I have started reading the Old Testament, and I am not getting much out of it. Some of it is hard to get through, like . . . the chapters and chapters of directions for building the meeting tent in Exodus. Somehow, I figure it has a purpose for us to read; why else would God put it in the Bible?
. . .
- When the plagues are going on in Exodus, God makes pharaoh obstinate. I know God brings good out of evil, but humans do the evil. Here, it seems like God is directly causing something bad. . .
Thanks
Laudatur Iesus Christus.
Dear PeteZaHut:
It seems to me that the detailed understanding of the arrangements in the Tent of Meeting are crucial to understanding the Holy Mass. By making the layout of the Tent clear, and then specifying that the killing of the victim took place at the door, away from the altar, these passages provide the solutions to several common questions about the relationship between the Cross and the Mass. Coupled with the miracles of the multiplication of loaves, this separation of the killing from the offering of the victim makes the Holy Mass intelligible and thoroughly integrates it with the organic development of God’s directions for proper worship under the old and the new law.
As to the question of “God . . . causing something bad,” one must ask, what is meant by “bad” or “good?” As other comments have suggested, one cannot impose a merely human scope on the actions of God and expect to properly judge “good and bad.” This is one of the meanings of Christ’s saying:
“No one patches an old cloak with a piece of unshrunken cloth, for its fullness pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse. People do not put new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined. Rather, they pour new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved,” (Matthew (NAB) 9:16-17; see also Mark 2:21-22; and Luke 5:36-38)
One’s ideas must be stretched to accommodate the Gospel; or, rather, one must allow one’s ideas to be stretched by the Gospel as it matures inside one’s heart.
From a secular point of view, one is accustomed to think of death as an inherently bad thing (and in a certain sense it certainly is). However, this is a narrow view focused only on biological life. God cannot take this perspective. He is everlasting; within His lifetime all* fallen men suffer biological death. Further, in His experience all men remain in existence, even after physical death. Hence, God’s standard for “good and bad” cannot be geared toward whether a person physically dies or not.
On the other hand, throughout the Old Testament, from the sin of Adam and throughout all of the events and trials described, heaven was closed to men. God’s will that men live eternally with Him was frustrated by Adam’s decision. No one could be brought to heaven. Thus, in this sense, it was “all bad.” Whether a person died in the womb or at 105, he could not enter heaven – and therefore his death was not “good” in God’s sense.
Now God is also subtle. There are gradations of bad, and He cares about them. In the Old Testament there are people described who, if heaven had been open, would have entered it. Further, there are many people and even whole peoples who would not have entered heaven even if it had been open. Among these peoples virtually all morally responsible persons would have been damned and all children would have been corrupted to damnation, if they had lived to mature in the culture of the people.
So, this is the context of the accounts in the Old Testament: everyone is barred from heaven, some are fitting themselves for hell. The entire gist of the Old Testament is God’s working through history to open the gates of heaven. This is one way of describing God’s definition of “good” in the Old Testament.
Hence, even for those who were killed in the “genocides” ordered by God, since these events furthered the work of opening the gates of heaven, there was a great benefit and no substantial loss. The benefit seems to have been twofold: first, anyone who acted well enough to be admitted to purgation or heaven benefited, because eventually heaven would be opened and they could enter, after Christ’s saving work was completed; second, however, it seems to me that being of service to God’s plan of salvation may have been meritorious for at least some of those killed in a way that made them fit for heaven where otherwise they would have been fit only for hell, and for the rest this merit would make them at least deserving of less punishment in hell. They suffered no substantial loss, because without the work of salvation, all of these people were barred from heaven, whether they died early or late, at the hands of Israel or of old age.
Now this may be confusing because the logic which applied to these people described in the Old Testament is different from the logic which applies now. Now, the work of salvation has been completed, heaven is open, and the way to heaven has been proclaimed. Under the old law, all were barred from heaven, and the measure of good was the furtherance of the work of salvation through history and the limitation of the personal evil committed before one’s death.
Now, however, the measure of good is the service of God and the attainment of heaven. Then it did not matter when one died, since heaven was closed in any case. Now, the longer an evil person lives, the more opportunity he has for repentance and salvation. “Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And
count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation,” (2 Peter (RSV) 3:14-15; emphasis added).
God’s standard for “good” is the same under both the old and the new law: salvation for as many as will accept it. However, the circumstances before and after the life of Christ are so fundamentally different that the means necessary to serve this goal have taken radically different forms. This requires some reflection to grasp, but the effort helps one to stretch his “wineskin” so that it can accommodate the “more-than-human” scope of the Gospel.
I hope this is helpful.
Pax Christi tecum.
John Hiner
*I leave the one or two possible exceptions out of consideration, since they do not affect the argument.
rophet