Study 9 How important is the Old Testament?
The Hebrew people were encouraged to view their past religious history as a contemporary experience, that could and should be entered into in the present. They thought of their history as always contemporary. In Deuteronomy 5:2‑3 -
The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our forefathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, all of us who are alive and are here this day.
The story of God’s revelation to the Hebrews on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19 also has the story of the giving of the Law - the 10 Commandments.) is transformed from a single moment in history into a universal happening with which all Jews could identify, in which all Jews could and should participate. They understood their present in terms of their past. They understood their past in terms of their present.
In Christian worship we do the same sort of thing about past events which can be entered into in the present. Looking at John 15:11‑12, the author paints the picture of Jesus talking with his disciples during the last meal that he ate with them. Jesus says -
I have spoken thus to you, so that my joy may be in you, and your joy complete. This is my commandment: Love one another, as I have loved you.
We can accept this as if it were spoken to us today. In the gospel, these words were spoken to the disciples but to speak of it like the Deuteronomy passage on the previous page, it would declare, -
It was not to the disciples that the Lord gave this commandment, but to us, all of us who are alive and are here this day.
One of the Hymns, No 261 in the Australian Hymnbook, takes the idea further by asking, ‘Were you there when they crucified my Lord?’, ‘Were you there when they nailed him to the tree?’, ‘Were you there when they pierced Him in the side?’, etc.
Obviously not, literally. But, for the worshipper, very much so spiritually. Just the same with the Jews and the Mt. Horeb/Mt. Sinai event. We do this all the time - travelling through time and space to make connections.
The questions arise, ‘How far back must we go, doing this sort of identifying with the past? Do we need to accept the Old Testament as well as the New Testament?’ There was no such question for the first followers of Jesus. The Old Testament was a given. Being mostly Jews, the first followers of Jesus already had their Scriptures.
When dealing with the earliest Christian era, we need to accept some important facts.
· Christianity was born in the midst of a people who already possessed Scriptures.
· From the beginning, the early Christian community claimed the Hebrew Scriptures as its own.
· The writers of the New Testament interpreted the events of Jesus’ life in the light of these ancient Scriptures.
· The Old Testament provided the building blocks of their religious understanding.
Particularly the last point above, raises the questions, ‘Can we understand and accept the New Testament, the Gospel and a faith in Jesus Christ without the Old Testament? How much should Christians rely on the Old Testament, if at all?’
The conquest of the ‘Promised Land’
Quoting from an article by George Tinker ‘Reading the Bible as Native Americans’ in the New Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 1. p 174 -
Each Native American tribal community in North America had a relationship with God as Creator that was healthy and responsible long before they knew of or confessed the gospel of Jesus Christ. That relationship with the Creator was solidified in the stories they told around the camp fires, in their prayers, and especially in their ceremonies. Many Native American Christians today would claim their own histories, cultural traditions, narratives, and traditional ceremonies as the appropriate traditional covenant (equivalent to an Old Testament) for their communities. The imposition of the Hebrew Bible on Native American Christians as an old testament functions in two dysfunctional ways in Native American communities. First, it functions to proscribe (or disallow) the validity of Native American traditions. Secondly, it inherently prescribes (or makes necessary) replacing one’s own history with someone else’s history as a prerequisite for conversion.
Those of us who are Anglo‑Saxon Australians don’t have such a problem, however that does not mean that no problem exists! As Anglo‑Saxons we don’t go to the ancient traditions of England, Scotland or Ireland to find a meaningful old covenant, old testament, a pre‑Christ understanding of God’s dealings with humanity or a pre‑Christ self‑revelation of God. We have always had the Hebrew Old Testament ‑ Old Covenant, in which we have the setting for our Christian faith.
But do we have the right to require people who have a different ancient tradition to abandon it or discount it, replacing it with another which is foreign to them?
Is the Hebrew tradition/history/story more important than that of the Native Americans? Is an acceptance of the Hebrew pre‑Christ theological understanding of God a pre‑requisite to an adequate appreciation of the message of Jesus? If the advent of Jesus Christ is a New Covenant, how significant is its link to the Hebrew Old Covenant? Do we need the Old covenant to grasp the implications of the New?
To continue from the article from the New Interpreter's Bible by George Tinker in Vol. 1. p 175 -
The Israelite conquest (told in the book of Joshua) has little historical affinity with the Native American experience. To the contrary, the closest analogy to native American history in the Old Testament seems to be the experience of the Canaanites, dispossessed of their land and annihilated by a foreign invader. In Native American eyes, the liberation of Israel (from Egypt) is inexorably linked to the conquest and destruction of the Canaanites.
The early Hebrew story, in the first few books of the Old Testament, in précis form could be something like ‑
Abraham leaves Ur of the Chaldees and, with his family, settles peacefully in the land of Canaan. His great grandson, Joseph, with his ten brothers and all their families go to Egypt to escape a famine. They settle in Egypt and because of the rapid growth in the numbers of their descendants, become a perceived threat to the King of Egypt. A Pharaoh, who did not know Joseph, made these Hebrew foreigners, slaves. Moses hears the call of God ‘to set my people free'.
