Three more questions from a Bible Meme that rubs me the wrong way

They are:

2. [Do you prefer the] Old or New Testament?

8. [Do you prefer] Moses or Paul?

9. A teaching from the Bible that you struggle with or don’t get?

Questions #2 and #8 are framed with Christians in mind, but I invite Jews who are reading not to tune out, as would be natural, just yet. If the questions are reframed, they become more interesting:

Before looking at questions #2 and #8 remixed, I might as well answer #9.

On some days, the Bible as a whole strikes me as weird and irrelevant to life as I know it. On other days, it strikes me a way too much work to prove the opposite even when I know the opposite to be true. Now and then, however, I open it up and think: I have not read anything quite like the Bible for its honesty, severity, sweetness, and misery, all rolled into one. In so many ways, all other texts out there pale in comparison. If there is a God, and we are God’s creatures, this book above every other book I know of is of supreme interest. And if I didn’t admit to struggling with many of its teachings, I would be a very dishonest person indeed. There is only thing that makes me madder than many passages in the Bible: well-intentioned attempts by believers to sugarcoat them.

2. In what sense is the Old Testament abrogated by the New, and in what sense is it not?

All of the covenants detailed in the Hebrew Bible remain in effect. I take this to be what Paul meant when he said: the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Romans (9:4-5; 11:29). To be sure, some covenants, like that made with the Levites, are no longer operative as originally stipulated, given the end of the Jerusalem cultus. Their practical effect is limited. Many of the commandments, furthermore, for Jews as well as Christians, are, in the absence of the sacrificial cultus, a Davidic king, and a land over which a flying scroll goes out and from which wickedness has departed (Zechariah 5), inexecutable.

On this reading, the new covenant does not replace the old. Both apply, but to different entities, just as the covenant with Noah applies to all people, that with Levi, to Levites only. The promises to Zion continue to obtain, though no one knows how they might be fulfilled in the future. In one passage, Paul denies that “the present Jerusalem” is heir to the promises (Galatians 4:25) – the view was not that unusual among Jews at the time. But Paul also expected that some day, “The Deliverer will come from Zion” (Romans 11:25). Perhaps Paul meant: the heavenly Jerusalem of which the earthly Jerusalem, according to a widespread tradition, is but a copy. Or perhaps he expected that the time would come in which God would restore the kingdom of Israel. Jesus’ first disciples expected that event with impatience (Acts 1:6).

To be continued.

Comments

[Iyov]

To be sure, some covenants, like that made with the Levites, are no longer operative as originally stipulated, given the end of the Jerusalem cultus. Their practical effect is limited. Many of the commandments, furthermore, for Jews as well as Christians, are, in the absence of the sacrificial cultus, a Davidic king, and a land over which a flying scroll goes out and from which wickedness has departed (Zechariah 5), inexecutable.

So, do I understand you correctly that you do not believe that a third temple will be raised, and that an "anointed one" (Davidic) king will reignn?

[JohnFH]

Good question, Iyov. I wonder what you think, too.

I was trying to be non-committal on the issue. Among Christians - and Jews so far as I've seen - differences of opinion on these matters are not always handled with poise and courtesy. For example, those Christians who believed that Israel would be re-established on its land based on their understanding of prophecy were scoffed at by other Christians. Until it happened, that is.

In short, I'm not going to organize my life around the expectation that a third temple will be raised. But you won't catch me making fun of someone who does.

[Iyov]

The rebuilding of the Temple is certainly normative to observant Jewish belief (it is, for example, embraced in the Talmud, the Mishneh Torah, and the liturgy.) I was not aware that there was any dispute on this point within observant Judaism.

[JohnFH]

Observant Jews who regard traditional eschatological expectations to be the stuff of allegory and metaphor are not that unusual. If I'm not mistaken, David Guttmann, whose blog I enjoy reading, fits into that category.

[Peter Kirk]

"Questions #2 and #8 are framed with Christians in mind".

Really? I don't see how someone who answers "Old Testament" and "Moses" can be a Christian, and not a Jew at least by religion. Indeed someone giving those answers comes close to apostasy as I define it! They certainly would be committing it if the alternative for "Moses" were "Jesus". Now perhaps a good Christian should answer "both" at least to #2, but that is not one of the expected answers.

[JohnFH]

As many have remarked in responding to the meme, for the Christian, a choice between the Old and New Testaments is no choice at all.

[Iyov]

Observant Jews who regard traditional eschatological expectations to be the stuff of allegory and metaphor are not that unusual.

Your experience is different than mine, although it is true that some (a distinct minority, I reckon) regard it as spiritual temple (and not a physical one.) However, there is a world of different between speaking of an astral Temple or spiritual essence and claiming it is a mere metaphor. It may be unworldly, but to say it is non-existent is a mark of an apikoros.

However, I believe that like belief in the coming of the Messiah-King (not a Messiah-God), belief in the rebuilding of Jerusalem is held by the vast majority of observant Jews.

[JohnFH]

And if it comes to pass in our lifetimes, Iyov, I hope to be by your side to admire it all. In the spirit of Zech 14.

Indeed, should it happen, I imagine Isa 60:10 will come to pass at the same time. Are the blueprints those of Ezek 40-48? I imagine we'll find out soon enough.