1200px-Isaak_zegent_Jakob_Rijksmuseum_SK-A-110

Latter-day Saints Need the Old Testament

Arguably more than any other Christian church, the Old Testament weaves its way through the foundations of Latter-day Saint teaching far more than even members of the Church of Jesus Christ might appreciate.

I always used to feel a little bit anxious when Sunday School cycled back around to the Old Testament.  My anxiety stemmed from two places: First, the sheer enormity of it—it is more than twice as long as the New Testament. How was I ever going to read through the whole thing?  And second, the seeming impenetrability of some of the language—it was a maze of unfamiliar people, geography, and teachings.  People joke about the Isaiah chapters in 2nd Nephi (of the Book of Mormon) being hard to read; for me, those were a piece of cake compared to parts of Deuteronomy and Leviticus.  

So, at the beginning of each four-year cycle, I committed to read verses identified in the Sunday School Guide for each lesson and hoped that I would come away with something that made attendance worthwhile. That worked for me—until it didn’t. At some point, and I don’t quite remember when, it dawned on me that the Old Testament must be more than a collection of haphazardly scattered verses that nicely support Latter-day Saint ideas and practices.  These ancient teachings had sustained the early Israelites and modern-day Jews through invasions, deportation, persecution, and the horrors of the Holocaust!  Yet, in Sunday School, I found myself struggling to stay awake. I must be missing something, I thought. This realization about the Old Testament came at a time in my life when I was, more generally, reconsidering my overall approach to belief and faith, what I now see as the time I entered the “wilderness.” 

So, I went to Wesley Theological Seminary, a Methodist seminary in Washington, DC.  The very first class I registered for was “Introduction to the Old Testament.”  Taught in two sections by two different professors (both well-known and respected in the world of Old Testament scholarship), these survey courses helped the Old Testament come alive to me.  I stopped trying to find the ways in which the Old Testament reinforced my existing perspectives and started allowing the Old Testament to teach me what it had to offer. And what it offered was as unexpected as it was profound.  It was, in fact, life-giving.  It is impossible to overemphasize the impact that the Old Testament had, and continues to have, on me.  I entered Wesley at a time of great spiritual tumult in my own life, and my faith was saved by the Old Testament.

We have a special obligation to take the time to understand this sacred book on its own terms.

Now, I’m not suggesting that attending a Seminary is right for everyone. And I’m not suggesting that my experience with the Old Testament is normative.  The fact that I had the time and resources to attend, not to mention access to a top-notch school, was a privilege for which I will always be grateful.  And the fact that the Old Testament had such a profound impact on me likely says more about me than anything.  What I am suggesting is that during my time at Wesley one of the things I learned is that Latter-day Saints need the Old Testament more than they may realize.  And our people need more than the ability to appreciate key verses that support what we believe—we need the whole megillah. What’s more, we need to allow ourselves to be surprised by what it says and to allow ourselves to find nourishment in unexpected places.  Such an approach is, I believe, central to our faith collectively and a critical foundation for personal growth.  In fact, in ways that are non-trivial, Latter-day Saint beliefs may be more reliant on Old Testament foundations than many other Christian denominations.  For instance:

Prophets. The Latter-day Saint notion of a prophet is grounded in the Old Testament!  The Old Testament not only provides for us the two archetypal examples of prophetic leadership, Moses and Elijah, it also demonstrates variety in the prophetic voice and the many surprising ways God works through those called to speak His word.  If we are to understand the ways in which God works through modern-day prophets, we need to steep ourselves in the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament.  Of all Christian denominations—because we sustain modern-day prophets, seers, and revelators—the Latter-day Saint faithful need this background. 

Abrahamic Covenant and House of Israel. As President Russell Nelson has articulated in multiple ways over the last few years, the Abrahamic Covenant looms large in everything we do as a church and individually. That covenant is not only articulated for the first time but also embodied throughout the Old Testament. It is in the Old Testament that we see how this covenant plays out for Abraham and then over his generations. Further, it is only in the Old Testament that the specific promises given to each of the sons of Jacob/Israel are recorded—something that matters for those who have received something called a “patriarchal blessing” highly valued in our faith community (Genesis 49).  Though the Pearl of Great Price does offer some insight on these topics, the fact remains that the vast majority of our understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant specifically and the House of Israel generally comes from the Old Testament.  Again, given our understanding of the Church of Jesus Christ’s role in our modern time, a better understanding of the ancient promises made to Abraham and his posterity is crucial.