After the 10 plagues, the Exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, the Law giving on Mt. Sinai (Mt.Horeb), the Hebrews wander for forty years in the wilderness. After this, Joshua leads them in the military conquest of the Promised Land. Having succeeded in their bloody conquest, they settle in Canaan.
All these stories are connected in a reasonably continuous narrative. Joshua’s conquering of the Promised land is the part of the story that follows the escape from slavery and the exodus. This is why, to quote again - In Native American eyes, the liberation of Israel (from Egypt) is inexorably linked to the conquest and destruction of the Canaanites.
Another example of this same problem is the case of the Australian Aborigines. They have very ancient stories, a culture dating back for many thousands of years. Do they have to abandon this in favour of the Hebrew set of stories?
Australian Aborigines identify with the story of Abraham settling in Canaan (See Genesis 12:6‑8, 13:6‑8&12, 14:18‑20, 21:34, 23:1‑20), a story of coexistence, mutual respect for laws, customs and religion. Abraham was a man of peace. Some of the story is stated in Genesis 13:12 -
Abram settled in the land of Canaan.
and in Genesis 21:34 -
There he (Abraham) invoked the Lord, the everlasting God, by name, and he lived as an alien in the country of the Philistines for many a year.
and in Genesis 23:3-7 -
He said to the Hittites, “I am an alien and a settler among you. Give me land enough for a burial-place, so that I can give my dead a proper burial.” The Hittites answered Abraham, “Do, pray, listen to what we have to say, sir. You are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the best grave we have. There is none of us who will deny you his grave or hinder you from burying your dead.” Abraham stood up and then bowed low to the Hittites, the people of that country.
Much of the following sentiment is stated in a book of Aboriginal Theology called ‘Rainbow Spirit Theology’. I quote -
For Australian Aborigines, the Abraham story is the model for how indigenous and immigrant people are to live together. Abraham, the peacemaker, respected the peoples of the land and their laws. Aborigines ask the same. Abraham recognised the god of the land. Aborigines ask the same.
Abraham and the peoples of the land coexisted and shared mutual blessings. Aborigines ask the same.
When the history of the Australian Aborigine is known, it can be appreciated why this is the case. White settlers ‘confiscated’ all the land they wanted and massacres of black people by white people took place as early as 1804 and some very serious ones took place in the 1830’s and 40’s. In a famous case, when white people were being tried for murder, part of the defence was stated, ‘We were not aware that by killing the blacks we were violating the law ..... as it has been so frequently done before’.
Those who, in their national history, have been conquered and have had their land stolen and occupied identify with the Abraham story rather than with the story of Joshua's military conquest that is told in the book of Joshua. The only war that Abraham ever fought was in order to rescue his nephew Lot, after he had been taken captive by ‘the four kings’; the story told in Genesis 14:12‑16.
Particularly after the Exodus, the Hebrew story could be, for the Australian Aborigines, one in which they also identify with the Canaanites, just like the American Natives, and to some extent maybe by other colonialised nations. Aborigines have been massacred and deprived of their land. Like the Canaanites?
What does it mean to the Australian Aborigines or the native Americans (the red Indians) or the Canadian Indians, or other colonialised nations experiencing occupation, that they must accept as good or a necessary part of the plan of God for his chosen people that Joshua led violent conquests, in which there was theft of land and resources and then a subsequent continuing occupation. Should the Australian Aborigines and other disadvantaged peoples have to accept the old Hebrew testament, the old Hebrew covenant? Should they have to abandon their own ancient culture and their own old covenant as a pre‑requisite for conversion to Christianity? The answer is surely not just a simple 'Yes' or 'No'.
A major problem emerges because the story of the Exodus from slavery is a central story on which much liberation theology is built. God is seen as the liberator, the One on the side of the slaves. Very differently from the Native American, the Negro American group, is one of many that identifies very much with the Exodus and thus, by implication although not emphasised, with the stories of the violent conquest. With a history of slavery, the Negro American identifies with stories that tell of freedom. Others who have a history of slavery but whose history does not include a loss of traditional land, also identify with the Exodus.
Sacrifice.
Another major issue can arise when we consider some of the basic aspects of ancient Hebrew religious understanding. The Old Testament Hebrew religion was built around a sacrificial system. We are told many times that, ‘so and so’ built an altar to the Lord and ‘offered a sacrifice’
.
A sacrifice, sometimes referred to as a burnt offering, was understood as being a gift to God. Some sacrifices were burnt and were thus no longer useable by the one making the sacrifice. The flame and the smoke of the sacrifice, it was believed, ascended into the presence of God and hopefully was accepted. If it was accepted then blessing would flow from it.
Some sacrifices symbolised the forgiveness of sins. If a sacrifice involved an animal or bird, it always brought about its death. Some animals were killed on the sacrificial altar and others were sent out into the wilderness to die. Both ended in death.
