H
Hereiam
Guest
No, it means, as Jesus stated, that he fulfilled the scriptures and did not abolish them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bruce_Killian
Guest
How the OT was understood, does not mean that was how God intended it to be understood. Jesus’ teaching was meant to correct that understanding. God id the author of both testaments and cannot teach error. Job teaches that God can allow suffering for His own purposes and we should accept what God sends into our lives without blaming or criticizing God.So basically according to Fr. Spitzer, Jesus’ teaching supersedes the understanding in the Old Testament. Does that mean the Old Testament taught error, and what are we to make of this, considering biblical inspiration?
Grace and peace,
Bruce
G
Gorgias
Guest
Wow! This would be a fun discussion to dive into!The book of Job actually repudiates the idea that suffering is the result of one’s actions.
I think it’s a bit more nuanced than you’re making it out to be. After all, prior to Job and even following it, Israelites didn’t believe in eternal punishment and reward, but rather, believed in temporal punishment and reward. If your case held up to scrutiny, then the people of God would be forced to react to the Book of Job by saying, “gee, I guess we really got that wrong, eh?”. And yet, that’s not what they did – in fact, we even see in the Gospels that the question of eternal reward hadn’t yet been settled.
I think I would say that the nuance is in the way that Job addresses the tension of the question “why do bad things happen to good people?”. The answer is not “suffering has nothing to do with how good a person you are”, I don’t think. Rather, the answer seems to be “suffering is real, and it is a question of God’s justice – but we, as humans, can’t hope to fully understand God’s justice in all its sublime workings. In the end, good people – who might suffer for a period – will nevertheless experience God’s blessings if they persevere in goodness.”
Last edited:
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
In many cases Scripture tells us what people did or said. That is not the same as Scripture asserting that they were right.So basically according to Fr. Spitzer, Jesus’ teaching supersedes the understanding in the Old Testament. Does that mean the Old Testament taught error, and what are we to make of this, considering biblical inspiration?
Example: 2 Samuel 13 which reports the rape of Tamar by her brother Ammon and later the revenge-murder of Ammon by Absalom. Both these acts were great wrongs. Scripture merely reports that they happened.
A
Autumn-Smoke
Guest
I don’t think that Jesus at all repudiated the idea that suffering, at least possibly some suffering, cannot be the result of sin; or that God no longer visits the iniquity of one generation unto the next. I would also disagree with the author.
To give a few examples:
Jesus, being God, knew all things. He healed many people, but there was one person, as recorded in John chapter 5, whose illness seemed to be the direct result of his sin. After Jesus healed this man he told him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.”
Then, as seen in I Corinthians chapter 11, Paul speaks about those who were eating the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. He warned them, “Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have died.”
As far as God visiting the iniquity of one generation upon the next, the Old Testament says in Deuteronomy 24:16, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.” So each person is guilty or acclaimed innocent by their own actions.
But there were some cases where the sins of one generation were felt by the next generation. Usually, a generation in the Bible is roughly thirty years long. The Bible says that both Jewish exiles–one into Babylon and the other into Assyria–were the direct result of sin. The Babylonian exile lasted for about 70 years–2 or so generations–so one generation sinned, and the next was still suffering the consequences. The Assyrian captivity lasted for about 200 years. So subsequent generations were affected.
A more current example would be the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d. Jesus prophesied that this would happen. (Luke 19:43-44) He said it would happen as a direct result of sin–the Jewish Nation as a whole did not accept their Messiah. So the Jewish people were once again exiled. In this case the result of this sin was felt by how many generations? I’m not a mathematician, but around 60 generations? From 70 a.d. to 1948.
So God has not changed and Jesus didn’t change doctrine from the Old to the New Testament.
When Jesus said that God allows the rain to fall on the good and the evil alike, he was saying that God has blessed all people with his abundance. God has given us rain to make our crops grow, and he has supplied us with food. God’s bounty is enjoyed by all–the good and the evil alike. This verse that you quoted in your initial post isn’t speaking of the results of sin.
To give a few examples:
Jesus, being God, knew all things. He healed many people, but there was one person, as recorded in John chapter 5, whose illness seemed to be the direct result of his sin. After Jesus healed this man he told him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.”
Then, as seen in I Corinthians chapter 11, Paul speaks about those who were eating the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. He warned them, “Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have died.”
