Old Testament

[Servus Iesu]

How do EO view the Old Testament? Are the events within it literal and historical or mainly symbolic? For example, after the rebellion of Korah and the subsequent offering of illicit fire, the earth opens and swallows up those that opposed Moses. Literal? Figurative?

Also, what do you make of Old Testament warfare? It is written in several places (see especially the book of Joshua) that God commanded the extermination of entire populations of cities. Would God really command such an extermination or was this the interpretation of the Jews?

Finally, what do you make of Saul's fall from grace? He was commanded to exterminate everything (including animals) which He captured on one particular military expedition. Rather than exterminate the animals, he kept some alive and offered others in sacrifice to the LORD. The story goes that God was angered at this act of disobedience and withdrew His blessing from Saul's Kingship. What do you make of this?

 

[icxn]

We read it the same way St. Gregory Roman Pontiff did.

 

[icxn]

...Also, what do you make of Old Testament warfare? It is written in several places (see especially the book of Joshua) that God commanded the extermination of entire populations of cities. Would God really command such an extermination or was this the interpretation of the Jews?

Most of OT can be read (among other things) as a manual for spiritual warfare with the demons and the passions. How to escape from the bondage of sin (Egypt/Babylon) and come to the promised land of dispassion where we can build Jerusalem, a soul that enjoys peace (Jerusalem means 'vision of peace') and a temple where God can dwell, this is the deified mind which contemplates God. The various tribes/kings that the Israelites had to fight represent the different passions. An Israelite is the mind that seeks to see God - again, that is what the name literally means.

God has wonderfully woven prophecy, spiritual/moral lessons in almost all - if not all - the historical events recorded in the OT. Read St. Gregory above, he will blow your mind.

Finally, what do you make of Saul's fall from grace? He was commanded to exterminate everything (including animals) which He captured on one particular military expedition. Rather than exterminate the animals, he kept some alive and offered others in sacrifice to the LORD. The story goes that God was angered at this act of disobedience and withdrew His blessing from Saul's Kingship. What do you make of this?

Quote from St. Maximus:

52. The reign of Saul is an image of the external worship of the Law, which the Lord abolished because it perfected nothing. ‘For the Law’, says Scripture, ‘made nothing perfect’ (Heb. 7:19). But the reign of the great David prefigures the worship set forth in the Gospel, for it enshrines to perfection God’s most intimate purposes.

53. Saul is the natural law originally established by the Lord to rule over nature. But Saul was disobedient: he spared Agag, king of Amaiek (cf. 1 Sam. 15:8 - 16:13), that is, the body, and slipped downward into the sphere of the passions. He was therefore deposed so that David might take over Israel. David is the law of the Spirit -the law engendering that peace which so excellently builds for God the temple of contemplation.

54. Samuel signifies obedience to God. So long as the principle of obedience exercises its priest-like office within us, even though Saul spares Agag - that is, the earthly will - yet that principle in its zeal will put him to death (cf. 1 Sam. 15:33): it strikes the sin-incited intellect and puts it to shame for having transgressed the divine ordinances.

55. When the intellect scorns the teaching which purifies it from the passions, and ceases to examine what should be done and what should not be done, it will through ignorance inevitably be overcome by the passions. As the intellect gradually comes to be separated from God, it is more and more involved in difficulties not of its own choosing. Obeying the demons, it makes a god of the belly and tries to find relief there from what oppresses it. Let Saul convince you of the truth of this: because he did not take Samuel for an adviser in all things he inevitably turned to idolatry, putting his trust in a ventriloquist and consulting her as if she were a god (cf. 1 Sam. 28 : 7-20).

Also,

36. Interpretation of the outward form of Scripture according to the norms of: sense-perception must be superseded, for it clearly promotes the passions as well as proclivity towards what is temporal and transient. That is to say, we must destroy the impassioned activity of the senses with regard to sensible objects, as if destroying the children and grandchildren of Saul (cf. 2 Sam. 21:1-9); and we must do this by ascending to the heights of natural contemplation through a mystical interpretation of divine utterances, if in any way we desire to be filled with divine grace.

37. When the Law is understood only according to the letter, it is hostile to the truth, as the Jews were, and as is anyone else who possesses their mentality. For such a person limits the Law’s power merely to the letter, and does not advance to natural contemplation, which reveals the spiritual knowledge hidden mystically in the letter; for this contemplation mediates between figurative representations of the truth and the truth itself, and leads its adepts away from the first and towards the second. On the contrary, he rejects natural contemplation altogether and so excludes himself from initiation into divine realities. Those who diligently aspire to a vision of these realities must therefore destroy the outward and, evanescent interpretation of the Law, Subject to time and change; and they must do this by means of natural contemplation, having ascended to the heights of spiritual knowledge.

Clear as mud?

 

[Servus Iesu]

Thank you for bringing these sources to light. They look extremely interesting and there is no doubt that much of the Old Testament can be viewed as allegory towards some higher spiritual meaning. I'll have to see about printing the writing of Pope St. Gregory out later so I can take a more thorough look.

I wonder though, is it really an either/or? Can't we look at the Old Testament as a both/and? The Old Testament is both literal and allegorical?

 

[icxn]

... I wonder though, is it really an either/or? Can't we look at the Old Testament as a both/and? The Old Testament is both literal and allegorical?

