How to explain the Old Testament?

[Slayer]

I have trouble explaining some things of the Old Testament. If you can help me out that would be great. If you could provide some resources or links that can explain would be great too. Your opinion would be appreciated, but I would like to know what the Catholic Church teachs of the following:

1. Why were there so many rules/laws the Jews had to live by? And why do some seem ridiculous?
2. Why does it seem God changed his mind and did away with the Old Covenant and created a New Covenant?

3… It has been said in Scripture that the Old law/Old Covenant was not perfect. But, did not God make the Old Law? So, how can it be not perfect?

1. Why does God kill innocent people for the sins of others?
2. How do we know which parts of the Old Covenant are still part of the New Covenant?
3. Why is it no longer allowed to kill heretics, adulterers, homosexuals, and workers on the Sabbath/Lord Day anymore?
4. How do we explain the seemingly two different personalities of God: A wrathful one in the Old Testament and a more loving/forgiving one in the New Testament?

And to some up everything…how do we respond to this common rhetoric: youtube.com/watch?v=FH6TXrDjhQs

?

Thank you.

 

[FightingFat]

I have trouble explaining some things of the Old Testament. If you can help me out that would be great. If you could provide some resources or links that can explain would be great too. Your opinion would be appreciated, but I would like to know what the Catholic Church teachs of the following:

And to some up everything…how do we respond to this common rhetoric: youtube.com/watch?v=FH6TXrDjhQs

?

Thank you.

Awesome question!!

Sounds like you’re suffering from a little Marcionism there
The skit from Youtube is based on the US radio personality Laura Schlessinger’s alledged correspondance I think, I first heard about it and offered an answer to the questions you pose here in 2004 on this forum: dragonslist.com/discussion/soap-box/7791-oh-those-crazy-christians-lol.html#post117190

The short answer is traditionally we have understood that the OT Law contains elements that are indicative of God’s unchanging character, and therefore do not pass away with the coming of the Messiah. Indeed the NT reiterates their significance. (eg 10 commandments). There are elements in the Levitical law that Jesus fulfills, and therefore we have no further need of them (the sacrifical system), and there are elements that are distcinctive to the society of Israel at the time, that may contain some wisdom for us, but are not applicable in the society in which we live, such as the kinds of things you reference. If we only had the OT to go on for developing a view of the homosexual lifestyle viz a viz appropriatness forChristians, we would have theological difficulties sustaining prohibition.

1. Why were there so many rules/laws the Jews had to live by? And why do some seem ridiculous?

They may “seem” ridiculous to us. But think on it a little further-Matthew chapter 5 recounts Jesus exegesis of the simple clarity of the Law, not the codex of the Sadducees and the Pharisees who were concerned and overburdened with the letter of the Law to the point where they had forgotten its meaning. This was a theme perhaps reflected in the Reformation’s criticism of Catholic practice. It is common for a modern perspective to look at the rigorous tenets of the Law and see it as something ridiculous and outdated. But any earnest study of the text reveals some of the incredibly important principles it embodies; principles that are as relevant today as they were then; principles and ordinances that have guaranteed Israel’s continued existence through millennia and all the vicissitudes of history. For example, Leviticus 19:9 directs that a portion of harvest be left for the poor; in other words, God asks that you consider your neighbour. Verse 14 commands deference for the handicapped. The Law offers a concept of justice; it introduces the idea of partiality and asks that you eradicate hatred from your heart. In reading the tenets of the Law, one is struck by the relevance and forward thinking much of it embodies. Some of it is indeed dated, and the difficult job of considering what aspects of the Law have aged falls to hermeneutics and exegesis, but there is little doubt that much of what is written is eternally pertinent. Although a careful analysis of the Law is richly rewarding, the reader is confronted with a mixture of the strangely archaic and the amazingly relevant. The Jewish dietary regulations are a good example of a tenet long ridiculed, however, the recent BSE crisis in the UK, brought about by the feeding of offal to herbivorous animals, must lead to a re-evaluation of the purpose and value of these Laws which are the sensible pragmatism of a primitive, nomadic people to facilitate their survival in a hostile environment. In today’s society, we can see many issues like cruelty to animals and slavery are vehemently condemned, but this condemnation is a recent phenomenon, despite the fact that these attitudes have been present in the Torah for thousands of years. Considering this enormously important heritage it seems reasonable that more attention should be given to it and more respect afforded.

1. Why does it seem God changed his mind and did away with the Old Covenant and created a New Covenant?

You haven’t read it. The OT is a story of God speaking to the Jews and the Jews largely getting it wrong.

3… It has been said in Scripture that the Old law/Old Covenant was not perfect. But, did not God make the Old Law? So, how can it be not perfect?

