Book Review: Delighting in the Old Testament: Through Christ and for Christ

Delighting in the Old Testament: Through Christ and for Christ. By Jason S. DeRouchie. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024. 368 pp. $32.99 (hardcover).

Several years ago, Baptist pastor and author Dr. John Piper responded to a question about whether he found the Federal Vision theology of Douglas Wilson to be a different gospel by saying, in sum, “No…wrong in numerous cases, but wrong in the way you would expect a Presbyterian to be wrong.” With a slight alteration, such is a good summary of Jason S. DeRouchie’s latest book published by Crossway, Delighting in the Old Testament: wrong in numerous cases, but wrong in the way you would expect a Baptist to be wrong. Jason S. DeRouchie serves as Research Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. While DeRouchie desires to encourage the preaching and teaching of the Old Testament in American evangelical churches and to avoid the threat of antinomianism, DeRouchie’s theology does not provide him with the categories that would allow his readers to appreciate all the riches the Old Testament has to offer.

DeRouchie’s thesis is that the Old Testament can best be savored and appreciated when its contents are read in a Christocentric manner, or in the words of the subtitle, “Through Christ and for Christ.” The book’s content is divided into four sections revolving around how Jesus helps Christians to interpret the Old Testament, how the Old Testament testifies to Jesus Christ, how Jesus secures the divine promises, and how Jesus makes the Mosaic law matter. At nearly 300 pages, the content of the book can at times seem rather repetitive. It is fair to say that the same content could have been communicated just as effectively in less than 200 pages.

The first two sections of the book are far superior to the last two. The first section seeks to establish a biblical-theological foundation for a Christocentric interpretation of the Old Testament arguing that since many Jews living under the Old Covenant were blind and deaf to the true meaning of the words of the law and the prophets, the proper audience of the writers is New Testament Christians, reading the text through the lens of Christ. This is an important point. Much is often made, especially in dispensational teaching, of interpreting the Old Testament text based on “what it meant to the original audience.” However, given that most of the people living under the old covenant failed to grasp the message that was being communicated through Moses and the prophets, the original audience’s interpretation is mostly irrelevant. In Deuteronomy 30, Moses predicts the ultimate failure of God’s people in Canaan. In Isaiah 30:8, Jeremiah 30:2-3, and Daniel 12:4, the prophets are told to write down or to seal up the prophecies for a future generation who would later fully grasp their meaning in the light of Christ. This is repeated in the New Testament in I Peter 1:12 where the apostle writes that the prophets searched intently the things concerning Christ, not to serve themselves, but for those living under the new covenant.

The second section of the book provides a helpful framework for organizing the Biblical narrative across both testaments, focusing on interpreting the Old Testament both through Christ and for Christ. DeRouchie identifies a kind of symbiotic relationship between the testaments. By disclosing Christ as the Old Testament’s goal, the Father also illuminates His intent for how we read the Old Testament. In other words, the New Testament sheds light on the Old and the Old Testament sheds light on the New when you understand the central figure about which both testify to be Christ. This is clearly the case with a prosopological reading of the Old Testament prophetic texts which simultaneously point forward to their fulfillment in the New Testament and fill out understanding of those same New Testament texts.

It is in the second half where DeRouchie’s arguments become much more problematic in a way that one would expect from a Baptist. In speaking of how the promises of the Old Testament apply to Christians today, DeRouchie in effect spiritualizes them or consigns them to the future age after Christ’s return. While he rightly combats the prosperity gospel prevalent within certain strains of American evangelicalism, he combats it by first, utilizing the same individualistic approach to Scripture as the prosperity preachers, and second, failing to recognize the relative, rather than perfect, obedience that was required for Israel to live well in the land.

First, the problem with the prosperity gospel is that the promises of temporal blessing throughout the Old Testament are read as if they are a guarantee of health and wealth to every individual today given enough faith. DeRouchie rightly sees that not every individual enjoys health and prosperity by living in faithful obedience to God even in the Old Testament. Therefore, he seeks to reinterpret the Old Testament promises in light of Jesus as spiritual blessings in the present or physical blessings that will only finally be realized when the kingdom of God is fully established (164-5). His individualistic and baptistic approach to Scripture prevents him from appreciating the cumulative effects of covenantal faithfulness over the course of generations. It is true that not every single believer of every generation will experience temporal blessings, but faithfulness to God and the application of wisdom can lead to temporal blessings experienced by generations in the future. When God promised through Moses and Joshua that the people would have great success in the promised land that God was giving to them, it did not mean that every single person would live to an old age and enjoy perfect health and an abundance of wealth. However, that generation as a whole did, and as they were faithful to God’s law, this trend would continue into future generations. Likewise, the martyrs in the early church did not enjoy a life of health and wealth, but their blood proved to be the seed of the church that produced a harvest a hundredfold (Matt. 13:8). It ultimately brought down the pagan Roman Empire and led to a transformation of the west. The reality is that the promises of the Old Testament as well as the principles articulated in the wisdom literature, while not guaranteed for every single person, are generally true. When one aligns his behavior with the way in which God has commanded and has ordered the world, one is generally going to live a healthier, wealthier, and blessed life. The Proverbs provide a wisdom and paradigms for interpreting the world, not strict cause-and-effect promises. Following such wisdom, regardless of whether one is a Christian or not, can result in temporal blessing because one is running with the grain of the created order. We do not have to spiritualize the promises and principles of the Old Testament with a New Testament perspective. Even within the Old Testament a nuanced perspective is presented in Ecclesiastes and in Job that enhances and contextualizes the Proverbs and helps us to understand that physical health and prosperity alone is vanity in the end, and that despite our best efforts to do right, God’s ways are higher than our ways and we are not privy to His divine council.

