Jesus and the Old Testament: Psalm 22

Let’s play a little game. I’ll write just a few words from a biblical passage and see if you can finish the rest of the verse.

“In the beginning God…”

“For God so love the world…”

“The Lord is my shepherd…”

My guess is that most Christians would be able to finish these famous verses. For some, it probably loads the larger context and meaning of the rest of the chapter. We are used to referring to biblical passages by chapter and verse number, but we need to remember that those are not original to the text and were added later to make it easier to communicate about specific passages. In first century Palestine, when a person wanted to refer to a section of scripture, they would not use chapter and verse designations, but would use a method similar to the one I just illustrated by saying the first phrase or sentence of that passage. Someone might say, “You know, in the ‘In the beginning God’ passage” to refer to the first chapter of Genesis.

Therefore, when Jesus cries out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” he is doing more than expressing the separation from the Father that he experienced while enduring God’s just wrath for the sin of mankind. He was also directing the observers to the words of King David in Psalm 22. Those who heard his words would have immediately loaded the rest of the psalm in their minds. It was as if Jesus was saying, “At this moment, Psalm 22 is being fulfilled.”

The idea that Psalm 22 is a prophetic illustration of the suffering of the Messiah is not a Christian idea that was concocted to highjack Jewish scriptures. The famous Jewish Midrash Pesikta Rabbati of the 8^th century explains, “It was because of the ordeal of the son of David (i.e. the Messiah) that David wept, saying: ‘My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death.’” Additionally, if one surveys the life and death of David, there is nothing that even remotely fits the events described in Psalm 22. It must be referring to someone else. A straight-forward reading of the text points to one person in history: Jesus of Nazareth.

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (v. 1)

The initial words of the Psalm not only reference the passage for listeners, but they also carry important theological significance. Jesus was not forsaken by the Father in the sense of forfeiting the favor and love of the Father. He never laid down his identity as the beloved Son of God, yet he did experience a time of abandonment and desolation as the full weight of God’s wrath was poured out on the sins of the world. Jesus’ cry of agony meshes perfectly with Isaiah 53, where we read, “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:4-5). Jesus’ experience of being forsaken on the cross, should direct our attention to the seriousness of our sin and the depth of God’s love that he would give his only Son to bear it on our behalf.

“I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people.” (v. 6)

Although the Hebrew word “rimmah” is often used to describe a worm or maggot in the Old Testament, the word selected in this verse is “tola’ath”, which specifically refers to the “crimson worm” or “scarlet worm.” This insect is important in the region and was used to make a natural red dye. The life cycle of the worm is particularly interesting.

When it comes time to reproduce, the female tola’ath firmly attaches herself to a tree by surrounding her body with a hard, crimson shell where she will lay her eggs. When the larvae hatch, they feed on the body of the mother, emerging from the shell in a few days after becoming permanently stained red by a dye that oozes from the dying mother. However, after three days, the dead mother’s body loses its crimson color and the empty shell turns into a white, flaky wax. To summarize, a mother tola’ath worm hangs on a tree to offer its body as a sacrifice for her children, who must eat her flesh and are permanently marked by her blood, but three days later the tomb where her bloody body lay is empty and turns to pure white. Does that sound familiar?

The Apostle Paul writes to the church in Galatia, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us – for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” (Galatians 3:13). Jesus told the crowds that followed him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56). We are made free from guilt and can come near to God with a sincere heart because we have been “sprinkled with the blood of Christ.” (Hebrews 10:22). And, of course, we know that “[Jesus] was buried [and] that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:4). Indeed, Jesus is our tola’ath worm.

I almost feel like I could end with a mic drop here, but there is so much more.

“All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; ‘He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” (v. 7-8)

The ordeal described in this psalm is clearly a public humiliation of some kind, such as crucifixion, which was designed to be a public warning against provoking the ire of the Roman empire. Not only did Jesus suffer publicly, but he also endured the scorn of the people in almost identical fashion to the derision described in Psalm 22. In the gospel of Matthew, we read, “So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, ‘He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ And the robbers were with him also reviled him in the same way.” (Matthew 27:41-44).

“Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me, they open wide their moths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion.” (v. 12)

Bashan was a territory east of the Jordan River that was known for its fertile pastureland and bulls renowned for their size, strength and fierceness. During the crucifixion, Jesus was encircled by both the religious power of the scribes, pharisees, and chief priests and the military might of the Roman ruling authorities and soldiers.

“I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death.” (v. 14)

In the next section of the psalm, the imagery used will seem to clearly describe crucifixion. However, one must remember that David lived 1000 years before Christ and crucifixion was invented by the Persians in the 6^th century B.C. The accuracy with which David seems to describe crucifixion gives prophetic validity to the psalm that I think is difficult to dismiss.

As Jesus hung upon the cross, the strain on the wrists, arms, and shoulders would have resulted in the dislocation of the elbow and shoulder joints. During the ordeal, he experienced extreme thirst and dehydration as body fluids were diverted to try to make up for heavy blood loss. As the end neared, Jesus said, “I thirst” so “they put a sponge full of sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth.” (John 19:28). Since the crucifixion occurred on the day before the Sabbath, the day of preparation, the Jews requested that the Roman soldiers break Jesus’ legs and the legs of the criminals who were crucified one either side. Doing so would prevent the crucifixion victims from holding themselves up, which would quickly lead to suffocation and death. However, seeing that Jesus was already dead, “one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.” (John 19:34). Modern medicine supports this eye-witness detail. As Jesus’ heart beat faster to circulate available oxygen, capillaries would have begun to leak watery fluid from the blood, resulting in a build up of fluid around the heart and lungs. This was the blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side.

