The old Testament

[ximmix]

So, that added epistemic dimension will complicate things for us when we try to figure this stuff out; in fact, we'll probably realize that none of us living in today's 21st century can fully work it all out, and we'll have to just concede the point and offer each other some latitude and graciousness when we listen to each other interpret what we think we've found in the bible and what we think it means.

That is the OP question, how do you decide what parts of the Bible you can "offer some latitude and graciousness", as you say it is an interpretation...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But look what it says there:

Matthew 5:17-20 New International Version (NIV)
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

What do you mean in saying "but look"? Look at what? Are you affirming my comment in post #36 above about the need for us to not only take into account this now famously overused passage but to do so along with everything else which the New Testament writers wrote about how we should apply the O.T., or are you intending to somehow intercept what you think my intended meaning is in saying what I've just said?

Moreover, just slapping a quote from the bible out there for everyone to see, as if it somehow clearly speaks for itself-----which it doesn't, since it's being offered through the conceptual articulation and mental screening of the person who wrote it-----isn't going to help address the interpretive issues involved in the topic of the OP, cvanwey. If the early Church had troubles with all of this, what makes you think you can just read it so clearly without doing any additional work? What makes you think any of us can just read it and "see it clearly'?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God purposfully kept it vague? Is there any scripture supporting that?

Yes, but remember, I said the indices that exist within the Bible are not numerous and they're not necessarily direct statements that we'll just read and then, after reading, say to ourselves, "Oh, ok. I see now! God has said specifically, and in no uncertain terms, that He'd hold information from us and allow helpful details about Himself and about His purposes to be articulated by us in vague ways." Unfortunately, much of what I'm talking about is derivative, inferred or implied from either the literary contexts or conceptually embedded in the indices themselves. However, I'll offer up a single example to start, even thought it's meaning might not be perspicuous:

Deuteronomy 29:29

The secret things belong to the Lord, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.​

While this is a very short, single verse, there is a LOT to consider just within it's propositional structure apart from other contexts.

That is the point of my OP...

...well, you'll need to realize that just short of God Himself sending an ironclad messenger to us to clarify the cultural and conceptual contexts, we're probably not doing ourselves any favors by assuming that our attempts to interpret will get to the root meanings. The best we can is realize that on a human level, we have essentially three options when trying to understand the bible:

1) Hope and pray that God will magically enlighten us so we magically "see" the meaning.

2) Do just any ol' hodge podge reading and deciphering of the biblical text (i.e. do "bad hermeneutics")

3) Do "good" hermeneutics by learning as much as we can about our world around us, both as it was in the past and as it is in the present, taking into account various differences in place, time, cultures, and thought forms among human beings, and then do our best, however imperfect and provisional it may be, to offer up the best conclusions we can rationally arrive at. On some aspects of this issue, although not for all, we may just have to shrug our shoulders and admit, "Hey, I don't really know..."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is the OP question, how do you decide what parts of the Bible you can "offer some latitude and graciousness", as you say it is an interpretation...

How do I decide? Well, for starters, I'd probably get a book like G.K. Beale's, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, and see what the spectrum of interpretive factors might be, factors which may not have been mentioned in passing, described, or otherwise elucidated in the writings of the New Testament ...

Why? Because the fullness of God's Reality is bigger than the Bible alone ... and just reading the Bible alone and expecting it to somehow "just make sense" in dealing with the Old Testament doesn't make sense.

 

[ximmix]

How do I decide? Well, for starters, I'd probably get a book like G.K. Beale's, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, and see what the spectrum of interpretive factors might be, factors which may not have been mentioned in passing, described, or otherwise elucidated in the writings of the New Testament ...

Why? Because the fullness of God's Reality is bigger than the Bible alone ... and just reading the Bible alone and expecting it to somehow "just make sense" in dealing with the Old Testament doesn't make sense.

You mean there are some men who know God's meaning behind the vague Scriptures..?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You mean there are some men who know God's meaning behind the vague Scriptures..?

It could be, but it doesn't mean it's me, though.

I'm not one to peddle a "I can see clearly now, the rain is gone...!" mentality about the Bible.

 

[ximmix]

It could be, but it doesn't mean it's me, though.

I'm not one to peddle a "I can see clearly now, the rain is gone...!" mentality about the Bible.

