Two Testaments, One Bible by David L. Baker
Essentials in Biblical Theology Series
Two Testaments, One Bible by David L. Baker[1]
The status of the Old Testament (OT) within the Bible is an issue of perennial importance for Christians in general and for biblical theologians in particular. Ever since Marcion attempted to remove the OT from the Christian canon during the middle of the second century, the Church has been engaged in an internal discussion regarding how the First Testament ought to be approached. Should the OT be relegated to the dustbin of history? Should it be received into the canon but made subordinate to the witness of the New Testament (NT), or should it be afforded coequal canonical status alongside the NT? Should it be interpreted as a collection of symbols that figuratively depict Christ and the Christian life, or should its witness to God’s acts in the history of Israel be interpreted as revelatory in-and-of itself?
In his book, Two Testaments, One Bible, David Baker addresses these crucial matters by “investigat[ing] the theological basis for the continued acceptance of the ‘Old Testament’ a Christian Scripture” (13–14). Originally written as a doctoral thesis accepted by the University of Sheffield in 1975, Two Testaments, One Bible is now on its third edition (2010) and, remarkably, the book continues to have an influence on current conversations regarding the relationship between the two Testaments.[2]
According to Baker, “One of the most fundamental problems that has faced theology and the church in every age and still demands a solution today is whether or not Christianity also needs an Old Testament” (23; italics original). Baker forcefully argues in the affirmative: the OT remains an abiding authority for Christians and is to be received alongside the NT as a foundational document for the Christian faith (277). But in addition to defending the OT’s enduring relevance, Baker also proposes a fourfold biblical basis for understanding the OT’s function as Christian Scripture. In Baker’s view, the OT’s role within the Christian canon cannot be understood apart from an appreciation of four key biblical themes, namely, (1) typology, (2) promise and fulfillment, (3) continuity and discontinuity, and (4) covenant. Baker proposes that, by attending to these four themes, Christians can arrive at a biblical solution to the problem of the relationship between the OT and the NT (14).[3]
Baker’s book is divided into four overall parts. In Part One, Baker introduces the problem of the OT’s place within the Christian Bible. He argues that both the OT and the NT shed some light regarding the nature of the relationship between these two bodies of texts (25–34). Subsequently, Baker provides an overview of how the Church has wrestled with these questions throughout its history.[4]
In the second major section of the book, Baker interacts with four modern solutions to the problem of the OT.[5] Here, Baker identifies the most significant representatives of each view and he proceeds to summarize and critique their positions. While Baker has criticisms for each of the major advocates of the four approaches, he seems more favorably disposed towards the work of Vischer and von Rad. On the one hand, Baker contends that Vischer practiced a responsible form of exegesis and that he rightly advocated for a Christological reading of the OT (93, 97). Yet Baker also maintains that Vischer went astray in claiming that (1) God’s revelation in Scripture is “timeless” as opposed to being progressive, and that (2) the witnesses of the OT and the NT are theologically identical rather than being theologically consistent. Meanwhile, Baker commends von Rad for making “a very significant contribution to understanding the theological relationship between the Testaments, especially with the concepts of tradition history, salvation history and actualization” (155). Nevertheless, Baker takes von Rad to task for refusing to acknowledge the historicity of the events that are described within both Testaments (145–46). In addition, he faults von Rad for an inconsistency in his approach to the OT’s historical witness: on the one hand, von Rad affirmed the theological importance of the OT’s historical accounts, and yet, he simultaneously prioritized modern reconstructions of Israel’s history over and against the testimony of the OT (152–53).
The penultimate section of the book is devoted to the four themes that serve to bridge the gap between the OT and the NT. The first of these themes is typology. According to Baker, typology refers to the study of types, which he defines as “a biblical event, person, or institution which serves as an example or pattern for other events, persons, or institutions” (180). Baker describes typology as being historical and as implying a real correspondence between things (179–80). He also argues that types are not prophetic and that typology should be understood as a retrospective reflection on the relationships between biblical persons, events, and institutions and other realities (181).[6] In fact, Baker denies that types are uniquely designed by God in order to prefigure future realities (182–83). To Baker, a type is any biblical reality that can serve as a paradigm, example, or analogy that furthers our understanding of other biblical and/or extra-biblical realities.