“For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet.” (v. 16)

Keep in mind that this psalm was written four centuries before crucifixion was even invented, yet King David seems to perfectly describe this method of execution when it says, “they have pierced my hands and feet.” It is no surprise that this particular verse is questioned by Jewish counter-missionaries. Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the correct translation is “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet” and that “The King James version (of the Bible) deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word kaari as ‘pierced,’ rather than ‘like a lion,’ thereby drawing the reader to a false conclusion that this Psalm is describing the Crucifixion.”

Let’s suppose for a minute that Rabbi Singer is correct and the verse should be translated as “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” What would hands and feet look like after being ravaged by a lion? Probably pretty similar to how they would look after having a metal spike driven through them.

We don’t need to rest on this reasoning, though, because Rabbi Singer’s accusation is incorrect. He is relying on the Masoretic texts, which were written between the 6^th and 10^th century AD. However, the Masoretic texts are not the oldest manuscripts of Psalm 22. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written two hundred years before Jesus’ birth have only one letter different in the passage in question, but it changes the meaning to “They have mined (bore a hole) my hands and feet.” Additionally, the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was also written before Jesus’ birth, uses the Greek word “oruxsan” which can be translated as “they dug” or “they pierced.” Despite Rabbi Singer’s claim, it would appear that it was actually the Jewish scribes who wrote the Masoretic texts who deliberately manipulated the passage so that it would not point so clearly to the crucifixion.

“I can count all my bones – they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” (v. 17-18)

Not only do these verses point to medical realities that Jesus would have experienced on the cross, they make an incredibly specific prediction that the sufferer’s clothing would be both divided equally amongst some bystanders and awarded to the winner of a game of chance. Though these results seem slightly at odds, they are exactly what happened in the crucifixion. In John’s gospel we read, “When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” (John 19:23-24).

“But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!” (v. 19-21)

At this point, the psalm begins to turn. As we move on the song is no longer about death. There is a temporary forsaking of the person described in Psalm 22, but an ultimate deliverance.

“I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!” (v. 22-23)

“All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you.” (v. 27)

As a result of the events described in this psalm, first the Jews and then people around the earth will turn to worship the Lord. This describes exactly how the good news of Jesus’s death and resurrection, which demonstrates the forgiveness of sin that comes through faith in Christ, spread first in “Jerusalem and in all Judea…and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8). Who else could this psalm be pointing towards? Who else has died in a similar manner and been ultimately delivered, resulting in both Jews and Gentiles coming to praise the God of the Hebrew Scriptures?

“All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.”

One cannot help but think of the following verse: “God has highly exalted him (Jesus) and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11). What was accomplished in this psalm has been proclaimed to a people yet unborn. The glory and gospel of Jesus Christ has been declared around the globe. He has done it!

As we come to the end of Psalm 22, I am amazed at how accurately it describes the death, deliverance, and glorification of Jesus. There are intricate details, written centuries in advance, that point with laser-sharp precision to the actual events of the crucifixion. Is this all just coincidence? Did the gospel writers purposely fabricate their accounts to align with Psalm 22, even though this would contradict the deep moral foundation of their teaching and their willingness to face persecution and even death for the message they were preaching? Or is this one of the many examples where God has revealed Jesus in the Old Testament so that, like “all the ends of the earth”, we might turn to worship him?

Jesus and the Old Testament: Abraham Called to Sacrifice Isaac

As we work through this series on Jesus in the Old Testament, we will encounter a few principles that can help us to identify foreshadowings or “types” of Christ in the Old Testament. These types will include events, people, inanimate objects, and clothing, among others. Sometimes, when reading a passage, we will ask ourselves, “What in the world was that about?!?” Those are often great opportunities to look for foreshadowings of Christ’s life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ultimate purpose in God’s plan of salvation. The focus of this post falls into this category.

One of the more startling sections of Scripture is God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Not only is it unsettling to put oneself in Abraham’s shoes, put the command also goes against God’s repeated condemnation of human sacrifice. Before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the Lord warned them, “You shall not worship the LORD your God [as they worship their gods], for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31). Yet, it seems that God is asking Abraham to do the very thing that he abhors.

It is understood from the text that part of the Lord’s purpose was to test Abraham’s devotion, however, when we look at the entire narrative of the Bible it is clear that there is greater purpose being accomplished through this trial. On several points, Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, which God ultimately prevented, points strongly to God’s sacrifice of his own Son for the salvation of mankind. If you are not familiar with or need a refreshing of the account, it can be found in Genesis 22:1-19.

The story starts with two astonishing connections to Christ. The Lord said to Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:2). I read this passage numerous times without realizing that the land of Moriah was the future site of the city of Jerusalem. Hundreds of years later, “Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah” (2 Chronicles 3:1), and hundreds of years after the days of Solomon, Jesus Christ would be crucified outside the very same city. That Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem is a bedrock historical fact that is agreed upon by a consensus of scholars. That Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice in the very place where Abraham had been instructed to sacrifice Isaac is either proof of God’s sovereign plan or an amazing coincidence.

Not only is the place selected for Isaac’s sacrifice significant, but the Lord refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son.” While it is true that Isaac was the child of the promise through whom God had promised to bless Abraham’s descendant, he was not Abraham’s only son. Abraham had another son, Ishmael, through Hagar, the servant of his wife Sarah. However, when reflecting upon God’s instruction for Abraham to sacrifice his “only son”, one cannot help but think of probably the most famous verse of the New Testament: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16, emphasis added).

