The Necessity, Nature, and Benefits of Old Testament History

By David P. Murray

Shakespeare said that history is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” In stark contrast stands the Christian view of history: we believe God ordained it, organizes it, and moves it towards a meaningful, definite, and certain purpose. However, many Christians entertain a negative view of Old Testament history, of its usefulness, and even of its accuracy. It is often regarded as “far away” and “distant” chronologically, geographically, socially, and theologically.

In this article, we will study the necessity and nature of biblical history with a special focus on Old Testament history, and we will conclude with a summary of the practical benefits of studying and teaching Old Testament history.

The Necessity Of Old Testament History

The majority of biblical literature, especially Old Testament literature, is historical narrative. Unless that history is reliable, taught, and known, we lose most of our Bible. As Sidney Greidanus writes: “The faith of Israel and the faith of historical Christianity is founded not in lofty ideas or ideals but in God’s acts in human history.” [1] Yet Greidanus goes on to note how the historicity of scriptural events is under a cloud of suspicion today, resulting in a lack of confidence among preachers to preach these texts with the same confidence as past preachers did. He concluded: “Before all else, therefore, it is necessary for preachers to be clear on the historical foundations of their message. The issue is, Is the Bible historically reliable or is it not? Do we approach the Bible with skepticism or with confidence?” [2]

The foundational nature and practical importance of biblical history is further underlined by Douglas Stuart in his book Old Testament Exegesis, in which he follows two sections on “Text” and “Translation” with a third section entitled “Historical Context.” He argues that the Old Testament expositor must research the historical background:

Try to answer the following questions in your research: What is the setting of the passage? Exactly what events led up to this point? Did major trends or developments in Israel or the rest of the ancient world have any bearing on the passage or any part of its content? Are there any parallel or similar passages in the Bible that seem to be related to the same historical conditions? If so, do they provide any insight into your passage? Under what historical conditions does the passage seem to have been written? Might the passage have been written also under very different historical conditions? If not, why not? [3]

It is often said that “the Bible is a timeless book.” That is true if what we mean is that it has relevance for and influence on every generation. However, it is not true if what we mean is that we should have no regard for the times the Bible was written in. Each book of the Bible was written for a specific people, in a specific culture, at a specific time. To understand the written material we have to look at the words on the page, but we also have to consider the time when the words were written. Stuart writes, “Knowing the background, social setting, foreground, geographical setting, and date are normally essential to appreciating the significance of a passage. Most OT passages contain material that relates strongly to such considerations. The Bible is such a historically oriented revelation that ignoring historical context tends to assure misinterpretation.” [4] The preacher must understand the passage in the context of the author’s place in redemptive history. Greidanus argues that the message must be related to the whole of kingdom history: “A key hermeneutical principle holds that a part can be fully understood only in the light of the whole.” [5]

The practical benefits of knowing the historical context are also highlighted by Stuart:

In general, you want to avoid talking to your congregation about the passage in isolation, as if there were no Scripture or history sur­rounding it. To do so is to be unfair to the sweep of the historical revelation; it suggests to your congregation that the Bible is a collection of atomistic fragments not well connected one to another and with­out much relationship to the passage of time. That is surely not your conception of the Bible, and it should likewise not be the impression that you leave with your parishioners. Try to pay attention to those things (even in summary) that will help them realize that God has provided us with a Bible which can be appreciated for the whole as well as the parts, and that God controls history now, thus controlling our history with the same loyalty that he showed to his people in OT times. [6]

M. C. Tenney wrote a historical survey of the New Testament. However, the practical usefulness of knowing the historical background to New Testament passages, which he refers to below, also applies to the Old.

The message of the New Testament can be apprehended best when one has some comprehension of the world into which it first came. The literary, political, social, economic, and religious backgrounds of the first century are the context for the revelation of God in Christ. The terms which the apostles and their associates used for teaching were taken from the common life of their day and were familiar to the average man in the streets of Alexandria, of Antioch, or of Rome. As these terms become plain to the modern reader, their message will become increasingly clear. [7]

A focus on biblical history will consider areas like chronology, archaeology, geography, genealogy, and cultural practices. It also has an apologetic element as it focuses on defending the text from critical attacks by seeking to reconcile seeming inconsistencies within Scripture, and also between Scripture and extra-biblical sources and evidence.

The Nature Of Biblical History

In what way does biblical history differ from secular history? And in what ways is it similar? These are the questions we will consider in this section.

