[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[Birdjaguar]

How could Plotinus know? He could probably tell you all about how that Psalm was interpreted by later Christians, but I don't think anyone could actually tell you the original intent.

If you subscribe to that, then none of the Bible's original intent can be understood.

 

[Mouthwash]

The Bible has been interpreted in very many ways... and if you already view it as divinely inspired than you're going to have a different set of assumptions to work with.

 

[innonimatu]

Cyril was certainly not a very nice person. And he was at least implicated in anti-Jewish violence in Alexandria - although it must be pointed out that Alexandria at this time was divided between Jews, Christians, and pagans, who all engaged in violence against each other, so the use of the word "pogroms" is anachronistic and too weighted.

Every other claim in the passage is false.

Thanks. I suspected as much but wanted to check it. It confirms that the website I found that on has some contributors who seem to lack intellectual honesty. Sadly common when history is invoked for political polemics.

 

[Takhisis]

Is Star Wars good theology or bad theology?

He can't possibly give a good answer without having read the EU.

Alas, I haven't. But since there don't seem to be any divine beings involved, just a Force that can be manipulated by those with the biological ability to do so, I'd say it's more like a kind of mystical theosophy than theology at all, whether good or bad.

George Lucas has waffled on it, sometimes saying that the Force is God and then coming up with the midi-chlorines.

 

[onejayhawk]

How could Plotinus know? He could probably tell you all about how that Psalm was interpreted by later Christians, but I don't think anyone could actually tell you the original intent.

If you subscribe to that, then none of the Bible's original intent can be understood.

In addition to having a better feel for the Hebrew culture, he might also know about what the commentaries have to say. We have over 2500 years of Hebrew and Jewish scholarship to draw upon.

Wait. You knew that. Why are you asking?

The Bible has been interpreted in very many ways... and if you already view it as divinely inspired than you're going to have a different set of assumptions to work with.

That much is very true.

J

 

[The Return]

If you were to pick a denomination based on the assumption that all of the Bible is completely true as intended by the original authors (but not necessarily sola scriptura, that's up to you) which denom would you pick?

 

[Plotinus]

Yes
The slow conservative "kneejerk" has mostly been tightening of the doctrines and control over the flock.
Too many examples. Celibate tightened at the First Lateran Council (1123), Confession tightened in 1215, Papal infallibility tightened ex cathedra as late as 1870, etc.

Yes, certainly - but these aren't really changes in the sense of reversals, and they can be (and have been) plausibly defended as simply clarifications of what the church has always believed. Whether this is a matter of intentional tightening of "control" over people or not is hard to say, of course.

Heard someone characterize Christianity as the "postmodern form of Judaism." Do you think that's fair?

Surprisingly, no, I don't, and it's hard to see what genuine insight might underlie such a claim other than the satisfaction of a snappy epithet.

In Psalm 51, David said, "You do not delight in sacrifice or I would bring it." As I understand it, this was because there was no sin offering for murder. Is that correct and are their nuances that can easily be missed?

The Bible has been interpreted in very many ways... and if you already view it as divinely inspired than you're going to have a different set of assumptions to work with.

In addition to having a better feel for the Hebrew culture, he might also know about what the commentaries have to say. We have over 2500 years of Hebrew and Jewish scholarship to draw upon.

Someone no doubt does know all that stuff, but alas that's not me, as the Hebrew Bible is well outside my comfort zone. But a question about the meaning of a biblical text is no different from a question about the meaning of any other ancient text. There are obvious hermeneutical difficulties with understanding such texts but that applies to them all, religious or secular.

If you were to pick a denomination based on the assumption that all of the Bible is completely true as intended by the original authors (but not necessarily sola scriptura, that's up to you) which denom would you pick?

I couldn't share that assumption because all of the Bible can't be completely true in the sense described, since the different authors contradict each other quite intentionally. e.g. the books of Chronicles "revise" the history presented in the earlier Kings; the author of James rejects the theology of Paul (as he understands it at least); and so on. But if I did somehow share that assumption despite this I would probably be Orthodox of some kind.

 

[timtofly]

Heard someone characterize Christianity as the "postmodern form of Judaism." Do you think that's fair?

Surprisingly, no, I don't, and it's hard to see what genuine insight might underlie such a claim other than the satisfaction of a snappy epithet.

Would Hallmark make a better fit of postmodern Judaism? Judaism lost the governance of the Law, thus ended up with the observance of the yearly feast and celebrations in remembrance of once was.

What they probably meant was Christianity took Judaism further than the Jews did. While the church did not adopt the whole Law, nor the temple rituals, the church took the spirit of the Law and incorporated into their doctrines and belief system.

 

[Gori the Grey]

In Psalm 51, David said, "You do not delight in sacrifice or I would bring it." As I understand it, this was because there was no sin offering for murder. Is that correct and are their nuances that can easily be missed?

I can't claim to be a scholar of Hebraic literature, but if you read that single verse in the context of the entire psalm, the meaning you're assigning it doesn't seem terribly likely. David earlier says "I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me." There's not some particular category of sin for which he feels God isn't accepting sacrifice, just sin in general.

