Exchange of emails with Rev. John Squires who is the Editor of 'With love to the World', regarding the value and the use of the Old Testament in public church services. My comments about his text are all in RED, dotted throughout his text at appropriated places. So to the emails of 2021.
Dear John,
I make a general comment about the whole process you are involved in, which will, no doubt, continue with your editorship of ‘With love to the world’. I hope all goes well with your new responsibilities and you enjoy the challenge.
Your posts. I have read quite closely the 6 posts you have listed for me in your recent email. I have presumed that by saying that I might be interested, you were virtually asking me to read them, and maybe even wanting some reaction from me. You will see that I have taken your request very seriously and have made a detailed response. It may not be correct exegetically, academically sensible, or even intellectually logical, however it is the best I can do at my stage of my journey with Jesus. Obviously, I am not a scholar, nor do I claim to be one. Maybe you will find some of my comments are not all that clear. Sorry!
If I was still conducting regular church services and if I used the lectionary readings, I would certainly read your weekly posts for inspiration and biblical education.
Not as detailed or comprehensive as mine, but I would earnestly request that you give serious consideration and a critical response to my 2 papers on the Exodus, that I emailed to you a while ago. (These are separately posted on my website.) This story is quite critical to me at present. These 2 papers are the result of much struggling. Am I being faithful or not to the text? Is my criticism of commentators and theologians reasonable and polite, particularly Fretheim? Are my conclusions logical or are they a product of my presuppositions and prejudices about the subject? If my papers make good sense, what do I do with this story??
If you find the time and are willing to give me a response, I promise not to take more of your time with further debating, even if I feel I might like to. I presume you have far more important calls on your time, and I do not wish to intrude further.
I do realise, a presumption, that your posts do not have the purpose of justifying your use of particular Bible passages, nor of entering into a debate about those passages, or debating more generally about the whole content of the Bible. My reaction to your posts, is that you are presenting biblical material, a tremendous amount, to assist preachers who use the lectionary. Much of this I perceive may be new to them because it is very detailed and not the usual comment presented, except maybe in long commentaries, which your readers probably would not read. You make available plenty of material from which to choose, when preparing sermons. All that, I believe would be very helpful.
These posts are mostly positive comments about the passage under consideration. You often give reference to ‘difficult’ passages, but you do not always address these in detail. Usually, you do not ignore them or avoid mentioning them. In the interests of a full comment on the biblical teaching, I believe you give a helpful, balanced gift of biblical information. You inform your readers what is there. I understand, again a presumption, that this is a major part of the purpose of your posts.
So, some of my comments could be not all that relevant.
However, with the Bible under such detailed scrutiny these days, both within and outside the church, with so many ‘people in the pew’ asking very serious questions about the content of the Bible, particularly about the O.T., I think it the responsibility of church leadership to address ‘difficulties’ when they arise. I don’t think we can expect people in the pews to read theological books or commentaries on biblical passages, but hopefully they listen to homilies or sermons, most of which, in my experience are biblically based. They are a ‘captive’ audience. I think that leaders of church services would find your posts very helpful and instructive.
I don’t use the Bible as a source of devotional material very much. I use other sources. My perception is that many ‘people in the pew’ do, and so, ‘With love to the world’ and your posts on the lectionary posts fit well into this context, I think.
I can’t use the Bible much for meditation or devotional purposes because, for me, it is saturated, as is most church services I attend, with 2000-3000 years-old images of an anthropomorphic, separate God. Not in the Bible, but certainly in church services, a core part of that image, which is violent, is expunged.
I quote from Michael Morwood’s ‘Prayers for Progressive Christians’ when he says on page 20 :-
It needs to be acknowledged, however, that to question whether “God” is personal is an unbearable thought for many people. The idea of a personal God is so deeply ingrained in us from an early age and so taken for granted at every level of church experience that, in the minds of many, to question it would threaten the very foundations of religious faith. On the contrary. Exploring a different starting point for belief in “God” reveals new and different foundations that offer the promise of a credible faith for the future. So, let our faith be adult, open to questioning and open to searching for solid ground on which to stand.
If we concentrate only on the biblical content, and I am not suggesting that this is what you are advocating, what Morwood suggests is nearly impossible. I believe that if we start with biblical images of “God” and are not encouraged to move further, maybe beyond those images to an extent, then I think we are doing a disservice to people in the pew.