Hehe, ok I see. I mean the author of the book you recommended...

 

[cvanwey]

What do you mean in saying "but look"? Look at what? Are you affirming my comment in post #36 above about the need for us to not only take into account this now famously overused passage but to do so along with everything else which the New Testament writers wrote about how we should apply the O.T., or are you intending to somehow intercept what you think my intended meaning is in saying what I've just said?

Moreover, just slapping a quote from the bible out there for everyone to see, as if it somehow clearly speaks for itself-----which it doesn't, since it's being offered through the conceptual articulation and mental screening of the person who wrote it-----isn't going to help address the interpretive issues involved in the topic of the OP, cvanwey. If the early Church had troubles with all of this, what makes you think you can just read it so clearly without doing any additional work? What makes you think any of us can just read it and "see it clearly'?

My point is that this 'overused quote' directs back to the OP. It would appear you almost have to 'ignore' seemingly axiomatic assertions from the Bible, such as this one, to instead come up with your 'own' conclusion. So what exactly do you ignore, rationalize, other, to come up with your final conclusion? Because, as I'm sure you know, there exists many differing 'interpretations'

Let's get 'hermeneutical'....

How do we 'properly' tie in "until heaven and earth disappear" with "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen," with "will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."???

'Everything' has not been accomplished. Sure, the cannon claimed Jesus resurrected. But the 'second coming' certainly hasn't. So what does the Bible mean by 'everything'?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hehe, ok I see. I mean the author of the book you recommended...

Oh, ok. I understand now. As far as the author of the book I recommended, I offer him as a reference not because he interprets the bible 'correctly' and thereby 'produces' what any of us can know is the actual meaning in any kind of absolute terms. Rather, he offers a scholarly approach to informing the would be interpreter of the Bible, any interpreter that is, whether it's you or me or anyone else, an awareness of the various contextual factors of time, place, culture, etc. that I've spoken about, factors which many the common reader, even if Christian, typically either ignore or don't know anything about.

And the truth is, any of our understandings in communication involve interpretation, and as in science, the more factors we can account for going into a 'study,' the more approximate our findings will likely be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My point is that this 'overused quote' directs back to the OP. It would appear you almost have to 'ignore' seemingly axiomatic assertions from the Bible, such as this one, to instead come up with your 'own' conclusion. So what exactly do you ignore, rationalize, other, to come up with your final conclusion? Because, as I'm sure you know, there exists many differing 'interpretations'

Let's get 'hermeneutical'....

How do we 'properly' tie in "until heaven and earth disappear" with "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen," with "will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."???

'Everything' has not been accomplished. Sure, the cannon claimed Jesus resurrected. But the 'second coming' certainly hasn't. So what does the Bible mean by 'everything'?

Does your use of the term "axiomatic" imply that you understand this passage in Matthew 5 "clearly"? If so, please do us all a favor and present an exhaustive list of all of the verses in the N.T. that you feel are "axiomatic," because for the life of me, I don't pretend to know in any certain terms (and without overarching contexts) which verses may be exactly and only what we may think they are when we read them, not the least of which is one containing the pronoun "everything."

So, yes, get all hermeneutical for us. Please!

 

[cvanwey]

Does your use of the term "axiomatic" imply that you understand this passage in Matthew 5 "clearly"? If so, please do us all a favor and present an exhaustive list of all of the verses in the N.T. that you feel are "axiomatic," because for the life of me, I don't pretend to know in any certain terms (and without overarching contexts) which verses may be exactly and only what we may think they are when we read them, not the least of which is one containing the pronoun "everything."

So, yes, get all hermeneutical for us. Please!

Well, YOU were the one whom first stated in post #36 "we'd have to be more wholistic in our study of this topic and not just read Matthew chapter 5 and stop there."

And when I actually brought up, not only a single passage, but the paragraph in entire, you then stated in post #42 "just slapping a quote from the bible out there for everyone to see, as if it somehow clearly speaks for itself-----which it doesn't..."

Yes, the passage seems pretty crystal clear. So my question IS, how do YOU interpret it?

Again, I already asked a very specific question of you, regarding this passage...

(i.e)

'Everything' has not been accomplished. Sure, the cannon claimed Jesus resurrected. But the 'second coming' certainly hasn't. So what does the Bible mean by 'everything'?

