The New Testament: Orthodoxy and Heresy

[Túrin Turambar]

Does this mean that the instructions Jesus gives in the Synoptic Gospels were entirely valid and complete at the time, but have since been added to/superseded following his death and resurrection?

Yes, I think that is basically the case. Jesus was in the position of having to teach about a new dynamic that would only come into effect after his death and resurrection. Keep in mind that Jesus was operating within the limitations of what it means to be human, which means that in His capacity as a man, His understanding was gained through study, prayer and revelation by the Holy Spirit. He was not exercising in His ministry the omniscience and omnipotence that was His as God. The guidance He gave therefore could only be in the context of the old covenant, which was still the active paradigm and the covenant under which He himself was operating.

So therefore, can we basically discard Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels as outdated?

They say “it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit...”. Question: Does this mean that a group of Christian leaders could today come to the conclusion through debate and prayer that ‘it seems good to them and the Holy Spirit’ that, say, homosexuality should no longer be considered a sin?

First I want to correct your phrasing there. It isn't homosexuality (orientation), but sexual practices, not limited to homosexual practices, that are spoken of as sin.

I think there are a couple of important differences between the scenario that MithLuin laid out and the example you give. Firstly, the church then was being established. We have the New Testament to rely on, but they were the New Testament, being written, as it were, as they lived their faith. Secondly, this was an enormous, fundamental decision upon which the fate of the new church would hang. How would gentiles be incorporated into the faith? Would they move forward with the new covenant or go back to the old? A group of leaders today considering homosexuality are not confronting something new about which the church has never before received revelation and instruction, nor is the issue so fundamental doctrinally. My view is that no, principles that are clearly set forth in the Bible are not open for reconsideration. Or put another way, the Holy Spirit would not give guidance to Christians today that is contrary to the guidance given to the early church.

But he apparently gave guidance there contrary to the Old Testament and the explicit teachings of Jesus.

Perhaps there could be an ‘Even Newer Testament’...

John does not have the same urgency as the Synoptics.

That seems quite subjective. Would you care to give some context to 'urgency'?

I find the absence of the eschatological prophecy of Matthew 26:14-16, Mark 13:1-42 and Luke 21:11-24 (basically Jesus’ statements that the Kingdom of God is coming shortly that I discussed in the first post) to be significant.

The Gospel of John is instrumental to modern Christianity. John 3:16 (‘for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son...’) is basically a summary of Christianity in one line, even though none of the other Gospels endorse the concept.

It seems to me that that verse is a basic summation of the events described in the other gospels. They don't 'endorse' the concept because they detail the events that taken together represent the concept.

They don’t give God’s motivation, however.

It is probably due to Marcion that the Old and New Testaments are separate today, rather than Matthew being tacked straight onto Malachi.

I always thought it was simply a matter of the Old Testament being in Hebrew, and the new in Greek.

I understand that Greek translations of the Old Testament were widespread at the time, and that the Old Testament had passages written originally in both Hebrew and Aramic. There’s some speculation that some books of the New Testament may have originally been written in Aramic (and Jesus certainly preached in that language).

[Cerin]

So therefore, can we basically discard Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels as outdated?

Certainly not. But neither can they be considered to be complete. In other words, you've expressed concern that theological principals presented in the letters are not present in the gospels. I'm suggesting that the reason these principles are not elucidated in the gospels is because the events from which those principles arise had not yet occurred at the time of Jesus' teaching.

The Gospels build upon the Old Testament, and the letters build upon the Gospels. None of it is irrelevant, none of it is outdated.

But he apparently gave guidance there contrary to the Old Testament and the explicit teachings of Jesus.

Do you mean the Holy Spirit? He did not give guidance contrary to the Old Testament and the explicit teachings of Jesus. The new covenant in Jesus' blood (I'm speaking doctrinally) was not contrary to the old convenant, it fulfilled it and thereby superceded it. Anyone who trusts in Jesus for their salvation is acting consistently with the old covenant and the law because it was through them that Jesus became the substitutionary sacrifice.

[Túrin Turambar]

We have the New Testament to rely on, but they were the New Testament, being written, as it were, as they lived their faith.

As a side note, what is the Protestant position on the cut off for divine guidance and inerrancy? In other words, why are the works of theologians like Paul of Tarsus and James the Just in the New Testament, but not the later works of theologians like Irenaeus and Augustine of Hippo?