Second, DeRouchie’s theology reveals a radical discontinuity between the old and new covenants when he claims that the Mosaic law conditioned the enjoyment of its original blessings on perfect obedience (163). If this is true, Israel would never have been able to step foot in the land because they would have failed the test on the first day. Temporal blessings were not and are not based on absolute and perfect obedience. Israel was not condemned to exile the moment that the first human in the land sinned. DeRouchie says that the promise of blessing, which was conditional in the old covenant, is unconditional in the new because Christ has fulfilled the conditions and because all true Christians will persevere (167). However, none of these promises include the physical blessings to Israel, which DeRouchie says apply only to Israel. All blessings are again spiritualized and belong to the age to come.

The final section of the book on the role of the law in the life of a Christian is even more problematic. It is telling that from the outset DeRouchie admits his rejection of the classic threefold division of the law (215–17). DeRouchie claims that all the Mosaic law is fulfilled in Christ, not just its ceremonial aspects, and therefore all the law has “devotional benefit” (216), but none of it is directly applicable in the present day. In DeRouchie’s view, the purpose of Mosaic law for the Christian is to reveal the character of God and direct our eyes to Christ (219). Since Christ has fulfilled the requirements of the law, Christians obey the law by simply loving their neighbor and do not keep commandments because God said to, but because they want to (219). DeRouchie sees no role for the law of God in any sphere beyond the Christian life. In no way are the statutes of Mosaic law, or even the wisdom of the law, directly applicable to the state “for the state is not governed by the special revelation of Scripture that alone provides the ultimate benchmark for truth and sanctifies people” (footnote, 226). On what basis, then, is the state to be governed? Is this of no concern to the Christian? What about “the nations” that are spoken of in Revelation? Should not Christians call on nations as corporate entities to repent and obey? Because of his baptistic views, DeRouchie does not have a category for such thought because only individuals, not nations or corporate entities, can be saved. If government does not derive any authority from Biblical law and the law only serves a teaching function for the believer, any theonomic approach to the law is predictably dismissed by DeRouchie. He also rejects Christian Nationalism as articulated by Stephen Wolfe but is forced to lump it in with theonomy, even though Wolfe makes his case for a Christian nation on the basis of natural law principles, which DeRouchie earlier in the book claims to adhere to as the basis for government.[1] DeRouchie had previously argued for natural law as the basis for secular government as opposed to the Old Testament, but does not seem to have a category for classical two kingdoms theology articulated by Wolfe. It is likely Wolfe’s belief that the natural law includes the moral law of the Ten Commandments that proves to be the stumbling block for DeRouchie, who sees no role for the Old Testament in governing the state. At the end of the day, DeRouchie cannot credibly reject antinomianism as he attempts to do beginning on page 229 and at the same time claim that there is no aspect of the Old Testament law that is binding. He understandably wants to distance himself from radical antinomian figures such as Andy Stanley but fails to state substantively what the Old Testament can do besides point to Christ and serve as devotional literature.

In conclusion, the main issue with DeRouchie’s presentation is that it reduces the Old Testament to devotional material due to the radical distinction he assumes between the old and new covenants. In this world, old covenant worship and ceremony contributes nothing that is normative for new covenant worship. Old covenant signs and seals like circumcision tell us nothing about new covenant signs and seals like baptism. Old covenant wisdom yields no insight for enjoying temporal blessing. Old covenant law provides no discernment for administering justice in the state. On the contrary, the reality is that the Old Testament is a source of great wisdom from God that is applicable in all spheres of life in addition to pointing to the central figure of Scripture, the Son of God who lived a perfect life and died as perfect sacrifice to free us from sin so that we can obey the law and produce good works in keeping with repentance. Thus, while a work like DeRouchie’s book is needed in our day, I am afraid this book falls short.

Notes

[1] It appears that DeRouchie simply has not done the reading on this topic and seems to make his argument on the basis of Neil Shenvi’s negative review of Stephen Wolfe’s book than the arguments presented by Wolfe himself.