The author seems to boldly state that nothing of the law will change until ALL comes to pass. And since I would assume we all agree the 'second coming' has not yet transpired, how would you reconcile this statement?

 

[Eloy Craft]

'Everything' has not been accomplished. Sure, the cannon claimed Jesus resurrected. But the 'second coming' certainly hasn't. So what does the Bible mean by 'everything'?

Revelation 21
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; ...

 

[ximmix]

Oh, ok. I understand now. As far as the author of the book I recommended, I offer him as a reference not because he interprets the bible 'correctly' and thereby 'produces' what any of us can know is the actual meaning in any kind of absolute terms. Rather, he offers a scholarly approach to informing the would be interpreter of the Bible, any interpreter that is, whether it's you or me or anyone else, an awareness of the various contextual factors of time, place, culture, etc. that I've spoken about, factors which many the common reader, even if Christian, typically either ignore or don't know anything about.

And the truth is, any of our understandings in communication involve interpretation, and as in science, the more factors we can account for going into a 'study,' the more approximate our findings will likely be.

Yes that seems to be right. The reason for the OP is that I find the religious right in the US fascinating, how they seem to pick and choose from the OT. But as you say, it's all open for interpretation...

 

[cvanwey]

Revelation 21
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; ...

Does Satan still dwell on earth? According to Christians, he does. If 'everything has come to pass', Satan would be properly defeated, and reside in his confined and final location.

Of course you can pick and choose; 'cherry-pick' passages. That's the beauty of the Bible. It's ambiguous, open to interpretation, vague; and it appears that the author, 'God' Himself, seems quite content with being the author of confusion.

But again, even granting every piece of leeway imaginable, it still seems Matthew 5:17-20 falls short. Meaning, ALL has not come to pass. And yet, many Christians still use the "Jesus card' to ignore whatever they so choose from the OT.

 

[Lukaris]

Ok, thanks for you answer. Do you mean that the old testament was written by people who sought divine reasons for natural events? And not written by God?

This is an area I am always trying to understand. I believe the ancient Israelites were truly interacting with God. While I believe God gave Moses the 10 commandments ( for ex.). It is hard to believe God personally commanded Joshua to wipe out Jericho.

Much of this, I believe, is revelation filtered through the human conscience often while struggling for survival. I believe the ancient people were trying to understand as best they could. It took the Incarnation, preaching of the Gospel, death on the Cross, resurrection, & Ascension of the Lord to fulfill past shortcomings.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Does Satan still dwell on earth?

Not on the Earth to come. Not a cherry picked verse. No amiguity about the New Earth. Now on this passing away Earth satan is on a leash.The evil sprit is chained. Meaning, submission to God. Christ Judged him. You and I are autonomous. A relationship with satan is something we can still choose. Jesus' relationship with satan is one that Christ is a victor ans satan defeated.

[

Himself, seems quite content with being the author of confusion.

Confusion is an invitation to discovery when it is about God. God is surrounded in paradox. Confusion happens.

ALL has not come to pass. A

It has happened, is happening in time and in time what has already been accomplished will be complete. In Jesus the New Earth happened. He resurrected.

many Christians still use the "Jesus card' t

It's not a card its what happened. Satan was judged by a human being. Satan is on that human's leash.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As a non Christian, it's very confusing how Christians see the Old Testament. Some say ignore it, there is a new Covenant. Some Christians choose certain parts of it, and some say the Laws still stand. So my question is, why is the Old testament still in the Bible if it's not relevant still? And, if it is still relevant, how do you choose what's relevant and what's not (mixed fabrics, eating seafood, gays)

The complicated relationship(s) which Christians have with the Old Testament largely comes down to significant differences between different traditions within modern Christianity.

So as a disclaimer: My views are going to represent a Lutheran, and more broadly, a traditional Christian perspective--something that I think would be agreed upon rather generally by the more historic, and traditional Christian churches, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, et al. I simply want to provide where I am coming from here; though I regard my position as correct, it's still important to confess my bias.