You suggested that I may be interested in your posts, so I have read them, giving them a great deal of thought. I have put my comments in red throughout each post I have read. If you read my comments, you may find it easiest to skip through your posts and just look at my red comments, as they occur. I have inserted then at appropriate places.
To your posts:
Over the last few months, Elizabeth and I have, once again, been teaching a course on “Exploring the Old Testament”. We have connected online each week with two cohorts of keen, active lay leaders in the church, drawn from across our own region in the ACT and southern NSW, as well as the southwestern region and some urban locations of NSW.
It has been a stimulating time. We have spent fourteen sessions with each group, investigating the various books of the Hebrew Scriptures, following the key themes, asking questions about the meaning of various passages, and pondering how we might preach on texts from these books within the worship of the Christian church.
The Old Testament has quite a chequered history in the church. In the early centuries of the church, there was a strong movement that advocated having nothing at all to do with any of the books in the Old Testament. This view was particularly prosecuted by Marcion of Sinope (a seaport on the southern coast of the Black Sea, northern Turkey), a teacher in the second century.
(For an introduction to the ideas and importance of Marcion,
Marcion: Forgotten "Father" and Inventor of the New Testament
By
Christianity owes a major debt to a man with no direct connection to Jesus of Nazareth or Paul of Tarsus – a man labelled a heretic by the forerunners of orthodox Christianity. Marcion (c. 95-165 CE) was a shipbuilder, possibly ship owner, from Pontus, a small region in what is now northern Turkey. We know little else about him, except that at some point in his career he joined the Christian community in Rome only to find himself embroiled in debate with the leadership there. Ultimately, they were unable to resolve their differences, and the Marcionite community broke from other Jesus followers of that era. It is unknown how separate the communities were in practice, but in some parts of the ancient world Marcionites were called "Christians" while groups with closer ties to Judaism were called "Nazoreans."
Jason BeDuhn
Marcion holds a lasting legacy for Christians as the inventor of the New Testament. Jason BeDuhn, author of The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon, argues that Marcion not only put together the very first Christian canon of scriptures, he gave Christianity very idea of doing so. At the 'Early Christianity: Heritage or Heresies?' Conference in Santa Rosa, California, BeDuhn spoke about the important role Marcion played in shaping Christian identity. This begins with the relationship between Gentiles and Jews in the Roman Empire. “A good contemporary analogy is the interest some modern White Americans have in Native American religion and culture,” he said, “A similar thing was going on with Gentile fans of Judaism in the ancient world. They wanted to take on foreign spirituality and practices.” However, Jews rebelled multiple times against the Roman Empire in the second century, and Gentile Christian groups fled association with them, taking on new forms in the process.
Marcionites were pesco-vegetarians who embraced pacifism. Women held high leadership roles, at least prominently enough that critics of Marcionites complained about the role women were playing in the movement. They did not believe the god of Jesus was the god of the Jews. They believed the god of the Jews was a creator god that ruled based on judgment and violence, which Marcion argued by appealing to violent texts in the Hebrew scriptures. Marcion saw the god of Jesus as an entirely new being, a higher god who provided escape from the judgment of this world. Most importantly, Marcionites had something no other Christians had: a canon of their own scriptures.
Critics of Marcion like Tertullian and Epiphanius complained that Marcion cut and edited scripture to fit his beliefs. Biblical scholar Adolf von Harnack accepted this claim in his definitive text on Marcion, 'Marcion: The Gospel of an Alien God' (1920). However, Tertullian and Epiphanius lived several generations after Marcion, and they assumed the New Testament they read already existed in Marcion's era. It didn't. Marcion's critics were reading history backward instead of forward: there was no New Testament yet.
Ancient critics thought Marcion cut out texts he didn't like from an already existing canon, but this is not true.— Westar Institute (@WestarInstitute) October 24, 2013
When we leave aside these assumptions, we can realize that Marcion's text is a valuable witness to the development of texts— Westar Institute (@WestarInstitute) October 24, 2013
We tend to assume the version of Christianity we see today as inevitable, but actually there were many possible ways for Christianity to develop. Christianity may never have become a religion with a set of scriptures at all. Christians may have continued to interpret and reinterpret Hebrew scriptures, rely on oral storytelling, consider themselves Jewish, and so on. In my reading of ‘After Jesus before Christianity’, much of this is confirmed. The very attitude of Marcionites setting themselves apart from Jews led them to declare a "new" testament, and that has made all the difference.
