Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Stugrad98
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 11

Posted 2/16/2002 3:32 PM (GMT -6)

Hi,

I've posted a previous question that got very little in the way of feedback, so I'm hoping this one is more intriguing. I have been trying to grapple with reconciling the OT with the NT. In particular, the arguments are often brought forth by liberal Christians or even atheists that the killing of the Egyptian first born and the killing of the Canaanite children are completely inconsistent with a just and loving God (emphasized in the NT). I find this a difficult position to argue against, and so I am often inclined to view the OT and the NT differently. I view the NT as a reliable, historical text written by individuals with theological concerns. I view large parts of the OT as a metaphorical statement of truth about the relationship between God and Man. For instance, I have seen where Marcus Borg argues that the Exodus story is, in fact, a metaphor about those things that enslave us (internally) and how we need God to overcome them. From this vantage point, one can see the killing of the first born as not literal but a metaphorical statement that that which enslaves us will punish even our children/future generations unless we turn to God. Is this-- bifurcating how I treat the OT and the NT-- simply a contrived answer to this dilemma? Are there better answers under a more conservative approach? I was referred to the book, The Suffering of God. Do others recommend it?

Stuart M Wexler

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 2/16/2002 6:04 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

I was referred to the book, The Suffering of God. Do others recommend it?

Stuart M Wexler

Definitely. A very good read on the topic. If Jesus is the locus of authority for you with regard to the NT then you will have trouble escapingthe fact that Jesus considered the OT to be the Word of God. A bifurcation is not warranted biblically.

Two of the most important themes that help me with regard to the issues you raised are:
1. the centrality of covenants in the OT which explain much of the strange stuff.
2. The concept of sacrifice in the ancient world which is all but completely lost today.

Sorry this is not very specific, but research on these things will illumine the issues.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Daylan
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 5

Posted 2/16/2002 6:43 PM (GMT -6)

I know what you mean. I've thought about it a lot and consciously I know that Jesus taught out of those OT scriptures and what not, but I really tend to file the Old Testament into the non-reality part of my brain and the New Testament into reality. Perhaps a good starting point is the numinous awe inspired by both Jesus and this God of Wrath, and also that justice seems to always imply the observance of some sort of severity ( a glorious severity indeed when we see Jesus' work on the Cross )I would agree too that sacrifice will seem to fit well in this thread. Where is God's passion in the old system of sacrifice? Past all the symbolism of death and infidelity blood and life and even just plain obedience, where is God's heart? Both animal sacrifice and God's wrath are hard ones for me to understand. I have had similar questions that seemed so difficult for me at first like Jesus' work on the cross but God showed me things that blew my mind and now the cross makes more since to me than just about anything and so I'm pretty sure he can do the same here.

Stugrad98
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 11

Posted 2/17/2002 12:48 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

quote:

I was referred to the book, The Suffering of God. Do others recommend it?

Stuart M Wexler

Definitely. A very good read on the topic. If Jesus is the locus of authority for you with regard to the NT then you will have trouble escapingthe fact that Jesus considered the OT to be the Word of God. A bifurcation is not warranted biblically.

Two of the most important themes that help me with regard to the issues you raised are:
1. the centrality of covenants in the OT which explain much of the strange stuff.
2. The concept of sacrifice in the ancient world which is all but completely lost today.

Sorry this is not very specific, but research on these things will illumine the issues.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Thanks for the response. I'm not bifurcating in the sense that one is an expression of the truth and one isn't. On the contrary, I'm exploring, and asking for commentary on, the possibility that the OT is more or less a series of parable-like truths on the relationship between God and Man-- ie not literal history. Whereas the NT is more in the way of direct history. This isn't to say the OT is completely divorced from reality at all points; and it definitely isn't saying the OT is not "true".

Could you please explain more on what you mean about the concept of sacrifice?

Stuart M Wexler

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/18/2002 5:33 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Sturgrad,

I don't know if it will help you any but a number of us tangled through this issue recently on the board, specifically dealing with my concerns about the stories in the Old Testament.

If you go here and read the last message in that post, you can follow a lengthy discussion from there on this issue...I don't think we resolved it, but at least it will give you an idea of how the issues were addressed.