With a heavy heart, Abraham started the journey to Moriah the next morning, bringing Isaac, two servants, and a donkey saddled with wood for the sacrifice. With Abraham’s mind set on obeying and trusting God, Isaac was already figuratively dead during this journey, which just so happened to take three days. The book of Hebrews adds to our understanding of Abraham’s mindset by explaining, “He considered that God was able even to raise [Isaac] from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.” (Hebrews 11:19). So figuratively speaking, Isaac was dead for three days before being restored to life. Think of the words that the angels spoke to the women when they discovered the empty tomb: “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” (Luke 24:5-7). What God represented metaphorically by Isaac’s figurative death and resurrection on the third day, he accomplished literally through the resurrection of Jesus on the same third day.

As Mount Moriah came into view, Abraham instructed his servants to wait, while he and Isaac pushed on alone. During this agonizing last leg of the journey, Isaac carried the wood for the sacrifice while Abraham carried the knife and the fire. Centuries later, God’s own son would carry a wooden cross up the same hill where the Father would pour out his wrath upon the sinfulness of mankind. There are numerous biblical examples in which God’s wrath is symbolized by fire, which Abraham carried up the mountain, including this warning from the prophet Jeremiah: “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of your heart, men of Judah in inhabitants of Jerusalem, or else my wrath will go forth like fire and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.” (Jeremiah 4:4). 

As they proceeded up the slopes of Moriah, Isaac questioned why they brought the wood and fire, but no lamb for the sacrifice. Abraham, answered, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” (Genesis 22:8). Upon seeing this promised sacrifice in Jesus of Nazareth, John the Baptist proclaimed, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). The Apostle Peter declares that we are “ransomed…with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” (1 Peter 1:18-19).

Once they reached the mountain summit, Abraham constructed an altar, bound his son, and laid him upon the altar. The passage does not specify Isaac’s age and the word that is often translated as “boy” or “lad” can be used to represent a wide range of ages, but clues from the text indicate that he was probably at least a young man, since he was strong enough to carry the wood up the mountain. Abraham, on the other hand, was over 100 years old. It seems safe to assume that Isaac could have overpowered his father, if he so desired, but instead trusted his father and willingly submitted to his will. Similarly, as Jesus faced his own sacrifice, he prayed, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke 22:42). Jesus makes clear that “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” (John 10:18).

At this point, there is a divergence in the two sacrifices, for as Abraham raises his knife the Angel of the Lord intercedes and says, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” (Genesis 22:12). However, God would not stay his own hand in sacrificing Jesus for the sins of the world. “It was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” (Isaiah 53:10).

After the Angel of the Lord interceded and Isaac was figuratively raised to life on the third day, Abraham lifted his eyes and saw a ram caught in a thicket. The Lord, had indeed provided the sacrifice, and Abraham offered the ram as a burnt offering instead of his son. Interestingly, Abraham called the name of the place of sacrifice, “The LORD will provide” (Genesis 22:14), not “The LORD did provide.” In fact, at the time when Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, it was still being said by the Israelites that “On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.” (Genesis 22:14). Therefore, God’s people had an expectation that God himself would provide a future sacrifice in Moriah, the very place where Jesus would be “pierced for [their] transgressions [and] crushed for [their] iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:5).

My mind is absolutely blown. You literally cannot make this stuff up. The connections between Abraham’s test of sacrificing Isaac and God’s final sacrifice of his own Son are too numerous and too powerful to ignore. Which brings us back to my original point. When we see something that is a bit confusing in the Old Testament, we should ask whether God is using this passage to point to Jesus. I believe that God ultimately called Abraham to sacrifice his son in the land of Moriah so that when he sacrificed his own Son on the same hill nearly two millennium later, it would be obvious that this is what he had planned all along.  

Jesus and the Old Testament Series: An Introduction

If I could partake in any Bible study throughout history, it most likely would have been the one that took place on the road to Emmaus. On Resurrection Sunday, the risen Jesus joined two of his followers as they travelled to the village of Emmaus. As they chatted, the men were bewildered to learn that their new companion had not heard of the recent happenings in Jerusalem: that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they had hoped was the Messiah, had been delivered by the Jewish leaders to be crucified by Pontius Pilate. Though their expectations had been dashed, that very morning some of women of their company found Jesus’ tomb empty and reported that they had seen him alive. Other disciples investigated their claim and found that the tomb was empty, but Jesus himself, they did not see.

In response to this news flash, “[Jesus] said to them, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that they prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:26-27). What a Bible study that must have been!

Throughout every genre of writing, the New Testament affirms that the entire Bible is a revelation of Jesus Christ. In the gospels, Jesus makes this proclamation multiple times. When the Jews were seeking to kill Jesus because he was making himself equal with God by calling God his own father, Jesus responded:

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life…Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you; Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” (John 5:39-40, 45-46)

In both this rebuke and the one on the way to Emmaus, Jesus affirms that all “the Scriptures” – from Genesis to Malachi – speak of him. This doesn’t mean that every single verse of the Bible is a foreshadowing or prophecy of Christ, but that we should expect to see a coherent Christological narrative woven throughout the Old Testament.

Jesus clearly viewed himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “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.” (Matthew 5:17). Elsewhere, after reading a messianic passage from Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus sat down will all the eyes in the building fixed on him. He broke the suspense by simply stating, “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:21).

The preaching of the early church was built upon the foundation that the Old Testament bore witness to Jesus. In the very first public preaching of the gospel, the Apostle Peter quotes extensively from the Old Testament to persuade the crowd that Jesus’ death and resurrection had always been God’s plan of salvation. He makes this more explicit in his next public preaching by proclaiming, “What God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled…And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.” (Acts 3:18, 24).

