I like that we stand for the gospel reading in church. We don't stand for the Old Testament reading, the Psalm, or even the Epistle. There's something special about those 4 books at the start of the New Testament that purport to be an actual record of God on earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Not the background information. Not what people made of it later on. But the events of The Event. I guess that's why we treat that part of the Bible specially.
At the cathedral on Sunday, Canon Jules said that we should call the Old Testament the 'Hebrew Bible' instead. I think he doesn't like the idea that the Old Testament has been supplanted by the New Testament.
But that remark has the opposite effect - if the OT is the Hebrew Bible then the NT is the Christian Bible. So why do we need the OT?
That's the problematic bit - which does appear to have awful things like God-sanctioned massacres. I'd much rather stick to the NT. But the OT is accepted as canonical, and as my church says in the 39 Articles:
"The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral."
I think that means we need to look for Jesus in the OT as well as the new. It's saying we don't have to worry about not eating shellfish and suchlike, but should follow the "moral" commandments (which could be open to interpretation, especially if you're a shellfish or a pig, etc.!)
There are important reasons that I want to separate the OT from the New. I'm quite happy to believe the miraculous accounts of Jesus. But believing that God would order a massacre - as happens in the OT - is much harder.
Even if these were exaggerations, I don't like the idea of God sanctioning it. In trying to understand divinely inspired killing, there are only difficult options. Maybe God's view of life and death is so different from ours that it wasn't such a bad thing after all. (Something that had crossed my mind and is explicit in Paul Copan's book.) Or possibly the ancient Israelites just had then wrong idea of what God was telling them. This option cuts to the heart of how we understand the Bible, and isn't for everyone. Sometimes I think I know nothing about the Bible and should shut up!
Paul didn't have the NT in mind when he wrote this:
2Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Location:Shed
Based on your posts about our interpretation of the OT and the literal view of it, I'd like to give you and other readers a challenge. Let me know if you find it enlightening.
ReplyDeleteI've spent many years studying structure within the Gospels and the OT. This is one example of my findings.
Read the 7 days of creation like this:
Day 1 paired with Day 4
Day 2 paired with Day 5
Day 3 paired with Day 6.
Imagine them as pictures. You will notice how the three pairs work as pairs and how 1-3 are about formation while 4-6 are about population.
You will also see something about rulers and the authority we are given as human beings.
When you know the structure, you get to understand what the important themes are.
As for the "there was evening and there was morning", imagine that you know the Exodus story as your main story, with its multiple acts of salvation in evening and morning: What does this phrase mean to you now?
This is how the passage was understood by those who knew their scripture much better than we do, but hopefully this simple exercise will help people to better grasp and understand the first chapter of the OT at least!
I'm familiar with the structure - the separaton then population of spaces over the 6 days - and I agree that the Exodus story would underly Jewish thinking. But can you expand a bit on what you mean by the evening/morning salvation in Exodus please ?
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteThe act which brought salvation for God's people, the 'passover'is an 'evening and morning' act of salvation - see Exodus 12:8-11
Similar 'evening and morning' events would remind people of God's 'passover' act of salvation - see Exodus 16:6-7,8,13
This 'passover' act of 'salvation' is seen in the creation acocunt's language with 'evening and morning' occuring each day.
The 'separation' of days 1-3 equates with Israel being separated from enslaving Egypt.
The 'population' and 'rule' (days 4-6) are the blessings which God seeks to bestow on his people if they follow his word.
The 'Sabbath' day 7 equates with the final rest of the 'promised land'.
The initial creation account is effectively a salvation account, from the initial 'chaos' to the ordered abode in which humanity should live, with God's word being the source and purpose of all things.