I understand (Mith will need to correct me on this) that Catholics accept that the church, and particularly the Pope, are divinely guided to this day, although obviously their works are not on the same level as scripture. Still, the idea of accepting a divinely-guided church and divinely-guided works from the Popes seems reasonable to me in light of the fact that the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem and the writings of the first generation of church fathers are scripture.

[Cerin]

As a side note, what is the Protestant position on the cut off for divine guidance and inerrancy? In other words, why are the works of theologians like Paul of Tarsus and James the Just in the New Testament, but not the later works of theologians like Irenaeus and Augustine of Hippo?

Sorry, I can't help you there, Lord_M. Maybe someone else reading along is knowledgeable about that.

[MithLuin]

Ah, you have stumbled upon the concept of Church Fathers and Tradition.

Hmmm, how to put this succinctly... Scripture is inspired by God, which means that God (the Holy Spirit) breathes the words of scripture through the writers. They (being writers) do the actual writing, but since they're inspired by God, what they write holds more weight than me typing away on this laptop. They get it right; I'm just guessing. That's the authority of Scripture; all Christians recognize this.

When the Church was starting up, some people were instrumental in guiding it, in hammering out the theology (what was orthodox and what was heterodox) and establishing the norms for Christianity. These people, the Church Fathers, are generally recognized as holy men, saints, and their writings are also given a lot of weight, though they are interpretted in light of Scripture (not the other way around). So saying "Augustine said..." or "John Climacus said..." or "John Chrysostom said..." or "Ireneus said..." gives an indication of what the early Church (2nd - 6th century) believed and taught. Later Christians look back on these writings for guidance, to see how close they are to that place. Different branches of Christianity give them different weight/importance, but I think most everyone respects them to some extent. (The Orthodox are the most reverential towards the early Church Fathers, I think.) As for why they aren't included in the Scriptures? The Church said so - the canon of the Bible was determined by Church Council. For Protestants...the canon was revised slightly by Martin Luther, but has not been changed since that time. It is generally recognized that the canon is now closed (though of course the Mormons added a book - one reason other Christians don't consider their Church to be Christian, or at least view it with deep suspicion).

A Catholic view of Church history is that the Church is the Bride of Christ and that he has given her the Holy Spirit to guide her throughout history. So, the Magisterium has teaching authority granted by God (not just the pope - the bishops, collectively). In addition, other people (ie, Doctors of the Church) contribute what is needed at different times in history.

But this is not a blank ticket to reinvent things - the Magisterium is to interpret, not rewrite. The idea is that the Truth doesn't change - it can just be explained in different ways at different times. So, everything has to be seen in light of scripture, and the Tradition of what was taught before. Revelation (God revealing himself and his intentions to humanity) ended with Jesus - there is no 'new' truth being revealed. It is that same truth, constantly put forward, again and again. So, we can grow in our understanding, but there is no secret knowledge that hasn't been revealed but will be or anything like that (sorry, Gnostics!)

All forms of Christianity are about a relationship with God, so it's not surprising to see a model of the Holy Spirit continuing to inspire and teach members of a religious community. Even in a very non-hierarchical church, you would not have trouble explaining this idea.

But that continuity means that you can't take just any idea and suddenly say, "God said so." There has to be some basis in Scripture and/or the Fathers for making the pronouncement. The Church does not have authority to change the rules, but only to reinterpret them. For this reason, the Church always looks at the reasoning behind the practices or rules, to see how they would apply in a new situation. It's like what Hanibal Lecter told Clarice Starling - you go back to first principles.

[Lalaith]

ETA: cross-posted with Mith

Actually, Protestants have the Catholic Church to thank for the books that comprise the canon of Scripture, with the obvious exception of the controversial Apocrypha. Or, well, one could say that we all have God to thank for it, as we do believe he guided the entire process. Of course, that's rather intangible, but we can look at the tangible, human process that went into putting together the Bible.

This about sums up a typical Protestant view of how the Bible came into being:

Determining the canon was a process, first by Jewish rabbis and scholars, and then later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by 250 A.D. there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

(From here: http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html I don't know anything about this site, btw. It was just one of the first that came up when I started looking for an article on this subject.)

To answer your question of why Paul and not Irenaeus or why James and not Augustine, I would say that the latter fail the test of being either an apostle or a close associate of an apostle. Of course, both are considered Early Church Fathers, and their works are highly respected and valued as being extremely important.

