The Bible as One Book?

Making Sense of the Bible as One Book or Exploring the Difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament

Sermon for North Hill Adventist Fellowship

July 21, 2012

This is a wildly preliminary draft. Criticism most welcome, especially before 8 a.m. Pacific Time, July 21, 2012.

In reviewing suggestions for sermon topics I've received over the last year, one that shows up several times is: What do you make of the difference between the OT and NT? The OT seems severe and stern; the NT is more positive. How does that all hold together?

Obviously, for Christians the most admirable personality, the most authoritative theologian, the supreme teacher about spiritual life is Jesus. Some of the highlights of his teaching are passages like:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. Matthew 5:44, 45.

Jesus was accused of being a friend of sinners (Matthew 11:19). He was famous as a healer (Matthew 4:23-24). He was a defender of children (Matthew 18; Luke 18). What's not to like?

The most famous follower of Jesus, the evangelist Paul, wrote passages like these:

I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God's love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God's love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38-39.

If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn't love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. . . . Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. 1 Corinthians 13.

These passages epitomize the NT focus on love, grace, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, service. In contrast we think of OT passages like these:

And the LORD said, "I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing--all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them." Genesis 6:7. (God said this about the descendants of Adam and Eve only ten generations after the Creation.)

For my angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites, so you may live there. And I will destroy them completely. You must not worship the gods of these nations or serve them in any way or imitate their evil practices. Instead, you must utterly destroy them and smash their sacred pillars. Exodus 23:23-24. (Notice how the writer equates divine and human agency in the genocide.)

When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Deuteronomy 7:2. (No mercy?)

"The LORD also said to me, 'I have seen how stubborn and rebellious these people are. Leave me alone so I may destroy them and erase their name from under heaven. Then I will make a mighty nation of your descendants, a nation larger and more powerful than they are.' . . . The LORD was so angry with Aaron that he wanted to destroy him, too. But I prayed . . . , and the LORD spared . . . . Deuteronomy 9:13-20. (Moses is more merciful than God.)

The eternal God is your refuge, and his everlasting arms are under you. He drives out the enemy before you; he cries out, 'Destroy them!' Deuteronomy 32:27. (Protection and favor for Israel; annihilation for the natives—reminiscent of the thinking and practice of Christian Europeans vis-à-vis Native Americans.)

They replied, "We did it because we--your servants--were clearly told that the LORD your God commanded his servant Moses to give you this entire land and to destroy all the people living in it. So we feared greatly for our lives because of you. That is why we have done this. Joshua 9:24 (Here pagans testify they have heard about God's genocidal edict and are attempting to thwart it by interposing a relationship with Israel between themselves and God.)

Additional infamous OT stories that might come to mind: God's command for Abraham to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22), God's instantaneous execution of Uzzah for touching the ark—an instinctive, well-intentioned action (2 Samuel 6), God's failure to remove King David after he ordered the murder of Uriah in stark contrast to God's judgment against King Ahab for a similar act (2 Samuel 11ff; 1 Kings 21).

Official Adventist doctrine declares:

1. The Holy Scriptures: The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

According to the Church, the Bible in its entirety, OT and NT together, is the written Word of God. The whole Bible is “the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.”

However, given the stark contrasts we've seen above, we have to ask, What kind of interpretive process can we use so the Book speaks understandably to our lives, our times?

First, we have to recognize that I've cherry-picked extreme statements that exaggerate the difference between the OT and NT. There are passages in the OT that picture God as gracious and just, as the God of all humanity, not the petty God of the Jews only. For example, see Psalm 87, Isaiah 40-43, Daniel 4. And there are passages in the NT that make God appear vengeful and petty--John 3:17b, Revelation 14:7-11, Romans 1.

Still, there is a difference between the religion of the NT and the religion of the OT. So how do we think about this difference?

In contrast to classic conservatism (and even more so, fundamentalism) there is change across time. It's not uniform, linear growth, but in general, later is better. The book of Judges is written as an argument against the ways of “historic Israel.” In fact, it reads as a rebuttal to the argument referenced repeatedly in the first chapters of Samuel that Israel had been closer to God before they had a king. The writer of Judges recounts horrific stories then concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25). When the Jews were rebuilding their temple after its destruction and their decades of exile in Babylon, the prophet Haggai prophesied, “The future glory of this Temple will be greater than its past glory, says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. And in this place I will bring peace. I, the LORD of Heaven's Armies, have spoken!" The Jews were not to pine for the “good old days.” They were to anticipate the coming better days.

For the prophets change was not always bad. It was not deterioration or apostasy. Sometimes it was advancement. It was growth. Jeremiah writes nostalgically about the "ancient paths" in chapter 6 (Jeremiah 6:16). But in chapter 3 he writes about forgetting the Ark and not missing it! (Jeremiah 3:16). And in chapter 31, he writes about a new (and obviously superior) covenant (Jeremiah 31:31). The prophets certainly valued their heritage. They treasured the Word of God that had come through Moses and others across Israel's history. They also constantly pointed forward. They dismissed elements of Israel's religious heritage as mere history to be jettisoned from the living religion.

