8. Pathways through Canonical Mountain Ranges

Guidance from the Gospel of Matthew on the Relationship between the Testaments

At the center of a canonical approach to reading the Bible is reckoning with and reflecting upon the relationship between the OT and the NT. There are a host of interpretive issues that must be addressed when tackling this question (e.g., the difference between the text & ordering of the Greek translations and the Hebrew editions). Even so, considering this topic can bear much fruit.

How you conceptualize the relationship and dynamic between the testaments shapes how you will understand the message of the Bible as a whole and the reading of many biblical texts in particular.

Avoiding a Few Roadblocks: An Unfortunate Tendency and a Common Mistake 

• Functional Neglect of the OT. Before I work through a few categories for this task, a brief treatment of a few wrong turns. Here’s an example that illustrates what I take to be a way of relating the testaments that is unhelpful but unfortunately common in popular thinking. This unfortunate tendency is to view the OT as basic background for the NT. While of course this is true in various ways, here I’m referring to seeing the primary function of the OT as providing background information for the story and message of the NT. Sometimes this is explicitly stated and argued for. Other times it simply functions as an unstated assumption that affects the way whole Bible reading is done.
  
  Among those with a high view of Scripture, this basic construal usually shows up as simple neglect of the OT as a coherent collection on par with the NT. A preacher might spend years on Romans with only a few OT interludes in the Psalms. Or, the OT might be emphasized only when the NT directly references one of its narrative figures or prominent passages. This functional neglect of the OT as a whole means that the OT needs to be known but not studied in depth and for theological meaning in the same way that the NT is pursued.

• Adopting a Singular & Totalizing Rubric for the Relationship between the Testaments. In addition to basic neglect of the OT, one further mistake that might be made is to adopt a single rubric for understanding the relationship between the testaments. In this scenario, a particular characterization is the dominant way one connects the OT and the NT to the exclusion of other possibilities. Of course, most readers or interpretive traditions will gravitate toward one or another category for a variety of important and legitimate reasons (e.g. whether emphasis is placed on continuity or discontinuity between the biblical covenants).
  
  Each of the major ways of characterizing the relationship between the testaments, though, has unique strengths and limitations. Exploring these strengths and limitations will serve you well as you reflect upon the shape of the two-testament witness of the Christian canon. 

Paying Attention to the Special Guidance of the NT Authors

While these provide strong enough of a reason to employ and examine multiple concepts, there is a further motivation that is expressly exegetical. In strategic ways, the biblical authors utilize several complementary ways of drawing upon the OT Scriptures. The theologically informed exegetical moves that the biblical authors make can teach us some of the best ways to connect the writings of the prophets and the writings of the apostles. 

The Opening of Matthew as a Roadmap to Canonical Connections

In addition to its function as the first entry in a fourfold Gospel grouping that begins the NT as a whole, the book of Matthew also explicitly signals to its readers that the OT Scriptures are integral to the meaning of the gospel story. In Matt 1–4, we can see several major categories for relating the testaments working in harmony with one another. There is of course much we could say about each of these passages, but here I will simply point out a few elements that are relevant for our current discussion (and also to keep this post from becoming a tome!).¹ 

1. The Grand Storyline of Redemptive History: A striking feature of Matthew’s Gospel is the way it delays any narrative action until after a relatively extensive rehearsal of Israel’s history. The story begins in Matt 1:18 where the narrator notes, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.” The entire section of 1:1–17 is non-narrative details that make reference in some way to a dimension of Israel’s history. What’s more, the opening line makes clear that both history and theology are in view. Matthew begins, “the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1). The genealogy that follows unfolds Israel’s history and begins with Abraham, moves to David, then to exile, and then to the present day with Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. The opening sentence, though, signals that the author is concerned not only with historical succession but also theological continuity. Both “son of David” and “son of Abraham” refer to central covenants that shape God’s relationship with his people. In this way, Matthew seems to deliberately position his following narrative about Jesus as a continuation of the history of redemption that began many years before.       

2. The Canonical Shape of the Sacred Scriptures: This opening sequence also has structural similarities to key parts of the OT canon. ​​This genealogy in the beginning of Matthew functions as a structural echo of the opening of Chronicles. The book of Chronicles is the only other biblical work where a genealogy features so prominently at its beginning. This structural parallel to Chronicles introduces the notions of exile, return from exile, and the hope of a coming “son of David” into the beginning of Matthew’s narrative.

By using the phrase, “book of the genealogies,” in Matt 1:1, Matthew alludes to the first book of the Hebrew Bible (“the book of the generations of Adam,” Gen 5:1). By including a wide-ranging genealogy that emphasizes the role of David and the exile as an opening section, Matthew also here alludes to one of the last books of the Hebrew Bible (on this point about Chronicles, see the entry on the Writings). This genealogy in Matthew 1, then, not only references Israel’s historical past, but also communicates a network of textual and theological connections with the story of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. 