Because the Jews made it ritual ignoring the personal message that God was giving them. He offered a completely new concept to that of contemporary religions, but the Jews kept trying to put Him in a box- the Ark, the Temple, Israel. The OT pre-figures Christ, who was the perfection of the Law.

1. Why does God kill innocent people for the sins of others?

Jewish concept of justice- God must be 100% just.

1. How do we know which parts of the Old Covenant are still part of the New Covenant?

The Catholic Church tells us.

1. Why is it no longer allowed to kill heretics, adulterers, homosexuals, and workers on the Sabbath/Lord Day anymore?

I bet you could answer this yourself if you tried!

1. How do we explain the seemingly two different personalities of God: A wrathful one in the Old Testament and a more loving/forgiving one in the New Testament?

They are the same God, but man’s understanding of Him changed over the eons. Revelation can be thought of as a distant whisper becoming slowly stronger until that Word was made flesh and pitched His tent amoung us.

 

[FightingFat]

I nearly forgot the most important bit-- vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html read this a few times, pay especially close attention to the bit about the Old Testament (Chapter IV) and see if you can make some sense of what it says. Feel free to ask questions if you have any!

 

[Slayer]

I know you are trying to help and I do appreciate it, but no, offense, you offer me nothing to really use.

Whenever someone quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, particularly in the Old Testament, the common response to quote right back other parts of the Old Law e.g., you can sell your daughter into slavery.

People claim that the bible is outdated and when Catholics say the bible condemns homosexuality the response is that Catholics are cherry picking what to follow in the bible since they do not follow everything.

 

[Slayer]

Anyone?

 

[GJx86]

People claim that the bible is outdated and when Catholics say the bible condemns homosexuality the response is that Catholics are cherry picking what to follow in the bible since they do not follow everything.

Homosexual actions are an interesting case because we can discover things about their objective immorality without the help of Scripture. The argument would go something like this:

Regardless of the methods he used in our creation, God played a role in designing humans, because he created them in his own image. God is therefore responsible for the design of our minds, hearts, and physical bodies, including human sexuality. When we observe the physical form of human sexuality, it’s evident that it was designed for male-female intercourse and not female-female or male-male intercourse. Homosexual actions thus go against the design of human sexuality.

Now, God is constrained by and perfectly embodies the moral law. Thus, the purposes of the things he designs must also embody the natural moral law. Since homosexual actions contravene the design of human sexuality, and since that design perfectly embodies the moral law (because the design is God’s), homosexual actions contravene the moral law.

The natural moral law applies to us regardless of how it is codified. The prohibition on homosexual actions is implicitly included in the command to love God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, because we cannot both love God and deliberately misuse things he has created. This is also why the Ten Commandments still “apply” even though we are no longer bound by the disciplinary prescriptions of the Mosaic Law: Because they deal with the natural moral law, which exists even if it is not written down, they can never be abrogated, only reexpressed in positive form ("…and love your neighbor as yourself.")

Hope that helps!

 

[dcdurel]

Whenever someone quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, particularly in the Old Testament, the common response to quote right back other parts of the Old Law e.g., you can sell your daughter into slavery.

1. It is a bad translation. The nearest translation would be indentured servant. see bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-15/#indenture
2. No where does it say God permitted anyone to sell anyone else into slavery.
   The verse reads, Exodus 21:7 “Andif a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do”. “Maidservants” are not the same as slaves as we know it.
   Moses never said whether it was good or bad, permitted or not permitted. It was a practice in the ancient near east that they could be sold as indentured servants, not chattel slavery as we know it. He knew people were going to do it anyway, so he put restrictions on what happened afterwards.
   Notice it was not God who gave these laws, but Moses.
   For example,
   Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce. But, Jesus did not say that God allowed divorce. Moses allowed divorce because “of the hardness of their hearts,” ( the men would murder their wives if they were not allowed to divorce). Therefore Moses permitted the lesser of two evils. Lots of these laws were things that Moses permitted, because if he didn’t greater evils would result. But, these were not God’s laws, as Jesus said.

So, people who say that because the Bible allows “slavery” or divorce, or polygamy, etc. thus God allowed slavery or divorce or polygamy, are not exactly truthful. It was Moses who allowed divorce as the lesser of two evils or other practices because because of the hardness of their hearts, their lack of love for God and neighbor, etc. God never allowed these things.

3. The fullness of revelation is not the bible, but Jesus Christ.
God did not reveal all moral teachings to the Jews. It was only gradually that He revealed more and more. The Jews still clung to some bad ideas they picked up from other nations.
It was only in Jesus that the fullness of revelation is revealed.
In fact, the idea that slavery is wrong comes from Jesus Christ through His Church. The Romans, Greeks, etc, had chattel slavery and accepted it. Even in the new world the Indians had slaves. All pagan religions accepted it. Atheists accepted it, non-Christians, etc. all accepted slavery.