[Túrin Turambar]

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

It’s interesting to read this and consider the alternative – for the New Testament to keep growing over 1500 years or more in the same way as the Old. Of course, the OT wasn’t really canonised until fairly late in the picture, but the scriptures retained their religious significance even while new ones were being written. Nevertheless, I can easily envision a modern council trying to decide if the work of some or the other theologian should be considered divinely inspired and turned into the 63rd book of the NT. After all, at least one person tried to pull off the new, modern revelation thing (and succeeded as far as the twelve million-odd members of the church he founded are concerned).

After a fairly stressful drive into the city earlier in the week I can certainly think of a few verses we could use. Morningstar 3:14-15 “And he that driveth at eighty kilometres per hour in the overtaking lane, the wrath of the LORD shall be upon him. And verily I say unto you, that he that is a stranger to his left and right indicators will find the LORD a stranger to him when he stands before his seat.”

All flippancy aside, I find some of the most interesting cases to be those that are near the cut-off. The Gospel of the Hebrews, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, Paul’s Third Epistle to the Corinithians and the Apocalypse of Peter were all widespread in early Christian communities but didn’t make the cut. Similarly, Revelations (the Apocalypse of John of Patmos) has faced challenges almost up until modern times. At least one canon included the Gospel of Thomas as an appendix up until the mid-fourth century.

Eusebius summarises the state of the canon in the early 4th century with the following passage in The Divine Scriptures which are accepted and those that are not.

Also, it’s interesting to read 1) and consider the disputed authorship of Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy and 2 & 3 John and the unknown authorship of Hebrews. Most of those works fit in well with 2), 3) and 4), but the Epistles to Timothy seem to contain some unorthodox teaching (such as their apparent support for universalism I noted upthread). Could books be axed from the Bible if subsequent scholarship found that they did not measure up to those four standards?

Finally, here’s my interesting observation from the Gospel of John. It, alone of all of the books of the Bible, Old and New Testament, seems to suggest that Satan rather than God is ruler of the corporeal world:

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh.

Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Granted it isn’t the same title as the other books give to God, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

[yovargas]

After all, at least one person tried to pull off the new, modern revelation thing

My family's religion, Seventh-Day Adventism, was founded by such a person.

[Túrin Turambar]

After all, at least one person tried to pull off the new, modern revelation thing

My family's religion, Seventh-Day Adventism, was founded by such a person.

I was actually thinking of Joseph Smith and Mormonism (and he went so far as to actually write an 'even newer testament') but the SDA church is another good example.

[Lalaith]

John is the one Gospel I have done an extremely thorough and in-depth Bible study of, and I realize as you write things, LordM, how much of my theology is based upon it.

IOW, I'm thinking, "Of course Satan is the ruler of this world," but now I'll have to go hunt for another book that says so.

So let's see...

He is called the god of this world in II Corinthians 4:4:

...in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

He is called the prince of the power of the air in Ephesians 2:2:

...in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

Some of the other Scriptures that lend credence to this belief would include the time when Satan tempted Jesus. The last temptation offered to Jesus was all of the kingdoms of the world and their glory. Why this? Because these were within Satan's power to offer. That is, Satan could truly offer Jesus the kingdoms of the earth.

Another passage that comes to mind is from Revelation. You see in chapters 4 and 5 that Jesus (the Lamb who was slain) is the only one worthy to break the seals on the book, the title deed to the earth (which man lost the right to and Satan had usurped). (Of course, that's my interpretation--but my interpretation after years of study on the subject.)

As for the canon of Scripture, I do think it's interesting to think about those books that were close to making the cut but were ultimately put aside. In fact, I keep meaning to read them.

And, I do not mean to be offensive, but I would say that any additions made after the time of the apostles send up a red flag to me. It is often one of the criteria used by mainstream Christian churches to identify a church or religion that we would consider non-Christian.

[Cerin]

Finally, here’s my interesting observation from the Gospel of John. It, alone of all of the books of the Bible, Old and New Testament, seems to suggest that Satan rather than God is ruler of the corporeal world:

Agreeing with Lalaith, that that isn't the case. There are several references throughout the gospels and letters, to Satan ruling on earth (meaning, through the agencies of sinful man). I'll try and compile some additional ones as I find the time.

