Have you come across people, not believers, who have decided to read the Bible from cover to cover to check it out, only to get discouraged and give up round about the book of Numbers? I know I have.
There must be a better way!
Who says the Bible has to have the Old Testament first and the New Testament second? Yes, I know that is the broad chronological order, but who says that has to be the way it is?
In my last post, I pointed out that the New Testament supersedes the Old in many ways, because the covenant of the NT replaces the covenant of the OT.
That makes the New more important than the Old, because it tells us about the life of Jesus, the most important person in the world. No christian seriously disputes that.
So why not publish the Bible with the New Testament first, followed by the Old? Those who start out reading it right through would get the most important part (the gospels) first, and we would emphasise that Jesus and his covenant is the most important. What’s not to like about it?
Some will object that it downgrades the Old Testament. But I would respond (1) it is no more than is fair, and (2) it already happens, with many gospels and New Testaments published without the Old. (For example, I have an old ‘Good News’ Scripture which consists of the whole NT followed by just the Psalms from the OT.)
Who knows, I might even write to the Bible Society suggesting this move. What do you think?