Then it immediately goes on to say that God doesn't want animal sacrifice at all, but a contrite heart. And then it ends that at God's discretion sacrifices might become acceptable again.

 

[timtofly]

I can't claim to be a scholar of Hebraic literature, but if you read that single verse in the context of the entire psalm, the meaning you're assigning it doesn't seem terribly likely. David earlier says "I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me." There's not some particular category of sin for which he feels God isn't accepting sacrifice, just sin in general.

Then it immediately goes on to say that God doesn't want animal sacrifice at all, but a contrite heart. And then it ends that at God's discretion sacrifices might become acceptable again.

Some of us have been taught or pointed out dispensational doctrine. Where OT people could not have understood NT doctrines. Early Christians when arguing with Followers of Judaism would point out that would be a prophetic Scripture. From a literal point of view, David could not make an offering himself that God would accept, as God would not even let David build a temple to God. The last verse indicates that David was still judging himself by the Law, because he was sure there would be a temple where bulls would be offered up in sacrifice.

The theology in this chapter indicates that sin is not neccessarily taken care of by offering up animal sacrifices. So did David actually accept this idea, or was he led by the Spirit to a truth that the Law could never address salvation from sin?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, I was conscious when I was offering my interpretation that the sentiments in this psalm very easily lean in the direction of the Pauline conception of the Law, so I tried to make sure I factored that out of my reading. All I was trying to say was that, in the total context of the psalm, the verse J asks about wouldn't seem to be about one particular type of sin for which he finds God unwilling to accept a sacrifice (murder), but that what God most fundamentally wants regarding any sin is contrition.

 

[timtofly]

Well, I was conscious when I was offering my interpretation that the sentiments in this psalm very easily lean in the direction of the Pauline conception of the Law, so I tried to make sure I factored that out of my reading. All I was trying to say was that, in the total context of the psalm, the verse J asks about wouldn't seem to be about one particular type of sin for which he finds God unwilling to accept a sacrifice (murder), but that what God most fundamentally wants regarding any sin is contrition.

Unless David was intentionally contradicting himself, he said God would not accept a sacrifice, but then claims in the very last verse that God will. So either David was just referring to his own ability to make a sacrifice and God receiving it, or the last verse was an addition to make sure any one reading the passage would not discount the the offering of bulls as the means to satisfy the Law. Otherwise David still considered the offering of bulls was viable, and the rest of the chapter only referenced his personal views. I was not trying to point out a flaw in your answer. If anything I would agree with David (and Paul) even if it went against every established religious practice. David realized that he was a sinner and not by choice. But he did have a choice in doing certain sins. It is only logical to say he could not offer a sacrifice for one particular sin (his). The Jews around 70 AD had to face the truth that animal sacrifices were at an end. Even if there was no Christianity, it still would have ended. The end of the Law was finalized at that point. I think Judaism was already well established and the Law had fairly moved in the direction that David had laid out anyways.

That is why I made the point to ask was David actually understanding the actuality that animal sacrifices did not offer salvation from sin. There was a tabernacle, but no Temple had been built. I am pretty sure if that idea had taken root, the economy of animal sacrifices would never have taken off in the new Temple. The point people seem to miss was that God did not set up the Law as a religion. This alledged religious practice was an economic endeaver. The new Christian movement pointed out that God never needed sacrifices to begin with. As a society do we need a government and a means to support this governing body, or do we pass off the Law as just another made up religious practice? What benefit would the growing Jewish nation have with giving away their goods and even children to an untested and untried pagan god that may or may not care about the affairs of humans, or did not exist at all? I realize that is the same claim athiest make of God. But the Bible was written from the point of humans having actual contact with a God they did not invent, and it was a known fact that other gods were not reliable or did not exist.

 

[Mouthwash]

What they probably meant was Christianity took Judaism further than the Jews did. While the church did not adopt the whole Law, nor the temple rituals, the church took the spirit of the Law and incorporated into their doctrines and belief system.

I don't think the spirit of the law is really 'love,' as Jesus claimed. Think many Jews would agree.

 

[Hrothbern]

I don't think the spirit of the law is really 'love,' as Jesus claimed. Think many Jews would agree.

I agree that most Jews would agree..... but do you think ALL Jews throughout time did agree as well ?

I think, it was primarily for the good of the people.... His people.

But how far is that away from love ?
Hebrew 12:6
"For the Lord disciplines the one He loves"

 

[Plotinus]

Bear in mind that Judaism in antiquity was a diverse religion and different Jews had different understandings of what "the Law" was and what it meant. Also bear in mind that no-one can agree on what "the Pauline" view of "the Law" is either. And that if you read the Hebrew Bible from a Christian point of view you're almost certainly going to misunderstand it. For example:

The new Christian movement pointed out that God never needed sacrifices to begin with.

The Jews were well aware of this, as the psalm in question indicates. I think you're assuming too much of a distinction between Judaism and Christianity. What if what you think of as the Christian attitude towards the Law was actually pretty similar to how many Jews already thought of the Law?

 

[onejayhawk]

I can't claim to be a scholar of Hebraic literature, but if you read that single verse in the context of the entire psalm, the meaning you're assigning it doesn't seem terribly likely. David earlier says "I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me." There's not some particular category of sin for which he feels God isn't accepting sacrifice, just sin in general.