As far as God visiting the iniquity of one generation upon the next, the Old Testament says in Deuteronomy 24:16, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.” So each person is guilty or acclaimed innocent by their own actions.
But there were some cases where the sins of one generation were felt by the next generation. Usually, a generation in the Bible is roughly thirty years long. The Bible says that both Jewish exiles–one into Babylon and the other into Assyria–were the direct result of sin. The Babylonian exile lasted for about 70 years–2 or so generations–so one generation sinned, and the next was still suffering the consequences. The Assyrian captivity lasted for about 200 years. So subsequent generations were affected.
A more current example would be the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d. Jesus prophesied that this would happen. (Luke 19:43-44) He said it would happen as a direct result of sin–the Jewish Nation as a whole did not accept their Messiah. So the Jewish people were once again exiled. In this case the result of this sin was felt by how many generations? I’m not a mathematician, but around 60 generations? From 70 a.d. to 1948.
So God has not changed and Jesus didn’t change doctrine from the Old to the New Testament.
When Jesus said that God allows the rain to fall on the good and the evil alike, he was saying that God has blessed all people with his abundance. God has given us rain to make our crops grow, and he has supplied us with food. God’s bounty is enjoyed by all–the good and the evil alike. This verse that you quoted in your initial post isn’t speaking of the results of sin.
Last edited:
O
otrrl
Guest
no, superceding is superceding.
A more obvious case (to me) is the idea that the animal sacrifices of the OT atoned for sins. Yet, Hebrews discounts that, saying it was imperfect. I haven’t reviewed all this recently, but I’ll say as an opinion that it was probably the OBEDIENCE to perform the animal sacrifices that may have had an effect of atonement. But, we know that the sacrifice of Jesus is the ONLY atonement for sin.
The relation between the OT and the NT is discussed in a document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission from the early '90s. Available here
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM
Its a lot to read, to begin with, and it is just an introduction to the subject.
A more obvious case (to me) is the idea that the animal sacrifices of the OT atoned for sins. Yet, Hebrews discounts that, saying it was imperfect. I haven’t reviewed all this recently, but I’ll say as an opinion that it was probably the OBEDIENCE to perform the animal sacrifices that may have had an effect of atonement. But, we know that the sacrifice of Jesus is the ONLY atonement for sin.
The relation between the OT and the NT is discussed in a document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission from the early '90s. Available here
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM
Its a lot to read, to begin with, and it is just an introduction to the subject.
A
Arkansan
Guest
The Book of Job teaches the same message as Jesus di on this matter. That suffering happens even to the just. I don’t see what the issue here is.
B
Benadam
Guest
In the the days before the Law people suffered loss from someone they had Lamech’s 7 times 77 revenge in them. pluck out my eye I’ll take your life and your families. The Law eye for an eye put boundaries and equality in the punishment of revenge.
Eye for an eye developed into the Golden Rule. “Do unto others …” It seemed that couldn’t be raised up any further until Jesus came and said " Love your enemies"
There is a sense in people of all times, even now that people who are on the margins are their because of their own fault. To look down on and keep a distance from the sufferer. Jobs friends exemplified that attitude when they spent days in the distance before approaching Job. People have this judgmental attitude on the homeless or the guy with the sign on the freeway ramp.
In Job’s day disasters and sufferriing were proof that you had done something wrong and God is punishing you…It’s not a sentiment that’s out there like that but it is in us hidden.
Contradictions are invitations to discover the answers to mystery. They invite questions that if led by the Holy Spirit will eventually be answered.
Eye for an eye developed into the Golden Rule. “Do unto others …” It seemed that couldn’t be raised up any further until Jesus came and said " Love your enemies"
There is a sense in people of all times, even now that people who are on the margins are their because of their own fault. To look down on and keep a distance from the sufferer. Jobs friends exemplified that attitude when they spent days in the distance before approaching Job. People have this judgmental attitude on the homeless or the guy with the sign on the freeway ramp.
In Job’s day disasters and sufferriing were proof that you had done something wrong and God is punishing you…It’s not a sentiment that’s out there like that but it is in us hidden.
Contradictions are invitations to discover the answers to mystery. They invite questions that if led by the Holy Spirit will eventually be answered.