Biblical History Is True History

Israel’s Near-Eastern neighbors expressed their beliefs through fantastic and elaborate myths. These myths narrated events that took place outside of space and time as we know it. This cultural background underscores the uniqueness of Israel’s historical narratives, which involves real events in real time involving real people and a real God. G. L. Archer puts it like this: “The Bible’s message is given, to a large extent, through historical writings, and not, say, abstract philosophical treatises. It is through historical writings about historical events that we learn much about God and His purposes for humans. As noted, the intent of these historical writings is to provide an accurate account of the history of God’s people, and their message is undermined if their historical accuracy is compromised.” [8]

Archaeology and chronological studies may help to confirm the historicity of biblical events. For example, with respect to the Old Testament, R. K. Harrison asserts that “comparative historiographic studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews were the most accurate, objective, and responsible recorders of Near Eastern his­tory.... As a result, it is possible to view with a new degree of confidence and respect those early traditions of the Hebrews that purport to be historiographic in nature.... The current flow of archeological discoveries tends to confirm, rather than repudiate, the claim of the Old Testament to historicity.” [9]

However, for all the helpful confirmations of archaeology, it is noteworthy that the Bible simply states its history and does not set out to prove it. The concern of the biblical text is not to prove the history, but rather to impress the reader with the theological significance of the events and acts. This is one reason why biblical history, in the same manner as secular history, may not always be presented in a chronological manner.

In his book, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, Eugene Merrill explains one of the presuppositions of the evangelical biblical historian:

This history of Israel approaches the task with the frank confession that the Old Testament is the revelation of God in written form. This confession, of course, presupposes its inspiration as the Word of God and asserts its inerrancy in every area, including history. This does not mean that one can write a history of Israel without facing diffi­culties—sometimes insurmountable—but one can do so with full rec­ognition that the problems vis-à-vis the sources are not inherent in them, but are due to the historian’s human inability to integrate and interpret them. The record may be incomplete; accordingly, it can often be profitably supplemented by extra biblical data. It is never wrong, however, when it is fully understood. [10]

This mindset is essential when dealing with extra-biblical sources like archaeology. The texts of the Bible and the material remains uncovered by archaeology make claims about what happened in the past. Does one have primacy over the other? Is one more scientific than the other? What is their relationship?

The nature of the relationship is the subject of an ongoing debate. However, what is often forgotten in this debate is that just as the facts of the Bible need to be interpreted, so do archaeological remains. Merrill highlighted this oft-forgotten fact: “This [archaeology] involves the presuppositions of the interpreter just as the interpreter of texts begins with certain presuppositions. Indeed, the case can be made that archaeology is a more subjective discipline precisely because the objects are mute (with the exception of extra-biblical textual material, which is subject to the same issues as the interpretation of the biblical text) as opposed to the biblical text, which provides us with interpretation of events. In the final analysis, it is much too simplistic to expect from archaeology either an independent verification of biblical claims or a certain scientific refutation of them.” [11]

While the preacher may attempt to defend biblical history from critical attacks, there should be a constant underlying assumption that biblical history is true and factual. The preacher must believe this and convey this in all his study and teaching. This approach differs fundamentally from the modern secular historian, whose approach holds the assumption of “methodological doubt.” Radical doubt certainly seems to motivate some biblical critics who assume that there is little or no real, hard history in the Bible. The result of this is that biblical reports are now required to prove their historicity. Greidanus explains the irrelevance of this critical approach to biblical history:

But what evidence will satisfy biblical critics that a narrative is histori­cally reliable? Some have stated that one should accept nothing in the Old Testament as historical fact “until it can be demonstrated as such by extrabiblical evidence.” But this criterion is obviously unreasonable, for many of the scriptural records have to do with people and situations that were of no interest whatever to non-Hebrews who might otherwise have provided confirmatory source material. Moreover, many other reasons could be given for the silence of extrabiblical sources on biblical history: it might, indeed, be “no interest,” or “no occasion,” or “no knowledge,” or “no time or writing materials,” or “the evidence perished or is still to be found.” In any case, by itself an argument from silence can neither prove nor disprove biblical historicity. [12]

So, while the approach of methodological and radical doubt may be appropriate in approaching ordinary historical documents, it is entirely inappropriate for the Christian approaching the Scriptures. This is summarized by Merrill: “Regarding the Old Testament as the Word of God radically alters the task of writing the history of Israel by raising it to the level of a theological activity. If we grant that the writing of Israel’s history and the writing of the history of any other people are on entirely different planes precisely because, in the former case, history and theology can­not be separated, we must be willing to admit that the kind of skepticism that is a necessary part of conventional historiography has no place in our work. By virtue of our confession that we are under the authority of the very sources we are investigating we have already surrendered our right to reject what we cannot understand and what we find difficult to believe.” [13]