What did Marcion's version of the New Testament look like? It had two parts: the Evangelion, which was a gospel related to the Gospel of Luke, and the Apostolikon, a collection of Paul's letters. Marcion is our first witness to six of the ten letters now considered to be authentic by modern biblical scholars. Biblical scholars came to the conclusion that only some letters attributed to Paul are authentic (most exclude 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, for example). The evidence from Marcion supports this finding. The inclusion of Paul's letters in the New Testament was by no means certain. Rather, Marcion's choice to include the letters succeeded in pushing other communities to do the same thing when they came up with competing canons of scripture, although it took his competitors two hundred years to establish the canon now found in Bibles today. I have read in some books that the whole process of ‘canonisation’ was quite messy, and some debates by church leadership were quite hostile. I am personally very disappointed that The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Truth and The Gospel of Thomas are not included in our present canon.
What Marcion did and what the New Testament became, are directly related. He directly affected the form and content of the NT.— Westar Institute (@WestarInstitute) October 24, 2013
This is a very different way of looking at the Marcionite New Testament, and scholars will need to compare the edition reconstructed by Jason BeDuhn to determine how these changes our view of how early Christianity developed. For example, the Evangelion is much shorter than the Gospel of Luke, and it is not clear whether they were both written by the same person for different communities, or if a later editor added new material to the Gospel of Luke. Also, BeDuhn found that the Marcionite version of Romans 9-11 is completely different, yet this text has been used by some scholars as a key to Pauline theology. Regardless of how these findings eventually play out in scholarly discussion and debates, BeDuhn identifies four significant contributions of Marcion to Christian history:
Available from Polebridge Press
Christians owe the idea of a "new" testament to Marcion.
Christians owe to Marcion the particular form of the New Testament.
Christians owe to Marcion the prominence of the voice of Paul in the New Testament.
Finally, Christians owe to Marcion a Christian identity built on a special scripture.
Marcion even prepared a version of the New Testament in which he excised all the Jewish references. He removed three of the Gospels, retained a heavily-edited version of Luke, and created a compilation of Paul’s letters, focussing on the places where he attacked those in the early churches who advocated for the Jewish Law (the so-called “Judaisers”). Not only did his Bible have no Old Testament, but also no Jewish elements in the New Testament! Yes. From my reading, I do think Marcion went ‘too far’.
In more recent times, the Old Testament has been criticised as being irrelevant, containing a host of laws that come from an ancient and very different society, bearing no relevance to contemporary life. I think you would have to agree with that comment regarding some of the O.T.. It is a matter of degree. The God of the Old Testament is often criticised as being a thoroughly vengeful creature, who is quite different from the loving God we encounter in the New Testament, and thus not worthy to be part of Christian faith. That claim, I believe, is most unfair; Yes. I agree but I think, that is an extreme view. there are expressions of God’s love in both testaments, just as there is violence and retribution portrayed in each testament. Yes. It is my experience, and in what I have read, that most responsible and open-minded commentators agree totally. However, I cannot ignore what Brueggemann says in his Old Testament Theology on pages 93-94, ‘There is no doubt that the imagery of the divine warrior is problematic for biblical faith, as we have become increasingly aware that the Bible is permeated with violence in which YHWH (God) is deeply enmeshed…’
With the 2 different images of God, I am left with the issue, the subtitle of Crosssan’s book ‘Jesus and the violence of scripture’ – “How to read the bible and still be a Christian.” Actually, I found his book quite helpful; not a complete answer but very helpful.
Another criticism often voiced is that all of the cultic (worship) provisions set out in the Old Testament are totally irrelevant to worship in the Christian church; only the moral prescriptions (the Ten Commandments and other select laws) remain relevant. Inevitably, this involves a large amount of cherry-picking, to select those passages that reinforce an already-existing point of view. It’s not really a very fair way to operate. I think you are right. But I believe we are all guilty of ‘cherry-picking’ at some stage. I think both of us could be included but I think we both try very hard to avoid this temptation.