Following the tradition of many centuries, once a year on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest made a special sacrifice in the Holy of Holies, the most holy place in the Jerusalem temple. This was an offering of blood, for the sins of all the people. This was the most sacred event of the Jewish year.
Hebrews 9:11‑14 gives a comment on the meaning of the cross in Old Testament terms and symbols connected with sacrifice; -
But now Christ has come, high priest of good things already in being. The Tent of his priesthood is a greater and more perfect one, not made by men’s hands, that is, not belonging to this created world; the blood of this sacrifice is his own blood, not the blood of goats and calves; and thus he has entered the sanctuary once and for all and secured an eternal deliverance. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkled ashes of a heifer have power to hallow, those who have been defiled and restore their external purity, how much greater is the power of the blood of Christ; he offered himself without blemish to God, a spiritual and eternal sacrifice; and his blood will cleanse our conscience from the deadness of our former ways and fit us for the service of the living God.
How does it affect our understanding of the Cross of Jesus, if we don’t accept the Old Testament Hebrew understanding of sacrifice, and the part it plays in our relationship with God? What if we don’t believe that the death of Jesus was a blood sacrifice for sin?
Yet, regarding sacrifice, should not something be said like, ‘Significant things do not come without cost? What of the sacrifice of those who die for freedom and justice? What of the sacrifice that people make on behalf of others. Sacrifice can often bring with it significant benefit. Sacrifice is an essential part of the nature of existence.’
Having said all this however, does a sacrificial ceremony have relevance to our relationship with God? Is the life and death of Jesus to be seen only in the context of the Old Testament understandings of sacrifice? Where does a sacrificial emphasis of the cross of Jesus lead us, regarding our understanding of God and human responsibility and accountability'? What does a sacrificial death of Jesus suggest regarding our concept of God?
Other issues.
There are many matters, other than the conquest and sacrifice issues, that could be raised. There are the connections that New Testament writers make between the universality of human sin and the sin of Adam and Eve. There are connections made between Adam and Eve stories and original sin, as well as the appropriate roles and responsibilities of males and females. There are many references in the New Testament to ‘the old Israel’, to ‘the Law’, to ‘the prophets’. Links to the Old Testament crop up right throughout the New Testament. Are all these to be ignored?
One might question whether some of the teachings of the Old Testament, on which the New Testament builds, are helpful or not. Consider such matters as sex, homosexuality, slavery, rewards and punishments dealt out by God, just to name a few.
On one side of this whole issue regarding the importance of the Old Testament, is the fact that many of the sayings, conversations, stories, challenges, directives, commandments, disputes, attitudes and emphases in the New Testament would not be understood, if the Old Testament was ignored or not referred to. Set in the context of Old Testament history and religion, much of the New Testament becomes more understandable and its meanings become more transparent. Their basis is in the Old Testament.
If we disregard the Old Testament, numerous quotations from references to, and comparisons with the Old Testament, either explicitly stated, or implicitly assumed in the New Testament, would have to be disregarded or could go unnoticed. Sabbath keeping issues, the Messiah and connected expectations, Son of Man concepts, religious purity, hospitality responsibilities, covenant principles and practices, etc., would be of little consequence or could be completely misunderstood without reference to the Old Testament.
It is reasonable to think that many subjects the New Testament deals with, would be meaningless without the Old Testament. One might say that reading or studying the New Testament without the Old Testament background would be like trying to do mathematics without being able to count, like trying to build a wooden house without a hammer and nails.
But on the other side, in the Old Testament, we have the image of a very violent god. We have numerous misdeeds for which the death penalty is imposed. We have covenants between God and Jewish patriarchs that are supposed to last for ever. We have directives that promote ethnic cleansing. We have slavery practised without question. We have the violent repression of women. We have fear and terror being commended as appropriate attitudes with which to approach God. One could go on!
These issues cannot be ignored. They must be addressed if the Old Testament is to be taken seriously.
Questions for discussion
Are there any matters of belief that accompany our acceptance of Jesus Christ and a New Testament faith, that do not rely on an Old Testament foundation? If so, what are they, and are they important?
Are all the Old Testament concepts important? If not, how do we decide which are the important ones and which are not?
Is the Old Testament necessary for an adequate understanding of the New Testament? If it is, what do we say to people of those cultures and races that have a different and significant ancient set of myths, stories and beliefs, the emphases of which they wish to retain, while still affirming their Christian beliefs and commitment?
If the Old Testament is not important, where do we find a basis for our understanding of the New Testament?
What would be gained by throwing the Old Testament away? What would be lost? Would it be significant?
Who are right - the Negro Americans or the Native Americans? Can both be right?
What do we say to the Australian Aborigines about their ancient culture and religious myths?
Print Booklet (Download and print double-side, flip on short edge) The text of the bookblets has been edited somewhat and because there are many pictures in the booklets, all reference to them has been omitted.