As far as your specific question about reading the OT metaphorically instead of literally...I think it's entirely valid because it is the method employed by church fathers throughout the centuries including St. Augustine. Incidentally, I see St. Paul doing the same thing with the Old Testament.

Blessings,
Miss E

Edited by - empiress on 02/18/2002 10:34:52 AM

Stugrad98
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 11

Posted 2/18/2002 4:51 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Hi Sturgrad,

I don't know if it will help you any but a number of us tangled through this issue recently on the board, specifically dealing with my concerns about the stories in the Old Testament.

If you go here and read the last message in that post, you can follow a lengthy discussion from there on this issue...I don't think we resolved it, but at least it will give you an idea of how the issues were addressed.

As far as your specific question about reading the OT metaphorically instead of literally...I think it's entirely valid because it is the method employed by church fathers throughout the centuries including St. Augustine. Incidentally, I see St. Paul doing the same thing with the Old Testament.

Blessings,
Miss E

Edited by - empiress on 02/18/2002 10:34:52 AM

Thanks Empiress. That was very helpful. Your post at the end really reflects my own point of view. One way I came to Christianity was by examining a number of debates, particularly those involving William Lane Craig. He dusted the floor for the most part with his atheist counterparts but always seemed to fall short when trying to address the concept of hell and the Old Testament stories about killing the first born, etc. Now I am an annhilationist, so if he were to allow for that (Craig doesn't), he would have a clear out. But on the second front, it's very hard to justify. I'm leaning more and more to treating the OT as largely metaphorical, though I'll give "The Suffering of God" a chance. Do you have know good books that deal with the OT in a metaphorical way, particularly from a Christian's perspective? I understand Marcus Borg deals with some of the text, but not all of it.

Stuart M Wexler

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/19/2002 2:11 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Stugrad,

I know any good book on hermeneutics will at least get into a discussion of allegorical and metaphorical interpretation of Scripture. The tradition of intrepreting the OT allegorically stems back to the early church. Two books that are often intepreted allegorically/metaphorically even today include Song of Songs and much of Genesis (the creation account).

Some of the church fathers who consistently use allegory and metaphor in intepreting the Old Testament include:

Ambrose
Clement of Alexandria
Jerome
Origen
Hippolytus
Augustine

Reading their works will give you some good examples of this. I wish I knew offhand a recent theologian who employed this method more fully. I believe Walter Brueggeman hints at this, particularly in his understanding of metaphor as God's name (YHWH) in his book "The Theology of the Old Testament." You already mentioned Marcus Borg.

Maybe this will help a bit...at the very least, this is certainly not an unprecedented way of understanding the Old Testament.

Peace,
-E

PhD MP
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 28

Posted 2/19/2002 3:20 PM (GMT -6)

I'm saddened to read the direction of this thread. Allegorical interpretation of the OT is, in my view, totally unjustified unless the NT authors (who present the Lord Jesus to us) do so with an OT passage.

A classical example of a failed allegorical interpretation of an OT passage is Augustine's use of Song of Solomon. The NT does not use SoS as allegorical, but Augustine does, totally ignoring it's authorial intent.

I ask all of you, would you want your own writings to be allegorically interpreted if you did not INTEND that they be read allegorically? That is precisely what this thread seems to be assuming we now have the right to do to the OT. Perhaps we should seek the meaning God inspired, not one with which we are simply more comfortable at the moment.

If you are uncomfortable with God's treatment of the Canaanites, then I suggest you review the history a little. God gave the Canaanites at least 400 years to repent. He warned them of their future destruction through Abraham (around 2000 B.C.), if they did not cease their wickedness. God then instructed the Hebrews under Moses to offer peace to the Canaanites BEFORE attacking them. They refused, but his conquest of them was not without extensive waiting and offerings of peace. Furthermore, God may be justified in allowing the complete removal of the Canaanites due to their immoralities. They were murderers of babies (human sacrifice) and their gods would inevitably tempt the Hebrews because their gods had been imbedded in the practices of that region for centuries. Remember that gods had territories (supposedly), and if Yahweh intended to start up and nurture a people in covenant with him, he may be justified in removing genuinely dangerous temptations, such as Baal would represent, because those temptations may appeal to the baser instincts of the people in covenant with him.