The second key theme is promise and fulfillment. According to Baker, “the term ‘promise’ expresses a major aspect of the Old Testament in its relationship to the New” (201). Baker argues that the most foundational promise in the OT is the one that God delivered to Abraham in Gen 12:1–3 (202–3). At the same time, Baker contends that God’s promise to David in 2 Sam 7 introduces new elements into the mix (205–6), and that the prophets also made promises that went beyond those expressed during the call of Abraham (207–8). Finally, Baker argues that the promises of the OT were fulfilled by Jesus in an already and not yet fashion; in particular, the Abrahamic promises of descendants and of an abiding relationship have already come to pass in the Church, but the promise of land awaits a future fulfillment (215–16).
Baker then proceeds to his third theme which is the continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments. Baker argues that the OT and the NT are inseparably related because they both speak of the unified history of God’s people (220). Nevertheless, Baker posits that certain historical discontinuities exist between the Testaments, especially in relation to the surprising way in which Christ fulfilled OT expectations.[7] Similarly, Baker maintains that an “essential theological unity” exists between the OT and the NT (230), as both Testaments are fundamentally agreed regarding their testimonies to “God, humanity, the world, and the relationships between them” (231). Nevertheless, the two Testaments are not identical in their theological witness; on the contrary, Baker maintains that some “primitive ideas” in the OT are superseded in the New and that theological diversity exists not only between the Testaments but also within each Testament (232).
Finally, Baker highlights the covenant as being a key theme for interpreting the OT and its relationship to the NT. According to Baker, a covenant is “essentially an ‘agreement’, ‘contract’, ‘treaty’, or ‘commitment’ between two or more parties” (237). Though the OT refers to several covenants, Baker claims that “by far the most important covenant in the Old Testament is the one made by God with Abraham and his descendants, and confirmed to the people of Israel at Sinai, Moab and Shechem” (241). Importantly, Baker does not distinguish between the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants; instead, he contends that the latter merely served as a confirmation and elaboration of the former. Moreover, Baker views the entire history of Israel as a repeating pattern of covenant-breaking and covenant renewals. This sequence then finds its completion in the establishment of the New Covenant which is “a renewal of the one covenant, albeit with certain distinctive emphases” (261; italics original).
Two Testaments, One Bible is a book that certainly furthered evangelical biblical theology. Baker insightfully pointed readers in the right direction with regard to the relationship between the OT and the NT. He correctly identified some of the most fundamental themes and concepts that allow Christians to engage with the OT as Christian Scripture. Moreover, he provided a welcome defense of the value and canonical authority of the OT in its literal sense. And on top of all that, Baker’s summaries of modern scholarship can still serve to acquaint readers with important figures in the world of biblical studies.
And yet, at the same time, the book fails to be completely salutary because Baker’s discussions on the four major themes are marred with missteps and misunderstandings. For starters, I believe several features of Baker’s description of typology should be rejected. While Baker is right to distinguish typology from allegory (183–84), he wrongly denies the prophetic and revelatory function of biblical types. As a result, he mistakenly suggests that types refer to any and all institutions, events, and/or persons in the Scriptures that can be perceived as paradigmatic by Christians today.[8] Ironically, this category error allows readers to practice the kind of fanciful interpretation that Baker is (rightly!) concerned to reject.[9] Likewise, Baker’s discussion of the covenants is also inadequate. In addition to his rejection of the Adamic covenant, Baker makes the mistake of collapsing the distinctions between the Abrahamic covenant, the Sinai covenant, and the New Covenant. In my judgment, this interpretive error is a serious one, since the covenants are the backbone of the biblical storyline and since the Christian application of Scripture must be consonant with the nature of the Church as God’s new covenant community. Meanwhile, in his discussion of the promises of God, Baker overlooks the protoevangelium (Gen 3:14–15); as a result, he goes on to claim that the NT promise of eternal life was completely de novo, when, in all likelihood, it was rooted in the expectation of the defeat of the serpent and the reversal of Adam’s fall.[10] Finally, at times, Baker’s description of the discontinuity between (and within) the Testaments comes uncomfortably close to a denial of the internal consistency of the Bible. While he is correct to point out that Christians should “recognize the diversity in the Bible” and that we should “refuse to force it into the mold of an artificial unity” (233), Baker does not discuss the precise nature of the diversity within the Bible. Instead, he simply cites the work of a number of scholars, including some who suggest that the biblical authors genuinely disagreed on matters of central importance.[11] Unfortunately, Baker does nothing to distinguish his own views from those of the scholars he cites. This oversight, combined with his reference to the OT’s “primitive ideas” that are “superseded” in the NT,[12] leads me to wish that Baker approached the topic of the discontinuity within the Bible with greater pastoral care and theological precision.