Then it immediately goes on to say that God doesn't want animal sacrifice at all, but a contrite heart. And then it ends that at God's discretion sacrifices might become acceptable again.

Your reading omits the Psalm's header, "For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba." At Nathan's prompting, David judged himself worthy of death for the murder of Uriah the Hittite and the theft of his wife.There is a specific in the general.

I wonder how much of the doctrine of original sin can be traced to this single Psalm.

J

 

[Gori the Grey]

I wonder how much of the doctrine of original sin can be traced to this single Psalm.

Verse 5 has to be the most straightforward proof text there is for that notion.

If David thought that God wouldn't forgive one specific sin, murder, the psalm would take a different form: "you've always accepted my sacrifices for every other sin; oh, alas that I've committed a sin for which you won't accept a sacrifice."

 

[timtofly]

Bear in mind that Judaism in antiquity was a diverse religion and different Jews had different understandings of what "the Law" was and what it meant. Also bear in mind that no-one can agree on what "the Pauline" view of "the Law" is either. And that if you read the Hebrew Bible from a Christian point of view you're almost certainly going to misunderstand it. For example:



The Jews were well aware of this, as the psalm in question indicates. I think you're assuming too much of a distinction between Judaism and Christianity. What if what you think of as the Christian attitude towards the Law was actually pretty similar to how many Jews already thought of the Law?

Which part of Judaism, and which part of Christianity? I doubt there is much distinction between them when both thought they were carrying out God’s governance on earth. The underlining theory of sin, how humans react to their own nature, how one handles confession, and how atonement was administered, never changed since Adam until now. The Law of Moses never addressed that. The Law was a set of rules to provide an economy related to this condition. It is not even certain that the Jews gave any constant attention to the administration of the Law, other than the faithfullness of the scribes to keeping the record in tact. And even that has been attacked as never happening, because at times it was said to be lost, because the Jews were constantly ignoring it and doing their own thing.

That David figured it out was not happenstance. He was considered a man after God's own heart, despite killing humans and committing horrible acts. Neither did he or his family "get away" from the consequences. That he was even king was the result of the Jews rejecting the Law, and demanding a kingdom as the form of governance. There was even supposed to be a separation between the kingship and the duties of the priesthood. And there was never a sacrifice for murder. The atonement was death. David could not offer one because he was king, there was no sacrificial atonement for murder, and God himself told him he could not build a temple, much less offer up sacrifices in it. Which term of condition was he even referring too? Not to mention we have the evidence that the only sacrifice for the human nature of sin was God himself in the form of the first begotten Son. I am not even convinced that what happened after the resurrection could even be considered a sect of Judaism. For one, no group had the full knowledge of what God's plan even was. There was too much human ideology mixed into the core of what David was posting as his thoughts. What happened in the next 200 + years after the advent, seemed to indicate a mix of kingdom mentality, Judaism, and Christian authority and due to the democratic nature of that authority evolved into an ideology all of it's own, thus creating a governing religious body. All involved were trying to reason out what was happening and come to an acceptable conclusion. Even though that was not even the intent that Jesus himself gave. The condition was not settled. God's redemptive work was. So keeping the Law, doing righteous deeds, etc. worked out one's salvation, but such actions did not change the condition nor satisfy the atonement demanded. The theme of this chapter was rightly acknowledged as a model confession. As far as I can find, this chapter was never used as proof of original sin. And David still had the conviction that offering up sacrifices was the means to work out his salvation along with keeping the perfect Law of God. Salvation has always been given to us after confession, and never something we generate on our own.

Even pagans are forced to deal with the human condition, and come up with inventive ways to deal with all the consequences it promulgates.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Verse 5 has to be the most straightforward proof text there is for that notion.

If David thought that God wouldn't forgive one specific sin, murder, the psalm would take a different form: "you've always accepted my sacrifices for every other sin; oh, alas that I've committed a sin for which you won't accept a sacrifice."

That doesn't sound nearly as poetic though. It seems to me that the most reasonable interpretation of the verse is hyperbole intended to emphasize how intense his feeling of guilt is rather than establishing a doctrine that all men are conceived with original sin.



When considering the diversity of Judaisms in the first century we also need to bear in mind the Samaritan view, in which David was a very wicked man responsible for leading the people away from observing the 10th Commandment, to keep mount Gerezim holy and worship only there. From their perspective it makes sense to view the Psalms and Writings of all the so-called prophets after Moses himself as mere propaganda.

 

[Gori the Grey]

That doesn't sound nearly as poetic though. It seems to me that the most reasonable interpretation of the verse is hyperbole intended to emphasize how intense his feeling of guilt is rather than establishing a doctrine that all men are conceived with original sin.

I agree that in context, that is the right reading. I was just saying that if you are trying to argue for the concept of original sin, you can hardly do better for a proof text than that verse.

I read the psalms on the schedule of the Episcopal Church's Daily Office (so cycling through every seven weeks). Every time this one pulls me up short for just how well it can also support the doctrine of original sin.