The God of the OT is the God of the NT. God is presented as slow to anger in both the OT and the NT, and in both he holds sinners accountable. Don't forget that we are told in the NT that ALL people are now under God's wrath (Rom. 1), and that only the sacrificial death of Jesus (which God foretold in the OT from Genesis 3 onward) would absorb God's wrath.

Edited by - phd MP on 02/19/2002 8:23:42 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 2/19/2002 3:21 PM (GMT -6)

Empiress is correct regarding the prevalence of the allegorical interpretation among the early Church -- and indeed, throughout Church History up to the Rennaisance period. Origen went so far as to argue that at certain points God made the "literal" meaning of the passage offense, if not absurd, so as to point us to the "deeper" meaning.

Having said this, there is a good reason why the allegorical interpretation dropped out of favor during the Rennaisance period. It is because we developed literary and historical criticism. Basically, we came to realize a) how subjective the allegorical interpretation is; and b) how we need to root OUR understand of the text in the authors intent.

I myself have no problem accepting that certain portions of the OT may be allegorical, if a case can be made that this was the intention of the original author. e.g. I think the case for understanding the first two chapters of Job, as well as the "whale" story of Jonah as allegory is pretty solid. What seems quite illegitimate to me is to take a story as "allegory" when it is agreed that the story was MEANT as history. Or, at the very least, if we are going to do this we should say that the author wrote this as history, but we don't believe it. Nonetheless, there story can have some value if we take it as an allegory of such and such. (Does Borg argue in this fashion? Surely he doesn't hold that the AUTHOR of the Exodus passage meant it to be an allegory of how things enslave us!)

For what its worth
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/19/2002 6:58 PM (GMT -6)

MP: thanks for a great and wonderful dose of reality. We should not be searching for a way to make things more presentable to us or more comfortable for us. We should be searching for the truth, period.
That said, was God less harsh in the NT with A and S in Acts Chap. 5? I have never had a problem with how God acts in the OT, nor have I ever seen a lack of consistency bewteen the Old and the New because I've studied the cultures of the OT. God reserves his right as God to judge people who are disobeying him. He is, after all, God. He will judge people just as harshly at the end of the ages when they reject him. As Doc says about those who think that the open view may not be as comforting as other views. How comfortable a view is is a duvious test of truth.
Books of history should be considered such (literally depicting what they depict) unless there is a compelling reason why they shouldn't be. Just because they say things we don't like or make us uncomfortable isn't a good enough reason. That is just looking for an "out" to dealing with the hard reality of the subject. Harold

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/19/2002 11:27 PM (GMT -6)

I just wanted to provide some clarification here.

First, I believe we can intrepret most Scriptural passages BOTH metaphorically/allegorically (another word for this would be spiritually) AND literally. However, certain texts and passages are CLEARLY meant, by the author, to be understood as history and to be read literally and vice versa. We have to take note of the genre of the text themselves.

But this is the very reason I simply do not and cannot reconcile the God portrayed (at certain points) in the Old Testament with God as portrayed in Jesus Christ.

Now, I'm not interested in having this turn into an argument about the Old Testament again, we hashed that out enough in previous threads and it went nowhere. But I do want to make one point in my defense because to take this position is to be automatically be accused of "taking the easy way out" or to "make things more comfortable" as though this is what DRIVES me. It is not. I'm saying it is a logical inconsistency I CANNOT reconcile. It is not about laziness or personal comfort as though my search for God and truth were nothing but a search for the softest pillow.

This is a very real struggle for people of faith who torture over it! Stugrad's is a very real concern. People have been kept from the faith because of their understanding of God as portrayed in the OT and for some, it has served to fuel violence on one hand, and victimization on the other. Those that would simplify the problem and call for blind faith in this area are not helping the situation at all in my opinion.

That's my .02.

Peace,
Miss E

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 2/20/2002 2:24 AM (GMT -6)

A random thought... what would drive us to search for "deeper meaning" in text that is clearly historical?

peace and love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/20/2002 6:14 AM (GMT -6)

Don asked:

quote:
A random thought... what would drive us to search for "deeper meaning" in text that is clearly historical?