When St. Maximus speaks of clinging only to the spirit of scripture he means both the prophetic and moral meaning (without rejecting the historic sense). What he rejects is the literal practice of contemptible things:

41. Circumcision, in its mystical sense, is the complete cutting away of the intellect’s impassioned attachment to all that comes into being in a contingent manner. Viewing things on the natural level, we recognize that the removal of an attribute naturally bestowed by God does not produce perfection. For nature does not bring about perfection when it is mutilated by human ingenuity, or when through over-subtlety men deprive it of something conferred on it by God at creation. Otherwise we would be attributing to human ingenuity more power to establish a perfect order of things than to God, and to an ingenious mutilation of nature the ability to make good shortcomings in God’s creation. But if we understand circumcision figuratively, we learn that we are spiritually to circumcise the impassioned disposition of our soul. In this way our will, having freed the intellect from its impassioned subjection to the law that rules the birth of contingent things, is brought into harmony with nature.

42. Uncircumcision is natural. Everything that is natural is the work of divine creation and is excellent: ‘And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good’ (Gen. 1:31). But the Law, by demanding on the grounds of uncleanness that the foreskin should be cutaway by circumcision (cf. Gen. 17:10-14), presents God as amending His own work through human skill. This is a most blasphemous way of looking at things. He, then, who interprets the symbols whereby the Law is expressed in the light of knowledge attained through natural contemplation, knows that God does not set nature aright by means of human skill, but bids us circumcise the passible aspect of the soul so as to make it obedient to the intelligence. This is indicated figuratively in terms of the body, and means that we are to excise the flaws from our will by means of spiritual knowledge acquired through the courageous practice of the virtues. The circumcising priest signifies spiritual knowledge, and the knife he uses is the courageous practice of the virtues, which cuts away the passions. When the Spirit triumphs over the letter, the tradition of the Law is abolished.

 

[xristos.anesti]

I wonder though, is it really an either/or? Can't we look at the Old Testament as a both/and? The Old Testament is both literal and allegorical?

I think we are ought to look at it as both.

It is through the concience of the Church that we are given the keys to understand when is it either or both... thats why we TRADITONALISTS rock...


I read the word of God in the Church, for from the Church she came to me. It is a smart thing to do to ask a writter about what he said in his book and no one else.
(Avva Nikola Srbin)

 

[The Virginian]

How do EO view the Old Testament? Are the events within it literal and historical or mainly symbolic? For example, after the rebellion of Korah and the subsequent offering of illicit fire, the earth opens and swallows up those that opposed Moses. Literal? Figurative?

Also, what do you make of Old Testament warfare? It is written in several places (see especially the book of Joshua) that God commanded the extermination of entire populations of cities. Would God really command such an extermination or was this the interpretation of the Jews?

Finally, what do you make of Saul's fall from grace? He was commanded to exterminate everything (including animals) which He captured on one particular military expedition. Rather than exterminate the animals, he kept some alive and offered others in sacrifice to the LORD. The story goes that God was angered at this act of disobedience and withdrew His blessing from Saul's Kingship. What do you make of this?

I'm quotung the entire post, beause I've not yet figured out all the 'how to do this' of the cut & paste thing.
It has been said by those much smarter than I, that the Bible is not a book of history, but where it speaks of history, it is accurate! The Fathers of the Early Church faced this question also, of how to interpret various texts of Scripture: When interpreting the OT many will say (and be correct in doing so) that the NT is a fulfillment of the "types and shadows " of the Old Testament. Even the simplest of 'readers' can see here the insinuation that the Old Testament is naught but "allegory and symbolism". But ohh the marvels of science!
Many years ago there was an archeological find in the caves of Q'ram (forgive me if I've mis-spelled the name). The significance of this find is that the scrolls discovered in the clay pots there, held almost an entire text of the prophet Isaiah as found in the Old Testament. But as to the question of various stories being either 'figurative or literal', ask yourself: Which is more difficult to believe, the story of the sun going back when Joshua was fighting, or The Incarnation? God's Word is not a buffett line at your favorite cafeteria!
Warfare: From the pages of the Old, to those of the New Testament, one thing is clear, the people of God were to be to Him a peculiar race, wholly sepreated unto Him. There were plenty of other religions and sects around at the time, which God knew if allowed to exist would potentially destroy the faith of His chosen people. Syncretism has troubled the Church to this very day. But the more important lesson is the one passed over here, which is this: Obedience to God is non-negotiable. What do you think the Fall of Adam and Eve is about!
Saul: When the people of Israel made inquiry of the prohet Isaiah as to why they had made entreaty of God, and God had not answered, the prophet said, "...sin has made a separation between you and your God, and He has his His face from you so that He does not hear..." Again, there's a point of obedience here! King Saul was commanded to do something (don't miss that he tried to substitute a "religious act" for total obedience), which he failed to do. The punishment of God for this was removal of His grace. Don't forget that the king was to be God's man for the people, and much like the politicos of today, when the Ambassador fails to represent you, he is removed!
Our delicate sensibilities, are not the primary concern of our Creator. It is our abillity to know Him and enjoy Him forever (COMMUNION), which concerns Him. And to this end we have that hard to believe tale of the Annunciation, Incarnation, Passion, Death, Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
We can choose to "Believe It or Not"

"...in those days men will arise having
itching ears, running to and fro in
order to hear something new..."