Rob Bell on Hell: Francis Chan (Part 3)

Is using the word "Old Testament" Antisemitic?

This week over lunch at work someone was talking about the "Old Testament" at work, I forget the context but another coworker interrupted to say that saying the word "Old Testament" was antisemitic. She said that this was because it should be called the "Hebrew Scriptures". This information was taken from a class she took in university about Judaism. I was taken off guard by this, and couldn't think of what to say at the time, but I wanted to say something because I didn't agree. 

Why did Christians even include the Hebrew Scriptures in their canon of scriptures? 

That is because Christianity was initially a sect within Judaism, until mainstream Judaism decided that the followers of Jesus of Nazareth were not part of Judaism, but heretical. We even see in Acts that Christianity was seen as a sect of Judaism called "the Way", 

"But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets."  Acts 24:14

If you take a traditional view of the authorships of the New Testament books then you have almost exclusively Jewish authors with the exception of Luke who was a Greek and wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. The early Christian church viewed itself as the true Judaism (Israel) - and believed that anyone who rejected faith in Jesus Christ was cutoff from the true Israel. This is not meant to argue the validity of these claims in this post but the fact that this is how the early Church perceived themselves and Judaism. 

So, why did Christians call the Hebrew Scriptures the Old Testament? 

I am not sure when Christians began referring to the Hebrew Scriptures as the Old Testament (maybe someone can comment about the origin of this term). But the terms "New Testament" and "Old Testament" are used because of the centrality of the incarnation of Jesus Christ within the Christian faith. The books written before the appearance of Christ are labelled as the "Old Testament" and the books written after the appearance of Christ are called the "New Testament". This is not meant to be a put down to the Hebrew Scriptures as "old" and inferior but simply a reflection of the Christian perspective of history scriptural revelation. 

Christians chose to highly elevate the Hebrew Scriptures by retaining complete, unabridged copies of the books from within the Jewish canon of scriptures. Christians did not pick and choose from the books of the Hebrew Scriptures, they included them all and view each of them as equal in authority as any of the New Testament scriptures. 


I think I can see why it would annoy Jews that Gentile Christians don't put more emphasis on the origin of their Old Testament scriptures by calling them the Hebrew Scriptures, since they were written by ethnically Jewish/Hebrew authors. When I use the term I don't mean to slight Jews or Judaism - as well, I don't have a problem with calling it the "Hebrew Scriptures" because the term accurately reflects the origins of this portion of the canon. When I talk to Jews I will try to remember to refer to the scriptures as the Hebrew Scriptures, and not the "New Testament". However, I don't think it is fair to call Christians antisemitic for referring to the Hebrew Scriptures as the "Old Testament". Our differences lie in our interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures; which the Christian interpretation stems from teachings found in the Christian "New Testament" and in contrast Judaism's interpretation stems from teachings found primarily in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. These contain very real and important distinctions but we both claim to be the "true Israel" based on the revelation of God through the "Hebrew Scriptures" which we both use the exact same text: word for word verbatim. 

Why the Rapture didn't happen today

 Matthew 24:32-51 ...

   ³² "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. ³³So also, when you see all these things, you know that he^g is near, at the very gates. ³⁴Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. ³⁵Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.   ³⁶ "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,^h but only the Father. ³⁷For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, ³⁹and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.⁴¹Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.⁴²Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what dayⁱ your Lord is coming. ⁴³But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. ⁴⁴Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour.   45 "Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves^j their allowance of food at the proper time?⁴⁶Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. ⁴⁷Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. ⁴⁸But if that wicked slave says to himself, 'My master is delayed,' ⁴⁹and he begins to beat his fellow slaves, and eats and drinks with drunkards, ⁵⁰the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know. ⁵¹He will cut him in pieces^kand put him with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 

Rob Bell on Hell: Outside Review

For those of you who were interested in the subject of my previous post about Rob Bell's new book Love Wins,  I read a review today by a family friend that I thought was well written and articulated. Hopefully it is helpful in the discussion - which I am convinced will not go away any time soon.

Chiasm: 2 Samuel 21-24

Here is a chiasm I found the few days ago from the end of 2 Samuel: 


A: God's Judgment and heed of supplications - famine (21:1-14)
    B: David's warriors kill Giants of Gath  (21:15-22)
        C:  Poetry - David's song of Deliverance (22:1-51)
        C': Poetry - David's oracle of last words (23:1-7)
    B': David's warriors and their renown (23:8-38)
A': God's Judgment and heed of supplications - pestilence (24:1-25)


Haven't yet figured out why the author chose to put these all in a chiasm. What further interpretation can we gain from observing this chiasm? 

Here is yet another look at the same passage: 

A David intervenes (21:1-14) Royal intervention – 21:14

   B Accomplishments in Battle (21:15-22) Royal warfare

     C David's praise (22:1-51) Royal words: 22:51

     C' David's Wisdom (23:1-7) Royal words: 23:5

   B' Accomplishments in Battle (23:8-39) Royal warfare

A' David intervenes (24:1-25) Royal intervention – 24:25

Is the Universe a closed or open system? Part 2

I don't want to put too much emphasis on this topic but I was watching this video on TED.com and thought it related to my previous post. The speaker implies near the end of the talk that the universe is not a closed system, but an open system. 

Is the Creation account a Historical or Theological message?

A friend of mine in college used this question respond to people who asked how to reconcile science and the creation account found in Genesis. I think the answer he hoped to hear in response was that the creation account was meant to be primarily a theological teaching. 


If he were to ask me this question again I think I would respond in the following way:


Friend: "Is the creation account a historical or theological message?"
Me: "What is the purpose of studying history - the end goal of the exercise?" 


I have heard it said that, "You can't know who you are until you know where your from." History tells us where we are from. But why do we need to know who we are? Every living and breathing person longs to know themselves. The only reason that this means anything is that each person believes that he/she has true value. 


But where does that value come from? We know from the secular humanist that they have failed to find and retain a source of meaning by beginning from themselves. This should not surprise us because just like in modern economics where a currency's monetary value rests purely on public confidence in that currency system --- so too, human value cannot securely rest on confidence originating from humankind. This value has to be inherited from somewhere else - as a monotheist I believe that this somewhere is really a someone. 


Getting back to our original question, the study of that 'someone' is called Theology. Therefore the reason for historical inquiry within the monotheistic world view is theology. 


Finally, the answer to the question: 'Is the creation account a Historical or Theological message?' is 'yes.' 

Creativity, Originality and Simplicity in Truth

I have always been struck by the profoundness of this statement:

"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring two-pence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it." -C. S. Lewis

I think this is so right on - there is a uniqueness and elegance to truth that shouldn't surprise us, but it does. 


A life lived in truth is at peace. Even Mark Twain recognized this when he said, 

"Always tell the truth, then you won't have to remember anything."