Granted it isn’t the same title as the other books give to God, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

Did you mean to say, it isn't the same title as the other books give to Satan?

[MithLuin]

...but in the beginning it was not so.

In other words, Satan being the ruler of this world was one of those disordered things that Jesus came to fix. God is ultimately the ruler of....everything...but Satan does have the freedom to run amok here...for the time being.

The contrast between "this world" and "the Kingdom of heaven" is a common enough theme.

"He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing." Isaiah 40:23

"So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?" Luke 16:11

"We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us." 1 Corinthians 2:12

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." 2 Corinthians 10:3-4

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Ephesians 6:12


...all ties in with "He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him." John 1:10

I'll readily admit that this language is more common in John, but it is not unique to John. I agree with Lali that "worthy is the lamb who was slain" to sit upon the throne speaks to a change in the current arrangement. The princedom is....temporary, and the prince will be overthrown (or was, or....time gets a bit hairy when speaking of eternal truths....)

It may seem dualistic, but there are interpretations besides the Gnostic for what is going on here. It is not a case of "body bad, spirit good" or "earth bad, heaven good." It raises the question of...why do we need morality? Why do we sin at all? Why can't everyone just be nice and get along? Why do those other drivers behave so atrociously ?


God created the world, and said that it was good (see Genesis 1). But sin and corruption entered his creation through the choices of Adam and Eve (and Satan, if we're fair about this). So, that corruption is what needs redemption, and that is what makes Satan prince of this world - there's really not an escape from human concupiscence. Rather than just naturally loving everyone and being in good relationships, we have this bad habit of hurting other people because we selfishly are only interested in what we want. It's part of human nature to be that way, but...it was not part of the original design in Genesis. Or rather, at that point, those desires were there, but pretty naturally held in check by human will and reason. Adam and Eve made choices - they were not 'compelled' to sin. We also make choices, but we have more of a struggle to contend with (hence the need for divine grace if we hope to overcome any of that). [The 1908 Catholic encyclopedia has a decent article on concupiscence, if you are interested.] Baptism does not take away concupiscence, but does give us access to those graces. [Any system that suggests a method of dealing with this problem apart from God's grace is not Christian.]


Oh, and on the "Why can Christians put shrimp, ham and sausage in their jambalaya?" question, it wasn't just Peter and Paul who said so. Jesus did, too - in the synoptic gospels.

And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Mark 7: 14-23

(Oh, I have been using the NIV, NAB and KJV translations indiscriminately. If anyone has a preference, I can pick one and stick with it. Here is the same passage in the NIV and NAB)

This follows along with the Sermon on the Mount - "but I say to you..." it's the internal stuff that matters, not the external. Not that there's anything wrong with washing your hands, but that physical cleanliness misses the issue of spiritual purity. Having a clean heart is....something else entirely, and ultimately more important. This is Jesus' message throughout the gospels. His death and resurrection offer a way that can happen. The reason we can't just 'do what he says' while ignoring the whole death and resurrection thing is that...there is a problem. It's not as simple as just deciding to be good and do the right thing (though that would help, too!) It's a matter of having the will and the internal desire to carry this out, and as anyone who has ever tried to break a bad habit realizes, that transformation tends to be difficult and painful. Grace is what makes it possible and less miserable.

[Túrin Turambar]

IOW, I'm thinking, "Of course Satan is the ruler of this world," but now I'll have to go hunt for another book that says so.

So let's see...

He is called the god of this world in II Corinthians 4:4:

...in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

He is called the prince of the power of the air in Ephesians 2:2:

...in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

I actually disregarded those because I thought that Paul also claimed that God is the Lord of the world. In retrospect I can’t find a single cases – therefore Paul and John both seem inclined to that view.

But not necessarily Luke – he refers to God as ‘Lord of Heaven and Earth’ in Luke 10:21 and Acts 17:24. Then again, he also recounts Satan’s temptation of Jesus .

The bigger issue is the Old Testament, which affirms God’s lordship over the earth something like two dozen times (for example, my reading of the book of Job is that God actually needs to grant Satan the specific power to wreck Job’s life).

Some of the other Scriptures that lend credence to this belief would include the time when Satan tempted Jesus. The last temptation offered to Jesus was all of the kingdoms of the world and their glory. Why this? Because these were within Satan's power to offer. That is, Satan could truly offer Jesus the kingdoms of the earth.

