# Why is the OT longer than the NT?



## Tim (Dec 3, 2008)

Why is the OT much longer than the NT? Is there a lesson to be learned here? I put this in the Covenant Theology forum because I suspect that has something to do with the answer.


----------



## satz (Dec 3, 2008)

But how can we even be sure there is an answer?

Unless the bible reveals by revelation a significance in the lenghts of the OT vs the NT, any answer we were to come up with, no matter how spiritual sounding, would be just speculation on our part.


----------



## Tim (Dec 3, 2008)

I grant your point. But is there something we can take from the length of time spent describing the Law in the Pentateuch and the many instances of Israel turning away from and back to the Lord. The Psalms are a hymnbook...etc.

Perhaps my question incorrectly divides the two testaments, especially given the thinking of covenantal theology.


----------



## charliejunfan (Dec 3, 2008)

The OT is typological and the NT contains fulfillment of those types, Christ was typified in sooo many ways, and now in the NT He is revealed. That would be one reason why, I think..


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 3, 2008)

The NT was the conclusion to the very detailed and well-illustrated argument made in the OT, that salvation is of the Lord.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 3, 2008)

It seems to me that we might be straining at gnats here trying to figure out the reasoning. Two very basic reasons that come to mind, but neither of them as far as I can see has any real spiritual significance. These seem as likely as any other explanation.

1) genre: the NT is mostly brief doctrinal letters, which will of necessity be short, while the NT has a ton of narrative history, prophetic history and the whole of the church song book, which would expected to be longer
2) time elapsed in composition: the OT was written over a very long period of time, from Moses to Malachi; the whole of the NT was written in 30 years (if you are an early-date Rev guy like me) or 50 years (if you accept the 95-ish AD date)


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 3, 2008)

The very obvious thing that sprung to mind immediately is that the OT is a record of hundreds and hundreds of years of history whereas the NT 'covers' less than a hundred.

I know its not very spiritual but it is a practical answer in part!

NOTE: I hadn't seen Todd's reply above when I typed this.


----------



## Tim (Dec 3, 2008)

Okay, good answers, gentlemen.

A follow up question would be: how do we rightly divide our time between study of the different parts of the Bible. If we read through the Bible in a "straight-through" fashion every year, we don't get to the NT before September or October. Is this the proper balance? I realize that the NT (especially the letters) are more packed with doctrine as compared to historical narrative, for example.

Or how do we rightly divide our time in the in-depth study of single books?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2008)

Because the Holy Spirit inspired more authors and more words.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 3, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Because the Holy Spirit inspired more authors and more words.



I like it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 3, 2008)

I wouldn't call the division OT/NT minor or inconsequential by any means. It is an important one.

However, I think Patrick's answer was one of the best. The Bible is a unit, it is one story and Christ and the NT explanation of his final revelation. Read that way, the NT is the BIGGEST single portion of the Bible, when we consider it as a unit, all the matter of which is contained in a period of less than 100 years, one average human lifetime.

Moses' books cover phenomenal lengths of time. And still, the books of Moses and Joshua cover a single generation/lifetime of composition.

Then you have a gap, and then Judges, Ruth, Samuel--the Davidic era, along with many Psalms; Solomon and his writings could be grouped with this portion.

Then you have Kings (brief records of the prophets) and move into the writing prophets, a third grouping.

And lastly, the exilic and post-exilic era.

That's four major "periods" of biblical literature, before you get to the NT, and Christ, and an "overflow" of the Holy Spirit, culminating in the NT writings, a huge amount of explanation and clarification of all that came before.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 3, 2008)

Tim said:


> Okay, good answers, gentlemen.
> 
> A follow up question would be: how do we rightly divide our time between study of the different parts of the Bible. If we read through the Bible in a "straight-through" fashion every year, we don't get to the NT before September or October. Is this the proper balance? I realize that the NT (especially the letters) are more packed with doctrine as compared to historical narrative, for example.
> 
> Or how do we rightly divide our time in the in-depth study of single books?



You are suppose to preach Christ no matter what. So even when you preach from the OT you should get help from the NT. You can't understand the OT without the clarification of the NT. And it works the other way too. So, no matter what passage you preach, there's going to be some information in the other testament that will help.


----------



## Miller (Dec 11, 2008)

Tim said:


> Why is the OT much longer than the NT? Is there a lesson to be learned here? I put this in the Covenant Theology forum because I suspect that has something to do with the answer.


More pages. 


ba dum ching  (haha miller you're so witty)


----------