Other church leaders used similar tactics. It has the Apostle Paul’s normal custom when travelling to a new city was to enter the Jewish synagogue and reason from the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the promised Christ and that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and rise from the dead (Acts 17:2, 18:4). After hearing such a message from Paul, the Bereans were applauded because they “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (Acts 17:11).

In sharing one of the earliest creeds of the church, which most scholars agree dates to within three to five years of the resurrection, Paul writes, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, that that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, emphasis added).

The message of the New Testament is clear – Jesus is all over the Old Testament. Yet, one may wonder, why does this subject warrant the attention of an entire series? I would argue that this area of study is one that has been somewhat neglected by the church and possesses great value in discipleship, outreach, and personal devotion.

I consider the rich and pervasive foreshadowing of Jesus in the Old Testament to be one of the strongest apologetic defenses of the truthfulness of Christianity and the reliability of Scripture. The Old Testament was written by dozens of authors over a period of more than a thousand years, yet, as we will see in this series, these writings contain amazing coherence and diversity in the way Jesus is interwoven into the text. Jesus will by foreshadowed or “typed” through people, events, religious ceremonies, and direct prophecy. Passages that we often skim through or skip altogether, such as the description of the priestly garments, will powerfully point to Christ.

I see three possible explanations for this coherency throughout Scripture: pure coincidence, deliberate and brilliant deception, or intentional revelation. Through the depth and variety of examples that will be provided, I hope to diminish the likelihood of mere coincidence to an asymptote of zero. The hypothesis that the New Testament authors intentionally created a legendary Jesus figure to fit Messianic foreshadows or types from the Old Testament has several problems. First, it goes against the mockery of pop-atheism that tries to discredit Scripture by claiming that it was written by illiterate goat herders and fisherman. You can’t question the reliability of the New Testament Scriptures on one-hand by questioning the qualification of the authors and then turn around and claim that the same authors skillfully crafted a legendary figure to fulfill existing Scripture in a plethora of ways. Second, there are some known facts about Jesus’ life and death that the New Testament authors could not have concocted, even if their motive was duplicitous. Third, the New Testament writings attest to a concern for truth and integrity that would seem at odds with a devious scheme of fabrication. Finally, the New Testament authors faced extreme persecution and even death for their testimony of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. While one’s willingness to die for what they believe only proves that they are sincere, the disciple’s willingness to die for that “which [they] have heard, which [they] have seen with [their] own eyes, [and] which [they] have looked upon and have touched with [their] own hands” (1 John 1:1) supports the theory that they were truthfully reporting real events and vastly undermines the hypothesis of literary invention.

This leaves the explanation that God purposefully and sovereignly embedded these foreshadows of Jesus within the Old Testament writings. Yet, how many Christians have considered these deep truths of the faith? According to a Pew Research study, the number of millennials who identified as Christian dropped by 16% from 2009 to 2019. I wonder how many of these Christians who left the faith could identify even one way that Jesus is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, let alone the vast array of types of prophecies that this series will offer. Maybe if youth groups and churches had sought to instill a deep understanding of the breadth of Scripture, instead of primarily seeking to entertain and rarely scratching below the surface message that “Jesus loves you”, more millennials would have remained strongly rooted in the faith when encountered with skeptical objections, cultural pressures, and even the shortcomings of the church, itself.

Furthermore, I find that the comprehensive foreshadowing of Jesus in the Old Testament has great potential in outreach to unbelievers. I don’t try to conceal or apologize for the fact that I hope to persuade others by writing this blog. Though I hope to accomplish other purposes, such as building up the church, I do hope to convince others of the truth of Christianity. If you do not believe in Christ, I would invite you to read this series with an open mind and consider what is the best explanation for the coherent and interwoven image of Jesus that appears throughout the Old Testament. If you are a believer, I would challenge you to share these ideas with your family and friends. If one really digs into revelation of Jesus in the Old Testament scriptures, I think they will find truths that are difficult to dismiss or explain away.

Finally, I believe that they study of Jesus in the Old Testament has great potential to enrich the devotional lives of Christians. Paul closes his letter to the Roman church with this doxology: “Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith – to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.” (Romans 16:25-27, emphasis added).

Paul’s implication is clear. Before Jesus, the Old Testament was not fully understood, but now these mysteries have been disclosed not only through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but through the writings themselves. In other words, using what we know about Jesus’ life, ministry and ultimate purpose, we can return to fully understand the mysteries contained in the Old Testament scriptures. In doing so, we will more fully understand and savor God’s eternal plan of salvation and the beauty and majesty of Christ that is revealed throughout Scripture. According to Westminster Catechism, the chief end of man is to “glorify God and enjoy him forever.” Seeing Jesus in the Old Testament will enable us to accomplish both of these ends – glorifying God for his manifest wisdom in weaving the message of salvation through Christ throughout the Old Testament and enjoying the many ways in which mystery of Christ has been revealed to us. Regardless of any apologetic effectiveness, I consider these benefits alone to be good reasons to seek to find Jesus in the Old Testament. So, let the search begin!   

Faith and Evidence: Why I Don't Use a Presuppositional Approach (Most of the Time)

Alright, this post is going to be geared more towards apologetics nerds, a rare breed most likely, but I will try to make this informative and enjoyable for everyone. You may not have known that there are actually different schools of apologetics, including classical, evidential, and presuppositional. In this series, I have been arguing for an evidential approach and my series on evidence for the resurrection would also fall under that category, though I would say that overall I follow more of a classical approach. One does not have to strictly adhere to only one approach and different conversations will require different tactics. However, as the title of this post explains, I generally do not use a presuppositional approach, though I will explain the ways in which I draw from its toolbox.