But, Jesus founded His Church, the Catholic Church, to teach the whole truth. From the very beginning the Church taught that all persons have equal value in God’s eyes. Therefore they must be treated equally by everyone, and the laws of the state must reflect this teaching. That is where the Declaration of Independence or (T. Jefferson) gets the idea that all men are created equal.
This idea came from the Catholic Church and no where else. The Church learned it from Jesus. It was not taught by the Greeks, Romans, pagans, or any other religion that existed at that time. But the Church taught it from the beginning and constantly teaches it today.
Thus, no one can force a free person into chattel slavery. Thus, women are equal in value to men (an unheard of idea at that time) and children cannot be killed after birth (exposed), as was the common practice, and abortion was not allowed at any time during pregnancy. All these were forbidden by the Church because according to the Church all men have equal value in God’s view.

If people want to remove all Christian teachings from the government, and have total separation of Church and State, then all men will no longer have equal value. Slavery will be permitted, women will be treated like slaves, and slaves will be treated like animals, children will be left to die after birth. We already accept abortion, because of the rejection of the teachings of Jesus. The others will follow without fail, and we will be back to where we were before Jesus entered the world.

 

[MonkeyTape]

I know you are trying to help and I do appreciate it, but no, offense, you offer me nothing to really use.

Whenever someone quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, particularly in the Old Testament, the common response to quote right back other parts of the Old Law e.g., you can sell your daughter into slavery.

People claim that the bible is outdated and when Catholics say the bible condemns homosexuality the response is that Catholics are cherry picking what to follow in the bible since they do not follow everything.

Fighting Fat did offer good concrete advice, maybe you missed it or didn’t follow it.

The short answer is traditionally we have understood that the OT Law contains elements that are indicative of God’s unchanging character, and therefore do not pass away with the coming of the Messiah.

Jesus fulfilled certain aspects of the Law and therefore there is no need to continue with them, and He taught us what was meant by certain other aspects - for instance He said “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”

This verse from Mark 2 shows us that what was added to the law by the Pharisees subverted the intent of what God made which was for the benefit of man.

While condemning on the surface the show you linked to misses the point. everything Mr. Sheen said could be shown to be incorrect based on a reading of the whole of Scripture alone, when you add Church teaching there is no contest. With regards to the food and football, for instance, we know Peter had a vision in which God had made all unclean animals clean and therefore able to be used.

What we don’t find is a removal of the prohibition against homosexual acts. Furthermore we see throughout Scripture that heterosexual marriage is always treated as the normal way of things - right from Creation where woman is referred to as flesh of my flesh through the end where the Church becomes the bride and Christ the bridegroom.

Now if someone were to think they were better than a homosexual then there is another issue. Homosexual behavior is sinful but we all sin everyday so no one is better than another person for we all sin daily.

This is not picking and choosing, this is a recognition that God made us male and female to complement one another, and to pursue a homosexual union subverts God’s original purpose. Whereas dietary laws have been changed, and laws of sacrifice have been fulfilled by the sacrifice of the Messiah.

 

[Contarini]

1. Why were there so many rules/laws the Jews had to live by?

Traditionally Christians have divided the OT laws into three categories:

a. Moral laws. These are still binding because they are expressions of the eternal law of God.

b. Ceremonial laws. These were symbolic foreshadowings of the mystery of Christ (and, of course, they also served the necessary purpose of giving ancient Hebrews concrete ways to worship God).

c. Judicial laws–these were rules and regulations governing the ancient Hebrew people as a political community. Bear in mind that there was no “church and state” in the OT, just one People of God.

And why do some seem ridiculous?

Because we live in a different culture. No doubt many of our rules and laws would see ridiculous to them.

1. Why does it seem God changed his mind and did away with the Old Covenant and created a New Covenant?

The two Covenants are organically related. Both point to Christ. God did not “change his mind,” though one purpose of the Old Covenant was to demonstrate that even God’s chosen people were sinners and thus could not perfectly keep God’s law. In that sense, and in that sense only, the New Covenant was a response to the “failure” of the Old.

I recommend that you read Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, Prima Secundae, Questions 98-108. Also Matthew Levering’s book *Christ’s Fulfillment of Torah and Temple, *which explains Aquinas’s views on these matters very well. (My summary above is based on Aquinas’s position.) If you really wanted to, you could read chapter two of my dissertation, A Method for the Christian Life: Martin Bucer and the Sermon on the Mount. I give a survey of the history of Christian views on this subject up to the Reformation, focusing on Augustine, Chrysostom, Aquinas, and the Protestant Reformers. But go read Levering instead. He’s better, and obviously more relevant to the Catholic view!

Edwin