The Christian faith stands on historical events. In contrast with other religions, Christianity proclaims that our salvation depends on what God did in history. Without a historical foundation there is no gospel. Merrill ties together the history and the theological message in an unbreakable bond. He wrote, “If the message that God made covenant with his people Israel has no historical foundation, then that message loses its point and evaporates. The Old Testament messages that God acted in Israel’s history—redeeming, judging, restoring, guiding—lose their very essence unless they are as historical as they claim they are.” [14] And Edmund Clowney astutely points out the utter necessity of historicity when it comes to the writing of covenant history: “The brief historical prologue of the covenant at Sinai is the key to understanding the whole preceding history of Exodus and the books of generations in Genesis as well. The history of the Pentateuch is not political or cultural in aim, nor is it a chronicle of stirring events. It is covenantal history: the record of God’s dealings with the fathers, his covenant with Abraham and its renewal at Sinai. The force of covenant history lies in its actuality, its ‘his­toricity.’” [15]

Biblical History Is Selective History

The secular historian does not just give a straightforward narrative of events. He selects, arranges, and interprets events for his contemporary audience. The biblical writers do the same in a divinely inspired manner. To rightly interpret the historical books of the Bible, we must endeavor to ascertain the writers’ intentions and try to understand how that affects the material they selected for inclusion. Merrill explains:

It is inevitably necessary in history writing to include certain events and exclude others, usually on the bases of the availability of data and the special interests and concerns of the historian. 

This selectivity is eminently discernible in the Old Testament account of Israel’s history because the Author (and authors) had particular objectives in mind. The real thrust of the Old Testament is theological. Those facts rele­vant to the grand themes of the divine purpose, for example, redemp­tion, are retained while others are excluded. [16]

And, while highlighting the selective nature of biblical history, it should be remembered that this in no way diminishes its truthfulness. Greidanus writes:

In writing history, therefore, historians cannot help but be selective—selective not only in choosing which events they will write about but also which side of the events they will write about. For example, a historian may choose to write a political history, or a social history, or a history of art. This choice will not only influence the limits of his study; it will nec­essarily bring certain facts into prominence or allow others to recede into the background. Different aspects of the same fact will acquire a special significance according to the context in which it is placed. This multidimensional character of historical events must be kept in mind when interpreting Scripture; one cannot legitimately expect a complete history writing in any sense of the term.... A complete history writing is an impossibility. Consequently, a crucial question for biblical interpretation is, Which events did the author select and which side of these events did he wish to highlight? [17]

Biblical History Is Purposeful History

The secular historian’s selection is purposeful and deliberate. Biblical history is also written with a deliberate purpose in view—an inspired and divine purpose. Thus, biblical history is not an objective reporting of purely human events; it is a passionate account of God’s saving acts in history. Accordingly, it has been described as “theological” history, “prophetic” history, and “covenantal” history. Dillard and Longman envision the historians of Israel as preachers: “Their texts are the events and they apply them with zeal to the congregation of Israel. These texts are a wonderful integration of history, literature, morality, and theology.” [18]

Once the historical facts are established, the literary presentation of these facts and the theological significance of them are then studied. We first ask, “What are the facts?” (Historical Analysis) but also “How are they presented?” (Literary Analysis), and “What do they mean?” (Thematic Analysis). To this is added the question, “Where is this history leading?” (New Testament Analysis). This shows the special nature of biblical history, as Merrill noted:

It [the Old Testament] is a book of history, indeed, but it is far more—it is a progressive revelation of the mind and purposes of the Lord, and so it must be read and interpreted theologically. Though the totality of the facts makes up a corpus of historical information, each fact, each event, each person of the Old Testament has special meaning when seen against the backdrop of the whole. The exodus, for instance, is far more than an exciting episode laying the groundwork for the nationhood of Israel. It is a paradig­matic event that typifies the Lord’s salvific actions for his people Israel and indeed for the whole world. To see it as such does not vitiate its literal historicity. To fail to see it as such, on the other hand, is to fail to see that the Old Testament is a work of history that infinitely tran­scends the bounds of ordinary historiography. [19]

Biblical history views events not from a purely human standpoint but from that of God Himself.