So what is presuppositional apologetics? As the name suggests, presuppositional apologetics presupposes the existence of the triune God divinely revealed through the Bible and claims that this presupposition alone allows one to acquire knowledge and make sense of reality. Presuppositionalists point out that everyone makes presuppositions when adopting a worldview and other presuppositions, such as materialism, lead to an incoherent universe where knowledge is not possible. For example, if one accepts the materialistic framework, one can not appeal to non-material things like laws of logic inorder to investigate or describe the physical universe. When one adopts materialistic presuppositions and a worldview that depends on empirical experimentation, they have no basis to assume the uniformity of natural law on which their empiricism depends. The renowned skeptic and philosopher David Hume concedes that circular reasoning is required to assume the uniformity of natural law from a naturalistic worldview.

In summary, the presuppositional apologist is trying to prove that Christianity is true because any presupposition outside of the Christian worldview leads to an incoherent universe. It is a reductio ad absurdum, or attempt to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd and self-contradictory position. A universe in which laws of logic, reason, and the uniformity of nature exist is only possible if one presupposes the existence of the triune God revealed in scripture.

While I do think that the presuppositional approach makes important contributions, I tend more to the evidentialist side of the spectrum. I think that the different schools of apologetics can work in harmony and an effective apologist will utilize different approaches depending upon the specific context and flow of a conversation. However, I have found that some presuppositional apologists claim that their approach is the only Biblical method of apologetics and that evidential and classical apologists put man in the judge’s seat and God on trial. Most presuppositional apologists that I have read or listened to will only use the presuppositional method, refusing to engage in conversations or debates around evidence. While I see value in what the presuppositional approach brings to the apologetics discussion, I have decided not to adopt a strict reliance on presuppositional apologetics for the following reasons.

1. An evidential approach is clearly seen in both the Old and New Testaments

I am not going to completely rehash my previous arguments, but I wrote two full blog posts on the connection between faith and evidence in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In the Old Testament, there was a culture of remembrance in which the Israelites would construct monuments as evidence for future generations of what God had already done on their behalf. The prophet Elijah did not challenge the presuppositions of the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, but engaged in an evidentiary test to determine who was the true God, Baal or Yahweh. Jesus repeatedly pointed to his miracles and Old Testament prophecy as evidence of his identity and lordship. This approach was also followed by the early church as the apostles appealed to eyewitness testimony of the resurrection, miracles, and prophecy to argue and reason that Jesus was the expected Messiah. Since an evidential approach is clearly used throughout scripture, I think that modern day apologists and evangelists should also appeal to different forms of evidence supporting the truth of the Christian worldview.

2. A varied approach can be used to be “all things for all people”

As with anything, there is variety within presuppositional apologetics, with different tactics and points of emphasis. Some, such as Greg Bahnsen, brilliantly argue in a manner that highlights the absurd and self-contradictory claims of atheism. An excellent example of this can be seen in his 1985 debate with author and skeptic, Dr. Gordon Stein. Others rely on texts such as Romans 1:18 to argue that unbelievers already know that God exists, but are suppressing this truth in order to follow their own passions and desires. They also point out that the “fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1), which is further proof that they are foolishly suppressing the truth of God’s existence.

While I agree with the presuppositional apologists’ interpretation of these verses, I have observed that their use in apologetics and evangelism often fails to present a defense for Christianity with “gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15). There certainly are times to use these verses when sharing the gospel or defending the faith, but I have watched encounters where this approach seems to completely miss the heart and mind of the other person, only causing anger and resentment. It seems that a varied approach, which draws from classical, evidential, and presuppositional methods, would be better at meeting the intellectual, psychological, and emotional needs of each person. I think that flexibility in approach enables apologists to be like the Apostle Paul and “become all things to all people, so that by all possible means, [they] might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22).

3. A presuppositional approach cuts out some of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christianity

Not only does Romans 1 teach that unbelievers suppress the truth that God exists, it also argues that God’s eternal power and divine nature are “clearly seen [and] understood from what has been made.” (Romans 1:20). Despite arguments from the new atheists that science has disproved the existence of God, modern cosmology actually provides some of the strongest arguments for the existence of God. The cosmological argument states that if our universe had a beginning, as is strongly suggested by scientific evidence, then there must have been an incredibly powerful first cause outside of time, matter, and space - namely God. The fine-tuning argument points to the intricate fine-tuning of the universe, in which the initial conditions of the universe and the natural laws which govern its interactions are so exquisitely fine-tuned that even miniscule changes in various ratios and physical constants would have resulted in a universe that would have no possibility of supporting complex life. Such data led atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle to concede, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”1

Furthermore, a robust historical argument can be made to support the truthfulness of Jesus’ resurrection from the grave. I wrote an entire series on this evidence and would encourage believers to equip themselves with this powerful defense of the Christian faith and nonbelievers to consider this evidence with an open-mind. A presuppositional approach cuts out all of these powerful lines of reasoning that support the truthfulness of Christianity.

Yet, as the title suggests, I do see value in the presuppositional approach and do utilize it from time to time. I think that the presuppositional approach is an excellent strategy for exposing contradictions and absurdities in foundational worldviews. This is particularly relevant to our current day. For example, my Facebook feed has been filled the last few months with calls for justice and protection of the dignity and worth of all people. These calls are rightly made, but I do think it is worth asking whether our underlying worldview supports the manner in which we live and the future that we hope to realize.