With these connections, Matthew seems to imply that the proper context within which to read his message about Jesus is the Hebrew Bible as a whole. Taking seriously the possibility that Matt 1:1 (“book of the genealogies”) and 1:2–17 (genealogy and exile) refer not only to historical realities but also textual entities, we can say that Matthew gives his readers a canon-conscious summary of the entire Hebrew Bible. If asked how much of the OT is necessary to understand the story of Jesus most fully, Matthew here responds, “All of it!” Matthew not only urges his readers to remember biblical history, but also to read biblical texts.

3. The Theological Rhythm of Promise & Fulfillment: Broadening to the larger opening section of Matthew 1–4, Matthew strikingly stops the narrative action at strategic locations to make a series of editorial comments. In these instances, he provides a direct quotation with an introductory formula that emphasizes the fulfillment of Scriptural promises (1:22; 2:5–6; 2:15; 2:17–18; 2:23; 4:14–16). Here specific events during the incarnation fulfill specific predictive promises and also “fill out” prophetic portraits of the coming Messiah’s ministry. These repeated statements that are clustered at the beginning of Matthew’s narrative shed light on a profoundly theological aspect of biblical history. It’s not only a chronological sequence but also a story of redemption being shaped by the Lord of history.  

4. A Rich Web of Intertextual Connections: One final textual aspect to note in these opening chapters is the frequent and sophisticated literary links to Scriptural texts. Some of these are direct quotations that are explicitly noted by the author (like the quotation pattern noted above). Some of them are indirect allusions, where sentences or prominent phrases from an OT text are woven into the text of the Gospel. For instance, when the voice of the Father speaks from heaven at Jesus’s baptism, his divine statement is a blend of the wording from Ps 2 and Isa 42 (Matt 3:17 → Ps 2:7 & Isa 42:1). There are also more subtle echoes of OT texts, themes, and poetic images.

These connections are not usually marked directly but are communicated in more subtle and literary ways. For instance, if you’re a close reader of the book of Moses, Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness will likely give you a sense of literary déjà vu as you notice various points of contact with the Pentateuchal texts about the wilderness generation (e.g., the setting of the wilderness, the duration of 40 years/40 days, texts quoted from a section of Deuteronomy that is itself providing a theological interpretation of the wilderness generation!, etc). Each quotation, allusion, and echo is like another thread that binds together and forms the fabric of the broader biblical collection.  

The Biblical Canon as a Majestic Mountain Range 

There are many interpretive issues to examine for each of these connections I’ve noted here, but for our purpose we can note that in these opening chapters, Matthew gives us several different kinds of tools for relating the testimony of the OT and the gospel proclamation of the NT. Each of the categories above have also been proposed as normative ways of characterizing the relationship between the testaments. The point we’re making here is that the texts of the NT seem to employ several complementary ways of construing this relationship. While these categories are sometimes played off of one another, I think that it’s most fruitful to see them as distinct angles that open up unique lines of sight for biblical readers to behold.²

The literary landscape of the biblical canon is like a majestic mountain range. Each of these biblical-theological trajectories is like a map to a specific pathway through this scenic countryside that you are invited to traverse as a dedicated reader. Sure, you can pick one of these paths and only hike along its tracks. This will allow you to get to know the area really well, and you’ll come to know those trails like the back of your hand. But part of the wonder of a mountain range is that it requires a variety of vantage points to be known in its fullness. Think of the difference between walking for hours on a tree-laden trail to make it to the summit that opens onto a wide-ranging panoramic view. The trail helps you see the granular features of the terrain. You also get to experience it yourself as you trod along its path with your own two feet. The panoramic overview does not add any dimensions to the mountain you’ve just traversed, but it does give you a perspective that would be impossible without its vantage point. 

In this post, we’ve looked at just a few of the main textual trails one might take across the highways and byways of the biblical canon. There is a grand storyline that includes the story of the Prophets and the proclamation of the Apostles. Biblical books have been shaped as meaningful texts that have been collected in a canonical context. There is a rhythm of promise and fulfillment across the unfolding of redemptive history. There is a rich web of textual connections that hold together the vibrant and complex tapestry of the Bible’s “big picture.” 

Just like you will never fully exhaust the dimensions of a majestic mountain range, these kinds of paths across the literary landscape of the biblical canon provide a blueprint for a lifetime of life-giving exploration and reflection. 

Series Navigation:

Series TOC ← → Next Post

1. For further reflection on these particular themes and also my comments on Matthew’s Gospel, see my chapter on the “Story of the Gospels” in Invitation to Biblical Theology. I also make the academic argument for this kind of approach in a forthcoming article in the Journal of Theological Interpretation, “Two Testaments to Tell: Biblical Theology and the Canonical Shape of the Gospel” (2024). 

2. A further discussion point would also be that several of these categories are demonstrably present within biblical texts but are not as well-suited to be comprehensive accounts of the relationship between the testaments. A common example would be "promise/fulfillment” where the OT is promise and the NT is fulfillment. Without providing evidence (for the sake of space!), I would argue that both the OT and the NT include both promise and fulfillment. The same would go for the Law/Gospel distinction (i.e., there is both “law” and “gospel” in both the Law and the Gospels!).