Underlying these criticisms is, undoubtedly, a supercessionist attitude towards Jews and the sacred texts of Judaism. There are signs of this attitude developing throughout the Middle Ages, and it certainly was fostered by key figures in the Reformation. Supercessionism came to its fullest flowering in the blatant antisemitism found most starkly in the brutal policies implemented by the Nazi regime in the middle of the 20th century, leading to the genocide of 6 million Jews in the tragedy of the Holocaust (the Shoah).
Supercessionism (a form of replacement theology) claims that Christianity has replaced Judaism; that Jesus Christ has abolished the Law; that the new covenant of Jesus replaces the old covenant of Moses; and that the chosen people of God are no longer the Jews, but Christians. It is a view that is no longer accepted within Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism and all mainstream Protestant denominations—although many of the “people in the pew” still articulate points of view that are fuelled by supercessionist ideas. Absolutely, and I think it is a great pity!
My own denomination, the Uniting Church in Australia, made a clear denunciation of antisemitism and supercessionism in a Statement on Jews and Judaism, adopted by the National Assembly in 2009, which can be read at https://assembly.uca.org.au/rof/resources/learn-more/item/2658-jews-and-judaism. (To explore a longer theological analysis of supercessionism, see https://www.thescribesportion.com/dangerous-heresy-replacement-theology/). Very often I am proud to be a member of the Uniting Church in Australia.
Yet, alongside this negative and destructive attitude within the church, there are a number of striking facts to observe. First, the 39 books of the Old Testament remain an integral part of the sacred scriptures of the church. Was that democratically decided? They are still in our Bibles! (Indeed, there are additional books contained with the Roman Catholic Old Testament.) You probably do not wish to widen the subject too much, but you do not mention that there have been very serious moves made to change the canon of the New Testament by Dr. Taussig and the New Orleans Council. You would no doubt know of his published, ‘New New Testament'. This move is probably not the only such move in the church’s history and will, most likely, not be the last. This encourages me to think that the canon is not as ‘fixed’ as it maybe once was.
Second, the Psalms, which are part of the Old Testament, hold a central and beloved place within the communal worship life and the personal devotional life of Christians all around the world. Any thought of banishing these poems from our spiritual life would be anathema to millions upon millions of faithful people! Absolutely, but maybe, as you suggest later regarding some O.T. laws, ‘some sifting and sorting’ could be done.
Third, the Revised Common Lectionary which is widely used amongst many denominations of the Christian church (Roman Catholic, Anglican, and many Protestant churches) explicitly provides two readings from the Old Testament alongside two readings from the New Testament, for use in communal worship. There is a Psalm for each Sunday, and another reading drawn from other parts of the Old Testament each Sunday. These texts are intended to nourish the religious life of the faithful as equally and as constructively as the Gospels and Epistles. Absolutely, but you continue to speak about what ‘the churches’ (the hierarchy) either recommend or require of their church service leaders. I know of a number of clergy who never read from the O.T. now, and only preach from the gospel reading. It would not surprise me if that number might increase in future.
Fourth, when we read and reflect on the New Testament, it should be clear that every one of those 27 books is, in some way, dependent on the Old Testament. Jesus quotes many passages from Hebrew Scripture, and selectively avoids others; his distillation of “the two greatest commandments” draws directly from scripture, as he urges his followers to “love God” (Deut 6:4–5) and to “love your neighbour” (Lev 19:18). Sure, our O.T. heritage has a lot of wisdom from which Jesus draws.
Paul infuses most of his letters with scriptural citations; his theological legacy, set out in his letter to the Romans, is based on a single scripture text (Hab 2:4b, quoted at Rom 1:16-17), and a plethora of scripture texts are cited during the argument advanced in Rom 9–11, for instance. We can’t pretend to understand the New Testament if we ignore and sideline the Old Testament. However, I would suggest that if we take too much of some of the O.T. teaching, we could be straight-jacketed’ into such things as the Jewish sacrificial system and the common thinking that this is a necessary part of the process regarding obtaining the forgiveness of “God”.