I wrote a Facebook post with a similar theme, and despite my best efforts to anticipate the disconnect, I was misunderstood on a key point. So, I want to state it here as clearly as possible. I am not saying that atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians in general can not act morally or can not have a strongly held system of morality. What I am saying is that the underlying atheistic worldviews of naturalism and materialism do not support the desire for justice or the claim that human lives have intrinsic dignity, value, and worth. A presuppositional approach causes us to examine the foundational assumptions of a worldview to see whether they support the superstructure of the worldview.

Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologist and author of the best-selling book “The God Delusion”, writes the following in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life - “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and gene replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor JUSTICE. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, NO EVIL, NO GOOD, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”2

The atheistic worldview is built on the foundational assumption that humans are nothing more than matter in motion. How can we define good and evil when the only realities are matter, energy, time and chance? How can we call for justice in a world of blind forces with no design, no purpose, and ultimately nothing that we can truly say is good and evil? 

Presuppositional apologetics points out the absurdity to stand behind one podium to call for justice and the protection of the value and dignity of all human beings and then jump behind another podium to claim that there is no ultimate purpose and design in the universe; the cosmos is solely governed by matter, energy, time and chance; and that humans are simply the accidental byproduct of highly evolved colonies of bacteria. Yet, there is no contradiction or absurdity to call for justice and to value the intrinsic worth of all human beings when the universe was created with design and purpose, which includes absolute moral standards of goodness and justice, and all humans were created as image bearers of God. 

Not only is the Christan worldview supported by evidence, but it provides a foundation from which we can coherently seek the justice and peace that we experientially desire. The presuppositional approach has the potential to lead people to this realization and should be part of any apologists' toolkit, though not to be used exclusively. As I said earlier, by wisely integrating evidential and presuppositional approaches, I think that we can present a respectful and generous defense of the Christian faith, while at the same time meeting the needs of each individual person that will enable us to “become all things to all people, so that by all possible means, [we] might save some.”

Sources:

1) Hoyle, Fred. "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. 8–12.

2) Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Science Masters Series, 1996.

Faith and Evidence in the New Testament

If you’ve missed the first couple posts in this series, here’s a quick summary to bring you up to speed (although I’d also recommend reading the introduction). A common critique of Christianity from skeptics and atheists is that faith is belief without evidence. Aron Ra, a popular atheist speaker and writer with almost 250,000 subscribers on YouTube, asserts the following: “Faith is an assertion of unreasonable conviction, which is assumed without reason, and defended against all reason. In my essay, I specified that by ‘reason’, I meant ‘evidence’, the only reason to believe anything. Since defenders of the faith often refuse to amidst that faith is a belief that is not based on evidence, then I’ll have to prove that I’ve got that right.”¹

Well, if Aron Ra wants to prove that he’s “got it right”, it seems a good place to start would be accurately representing New Testament references to faith. The word “faith” appears far more often in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. For example, in the English Standard Version the word appears 278 times in 257 verses, approximately nine times more than in the Old Testament. In approximately 90% of the cases, “faith” is translated from the Greek word “pistis”, which is defined by Strong’s Concordance to mean “conviction of the truth of anything” or “belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it.” In the Old Testament, the term “faith” seems to often be synonymous with devotion, whereas in the New Testament the term does seem to be more closely associated with one’s beliefs. However, are the critics such as Aron Ra correct when they claim that this belief is without evidence?

There are far too many occurrences to examine every one, but let’s take a look at a few times in which the Greek word “pistis” is translated as “faith” and see if it fits the representation as “belief without evidence. In a famous gospel story, four men lowered their paralyzed friend through a hole in the roof of the home where Jesus was preaching to a packed crowd in hopes that he would heal their friend.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son your sins are forgiven.” (Mark 2:5)

Would it be accurate to describe the friends’ faith as belief without evidence? Up to this point in Mark’s gospel, Jesus had already driven out demons and healed many, including a man with leprosy. As a result of reports of these miracles, the crowd that had gathered around Jesus was so great that the men had to improvise and dig a hole in the roof to bring their friend to Jesus. They took such extreme measures because they trusted that Jesus would heal their friend based on the power and compassion he had already demonstrated. Their faith was not belief without evidence, but active conviction as a result of evidence. 

A couple chapters later, Jesus and the disciples were crossing the Sea of Galilee when a strong storm arose and threatened to swamp the boat. The disciples ran to Jesus, who was sleeping in the stern and asked, “Don’t you care if we drown?” After rebuking the storm and calming the waves, Jesus turned to his followers, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” (Mark 4:38-40). If faith is belief without evidence, what grounds would Jesus have for rebuking his disciples? If they had not been given any evidence that they could trust him or any proof of his identity as the Son of God, then they should have been afraid in a life-threatening storm. Yet, they had already seen him perform many miracles. In this context, the disciples would have had faith if they had trusted that Jesus would guide them safely through the storm, but not without reason to do so.

Now, it is true that the word faith is more synonymous with belief in the New Testament than the Old Testament, where it often connotes devotion. For example, a major theme in the New Testament is that Christians are justified by faith. For example, Galations 2:16 says, “We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” To examine whether this faith is belief without evidence, we must examine the full gospel message that the apostles preached, but first it will be fruitful to analyze how Jesus’ actions and words shed light on the connection between faith and evidence.

John the Baptist was appointed to herald and prepare the way for the coming Messiah. However, as a result of John’s critique of his illegitimate marriage, Herod had thrown John in prison and John began to question whether Jesus truly was the Messiah. Like the rest, John had expected a conquering Christ and this turn of events didn’t fit his expected script. So, John sent some of his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the promised one or whether they should expect someone else. Jesus’ response is telling. Does he instruct John to just believe and take it on faith? No, instead after healing diseases, freeing people from evil spirits, and bring sight to the blind he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.” (Luke 7:22-23).