Richard M. Blaylock
Center for Evangelical Biblical Theology (November 2025)
TL;DR
Baker rightly identifies the problem of the OT’s place within the canon as a crucial issue in biblical theology and in the Christian life.
Baker provides a forceful defense of the evangelical position that the OT remains completely authoritative for Christians and that it functions as Christian Scripture in tandem with the NT.
Baker argues that the relationship between the OT and the NT must be addressed theologically, and that four key themes help bridge the gap between the two Testaments: typology, promise and fulfillment, continuity and discontinuity, and covenant.
Baker provides a helpful overview of modern scholarship on the problem of the OT; moreover, he seems to favor the Christological approach of Vischer and the salvation-historical approach of von Rad.
While some aspects of his discussions regarding the four themes remain persuasive, Baker makes a number of noteworthy errors in his descriptions of these themes; in particular, evangelicals should reject his claims that (1) biblical types are not prophetic or prospective, and that (2) the Abrahamic, Sinai, and New covenants are not distinct but are actually a single covenant.
[1] David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, 3rd edition (Downers Grove: IVP, 2010).
[2] According to Google Scholar, the third edition of Two Testaments, One Bible has been cited in 108 books and articles. These works include a number of books published in 2024, as well as several dissertations completed in 2024.
[3] Though he explicitly refers to these four themes in his introduction and though the third part of the book is devoted only to these four topics, Baker unexpectedly expands his “biblical solution” into six concepts in his conclusion. In addition to the four themes already mentioned, Baker goes on to include Christology and salvation history as crucial concepts for the reception of the OT as Christian Scripture (271–73).
[4] The extreme brevity of Baker’s treatment of the premodern period is noteworthy. His summary of OT interpretation in the early church takes all of 4 pages (35–38), while a single paragraph is dedicated to the middle ages (38). The Reformation is also given short shrift, as Baker provides a cursory glance towards Luther (39–40), Calvin (40), the Anabaptists (41), and the counter-Reformation (41–42).
[5] The four approaches he discusses are labeled (1) the NT as the essential Bible, (2) the two Testaments as equally Christian Scripture, (3) the OT as the essential Bible, and (4) the two Testaments as one salvation history.
[6] For Baker, types emerge from the natural way that human beings process the world. That is to say, human beings are predisposed to relate concepts and happenings through analogical thinking. As such, “there is nothing surprising about the application of this method to the biblical world” (177).
[7] As Baker states, “the greatest discontinuity is in the coming of Jesus. From one perspective he fulfilled the promises and hopes of the Old Testament, and yet from another he surpassed all expectations so that his coming inaugurated a new and final stage in the history of salvation” (223–24).
[8] Strangely, Baker makes the claim that the stories told in the Bible are “typical of the sort of thing that happens to believers in God and therefore are still relevant” (178). On the contrary, the vast majority of the stories recounted in biblical history relate to events that are not at all typical of the experience of modern-day Christians. After all, most modern day Christian have not experienced anything like the miraculous birth of Isaac, the parting of the Red Sea, the fall of the walls of Jericho, the miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha, and so on and so forth.
[9] Unfortunately, Baker does not recognize the ways that proponents of liberation theology have misinterpreted and misappropriated the exodus story; as a result, he wrongly commends their “typlogical” use of the exodus story (185–87).
[10] Cf. Rom 5:12–14, 17; 16:20; 1 Cor 15:20–22; Rev 22:1–3.
[11] So for instance, Baker ascribes to Dunn the view that there is a “broad diversity in the [NT’s] understanding of the gospel, organization of the community, [and] patterns of worship and spiritual experience” (233). Unfortunately, Baker does not comment on whether or not he agrees with Dunn’s assessment of the diversity within the NT. Baker’s quotation is in reference to James Dunn’s book, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Enquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity.
[12] Though the reference to the OT’s “primitive ideas” that are later “superseded” comes in a discussion of the views of H. H. Rowley (232), Baker does nothing to distance himself from the Rowley’s position. In fact, in the conclusion to the book, Baker states that “many Old Testament ideas and practices are superseded in the New Testament” (275). Thus, it seems fair to conclude that Baker also believed that the OT contains “primitive ideas” that were eventually “superseded” in the NT.