In the beginning of Christianity the only scriptures available are those which would eventually become known as the Old Testament. While there was no "Bible" to speak of, there was a loose acknowledgment of certain writings as holy within Judaism, specifically Pharisaic Judaism (this was the form of Judaism which met in the synagogues, had rabbis, and was more-or-less the mainstream Judaism of the regular Jew both in Judea as well as elsewhere in the Roman Empire). The Pharisees, in contrast with the other major Jewish sect the Sadducees, embraced not only the five books of the Torah, but also the group of writings known as "the Prophets", as well as the Psalms (and other books classified broadly as "the Writings"). The Sadducees, in contrast, only accepted the five books of the Torah, rejecting the works of the Prophets and Writings, and as such had quite different views than the Pharisees on things. The Pharisees believed in angels, the resurrection of the dead, etc; the Sadducees, on the other hand, did not. The Sadducees, however did not have much traction among the regular Jewish people, but was basically restricted to the priestly, aristocratic families in Jerusalem.

The closest thing Christians had to a "Bible" at the time was the Septuagint, a translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek made several centuries before Christ. The Septuagint was hardly a defining "Bible" in Judaism, but did provide a readily available set of Scriptures for early Christians who largely were communicating their faith to Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles (Romans, Greeks, etc)

The Christian religion is centered on a very specific confession of faith: Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, that is, the Messiah. When we say "Jesus Christ" we are saying "Jesus the Messiah". This messianic idea was borne out of Jewish hope for a deliverer, a king who would rise up from the line of David. Messianic ideas were often seen mentioned in the books of the Prophets, but there wasn't a universal messianic position.

However, in calling Jesus the Messiah the early Christians were arguing that Jesus was the promised figure mentioned by the Prophets, and indeed, came to read many of the Scriptures as preaching the Messiah. So in the Gospels we have Jesus saying, "You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have eternal life, it is these which bear witness to Me" forms, in essence, the fundamental Christian exegesis of the writings which make up the Old Testament: that these writings, if read through the revelation of Jesus properly communicates Jesus to us. The writings which would eventually make up the New Testament, largely, are based upon this premise; they exist--in a sense--as early Christian commentary on the relationship between Jesus and the long history of God's work, in creation, the story of Adam, the call of Abraham, the giving of the Torah through Moses, the work of God through the Prophets and the long story of Israel ultimately building up, culminating, and having fulfillment in the coming of the Messiah.

Thus the significance of the Old Testament is this: It is the long story of God's redemption in history and for the world which finds its fulfillment in Jesus.

In other words, "You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have eternal life, it is these which bears witness to Me." The Old Testament speaks of Christ, we read the Old Testament Christocentrically, Christ is the word and substance behind the letter of the Old Testament text. St. Augustine once said, "There is one Utterance in all of Scripture", by "Utterance" he means Jesus. Jesus is, as the prologue of John's Gospel says, "The Word", Jesus is God's Word made flesh, God's Revelation of Himself. Jesus is the Word in Scripture, the Scriptures contain the Word of God, Jesus, and that is what makes them Holy Scripture; they are divinely inspired for this reason and purpose.

The covenants we read about in the Old Testament, such as those made to Abraham, Moses, and David, have their fulfillment in Jesus. So the giving of the Torah through Moses to Israel and the establishment of Israel as God's covenant people to observe and keep the Torah as a holy nation established by God is seen, in historic, traditional Christian teaching as serving the purpose of ultimately bringing God's Messiah, Jesus. The reason why Christians don't observe the commandments of the Torah is twofold:

1) The Torah was given exclusively to the Jewish people as part of the covenant established with them at Mt. Horeb at Sinai. It isn't for anyone else, it's not a universal set of instructions, but a particular set of instructions for a particular people with a particular covenant.

2) With the coming of the Messiah we believe that the former things have found their fullness and purpose in Him, and that God has established a universal covenant with the world through Jesus, that is what we mean by "new covenant"; this covenant is a covenant not based upon a particular law or nation, but on the promise of God's gift of freedom, redemption, resurrection, eternal life, and the renewal of all things through Jesus, both through His death and resurrection from the dead, the forgiveness of our sins, as well as the future redemption of all creation when Christ returns, the dead are raised, and God makes all things new in the Age to Come.

