2 Timothy 3.16 and its Reference to the Old Testament

By some estimates a problem exists in the utilization by certain persons of Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3.16. When it comes to making an argument for Sola Scriptura, they would argue Paul's words can only refer to the Old Testament and as such the passage does not support the larger doctrine which rests on assumptions rather than a specific teaching.

Likewise for those wishing to put the Old Testament on equal standing with the New and (practically speaking) in some cases read the New in light of the Old (thus subordinating the New to the Old), they would argue that Paul is not prioritizing the New Testament writings in this passage. He can't have been, as the New Testament canon was not yet completed. Therefore any New Testament-priority view must necessarily be flawed. On the basis of this passage, the Old Testament is at the very least equal in terms of standing and authority.

These two arguments or objections are related and can effectively be answered the same way. Both are questions of Redemptive-Historical interpretation and both (for perhaps different reasons) have trouble with concept – and thus the idea of a superior canon. Ironically advocates of the latter view that rejects New Testament superiority would make the case that they are holding to a proper 'whole Bible' position, but in this case and certainly others they have failed to take in what the New Testament teaches about itself and about its relation to the Old. While not as explicit in this passage, a more careful read reveals the same truth is taught even here.

As is almost always the case, the answer is found in the context.

Paul's subtlety eludes many readers at this point. In vv.13-14 while once again juxtaposing the false teachers with the true, he exhorts Timothy to continue in the things which he has learned and been assured of, knowing of whom (plural) thou hast learned them. This is a final appeal by Paul to the authority of the New Covenant apostles – the language is too strong and absolute for it to be merely a reference to Lois and Eunice. The canon may have been as yet incomplete but as Peter indicates in the close of his contemporaneous second epistle there was already a functional and growing canon – Paul's words are treated by him as Scripture or holy writings, just as Paul did with Luke. There was a consciousness of a New Covenant canon of sacred writings in formation and that assumption exists here as well. Paul could have just said obey and submit to the covenant writings – the Old Testament. But he prefaces or qualifies his v.16 statement about Scripture and its sufficiency by exhorting Timothy to remember the 'things' or doctrines taught by 'of whom thou hast learned them' – a plurality of authoritative teachers.

It must also be noted at this point that Rome erroneously uses this passage and others to argue for oral traditions and the like which have no basis.

Further the Holy Scriptures (v.15) or sacred writings are only effective (able to make thee wise unto salvation) by means of Christ who is the minister and mediator of the New Covenant. In other words if scripture in verse 16 is to be restricted to the Old Testament, it must be read in light of the apostles teaching and in light of Christ and His New Covenant authority for his statement regarding its inspirational (or God-breathed) efficacy to stand. Everything points to the New Covenant and it overshadows what Paul says in v.16. The Old Testament's nature and authority is changed by the coming of Christ, His resurrection, and the inauguration of the related concepts of Church, Kingdom, and New Covenant. These are key arguments elaborated by Paul in 2 Corinthians wherein he establishes apostolic authority and of course it is a major theme in the books of Hebrews and Galatians. It is therefore hardly surprising to discover that the major extant Judaizing camps (such as Dispensationalism, Theonomy, and Roman Catholicism) all fail to grasp these teachings and as such fall into the errors which these works condemn.

For Christians, the Old Testament cannot be read alone as simply the Old Testament. Those who do so are reading it unfaithfully and have the potential to Judaize in their doctrinal thinking. We are New Covenant believers, baptized into a better covenant, one that has fulfilled the Old – which when read apart from Christ is a ministration of death.

The argument made by Paul to Timothy seems to assume a wider concept of canon or at the very least a Christo-apostolic principle or cipher (as it were) by means of which the Old is to be read. The answer to the Old is found in the New Testament. Paul is (it would seem) directly speaking of the Scriptures we call the Old Testament and yet I think given the context and his prefatory statements he's referring to something bigger, something beyond merely the Old Testament writings – and that something is the writings of the apostles, those who represent Christ and were sent by Him directly.

This does not mean the Old Testament is simply dispensed with. It's not obsolete in the manner of a voided or torn up check or bank draft. Rather it's one that has been processed (stamped and paid out as it were). It has served its purpose and the account is closed, but it may still be used as a reference in order to understand or give an accounting for past events and provide context for the present state of affairs.

Such accountings can do much to help explain present realities and can provide an authoritative record or testimony, but (to continue the analogy) it would be wrong to start writing checks from what is an already closed account.