S
Sean77
Guest
That’s an interesting take. I would agree with your assessment of the beliefs of contemporary Judaism at the time and that the idea of an afterlife is not fully developed within Job. However, one of the threads within Job’s discussion is his expectation that he will die, and yet he will still be vindicated. It is in Job where the idea of resurrection first appears (Job 19:23-27).
S
sudy
Guest
Ezekiel 18 seems to be the point at which this all changed… so that each soul is responsible for its own sins… not the sins of their parents.
Edit:
Edit:
My apologies, I missed this.As far as God visiting the iniquity of one generation upon the next, the Old Testament says in Deuteronomy 24:16, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.” So each person is guilty or acclaimed innocent by their own actions.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
Almost everything that Jesus taught can be found somewhere in the OT. The difference is that Jesus taught His interpretation “with authority,” not that His teachings were new. Even stuff like the Eucharist had some connection to what had gone before (as you can read in Brant Pitre’s books on the Jewish roots of the Eucharist). So no, there weren’t any contradictions.
The example at the beginning of the thread?
It wasn’t just Jesus Who said that the sun rises on both the just and the unjust. Even Bildad in Job 25:3 rhetorically asked, “On whom does His light not arise?” Jesus was pointing to a concept that already existed, and saying, “What the Father meant by what His Bible said was this, not that.” Jesus did not change the Bible; He interpreted it correctly, for a change – unlike how we humans had done it, in some cases; but upholding traditional Jewish teaching over revisionist ideas, in others. We didn’t know how to weight various thoughts for correct understanding; He did, obviously.
The example at the beginning of the thread?
It wasn’t just Jesus Who said that the sun rises on both the just and the unjust. Even Bildad in Job 25:3 rhetorically asked, “On whom does His light not arise?” Jesus was pointing to a concept that already existed, and saying, “What the Father meant by what His Bible said was this, not that.” Jesus did not change the Bible; He interpreted it correctly, for a change – unlike how we humans had done it, in some cases; but upholding traditional Jewish teaching over revisionist ideas, in others. We didn’t know how to weight various thoughts for correct understanding; He did, obviously.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Right. The Book of Job is working through the various possibilities. The one you mention is “bad things do happen to good people (but they don’t deserve them)”. However, that’s not the solution that occurs, by the end of the book. He isn’t killed (as putative punishment for sin) yet vindicated (for sinlessness).However, one of the threads within Job’s discussion is his expectation that he will die, and yet he will still be vindicated. It is in Job where the idea of resurrection first appears (Job 19:23-27).
S
Sean77
Guest
Would disagree with you slightly here again. He is righteous before the law because he observes the sacrificial system which makes atonement for sin. He is not sinless.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I wouldn’t overly focus on Job, I only mentioned him because Fr Spitzer uses him as an example. Something about how it is likely Job had a few different alters, and the earlier versions first had the punishment for sin, etc.
But regardless of Job, it is genuinely the OT understanding that temporal distress and suffering comes from sin. As others have shared, the idea of eternal life would evolve later, especially into the New Testament. This is the point Fr Sptizer was making.
Fr Spitzer’s book on suffering is well over 400 pages. So don’t lightly dismiss his thoughts; rather, I may not be representing him very well. The bottom line is that in one chapter (of about 10 chapters) in the book, Fr Spitzer stresses how Jesus and the NT update and supersede the Old Testament understanding, which was often that suffering is directly tied to sin.
And so when Fr Sptizer goes into Jesus saying God causes rain and sun to fall on the good and the bad, he is using this to illustrate that God doesn’t so much directly punish sinners as allow secondary causes to have their own innate potentials, which can bring about suffering for even the innocent.
But regardless of Job, it is genuinely the OT understanding that temporal distress and suffering comes from sin. As others have shared, the idea of eternal life would evolve later, especially into the New Testament. This is the point Fr Sptizer was making.
Fr Spitzer’s book on suffering is well over 400 pages. So don’t lightly dismiss his thoughts; rather, I may not be representing him very well. The bottom line is that in one chapter (of about 10 chapters) in the book, Fr Spitzer stresses how Jesus and the NT update and supersede the Old Testament understanding, which was often that suffering is directly tied to sin.