The Torah is, therefore, not a set of universal instruction, but instruction for a particular people; and which served the purpose of ultimately pointing to Jesus; chiefly because God called a covenant people through which would come the Messiah. That is the long story of redemption in the Old Testament: the creation, fall of man, the calling of Abraham, the making of the covenant nation, and ultimately Messiah Jesus through whom God's kingdom and purposes are manifest, displayed, and given for the whole world, now and also in the end at the consummation of all things.

That is how we read and use the Old Testament; as being Christ-bearing word which communicates hope and faith in Christ; directing us to our present hope and faith in Him, and of the promises which we have in Him both now as God's people in the world, and concerning our hope and the promises of future redemption for the whole of creation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ok, thanks for you answer. Do you mean that the old testament was written by people who sought divine reasons for natural events? And not written by God?

The idea that the Bible was "written by God" isn't how the majority of Christians understand the idea of divine inspiration. The Bible was written by ordinary human beings, we just happen to believe that the end product is more than just human product. That is, through these writings God has and does speak, the Word He speaks, however, is ultimately a Person, Jesus Christ.

Since the Bible was written by ordinary human beings, it is going to reflect ordinary human language and thought processes. That's why it's perfectly okay that the biblical writers don't get certain things right, such as things we know today scientifically--the shape of the earth and so forth. They spoke and wrote as ancient people spoke and wrote, and that's fine. The point of the Bible isn't how old the earth is, or what shape the earth is, or things like that--the point of the Bible in Christianity is Jesus.

And so when we engage and wrestle with the difficult things of the Bible--such things like the conquest of Canaan under Joshua--that wrestling is going to require a lot of asking of questions, and perhaps not as many answers as we'd like. There is a delicate and precarious balance here, because some try and find the easy way out, i.e. Marcionism, which simply isn't an acceptable position within historic, orthodox Christianity; as it fundamentally denies the inherent teachings of the Christian faith, namely, that Jesus is the Christ and all that entails.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ximmix]

2) With the coming of the Messiah we believe that the former things have found their fullness and purpose in Him, and that God has established a universal covenant with the world through Jesus, that is what we mean by "new covenant"; this covenant is a covenant not based upon a particular law or nation, but on the promise of God's gift of freedom, redemption, resurrection, eternal life, and the renewal of all things through Jesus, both through His death and resurrection from the dead, the forgiveness of our sins, as well as the future redemption of all creation when Christ returns, the dead are raised, and God makes all things new in the Age to Come.

ViaCrucis, thanks for ur very thoughtful replies. You explained a lot, and very insightfully, i appreciate it a lot. I guess the point of my OP can't really be answered, people will always pick and choose from the Bible to justify their very modern day opinions...

 

[cvanwey]

Not on the Earth to come. Not a cherry picked verse. No amiguity about the New Earth. Now on this passing away Earth satan is on a leash.The evil sprit is chained. Meaning, submission to God. Christ Judged him. You and I are autonomous. A relationship with satan is something we can still choose. Jesus' relationship with satan is one that Christ is a victor ans satan defeated.

[

Confusion is an invitation to discovery when it is about God. God is surrounded in paradox. Confusion happens.

It has happened, is happening in time and in time what has already been accomplished will be complete. In Jesus the New Earth happened. He resurrected.

It's not a card its what happened. Satan was judged by a human being. Satan is on that human's leash.

The OP-er has made some very good points. I have yet to see Matthew 5:17-20 addressed without some 'spin.'

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

The above seems pretty straight forward... This verse, in and of itself, seems to suggest none of the Biblical laws are to be negated/ignored/no longer followed, unless Heaven was to cease to exist. Meaning, no such given law(s) will be negated, as Heaven is permanent.

And even if one wishes to 'rationalize' such a part away, 'everything' would also include a second coming, and all that follows. In which the Bible states it will do at a later moment in time, but not yet.

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Anyone whom does not abide by these pronouncements, and instead 'create' their own path, are less likely to enter Heaven.

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Meaning, you 'better come correct', if you think your own laws are better than the ones given before you, via the Bible.

*******************

Seems more likely, that whomever wrote the above passages, did so thinking Jesus would come back quickly (the 'second coming'). Well, here we are 2K+ years later...

So again, how might one choose which of the old laws to ignore, and which ones to keep? Aside from the fact that Matthew seems pretty clear that all law is still to be held, until 'everything' comes to pass.