Foundational Scripture. It’s remarkable to consider how much other scripture refers back and rests upon an Old Testament foundation. For instance, The Book of Mormon is built on a foundation of Old Testament ideas—in fact, familiarity with those ideas is assumed in Book of Mormon language (e.g. there is no explanation of the Abrahamic Covenant in the Book of Mormon, it is simply assumed that the reader already has that foundational knowledge).  The Pearl of Great Price’s Book of Moses owes its existence to Joseph Smith’s reading of the Old Testament. Even the Doctrine and Covenants, a decidedly modern text, contains numerous revelations in which God self-identifies and refers to early Latter-day Saints with phraseology pulled directly from the Old Testament (see for example 8:3, 36:1; 50:44; 61:25; 103:16-17; 109:1; 136:21).  Of course, Jesus expressly taught in his mortal ministry from the texts that make up the Old Testament.  For example, Jesus’s teaching about the two greatest commandments, to love God and love our neighbor, comes from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18.  When Jesus refuted the devil’s temptations after His forty-day fast, He did so with Old Testament teachings (mostly in Deuteronomy).  When Jesus cleansed the temple, He cited language found in Isaiah and Jeremiah (Mark 11:15-18; cf Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11).  In short, the story of Jesus makes it exceptionally clear that, among other things, Jesus knew and taught from Israel’s scriptures.  Given the pivotal role that the Old Testament plays in the Latter-day Saint canon, and Jesus’ example of reliance upon Old Testament texts, we need to take every opportunity to learn this book of scripture better.

Messiahship. Though Christians have understood the notion of “messiah” in ways that are slightly different than their Jewish friends have—specifically Christians’ seeing Jesus of Nazareth as “The Messiah”—the idea of a messiah (an ‘anointed one,’ translated as “chrīstós” in Greek) comes from, and is most explored in, the Old Testament.  The first followers of Jesus, all of whom were Jewish, pulled from this ancient messiah tradition as a way to explain Jesus and what he was doing. Our modern views about and language expressing “Jesus as the Messiah” owe their existence to a reinterpreted Old Testament idea.  Similarly, Book of Mormon language directly cites messianic language that comes from Isaiah (among other scriptures) as a way to understand Jesus’ role. As is evidenced by Easter classics like Handle’s “Messiah” or the Christmas hymn “O Come, O Come, Immanuel,” Christianity generally, and the Church of Jesus Christ specifically, owes much of its liturgical language about Jesus Christ to the Old Testament.  As a people who sees themselves as carrying a modern-day message of The Messiah for the world, better understanding the messianic tradition can only help us.

Obviously, this shortlist of why we Latter-day Saints need the Old Testament is incomplete, but I hope it is illustrative.  And I am optimistic this list drives home that during this upcoming year when Latter-day Saints focus on the Old Testament in our 2022 Sunday School cycle, we need to do much more than merely look at all the ways in which the Old Testament supports what we believe. Quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps even more than all other Christian denominations, the conviction and sacred text of Latter-day Saint tradition both suggest that we have a special obligation to take the time to understand this sacred book on its own terms. And this is the year we can really begin that journey.  This year, we need to dig into the Old Testament with a seriousness and willingness that demonstrates our commitment to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and an openness to have some old ideas challenged to have new ideas take root. 

This year, for the first time ever, I am moving into this cycle of the Old Testament study with excitement and anticipation.  I am ready to take time to really explore this marvelous work of scripture, looking to be taught.  The Old Testament is a modern-day miracle.

NOTE: “Old Testament” is a contested term. I use it here only because it is the most commonly recognized term among the Latter-day Saint community, not because it is the best one. Personally, I prefer and generally use “Hebrew Bible” but that is also problematic for other reasons, not the least of which is that portions of it were written in Aramaic. For a good and brief discussion on this issue see, Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Bible With and Without Jesus, pgs. 7-14.

About the author

M. David Huston

Michael Huston (who has previously published in Public Square Magazine under M. David Huston) currently resides in central Maryland. He received degrees from Utah State University (Logan, UT), American University (Washington, DC), and Wesley Theological Seminary (Washington, DC). You can find him at wonder.annotated on instagram and Wonder Annotated on facebook.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Sean Astin & Ke Huy Quan Reunite, But “Love Hurts” Doesn’t Deliver