Interesting – I knew of the temptation of Jesus but assumed that Satan didn’t actually have the power to grant him what he was offering. Sort of like the false promises of the One Ring.

Another passage that comes to mind is from Revelation. You see in chapters 4 and 5 that Jesus (the Lamb who was slain) is the only one worthy to break the seals on the book, the title deed to the earth (which man lost the right to and Satan had usurped). (Of course, that's my interpretation--but my interpretation after years of study on the subject.)

That makes sense, although to be honest I think that what the Book of Revelation actually means in anyone’s guess. If it is to be taken literally it has serious issues (the stars fall to earth, for example), and if not, then it’s probably a whole thread to itself. God does imprison Satan and release him in Chapter 20, but I’m not sure what it says on what he was doing before he was imprisoned.

And, I do not mean to be offensive, but I would say that any additions made after the time of the apostles send up a red flag to me. It is often one of the criteria used by mainstream Christian churches to identify a church or religion that we would consider non-Christian.

How much later? Some of the books certainly date to the early second century.

Oh, and on the "Why can Christians put shrimp, ham and sausage in their jambalaya?" question, it wasn't just Peter and Paul who said so. Jesus did, too - in the synoptic gospels.

So he did. But he also said that ‘not one letter of the law’ should be disregarded .

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The bigger issue is the Old Testament, which affirms God’s lordship over the earth something like two dozen times (for example, my reading of the book of Job is that God actually needs to grant Satan the specific power to wreck Job’s life).

That's correct. Satan does not have any power to do anything himself without God's permission. But then I really don't know that you can completely equate the Torah with the Christian Old Testament because I don't think they mean the same things to Jews and Christians (not that there is necessarily consistency within the two broad groups, either). For instance, it is my understanding that the Talmud says that Job did not really exist; that he was a parable. That certainly would not jibe with the beliefs of a Christian literalist who believed in the literal truth of all of the Bible. At least I don't think it would, unless I am missing something.

[solicitr]

For instance, it is my understanding that the Talmud says that Job did not really exist; that he was a parable. That certainly would not jibe with the beliefs of a Christian literalist who believed in the literal truth of all of the Bible. At least I don't think it would, unless I am missing something.

Well, what you may be missing is that only a minority of Christians are Biblical literalists. Moreover, even in earliest days the division of the Old Testament classed Job with the 'Wisdom' books along with Song of Solomon and Psalms and Proverbs, not with the 'Histories' (Joshua through Chronicles): even back when most Christians took those literally, Job was always understood to be a fable.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That was badly put on my part. Of course I do understand that only a small portion of Christians are Biblcal literalists. That was a bad example, but I'm sure that there are passages in the Old Testament/Torah that mean fundamentally different things to Christians and to Jews, though my lack of knowledge of both religions prevents me from pointing to any good examples.

I would be interested in knowing whether Biblical literalism extends to believing in the absolute historical truth of something like the Book of Job. Not to denigrate those beliefs, I hope it is is clear, but rather out of a desire to further understand them.

[MithLuin]

Yes, Jewish and Christian interpretations of passages differ. Christians typically see foreshadowings of future events in OT events, and I really doubt Jews would read it that way! Two examples are Abraham's (attempted) sacrifice of Isaac, in which a ram took his place, and the passage through the Red Sea during the Exodus. The former is seen as a prefigurement of Christ's sacrifice, and the latter of baptism.

But on the current subject, the role of the devil is also something that is often interpretted differently. One of my Jewish friends in college offered the argument that Satan was essentially being obedient to the will of God - he was an adversary of humanity to put us to the test, not out of any particular malice. The idea is that passing the test makes you stronger than you were before. That reading would work in Job, the Garden of Eden, and even the temptation of Jesus. Christians tend to view Satan as a fallen angel, and thus opposing the will of God (ie, evil by nature). His attempt to win people over to 'the dark side' is hardly altruistic (though God can make use of that situation, like anything else). So, they interpret those events differently. But again, just because Satan is seen as the ruler of this earth doesn't mean that God somehow lost sovreignty. Satan is an usurper; God is the true lord of heaven and earth. Pretenders to the throne don't really count.....

But, there are a variety of interpretations within Christianity and within Judaism, so these are just....examples.


