As it currently stands, I haven’t given much opportunity for people to comment on my previous post. Both big replies so far have revolved around two broad themes.
Sorry to those who don’t care about this topic. Just click to the next blog on your Reader, the next post will be more interesting. 
“Context is my friend.”
This is a curious one. Because for mine, even context can not justify some things. I think some of the commands God gives in the Old Testament are absolutely abominable… and just have so much trouble believing that a God that is supposedly of love could just be so flippant about the wanton destruction of human lives.
The verse that started it all.. when I was about 14 or so. I have never since managed to reconcile myself to the OT.
Joshua 8:24-25
When it was all over, Israel had killed everyone in Ai, whether in the fields or in the wilderness where they had chased them. When the killing was complete, the Israelites returned to Ai and completed the devastation. The death toll that day came to twelve thousand men and women—everyone in Ai.
Or when Achan buried the loot from Jericho under his tent and they destroyed his entire family. I mean, can you imagine the children being dragged uncomprehending into the bottom of that pit as hard eyes watched them, ready with their stones to do the unthinkable….? The women pleading for their lives as their bodies slowly became unrecognisable, shapeless forms…? How would YOU feel if God asked you to do this kind of thing?
A typical answer to this would involve something about sin being generational or God’s need for holiness. But have I read and been told about a God of justice and punishing one person for anothers mistake isn’t just. If anyone can truly justify this decision by God I will give you a medal. (Seriously, I’ll mail it to you.)
This and so many other verses and decisions are something that Christians would never abide in today’s world. Yet we abide it in the pre-Christian world! Jesus didn’t invent morality.
The fact that Brett in his comment turned towards NT to justify the opposition to homosexuality shows what I mean - that without NT backup, an OT command is worthless.
I agree that the OT gives us a broader appreciation of the significance of the NT. This is a given. But a broader appreciation of God…. ? Depends on how you define the word appreciation.
“You need the Old Testament to understand the New Testament.”
Yes that is true. But as I said in my example yesterday, the Muslims need the Haditha to understand the Koran yet do not ascribe it the same level of holiness.
We can venerate it in some parts. Even just re-name it back to its Jewish name. And we can have a naming competition for the New Testament a la McDonalds (which has called its new burger the Backyard Burger. And it is very tasty, I’m a fan.)
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.matnewton.com/removing-the-old-testament-part-2/trackback/
October 20, 2007 at 1:24 am
Pingback from A couple of stats for this blog | MatNewton.com
August 30, 2007 at 10:07 am
Jon Newton
Getting rid of the OT isn’t a new idea, Mat. A guy called Marcion proposed that in the 2nd cent; he also wanted to exclude all NT books that were “too OT-ish”, e.g. Matthew, John, James, Revelation.
There are a couple of issues I can think of though:
1. The NT is fairly meaningless without the OT, e.g. whatever does “Jesus Christ” mean? What does it mean to call him, say, “Lamb of God” or even Saviour?
2. The NT is full of the OT; check it out in a reference Bible.
3. The Bible of early Christians was the OT; the NT was still being written.
4. Jesus clearly believed in the OT and saw it as Scripture, i.e. God’s Word.
5. The NT also has “difficult” passages, e.g. eternal torment in fire and sulphur.
That doesn’t wipe out the problems you have identified, but these points also need to be considered:
1. Within the OT is the old or Mosaic covenant, which was brought in in Exodus, purely for the nation of Israel, and superseded by the new covenant in Christ. hence the NT clearly shows we are not obliged to offer animals or abstain from pork.
2. Violent acts actually commanded by God (or done by God, e.g. the Flood) were acts of judgement on cultures that had had centuries to repent and were clearly vicious. These judgements helped rid the world of inveterate predatory cultures.
3. God postponed such actions a number of times, seeing them as a last resort to protect His world. cf Gen.6:3; 14:16; Jonah.
4. The OT is more than the book of Joshua. Where would we be without Psalms or Proverbs or the great prophetic books?
5. Jesus made it clear that “one off” events and legal details of the Law were not precedents for today. To justify vioence today from OT “precedent” is a complete misuse of the OT.
August 30, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Rosie Brehaut
Wow! Your dad is smart, Mat. I also thought his response to the Jim Reiher blog was measured and well considered.
Passages like the one you mentioned are kind of balanced for me by some of the stuff in the Psalms and also by the book of Job. Because the bible is the word of God, I think it’s significant that he included a book of complaint against himself, within which he defends Job’s right to complain. Like, yes we suffer, but we’re allowed to scream. (doesn’t sound terribly comforting, does it?) Our sense of justice was created and instilled into us by this God and he gets cross when we make excuses for him. Job 42:7
If the Old Testament is true, making it not a part of the bible will not change God’s actions in these two areas (and others we find abhorrent). It will just hide them. At least the fate of Achan’s family and the city of Ai is recorded. They are not forgotten. And if isn’t true then why did Jesus accept it as Holy Scripture and is he really the Son of God? Just as the Old Testament is not complete without the New Testament, the New Testament is not complete without the Old Testament. Neither are complete without Holy Spirit.
(sorry to go over some points that have already been mentioned. I just thought they were so good that I had to pretend they were mine.)