Finally, we need to note that there are a number of key themes in the books of the Old Testament that resonate strongly within the pages of the New Testament. Take away any one?? of these key themes, and the New Testament would be impoverished, and our Christian faith would be less enriched. We need these Old Testament themes from the times of the patriarchs and matriarchs, the judges and sages, the prophets and kings, to make sense of the story of Jesus and the early church! Links between the ‘themes’ of the O.T. and the Jesus story can and should be made, as you say. Many of the ‘themes’ are taken up by Jesus, however, the violent nature of the O.T. “God” is not. I believe Jesus ‘took away’ this theme. This was only ‘one’ of the themes in the O.T. not embraced by Jesus. I think you would agree that there are others. I think I can make a lot of sense of the story of Jesus without a great knowledge of the O.T.. I think that is the case with a great number of ‘people in the pew’.
I’ll offer further posts that provide more detailed consideration of these key themes. Suffice it to say, at the moment, that if we eliminate all?? concern for the Old Testament, we will have an impoverished understanding of the New Testament, a flawed perception of spiritual realities, and an inadequate expression of faithful discipleship as a follower of Jesus. That’s a big claim; Not that much, I think, because when you use the phrase ‘all concern’, I believe you are excluding people who have ‘some concern’, maybe serious concerns but not ‘all’. I think you narrow the debate by such terms, to only people with extreme views. I hope to substantiate it in the series of posts that follow.
Why should Christians bother to read the Old Testament? Why should we have passages from Hebrew Scripture read in services of Christian worship. And why should anyone bother to preach on an Old Testament text in a service of Christian worship?
Now, I want to explain in some detail exactly how the 39 books of the Old Testament shape, inform, and enrich our lives as Christians.
There are a number of key themes in the books of the Old Testament that resonate strongly within the pages of the New Testament. Take away any one (I have commented in the your previous post on this and other phrases you use.) of these key themes, and the New Testament would be impoverished, and our Christian faith would be less enriched. We need these Old Testament themes from the times of the patriarchs and matriarchs, the judges and sages, the prophets and kings, to make sense of the story of Jesus and the early church!
An understanding of the People of God is the first key theme of the Old Testament. Dealing with the concept of ‘God’s chosen people’, is difficult for me, but when it is linked with ‘for a purpose’, it more than acceptable. Ordinarily, very often ‘choice’ is done for privilege, but it could be clearly demonstrated that this is not the case for ‘God’s chosen people’ in the Bible. Numerous quotes could be summoned to substantiate this. However, there are some stories and statements in the O.T that don’t obviously make that link, and I find these difficult; the conquest for the ‘promised land’ being a major one. I think ‘ privilege’ is very much to the fore here.
The whole saga that is told in the historical narratives derives from the promise of God to Abraham (Gen 12:1–3), to make of him a people, to gift him with many descendants, and to give them a land, and what a violent story that is!(from which we get the phrase “the promised land”).
The people remain as a focus right through the long-running saga that is told in the sequence of narrative books, from Genesis through to Ezra—Nehemiah. Israel is assured that the whole nation is a “chosen people” (Deut 7:6–8, 14:2; Ps 33:12; Isa 41:8–10, 65:9), set apart as “a kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (Exod 19:4–6), called to be “a light to the nations” (Isa 42:6, 49:6).
The notion of Christians as “the people of God” is picked up in the New Testament (Rom 9:25–26; 1 Pet 2:9–10; Heb 4:9, 11:25; Rev 21:3). In particular, Paul grapples with this matter in three long chapters in his letter to the Romans (chs. 9–11), concluding that Jews are joined by the Gentiles, “grafted on” to the existing branches (Rom 11:11–24) to form the continuation of “the people of God”.
The language of being “God’s people” and “a holy nation” is mirrored in 1 Peter 2:9–10, whilst the imagery of the “light to the nations” resonates in Acts (13:47, 26:23; and see Luke 2:32). The sense of being God’s people continues in “the people of the way” (Acts 18:25, 19:23, 24:22) and in various letters (Rom 9:25–26; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 1:13–14; Heb 4:9–10, 8:10; and Rev 22:1–4).
The people of God enter into relationship with God through the Covenant that is offered to them. This is the second key theme of the Old Testament books: a commitment to Covenant. The Covenant provides an understanding of the deep and abiding relationship between God and God’s people. The Covenant is offered initially to Noah, and to all living creatures (Gen 9), before it is subsequently renewed (and reshaped) by being offered to Abraham (Gen 15, 17), to Jacob (Israel) (Gen 35), to Moses and the whole people (Exod 19), and later to the people again through Jeremiah (Jer 31).