And so when Fr Sptizer goes into Jesus saying God causes rain and sun to fall on the good and the bad, he is using this to illustrate that God doesn’t so much directly punish sinners as allow secondary causes to have their own innate potentials, which can bring about suffering for even the innocent.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
Obviously, God did on certain occasions inflict temporal suffering on evildoers as punishment for their bad deeds.
Many people in OT times believed that temporal suffering was necessarily caused by sin, but the OT never affirms that false viewpoint.
Many people in OT times believed that temporal suffering was necessarily caused by sin, but the OT never affirms that false viewpoint.
S
Sean77
Guest
Will refer back to my original comment.
D
Dovekin
Guest
This contrasts with the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s view:Fr Spitzer stresses how Jesus and the NT update and supersede the Old Testament understanding, which was often that suffering is directly tied to sin.
It is the idea of “superceding” that is problematic. I doubt that Fr Spitzer is a full fledged supercessionist, but he, or you as his interpreter, needs to be more respectful of the Hebrew Scriptures. God is faithful to his Word.The New Testament attests that Jesus, far from being in opposition to the Israelite Scriptures, revoking them as provisional, brings them instead to fulfilment in his person, in his mission, and especially in his paschal mystery.
I suspect you already know this since you asked how his views can be reconciled with the inspiration of the OT. As I said, one answer to your question may be that he is simply wrong. Another approach is to find out what is right in what he said. Since I only know about him from you, I cannot give you any clues to this, but do keep in mind he may just be wrong.
S
ShowersofRoses
Guest
No offense at all to catholic1seeks, but I’m more inclined to think he is misunderstanding what Fr Spitzer is trying to convey.
Jesus did not invalidate or discredit the Old Testament, but He did clarify and transfigure it. He illuminated the parts that spoke of Himself in a way we would never have understood otherwise. He shone a light on the Scriptures and breathed new life into them.
He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and it’s only by knowing Him better now that we better understand the Old Testament.
Jesus did not invalidate or discredit the Old Testament, but He did clarify and transfigure it. He illuminated the parts that spoke of Himself in a way we would never have understood otherwise. He shone a light on the Scriptures and breathed new life into them.
He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and it’s only by knowing Him better now that we better understand the Old Testament.
K
kainosktisis
Guest
I’m not sure it is about contradictions.
I had once listened to “Father Simon Says”, & Fr. Simon’s take on the difference in the consequences of the Law in the OT had to do with the minimum that could be extracted for breaking the Law. It was to keep humanity from placing no limits to the consequences of breaking the Torah. These laws all hinged on loving God first & loving one’s neighbor as oneself. Interestingly enough Father Simon believes that the difference in the practice of the Law in the NT vs the OT pointed to Jesus bringing us back to where things began. His ways are on a higher plane. He believes that as life began in the Garden (“In the beginning…”), in Revelation, it also finds humanity back in a Garden, & it’s like we’re going back to that state - if I understood him correctly. It’s an interesting way of thinking…My wording may not be as eloquent as his…
But yeah…He does have some interesting ideas…
I had once listened to “Father Simon Says”, & Fr. Simon’s take on the difference in the consequences of the Law in the OT had to do with the minimum that could be extracted for breaking the Law. It was to keep humanity from placing no limits to the consequences of breaking the Torah. These laws all hinged on loving God first & loving one’s neighbor as oneself. Interestingly enough Father Simon believes that the difference in the practice of the Law in the NT vs the OT pointed to Jesus bringing us back to where things began. His ways are on a higher plane. He believes that as life began in the Garden (“In the beginning…”), in Revelation, it also finds humanity back in a Garden, & it’s like we’re going back to that state - if I understood him correctly. It’s an interesting way of thinking…My wording may not be as eloquent as his…
But yeah…He does have some interesting ideas…
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Would disagree with you slightly here again. He is righteous before the law because he observes the sacrificial system which makes atonement for sin. He is not sinless.
Fair enough. “Not killed (as punishment for sin) yet vindicated (for righteousness).” Instead, although he doesn’t curse God, Job nevertheless confronts him – and is rebuked by God for doing so! Nevertheless, God still blesses him. It remains a mystery, and the only two human approaches we see are Job’s friends’ approach (“God is punishing you for sin”) and Job’s (“I’m right; God’s wrong!”), and God rejects both of these.He isn’t killed (as putative punishment for sin) yet vindicated (for sinlessness).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.