We see in this account two ways in which Jesus consistently gave evidence or proof for his identity: miraculous signs and Biblical prophecy. Jesus demonstrated his identity to John’s disciples by first performing miracles and then directing them to scripture that attests that he is the expected savior (compare Jesus’ words to Isaiah 61:1-2). Instead of expecting the questioners to believe without evidence, Jesus sends them away with two powerful forms of confirmatory evidence.

Jesus points to his miracles as evidence of his identity in an altercation with unbelieving Jews. They threatened to stone him because, in their eyes, he had committed blasphemy by “claim(ing) to be God” by saying, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30,33). Jesus responds, “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:37-38). Once again, Jesus’ response completely undercuts the claim that faith is belief without evidence. Even though the unbelieving Jews don’t believe in Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, he points them to his works as evidence that should lead to belief.

In another altercation, the scribes and Pharisees approach Jesus asking for a sign of his authority. Knowing that their intentions were not genuine, Jesus refuses their request but does give a prophetic sign saying, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Johah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Although Jesus denies their immediate request, he ends up giving a prediction of the greatest evidence for his identity: his resurrection. Once again, this evidence is connected to the Old Testament scriptures, which weave a narrative of God’s redemptive work that further confirms Jesus' work and identity as Messiah. 

After Jesus death and resurrection, his disciples took the baton in preaching the gospel and continued to prove the truthfulness of their message through miracles and Old Testament prophecy, but also added their eye-witness testimony of the resurrection as an added line of evidence. These three types of verification are woven throughout the early church and all three can be seen in an incident that occurred soon after the resurrection (See Acts 3:1 - 4:4 for the entire text). Peter and John healed a lame beggar as they were walking to the temple and the onlookers were astounded by this miracle. As a crowd gathered, Peter shared the good news of the forgiveness of sins through Jesus, “whom God raised from the dead” and declared, “To this we are witnesses.” (Acts 3:15). He also tied these events to Old Testament Scripture by explaining, “Brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your rulers (when they crucified Jesus). But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.” (Acts 3:17-18). As a result of these three lines of evidence - miracles, eye-witness testimony, and Old Testament prophecy - “many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.” (Acts 4:4)

The earliest surviving creed of the early church, which likely dates to within three years of the resurrection, incorporates both eye-witness testimony and Old Testament prophecy. This is one of the earliest teachings of the Christian church and it is clear that faith is supported by evidence, not held in absence of evidence.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, emphasis added)

These two examples are not isolated occurrences. The apostles healed many people, drove out evil spirits and performed miraculous signs; as a result, many people came to believe in the Lord (Acts 5:12, Acts 8:6-7, Acts 9:32-42, Acts 13:6-12, Acts 14:8-10, Acts 16:16-18, Acts 19:11-12). The Apostle Paul’s routine on his evangelistic missions was to go to the synagogues and reason from the Old Testament scriptures to provide evidence that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 17:2-4, Acts 17:17, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:9). The Bereans are praised for having noble character because they received the gospel with eagerness and examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). The apostles routinely appealed to their status as eye-witnesses of the resurrection and the life of Jesus in their public sermons and letters to the churches (Acts 2:32, 1 John 1:3, 2 Peter 1:16). Hopefully, this landslide of examples proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christian faith is not belief without evidence.

Yet, there is more. Bertrand Russell, one of the twentieth century’s most famous atheists, was asked on his deathbed what he would say to God if his atheistic hypothesis was incorrect. Russell replied, “I think I should say to him: Sir, why didn’t you give us more evidence.”² Unfortunately, this excuse will not hold-up in God’s court of law. A clear teaching in the New Testament is that every person has received sufficient evidence to believe that God exists. In his letter to the Roman church, Paul writes:

For what can be known about God is plain to (all men), because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20).

When one looks at the wonder of nature and ponders the vastness of the universe, even in an age when people knew far less about the mind-boggling dimensions and intricate fine-tuning of the cosmos, it should be obvious that there is an all-powerful, creator God. Furthermore, when one looks within they see that humans have been given a conscious and innate knowledge of right and wrong, which points to a moral law-giver. Paul puts it this way:

For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)

So not only does the history of the early Church show that the gospel message was accompanied by miracles, eye-witness testimony, and Old Testament prophecy as corroborating evidence, but Paul clearly teaches that everyone, even those who claim that faith is belief without evidence, have received sufficient evidence to believe in God.

However, there are a few passages that some skeptics, such as Aron Ra, will cite to claim that Christian faith really is belief without evidence. The most famous of these is Hebrews 11:1, which says, “Now faith is the assurance of this hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” I will be dealing with that passage, and other objections, in the next post in this series.

References:

1)     Ra, Aron. “Religious Faith IS ‘Belief Without Evidence.” Reason Advocates. August 29, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2015/08/29/religious-faith-is-belief-without-evidence/

2)     Kreeft, Peter. Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascals’ Pensees Edited, Outlined and Explained. Ignatius Press, 1993.

Faith and Evidence in the Old Testament

In this series, I am responding to the common assertion from atheists and skeptics that faith is "belief without evidence." If you haven't done so already, I would recommend reading the introduction to this series to properly set the stage for this post. 

One thing that is important to note is that the purpose of this series is not to provide or defend evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity. If you are interested in such evidence, I have written an entire series on evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and have plans for future writings on other lines of evidence and reasoning. Instead, this is an internal critique of how the Bible defines faith. Authors such as Peter Boghossian claim that when Christians speak of having "faith" in God, they really mean "things they pretend to know." Yet, regardless of one's own beliefs, it seems vitally important to look at how the Christian worldview defines faith. Does the Bible give the impression that faith is something that should be accepted blindly without any evidence? To keep things manageable, in this post we are only going to be looking at how the Old Testament speaks of faith.