Renewing the Covenant, of course, is the way that various New Testament writers understand the purpose of Jesus’ life and death (Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:1–6; Heb 7:22, 8:10–13, 12:24). And the very title ‘New Testament’ is itself a variant of ‘New Covenant’ (the same Greek word can be translated as covenant or testament).
Underlying the Covenant is the clear understanding that God is a loving God, filled with steadfast love. A regular refrain in the Hebrew Scriptures is this clear affirmation: “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exod 34:6–8; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17b; Ps 145:8–9; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; see also 2 Kings 13:23; 2 Chron 30:9).
The Lord affirms to Moses, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exod 33:19), and Moses offers Aaron and his sons the prayer, “the Lord bless you and keep you … and be gracious to you” (Num 6:22–27)—a ancient prayer which lives on in Christian spirituality and liturgy! The Psalmist knows that graciousness is a key characteristic of God, for there are regular calls throughout this book for God to demonstrate divine graciousness (Ps 4:1, 6:2, 9:13, 25:16, 31:9, 41:10, 56:1, 67:1, and many more times).
However, the juxtaposition of punishment and steadfast love is clearly stated (Exod 20:5–6), signalling that the complexity of God’s nature is clearly understood. The offer of divine graciousness and the demands of divine justice co-exist within the Lord God. And that will be the focus in the next blog post. God’s judgments and punishments are both acknowledged, and I believe this is important in order to honour the whole text. Thank you.
Flowing out as a consequence of the Covenant is a further key theme, that of the Law. For Israel, the Law provides clear practical guidance to faithful people, setting out the various ways they are to maintain their obedience to God and thereby uphold the Covenant. The Covenant is not an idealised or abstract idea; it is known and expressed in each of the 613 laws contained within the Hebrew Scriptures. So the Law was considered to be a gift to the people, to be celebrated and valued as much as to be kept (Ps 19:7–11, 40:8, 119:97–104, 169–176).
Paul reveals great angst about the Law in Rom 7, and his words in Rom 10:4 are cited as a proof—texting argument that the Law was rendered obsolete. However, he ultimately can’t let go of the Law. He continues to claim that Israel is part of God’s people (Rom 9–11), and he maintains that “love is the fulfilling of the Law” (Rom 13:10). Christians have all too often seized on the passages which provide a negative perspective on the Law, but the actual situation in scripture is more complex and nuanced.
The mission of Jesus was to fulfil the Law (Matt 5:17–20), to reach into the very heart of the Law and apply it in a completely radical way (Matt 5:21–48), to focus primarily on renewing Israel (Matt 10:5–6, 15:24). With that fundamental commitment, Jesus often disputes vigorously with those who interpreted and applied the Law in ways that he saw as contrary to God’s intentions (Matt 23:1–10; Mark 2:23–28, 7:1–23). Comments about The Covenant and the Law, I found very helpful.
The bottom line for Jesus, however, is that the Law sits as the bedrock of his ethical outlook. His central commandment of love–to “love one another” (John 13:34), to “love your neighbour” (Matt 19:19), even to “love your enemies” I don’t really think this is at all explicit in the 2 great commandments. It needs a particular interpretation of these commandments. There are injunctions to be helpful and not cruel to one’s enemy’s animals, but that’s about it.(Matt 5:43; Luke 6:27)–rests firmly?? on “the two greatest commandments”?? from the Law. With this clarity drawn from his Jewish faith, he urges his followers to “love God” (Deut 6:4–5) and to “love your neighbour” (Lev 19:18).
So, in the ways that the people of God is described, in God’s covenant relationship with that people, and in the ways that God’s graciousness is offered in the gift of the Law, we see clear lines of continuity and connection between Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament texts.
Why should Christians bother to read the Old Testament? Why should we have passages from Hebrew Scripture read in services of Christian worship. And why should anyone bother to preach on an Old Testament text in a service of Christian worship?
We need these?? Old Testament themes from the times of the patriarchs and matriarchs, the judges and sages, the prophets and kings, to make sense of the story of Jesus and the early church that is told in the New Testament. I don’t think this link is so essential. It is helpful and gives a further dimension to the story of Jesus, but his story and teachings can also stand alone, making a lot of sense for me, with great force, challenge and wisdom.