My son asked me what “Love Hurts” was about. I told him it was about how we can’t just move on from our past. “Oh,” he looked concerned, “That’s a bad movie.” Unlike my son concluded, “Love Hurts” isn’t a bad movie, but it’s not a Christian one. The theme repeated over and over is that we cannot move on from the past until we conquer it. Our main character desperately works for redemption, but the film keeps telling him he can’t have it. His aw-shucks charm in “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” combined with the nostalgia for his 80s career has combined to make Ke Huy Quan Hollywood’s “it” man of the moment. And “Love Hurts” is the star vehicle to determine if he can top the marquee of a nationwide opening.  It’s a bit of a mixed bag. The film is set over a Valentine’s Day weekend. Quan, plays Marvin Gable the regional realtor of the year. His upbeat attitude endears him to his clients and coworkers alike. Marvin used to be the enforcer for the local mob run by his brother. His brother ordered him to take out Rose, his unrequited crush, for stealing. But Marvin let her live and started a new life. Rose has decided to come back, delivering Valentine’s to the major players, dragging Marvin back into the life he tried to leave behind. The film, which runs a brisk 85 minutes, is mostly a series of choreographed fight scenes interspersed with just enough exposition to explain the plot and three love stories. So it’s worth mentioning that the fight choreography is very focused on creating tableaus showing off the imagination of the designer. And this does work to create some eye-popping visuals.  But I’m not sure if the trade-off to get those moments was worth it. To get to the visual moments it wants to show off the fights vacillate wildly between grounded brutal realism and physics so implausible it would make the Avengers blush, with no real explanation or meaning between the two. The pacing of the fights was often awkward and halting. And I never felt any stakes in the scenes because I never knew how much risk my protagonists were in.  The film uses a series of intermittent voice-overs from both Marvin and Rose to explain their attraction to one another. But the chemistry between the two never takes off. And while the film explains why Rose would be attracted to Marvin’s kindness and power, we never figure out why Marvin was willing to throw his entire life away twice at an outside chance with a woman who isn’t that interested in him.  The two grunts in the film played by André Eriksen and Marshawn Lynch, spend the time between their fights figuring out how to write a text to repair one of their marriages. The most amusing romance is between Raven, who breaks into Marvin’s office to fight him, and Ashley, the real estate assistant who finds his unconscious body and falls in love with him while reading his poetry in his notebook before he wakes up.  The movie is surprisingly funny. It leans into the cliches of the Asian mob film, and then juxtaposes it next to a bunch of odd things: suburban model homes, an all-American black belt, a poet, a pull-over sweater. It’s mostly just the one joke, but it’s enough for the film’s brisk run. My favorite part of the film was Sean Astin. Astin plays Marvin’s boss, and older brother figure who gave him the job when he escaped the mob. Astin and Quan famously shared the screen in “Goonies.” During the scene early in the film when Astin gives Quan the real estate award, you could feel the dialogue transcend the characters. It felt like Astin was so proud of the success of his old friend Quan, and this was his moment to tell him.  Quan, for his part, does everything right but doesn’t take the material to another level.  If you love fight choreography, there will certainly be some interesting things to look at here. And if you want a classic action romp with a few laughs and a Valentine’s twist this might be the film for you. But for most people, I don’t think it all comes together. It’s too gory without meaning. And while the movie seems to think it has a happy ending, I can’t imagine that most of the people watching will agree. It’s got R-rated content with no compensating uplift to make it worth the experience. Two out of five stars. “Love Hurts” opens nationwide on February 7, 2025.

Barry Keoghan shines in weak star vehicle

“Bring Them Down” is a careful small-town drama about Irish sheep farmers. The film stars Christopher Abbott as Michael after his acclaimed performance as the villain in “Poor Things,” and titular role in “Wolf Man.”  Barry Keoghan plays opposite as Jack, the son of neighboring farmers. Keoghan also made his mark in a Yorgos Lanthimos film, “Killing of a Sacred Deer.” He is as up-and-coming as an actor can be, set to star in the highly anticipated Beatles biopic.  The film is mostly a showpiece for the two talented leads to luxuriate in the acting moments that the revenge plot affords them. Abbott builds a character suspended in tension between his guilt over his mother’s passing, his deference to his strong-willed father, his honor, and his self-sufficiency. Keoghan has a slightly more complicated job, as he needs to find the motivation to start the feud inside a character that is juvenile and slight. As a showcase, the film is a success. Not many people will see it, but it will certainly help burnish the reputations of Abbot and Keoghan as formidable actors. And the plot is good enough to serve that purpose. Caroline, Michael’s ex-girlfriend, and Jack’s mother, has decided to leave Jack’s father because of their financial problem. A bridge is out, and Michael’s father is reluctant to let Jack’s family cross his property. So Jack hatches a plan to steal two prized rams from Michael’s family. When Jack’s dad catches him, he makes him kill the ram and get rid of it. The woman they sell it to offers them good money for sheep legs, offering what Jack sees as a solution to his family’s problems. But rather than tell the story in a forthright way, the edit tells the story twice, first from Michael’s point of view, and then from Jack’s. So during the first half of the film things move so fast and with so little context, you struggle to know what’s going on. Then when it restarts, the audience doesn’t know the device yet, and doesn’t figure it out for about twenty minutes when plot points begin to repeat themselves.  Once we figure it out, the idea isn’t terrible. When we were strictly in Michael’s perspective the feud seems meaningless and is cast in strictly moralistic terms. When we revisit it through Jack’s perspective, we can begin to appreciate the complicated factors that led to Jack’s decision.  But the edit doesn’t tell the story clearly enough. So the main emotion I felt while watching the film was confusion. I’m certain that the film would improve on a rewatch, but the ultimate story that a feud develops because Jack steals Michael’s sheep to keep his parents together doesn’t have enough heft to draw me back. It’s a pastoral film, and it does a good job of capturing the place. Colm Meaney, who plays Michael’s father, Ray, does a particularly notable job speaking Irish at length. First-time director Chris Andrews has some interesting ideas. He is clearly capable of letting talented actors do what they do best, a skill that will serve him well in his directing career. The film is also shot in a subdued way that highlights the natural light and natural beauty of the setting, but without ever drawing attention to itself.  The use of fire in the film’s back half is particularly notable.  “Bring Them Down” is R-rated for its violence and language. The domestic violence where Jack’s mother beats Jack’s father is particularly harrowing. But I found the film’s moral message to be largely in the right place. Jack’s theft leads to nothing but suffering. And revenge is shown as almost entirely futile. The film even offers a glimpse at honest redemption. Still, I wouldn’t watch this with my kids, at least until they were adults.  Two and a half out of five stars. “Bring Them Down” releases in theaters nationwide February 7, 2025.