This special character of biblical history writing should guide inter­preters in putting their questions to the biblical texts. The focus of the writers is not on the economic side of the events, nor on the social or political sides; their interest is concentrated on a deeper level of meaning: God’s covenant, God’s coming kingdom, the religious-theocentric dimension. [20] In the end, God is the subject and the hero of the Bible. Even in works that emphasize human individuals, such as 1 & 2 Samuel, which highlight David, these individuals are important only as they are instruments in God’s plan. In the end, God’s dealings with humans in the historical narratives reveal to us much about Himself. We are more than entertained; we are taught. [21]

Biblical History Is Relevant History

Old Testament preaching often faces the charge of seeming irrelevance. There are vast differences between the world of the Old Testament and the modern world; however, this “relevance gap” cannot be bridged by forgetting Old Testament history. Attempting this may make the sermon relevant, but it makes the Scriptures irrelevant. Rather, a right understanding of Old Testament history enables us to understand the original message to the original audience at the original time and place—and, having done this, the bridge to the present message is far easier to construct safely.

Historical study, then, provides the vital first step towards relevance by ascertaining the cultural, religious, and political situation the original words addressed. Historical analysis reminds the preacher of the importance of having an objective point of control to confirm the meaning of the passage. It helps to keep the preacher on the track of the original intended meaning.

Israel’s history is important for us to grasp because of its moving stories, its ethical power, and its valuable spiritual lessons (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11). This history also gives us the framework in which we can understand the prophets’ messages. Perhaps, above all, the fact that these books were part of the Bible of our Lord Jesus should motivate us to study them. Frank Sanders writes:

The study of history ought to inspire students with generous ideals of active and responsible citizenship, with sincere ambitions for sane and strong leadership, with convictions regarding national policies and the power to distinguish between what is clever and what is fine and noble. No history surpasses that of the Hebrew people in its power to transmit and impress such results as these. [22]

Biblical History Is Redemptive History

The Old Testament is redemptive history. God actively directs human history for the purpose of redeeming sinners. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Old Testament to record what would adequately reveal that redemptive purpose. The biblical history, then, is not just facts to teach us theology; these historical facts will serve to bring in God’s elect.

Merrill commented on the importance of accurately establishing the historical facts if the biblical history is to have this powerful saving effect. “Any success in this endeavor will be of importance to the search for a true understanding of Israel’s Old Testament past—a wor­thy objective in itself—and to the establishment of the historical fac­tualness of the Old Testament record, the truthfulness of which is absolutely critical if the religious and theological message is to have any effect.” [23]

Summary Of The Benefits Of Old Testament History

• Confidence in the accuracy of Old Testament history will increase confidence in Old Testament preaching.
• Accurate historical knowledge will help the preacher set each portion of Old Testament Scripture in its historical context and avoid misinterpretation.
• A broad historical knowledge will help the preacher to understand each historical event in the light of the whole of biblical history and communicate to his hearers that the Bible should not be read in an “atomistic” manner.
• Seeing the significance of God’s ordering of history in the Old Testament will increase confidence in His sovereignty, then and now.
• Historical studies will equip the preacher with arguments to defend the Scriptures from critical attacks.
• Knowledge of the original time and place will help the preacher ascertain the original message of Scripture.
• Understanding the biblical historian’s practice of selectivity will help the preacher ascertain the message the biblical authors intended to convey.
• The unique nature of biblical history requires a unique approach, that of radical faith not radical doubt, because the truth and power of the preacher’s message rests entirely on the history of events as recorded in the Bible.
• Historical analysis will help the preacher maintain an objective point of control in the quest for relevance, and will also help to engender his hearer’s respect for the diversity of the Scriptures.
• A good grasp of biblical history will help the preacher to declare biblical history in a manner which God has promised to bless powerfully to the saving of His elect.

Notes

1. Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 24.
2. Greidanus, Modern Preacher, 24.
3. Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 9.
4. Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis, 44.
5. Greidanus, The Modern Preacher, 100.
6. Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis, 76.
7. M. C. Tenney, The New Testament: A Historical and Analytic Survey (London: Intervarsity Fellowship, 1954), 7.
8. G. L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1998), Electronic Edition.
9. R. K. Harrison, Biblical Criticism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 5.
10. Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests (Grand Rapids: Baker Books House, 1992), 18.
11. Ray Dillard & Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 25-26.
12. Greidanus, The Modern Preacher, 30.
13. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 16.
14. Greidanus, The Modern Preacher, 93.
15. Edmund Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 41.
16. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 16.
17. Greidanus, The Modern Preacher, 84.
18. Dillard & Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 25.
19. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 18.
20. Greidanus, The Modern Preacher, 87.
21. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Electronic Edition.
22. Frank Knight Sanders, The History of the Hebrews (New York: Scribners, 1914), 6-7.
23. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 11.