Most people familiar with the Bible see the spirituality and theology of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel as richer, wiser, truer than the more primitive theology of Moses. This is not meant as as denigration of Moses, but a recognition that God's people are capable of learning over time. If God is the teacher and Israel the student, it is reasonable to expect progress. Later lessons would build on earlier lessons, just as calculus builds on the knowledge of algebra and trigonometry.These prophets, who are revered as the wisest, most exalted preachers of God, did not see themselves as the pinnacle, as the last word.

Jeremiah's comment on the Ark is perhaps one of the most dramatic illustrations of the prophets' expectation of progress. 

"And when your land is once more filled with people," says the LORD, "you will no longer wish for 'the good old days' when you possessed the Ark of the LORD's Covenant. You will not miss those days or even remember them, and there will be no need to rebuild the Ark Jeremiah 3:16).

Even the Ark, the box which carried with it God's dazzling, even deadly, radiance, was expected to become a mere artifact of history. It was not an eternal sacrament, an eternal temple of God's presence. If the Ark was expected to fade into mere history, why would we be surprised if some theological understandings associated chronologically with the Ark also faded from relevance and were replaced with brighter, clearer, truer vision?

From the days of the apostles, Christians have seen Jesus as the great leap forward, the grand, climactic revelation of God. This is voiced by passages such as:

Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. The Son radiates God's own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command. When he had cleansed us from our sins, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven. Hebrews 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word. And the word was with God. And the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. The word became flesh and dwelt among us. No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God,* is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us (John 1:1-18, passim).

Some theological traditions have elevated the writings of the Apostle Paul to the status of “final, most accurate theology.” I flat-out deny this. Paul is not the ultimate interpreter of God or of Christ. Jesus remains superior to Paul. And Jesus himself pointed beyond his own words and deeds to the ministry of his successors.

"I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father. John 12:14

"There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can't bear it now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. John 16:12, 13.

Peter affirmed this creative role of people after Jesus when he made his speech in Jerusalem about the need to innovate in theological and religious practice.

At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: "Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe. God knows people's hearts, and he confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith. So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers* with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus." Everyone listened quietly as Barnabas and Paul told about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. Acts 15:7-12

Peter bases his argument for change on two things: human well-being and the contemporary testimony of the Spirit. Note, Peter does not quote any Bible passage. He trusts the experience of God's people, both over time—the long history of the Jewish people with the strict Mosaic rules—and in the immediate present—the visible outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles at Cornelious' house. On the basis of that experience, he corrects Scripture!

As children of the Apostles I think we are not only “allowed” to do this, we are required to do this. Christians have already done this in rejecting polygamy and slavery even though the Bible explicitly allows for both.

What principles should guide us as we decided what elements in the Bible are enduring, and which are time- or culture-limited?

We follow the example of Jesus is putting morality ahead of religiosity. In Matthew 15 and Mark 7, Jesus is challenged for allowing his disciples to violate long standing Jewish tradition. Jesus responds by citing the example of David violating even more impressively credentialed rules for the well-being of his men. Then cites the OT truism: I prefer mercy, not sacrifice.

Jesus refines his definition of this commanding morality in Luke 13, where he blatantly confronts Jewish Sabbath-keeping with the need of a disabled woman. The well-being of this woman outweighed hundreds of years of Jewish practice based squarely on the Ten Commandments. 

The goal of Scripture is the revelation of God. (John 1:1-12). We test our correct understanding of that revelation by how our understanding affects the well-being of people.

Just as the Ark was expected to fade into history as people came to a richer, deeper understanding of the ubiquity of God, so some of the old pictures of God are now seen as outdated. God the despotic king is no longer a helpful metaphor for understanding God. God as the stern, partial father, favoring his Son or his family over all claims of justice and equity is a defective view. It does not lead to human well-being. Instead we will rely on our more modern understanding of good fathering as a more trustworthy image of God.

The church has already moved dramatically away from certain elements of the Bible, taken literally. We reject slavery no matter how "humanitarian" the masters are. We reject Paul's idea that woman should not speak in church and should not exercise authority over men. (The most authoritative voice in the Adventist Church is that of a dead woman.) We reject polygamy. We reject the New Testament's blanket rejection of remarriage after divorce. We reject the notion of eternal torment (even though it is mentioned in the signature passage for Adventist identity (Revelation 14).

We have moved away from these things because of our commitment to progressing with God in his mission to humanity and our commitment to following the Spirit's guidance as we grow into a fuller understanding of the character of God.

Note:  I'll be interested to see how this trajectory of Christian interpretation plays out in our understanding of how to deal Christianly with homosexuality.