First, let's examine how the term is used in the Old Testament. The number of times that the word "faith" appears depends on the translation. For example, in the English Standard Version, which is on the word-for-word side of the translation scale, a variety of different Hebrew words are translated as "faith" for a total of twenty-seven appearances. In over half of the usages, faith is used in the context of showing or failing to show devotion to God or another person. An example occurs when the rest of the tribes of Israel mistakenly thought that the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh erected an altar of rebellion against the Lord.

Thus says the whole congregation of the Lord, ‘What is this breach of faith that you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the Lord by building yourselves an altar this day in rebellion against the Lord? (Joshua 22:16)

The next most common context is for faith to be used synomonously with trust or confidence. After being led out of slavery in Egypt and witnessing numerous signs and wonders, the Israelites did not trust that God would lead them to victory in the promised land, but instead "they despised the pleasant land, having no faith in his promise." (Psalm 106:24). Far from being belief with no evidence, the Israelites are condemned for not having faith despite all the evidence they had seen of God's power and might in rescuing them out of Egypt (read Psalm 106:1-23).

Possibly the most famous "faith" verse from the Old Testament is Habakkuk 2:4, which says, "the righteous will live by his faith." In context, the righteous man is contrasted with the man whose "soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him." The contrast doesn't speak to the reasons for the righteous man's faith, but instead how his faith in God impacts the way in which he lives.

Finally, a few other verses speak of acting in "good faith" or with truth and integrity (See Judges 9:15 - 19).

Beyond studying individual word usages, there are larger themes that emerge in the Old Testament that fly completely against the claim that faith is belief without evidence. First, one purpose of prophecy was to provide evidence that the LORD had spoken to Israel. God doesn't instruct the Israelites to blindly trust anyone who claims to be a prophet, but instead tells them to look for evidence of fulfilled prophecy to determine whether they speak for the LORD or not.

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

Later, God declares to Israel that he has predicted future events through the prophets to provide evidence that he, and not their man-made idols, had brought these things to pass. 

The former things I declared of old;

    they went out from my mouth, and I announced them;

    then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass.

Because I know that you are obstinate,

    and your neck is an iron sinew

    and your forehead brass,

I declared them to you from of old,

    before they came to pass I announced them to you,

lest you should say, "My idol did them,

    my carved image and my metal image commanded them." (Isaiah 48:3-5)

Second, the Israelites were taught to remember the things God had done in the past and to pass them on to future generations so that they would also trust in him. Most people know that God parted the Red Sea as the Israelites fled from the Egyptians, but a second water crossing occurred with God stopped the Jordan River so that the Israelites could enter the promised land. As this miracle occurred, Joshua gave the following instructions:

“Go over before the ark of the Lord your God into the middle of the Jordan. Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, ‘What do these stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. When it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever.” (Joshua 4:5-7)

Previously, Moses had taught the people, "Remember today that your children were not the ones who saw and experienced the discipline of the Lord your God: his majesty, his mighty hand, his outstretched arm; the signs he performed and the things he did in the heart of Egypt, both to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his whole country...But it was your own eyes that saw all these great things the Lord has done." (Deuteronomy 11:2-3,7). To prevent future generations from forgetting these acts, the Israelites were to "teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up." (Deuteronomy 11:19). In the oral culture of the time, God's people were to trust him in the future based on what He had already done in the past. This idea is further demonstrated in the Psalms. Both Psalm 78 and Psalm 105 give detailed accounts of how God has protected and provided for his chosen people.

Finally, God provides evidence to prove that He is the only true God. When Moses is called to lead the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, he wonders how he will convince them that the LORD sent him. God provides Moses with two signs - his staff turns into a serpent when he throws it to the ground and his hand changes from leprous to fully healed when he slips it in his cloak. However, God provides a further proof if the Israelites still will not listen: "If they will not believe even these two signs or listen to your voice, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground, and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.” (Exodus 4:9). After living among false idols for over four centuries, God is going to provide undisputable evidence to his people that he alone is worthy of praise.

When God later afflicts Egypt with the plague of the frogs, Moses agrees to pray that they will return to the Nile. When Pharaoh requests that this occur the next day, Moses responds, "Be it as you say, so that you may know that there is no one like the Lord our God." (Exodus 8:10).

Centuries later, the LORD once again proves that He is the only true God in the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. I suggest reading all of 1 Kings 18 for context, but here is a brief summary. These were dark days in the northern kingdom of Israel and most of the people had forsaken the LORD to worship Baal. Elijah, the prophet of the LORD, challenges hundreds of false prophets to a test to see who is the true God. Each side builds an altar and calls for their God to ignite their sacrifice. Elijah ups the ante and even douses his sacrifice with water three times. The prophets of Baal call frantically to their God and even mutilate their own bodies, but nothing happens. Yet, when it was Elijah's turn to call to the LORD, this is what happened:

Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, “The Lord, he is God; the Lord, he is God.” (1 Kings 18:36-39).

Whether we look at specific usages of the word "faith" or at broad principles that are woven throughout scripture, the conclusion is very clear. The Old Testament clearly teaches that faith is trust or devotion to the LORD and does not call for blind faith in absence of evidence, but instead encourages confident trust based on the evidence of what God had already done to show his mighty power to the nation of Israel. In the next post in this series, we'll examine whether a similar picture of faith carries over into the New Testament.