Kinda Pregnant, Kinda Forgettable, Mostly Raunchy

Amy Schumer is a mood.  About ten years ago it seemed like she was about to break out as the next great all-American comedian. But her material never softened. She never found a safe sitcom to mold her jokes into something that would be network-approved. She had her hard stand-up audience and she kept it. “Kinda Pregnant” is perhaps the most Amy Schumer film yet made, and certainly the most since “Trainwreck.” If you like the Amy-Schumer schtick, I imagine you will like this movie. The film is mostly an extension of Schumer’s 2019 special “Growing,” in which she talked about her own pregnancy and her experience with it.  In this film we learn that Schumer’s character Lainy has always wanted to be a mom, but she is now forty and her boyfriend is finally ready to propose. But alas he wasn’t proposing marriage, but proposing having sex with another woman. She soon learns that her best friend Kate is pregnant. Worried that Kate is becoming closer friends with their also pregnant co-worker, Lainy tries on a fake pregnancy belly at a maternity store, and when the clerk accidentally sees her wearing it and is very kind, Lainy decides she’ll pretend to be pregnant. She goes to a pregnancy yoga class, and meets Megan who she makes instant friends with. This means Lainy is living a split life, one pregnant and one unpregnant. There is not a lot of territory left to mine in the fake pregnancy category. Between “Glee,” “Gone Girl,” “Labor Pains,” “Preggoland,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Baby Mama” the plot device has gone from comedy to drama to action and back again. In typical Schumer fashion she goes gross-out raunchy, which occasionally lapses into a serious talk about the physical and emotional realities of pregnancy and how society treats them.  On that final front, the film does have some interesting observations. The physical realities of pregnancy are weirdly under-discussed, for a society that seems to hold pregnancy as a high honor. But ultimately whatever positive message was there falls apart for two reasons. First the film wants to celebrate family and child birth, but feels the constant need to hedge its endorsement so as not to risk Schumer’s progressive bona fides. And the entire thing is lost in a cavalcade of profanity and gross out jokes about everything from masturbation to farting. I watched “Dog Man” a few weeks ago, a movie for 8-year-old boys, and I’m honestly not sure which movie had more juvenile fart jokes.  The movie does have a few very funny scenes, but for a Happy Madison production, it’s unusually slow. And the writing doesn’t give us the kind of endlessly quotable lines Happy Madison is usually known for. In terms of the comedy, the movie is less bad and more just forgettable. The movie has a very female sensibility, given its subject matter, but it’s presented with the kind of raunchy comedy that has a smaller female audience. If you love Amy Schumer’s comedy, especially if you’ve loved her more recent materials, and you have recently had a baby and feel like no one else really gets what you’re going through, there is a good chance this movie will be among your favorites. Though I’d still recommend using a service that will clean up the worst excesses of the vulgarity—this is a film that earns its R-rating. But if you aren’t in that small group, I imagine the movie might amuse you, but otherwise it will leave you feeling insipid and put off.  One and a half out of five stars. “Kinda Pregnant” premiers on Netflix today, February 5, 2025.