What do you mean? Are there not deeper lessons to be learned from every event in history beyond the surface telling? How much more so in the Bible which is claimed to be God-breathed? For example, can we not take from the story of Joseph and his brothers deeper spiritual implications for our own lives? Maybe I don't understand your question

-Miss E

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 2/20/2002 6:34 AM (GMT -6)

Miss E,

It wasn't a trick question :) . You gave an excellent answer.

peace and love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/20/2002 9:28 AM (GMT -6)

I have never had a problem with an Old/New Testament God conflict. In fact, I have a very hard time understanding why someone would. But it is my experience that the reason people by and large do is because they have not studied the Old Testament enough or that they simply don't like the way God is portrayed in the OT. So what I said stands.
Having said that, it is important to recognize that a writer has intention when he/she writes. Deeper meaning? Many times that is simply a way to circumvent what is the obvious intention of the writer. In historical passages one can "see" other "truths" within them, but at the expense of not only what the writer intented, but one also risks going off into new "truths," that having nothing to do with what was written. Let's face it, if a person wants to find a "truth" within any passage, they can. It is important to recognize that historical writings should be treated at such and not as something that has some sort of "deeper" meaning to it. We should always look first for what the author intended, not some sort of "truth" behind the lierature. Harold

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/20/2002 10:49 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Doc,

You said

quote:
I myself have no problem accepting that certain portions of the OT may be allegorical, if a case can be made that this was the intention of the original author. e.g. I think the case for understanding the first two chapters of Job, as well as the "whale" story of Jonah as allegory is pretty solid.

What case CAN be made that Jonah is allegory? That a fish swollowed him? There's well documented cases of this happening and people surviving for...what was it I saw on TV once...um, about a day, I think it was in some whale's stomach. I personally think it's possible that Jonah did die in the fish and this really emphasizes the sign closely related to why Jesus used it representing what would happen to Him.

And Job? What case makes this allegory? I've not studied this end of the deal, so I'm not sure what folks are using for allegory argument. Seems, though, that it's pretty straight forward with little or no reason to accept it face value. But...I'll have to re-read the chapters again, I suppose.

For the reality of allegory!

Starkman

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/20/2002 11:06 AM (GMT -6)

I don't know if it is literal history, historical fiction, allegory, parable or what for sure, but I do think it is interesting that Jonah is placed where it is. Other than Nahum, the other minor prophets seem to focus on judgments and prophecies for or against Israel/Judah. Jonah's prophecy is for Nineveh. Maybe that is one of the reasons that people translate Jonah as an allegory of Israel, I really don't know. Is there any informed individual out there who can tell us?

Kyle Essary

PhD MP
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 28

Posted 2/20/2002 4:16 PM (GMT -6)

I know of no substantial reasons to take Jonah as anything less than historical. It is not an allegory.

For example, the writer of the book is apparently setting this story in a very historical circumstance. The name "Jonah, son of Amittai," from the town of Gath Hepher, is used not only for the name of the person in the Book of Jonah, but also of the name of a prophet mentioned in I Kings 14:25.

If you think the Book of Jonah is unhistorical, then you've got to explain why I Kings is also unhistorical, because they are discussing the same man.

Kings is historical narrative, undisputably. How can you take it as historically describing someone, but not take the Book of Jonah as describing that same man?

You really have no basis to suggest that the book of Jonah is INTENDED to be taken as anything less than a description of part of the ministry of the same prophet described in I Kings.

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/22/2002 9:52 AM (GMT -6)

The interesting thing I find about this discussion is people seem to find a conflict bewteen the Old and New Testament. Yet Jesus, the chief figure of the NT didn't seem to see that conflict. In fact, he said he was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. In his transfiguration, he was seen with Moses and Elijah (the one who called for God to kill the youths). He also taught quite a bit about hell and damnation.
Jesus seemed not to be afraid of the "problems" of the Old Testament portrait of God, who was his father after all.
It should also be noted that in comparing the Old with the New there is a major difference in time frame. The Old Testament covers much greater period of time (several 1000 of years), while the New Testament covers less than a hundred. The Old Testament covers many time periods, individuals, etc., while the NT is concerned chiefly with one.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees, got angry with them, cursed the fig tree, God killed Herod with worms in Acts. I see the Old and New Testaments in harmory, not conflict. Harold

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:04 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual