripture. The Old Testament (also known as the Hebrew Scriptures) comprises 39 of the 66 books of the Bible, while the New Testament accounts for 27 books.

On the other hand, the word covenant refers to a dynamic relationship established by God in His grace with a group of people. The Old Covenant refers to the relationship established between Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and His people Israel. The New Covenant refers to the relationship between Christ and His Church. These covenants are certainly related to the portions of Scripture described above: the Old Testament does detail the covenant relationship between God and Israel, while the New Testament discusses and reveals the covenant between Christ and His Church. Still, testamentcovenant.

With that in mind, the problem with the statements quoted above is that they confuse covenant and testament.

Certainly Colossians 2.13-19 conveys the idea that Christians are not required to keep the civil, ceremonial, and religious commandments of ancient Israel:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

(Colossians 2.13-19)

In other words, we are now under a different covenant. Under the New Covenant, Jesus is our sacrifice, and the debt of sin that we owe has been “nailed to the cross.”[2]

That doesn’t mean however, that the body of literature known as the Old Testament has somehow been nailed to the cross as well and is now irrelevant for Christians. Indeed, this is a preposterous idea for several reasons:

  • New Testament authors quoted from the Old Testament all the time! Gospel writers (especially Matthew) use it frequently, and Paul, the most prolific writer in the New Testament, repeatedly quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures and uses them to inform his theology and instruction to the churches to whom he writes.
  • Jesus significantly reaffirmed ethical teachings from the Old Testament in His Sermon on the Mount. When He repeatedly uses the formula, “You have heard that it was said…but I say to you” He is not disagreeing with the words of Moses in the Old Testament; on the contrary, He is affirming the words of Moses, and disagreeing with traditions and (mis)interpretations of the Pharisees and religious leaders who had systematically disregarded the words of Moses in order to do whatever they wanted!
  • The Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures was the Bible of the early church! The church was established in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost following the death of Jesus in approximately AD 30, and over the next three decades, Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Luke, Timothy, and others worked to spread the good news of Jesus and plant churches throughout the Greco-Roman world. With the earliest New Testament books likely written in the late 40s or early 50s, that means that for the first twenty years or so of the existence of the church, the only written scriptures they possessed was the Old Testament! Even later, until the entire New Testament canon was completed and compiled, churches would only have had access to incomplete portions of New Testament writings. This is not to say that early Christians had no access to teachings about Jesus (they certainly did in oral form, and might have had access to other written documents that we no longer possess), but it does emphasize that the Old Testament was the primary scriptural source of the first century church!

Related to that is my discomfort for the second statement. If “I am a New Testament Christian” means that I am saved under the covenant relationship between Christ and His Church, the terms of which are described in the pages of the New Testament, then I have no problem with it. But to the degree that that statement implies that it is only the New Testament that I read and use to inform my faith and practice, I am uncomfortable with it. I am certainly a New Covenant Christian, but I am a Two Testament Christian.[3]

Misunderstanding the Old Covenant

Having (hopefully) dispensed with the problem of mixing up the words covenant and testament, we turn to the Old Covenant itself. The problem here is that I fear that many Christians fundamentally misunderstand the nature of God’s covenant with Israel.

You’ll hear people says things like this:

“The Old Covenant was a covenant of law rather than grace.”


“Under the Old Covenant, God only cared about the external, not the internal.”

Both of these statements present the same general idea: the Old Covenant was all about the external actions of following rules rather than a heart relationship with God. Extreme versions even present the Old Covenant as a covenant of works, while the New Covenant is a covenant of grace.

There are major problems with this.

First off, the Old Covenant, like the New Covenant, was a covenant of grace. In His grace, God called to Abraham and promised to bless him and his descendants so they could be a blessing to others. Abraham had done nothing to earn or merit God’s blessings; God’s choice of and provision for Abraham was all based on grace. Later, God would deliver His Law to Abraham’s descendants—the Israelites—through Moses, but even then, it was an act of grace: before God gave the Israelites the Law of Moses, He had already, in His grace, rescued them from bondage to Egypt.

Now certainly, as part of the covenant, the Israelite people were expected to obey God’s commandments and do His will, but they were able to enter that covenant because of God’s gracious disposition toward them.[4] In other words, the Old Covenant certainly included God’s Law, but it was absolutely established on God’s grace!

It is also incorrect to caricature the Old Covenant as being only about rigidly following external requirements and procedures and that the heart didn’t matter. On the contrary, God has always cared about the heart!

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is called the Shema and is one of the theologically richest passages of Scripture:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

(Deuteronomy 6.4-9)

In the context of Deuteronomy 6, the Israelites have just been told how important it is that they keep all of the statues and commandments of God. Moses then goes on to ground this practice of obedience in love: the Israelites should do what God says because they love Him, and that’s what love does (cf. John 14.15)![5]

This idea is completely in keeping with what the New Testament teaches:

“The New Testament itself requires no more than this total self-surrender of man’s being to his maker (Matt.22.37). The Gospel differs from the Law not so much in replacing an external and carnal service of God by an inward and spiritual one, as in supplying new motives and peculiar assistances for the attainment of that Divine love which was from the first and all along enjoined as “the first and great commandment.”[6]

As the Book of Hebrews teaches, we are certainly in a better position under the New Covenant, as we have a superior sacrifice and a superior high priest, but the distinction between the two covenants is not a distinction between works and grace or between the external and the internal. Under the New Covenant, we are fortunate to have the revelation of who God is in Jesus Christ, and His example and the guidance of the indwelling Spirit of God gives us the “new motives and peculiar assistances” mentioned above, but the essential nature of the covenant remains the same: God wants us to obey Him because we love Him!


So where does all of this leave us? I have spilt a lot of digital ink in this post, but practically speaking, what am I advocating?

First, in an effort to be accurate and precise when we talk about important things (I think the Bible is important, and if you’re still reading, you probably do too!), let’s try to keep the terms covenant and testament straight: covenant refers to the dynamic relationship between God and a group of people; testament refers to a portion of Scripture.

Second, let’s not mischaracterize the Old Covenant: God has always been a God of grace. It’s not like He used to require that people earn their salvation and then one day changed His mind. Furthermore, God has always cared about the hearts of His people. He has never been pleased by lifeless, loveless obedience that follows a checklist of rules but cares nothing for the Rule-Giver.

[1] Much of my thoughts here are greatly informed by John D. Fortner, “A New Covenant/Two-Testament Christianity,” December 28, 2011, (accessed March 9, 2016). I highly recommend reading this article for fuller discussion of these concepts.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] This idea, that we enter into covenant with God because of His grace and stay in the covenant by trying to do God’s will and obey His commandments, is called “covenantal nomism” and it is the same basis for the New Covenant as well. You can read more at

[5] Bruce Oberst, Deuteronomy, Bible Study Textbook Series (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1968), 108: “Surely this passage will show that God’s word was to dominate and pervade their lives….It also show how, even in the Old Testament, God desired that his laws be kept out of a heart of love for him” [emphasis added].

[6] F.C. Cook, ed., Exodus—Ruth, The Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 283.


  1. Mike Raine

    Great thoughts as usual Luke. I personally believe that understanding our covenant relationship through baptism comes from circumcision. Our understanding of the Lord ‘s Supper come through the Passover. The depth and appreciation of New Testament Christianity is rooted in the soil of the Old Testament.
    Read a book last week, “Hidden in Plain Sight” where he brings out the simple meaning from OT books that are relevant for today. I love the OT.

    • Luke

      Thanks, Mike. I certainly agree—if we neglect the Old Testament, our understanding of the New Testament will be much poorer because of it.

  2. Marion

    In the past it’s has been my tendency to neglect the old testament simply because some of it is just painfully hard to read through. (1 Chronicles chapter 1 through 10 for example) It’s there for a reason though, our learning! Over the years I’ve come to learn in order to be a good student of the new testament, we must be a good student of the old testament. Thanks for your good thoughts!

    • Luke


      I think you raise a fair point—there are certainly parts of the OT that are very difficult for us to read, and I think a big reason for that is that we just have a lot of cultural and historical distance from the text. I think you are absolutely correct though that we cannot be good students of the NT if we ignore the OT.

      Thanks for the comment!

  3. Mike Highes

    Thank you for taking the time to post this. It was very good thought provoking material. Keep up the good work.

  4. Jon: Roll Tide

    I really liked the discussion of ‘one covenant, two testament christianity’. I just finished a paper on Matthew 26:14-30. Mike is right! The Lord’s supper flows directly from the Passover meal.
    In 26:28 the kjv says that this is the ‘blood of the New Testament.’ most other translations render it as ‘blood of the covenant.’ I wonder if the kjv’s translation of the text has confused Christians over the meaning of testament and covenant?

    • Luke


      I have found the “one covenant, two testament” idea to be helpful as well; it is not original to me.

      You may be right about the conflation between testament/covenant having to do with the KJV’s rendering of that verse. Good thought!

  5. Paul Smith

    Great thoughts, Luke. I appreciate the “new covenant, two testament” concept. Two thoughts come to mind.

    First, members of the Churches of Christ are profoundly influenced (whether they know it or not, and most do not) by Alexander Campbell’s “Sermon on the Law.” As it has come down through the years it has become an almost impenetrable barrier to understanding the relationship of the Old and New Testaments.

    Second, I believe we have a very surface level understanding of the book of Hebrews, which most take to be a virtual repudiation of the Old Testament/covenant. The irony is that the author of the book of Hebrews quotes from the Old Testament to a greater degree than any other New Testament writer. It should also be noted that Campbell relied heavily on Hebrews in his Sermon on the Law.

    I find no language in the New Testament that Christ (or God) nailed the Old Testament – or the Old Covenant – to the cross (just a minor quibble with your quotation of Colossians 2. What is “nailed to the cross” there was the “record of debt” (ESV) that stood against us with its legal demands. Nowhere to my knowledge is the Old Testament, or the Old Covenant, referred to as a “record of debt.” I believe what Paul is referring to are the “trespasses” that stand against us, which “demand” an accounting for, which fits perfectly with Paul’s emphasis on the atonement aspect of the death of Jesus. (Note also the language of disarming the rulers, principalities, authorities,, throughout the passage).

    Your conclusions are spot-on (imho). We have an impoverished theology if we surgically remove the OT from our Bibles – and our teaching/preaching.

    As my youth minister used to encourage us – “rave on, maniac!” Good on ya!


    • Luke


      Somehow I completely missed your comment until now, and for that I apologize.

      I appreciate your bringing Campbell’s “Sermon on the Law” into the equation: I have not read it (shame on me) but am familiar with it, and I am sure that you are right about his influence. Ironically, having read some of Campbell’s other writings, I am not sure that he would disagree with the thrust of this post (yet another example in how we have often crystallized a position of one of our Restoration ancestors and then taken it to an unhealthy extreme).

      I don’t disagree with your characterization of Colossians 2 either—it was largely included here because it is the origin of the “nailed to the cross” language which is so often used to repudiate the OT. As you noted, it is the “record of debt” that is referred to here, but as this text (and others) make clear, Christians are not under obligation to keep the Israelite civil, ritual, and cultic stipulations.

      Thanks for your good comment, and again, I am sorry that I am just now seeing it!

      • Paul Smith

        {snicker} – if you track down Campbell’s sermon brew yourself a cup of tea or grab a cup of coffee. In good 18th century fashion it reads like a theological treatise. Good stuff, but ponderously dense. (In his defense, I believe it was delivered to a group of theologians, perhaps one of the Baptist Associations with whom he and his father were associated. That may explain some of the denseness.) I’m writing “off the cuff” here so I apologize for my vagueness.

        I was able to find it online, but it took some work. I printed a copy for my files, now conveniently stuffed somewhere. It’s funny it is not available in more places, but maybe we do not want to be so overtly aware of the power of one sermon.

        BTW – your apology is accepted but was by no means necessary. I do assume *some* of the people I converse with do have other lives. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2021 The Doc File

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