If you go far enough in any direction, you will find extremes. So, can you find a Biblical literalist who interprets the book of Job as a poetic recounting of true events? Sure. Compared to a literal 6 days of Creation, that's not really that big of a deal. But most people do take the literal meaning of the words into account before adding nuances of interpretation. The Book of Job has a clear Moral, so most of the commentary on it focuses on that.

[Pearly Di]

That was badly put on my part. Of course I do understand that only a small portion of Christians are Biblcal literalists. That was a bad example, but I'm sure that there are passages in the Old Testament/Torah that mean fundamentally different things to Christians and to Jews, though my lack of knowledge of both religions prevents me from pointing to any good examples.

Yes, I think that is very often the case ... it's all down to interpretation, of course.

Case in point: a British Jewish woman named Michele Guinness who became a Christian in her teen years and went on to marry an Anglican minister (and who writes with great humour and sensitivity about her Jewish roots), cites an incident at church when one guy told her that it was good to know that the Jews used the 'Christian' psalms too.

Her initial reaction was to him.

I don't think she did. I think she opted for explaining to him, carefully and diplomatically, that the Psalms were the Jewish worship book.

That was just centuries of misunderstanding there ... and sheer ignorance and thoughtlessness on the guy's part, he hadn't intended to be offensive at all and was no doubt astonished to discover that he had been.

My own stance is that my fellow Christians cannot possibly understand the Jesus they worship, or his teaching, without realising how very Jewish he is.

I would be interested in knowing whether Biblical literalism extends to believing in the absolute historical truth of something like the Book of Job. Not to denigrate those beliefs, I hope it is is clear, but rather out of a desire to further understand them.

Oh, in certain circles, it definitely would, Voronwë.

When I was a student, I went on a houseparty with the Christian Union, which is a very conservative evangelical movement in the UK. The theme of the weekend was Job and the problem of suffering. The speaker began by saying that Job was probably the oldest book in the Bible ... probably older than Genesis. I'd never actually heard that before. And my reaction was: 'oh, OK, so it's possible to be a Bible-believing Christian without being a strict literalist.' That was important, and liberating, for me. Because on the one hand I can affirm, as a Christian believer, the literal resurrection of Jesus. But I cannot be a Young Earth Creationist when the facts of science tell me otherwise. The claims of Jesus are in a different league to that, IMO.

I accept the Torah, and the gospels, as genuine historical documents (and, from a faith POV, as inspired Scripture). It doesn't mean that I accept absolutely every single thing in them as being literally true. Neither does it mean that I regard the entire kit and kaboodle as nothing more than metaphor -- absolutely not.

But most people do take the literal meaning of the words into account before adding nuances of interpretation. The Book of Job has a clear Moral, so most of the commentary on it focuses on that.

I agree, Mith.

[solicitr]

one guy told her that it was good to know that the Jews used the 'Christian' psalms too.

Reminds me of the oft reported, possibly apocryphal, accounts of conservative Catholics at the time of Vatican II: "If Latin was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

[Lalaith]

The Baptists I know would treat Job as a true story, though I have heard a few say it is the oldest book in the Bible (by which they mean it was written down before Moses got around to compiling Genesis from the earlier writings of Adam, et al).

As for Satan being the god of this world, my understanding of it is that he is "in charge" for just a while. God has ultimate authority, but, as part of his plan and as part of free will, evil is part of this world, for now.

(I really can't help but think of the Ainulindalë when I think of Satan as a fallen angel, roaming the earth, destroying and spreading evil and chaos wherever he can.)

This probably strays too far off topic, but Christians have authority in Christ over Satan and his demons, btw.

How much later? Some of the books certainly date to the early second century.

Such as? I don't necessarily buy the new scholarship regarding the New Testament, so the latest book I can think of being written was Revelation, which was written by John, one of Christ's disciples. According to the scholarship I know, it was written in approximately 90-95 AD. (I see some sources believe John was written last, between 100-125 AD, as opposed to 85-90 AD.)

That makes sense, although to be honest I think that what the Book of Revelation actually means in anyone’s guess. If it is to be taken literally it has serious issues (the stars fall to earth, for example), and if not, then it’s probably a whole thread to itself. God does imprison Satan and release him in Chapter 20, but I’m not sure what it says on what he was doing before he was imprisoned.

Fair enough. Revelation is a difficult study, to be sure, and most definitely would need its own thread to discuss. I will point out Revelation 12:7-12:

And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short."