In this post, we continue with two more themes: worship, and justice.
Worship sits at the heart of the people in the Old Testament, and this theme continues through into the New Testament. Alongside the focus on the giving of the Law (Exodus 24) as the people were travelling through the wilderness (Exod 15:22 to Num 33:49), there are detailed instructions about building the Tabernacle (Exod 26–31) and about the liturgical functionings associated with it (Leviticus, and Num 3–11). Later, the building of the Temple becomes prominent (1 Kings 5–8) and the collection of Psalms is made as a rich resource for this liturgical life.
All of these passages, quite clearly, relate directly to the customs and practices of another time and place, far removed from current times, and also distant from the times in which many of the New Testament documents were written. Nevertheless, the Psalms continued to inform the spiritual life of Jesus and his followers (to the point of his death, Mark 15:34 quoting Ps 22:1), and the language of temple is taken up in a spiritualised form (1 Cor 3:16–17, 6:19; Eph 2:19–22; and see the cultic language of Phil 4:18).
Likewise, the death of Jesus is understood to be a spiritualised sacrifice (Gal 1:4; Eph 5:2; 1 Tim 2:6; Titus 2:14; and much of Hebrews), and his followers are encouraged to offer “spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1-2) even whilst they sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).
However, within the books of the Old Testament, there are many passages critical of the worship practices of the people of Israel. Although the intricate details of prayers, sacrifices and offerings were commanded by the Lord (Lev 1–7; Num 15; Deut 12), many of the prophets are critical of the excessive focus on sacrifices and prayers.
Speaking on behalf of God, Amos thunders a clear denunciation of worship gatherings: “I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies” (Amos 5:21–27). Isaiah berates the people with God’s diatribe, “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams … I do not delight in the blood of bulls or lambs or goats” (Isa 1:10–17), reinforced by Jeremiah (Jer 6:20) and the Psalmists (Ps 40:6).
Various passages juxtapose the rituals of sacrifice with the divine demand for ethical behaviour. Justice and righteousness is preferred to burnt offerings and noisy songs, says the prophet (Amos 5:21–43) and the sage (Prov 21:3). Another prophet declares that God “desires steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos 6:6).
A contrite heart, doing the will of God, is preferred to sacrifice and offering, says the Psalmist (Ps 40:6–8, 51:16–17). “To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools”, says the Preacher (Eccles 5:1). The sacrifice of thanksgiving is what God really requires (Ps 54:6, 116:17). And so the critical dialectic is prosecuted.
A central focus in the Hebrew Scriptures is the commitment to Justice, articulated (as we have seen) by Amos. This is the key quality of the prophetic messages given to Israel over a number of centuries. Moses and the elders he appointed had a responsibility to judge the people (Exod 18:13–27). This was continued by men and women designated as judges in the book of Judges.
Over time, the role of the prophet arose, as judges gave way to kings; the prophet was called to hold the king to account (for instance, Nathan at 2 Sam 12). This then expands so that the prophetic voice speaks truth to all the people, persistently calling out for justice (Amos 5:18–24; Micah 6:6–8; Isa 1:10–17, 5:1–7, 9:6–7, 42:1–4; Jer 21:12, 22:3, 33:15; Ezek 18:5–9, 34:11–16; Zeph 3:5). I find it encouraging that the close link between worship and acting with justice is made. It confirms that, what I have believed, is in fact the case. Thank you. The prophets sometimes get really stuck into those, who put all their eggs in the ‘sacrifice’ basket, while acting unjustly, and they really cop it! I think this is the case with the well-known quote from Micah – ‘What does the Lord require of you, etc’. The two, worship and justice, are linked all the time. Thank you for this emphasis. Again, numerous quotes from the Old Testament you give make this understanding abundantly clear.
This prophetic cry continues into the New Testament, as justice is placed at the centre. Jesus calls for justice (Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42, 18:1–8)—at times, we find it rendered as “righteousness” in his sayings (Matt 5:1-12, 20; 6:33, 21:28–32). This, of course, is the way that it appears in the letters of Paul, where the righteousness of God is the action that we experience when God implements justice in our lives (Rom 3:21–26, 4:1–25; 2 Cor 5:16–21).
Both the manifesto for mission that Luke highlights at the start of the public activity of Jesus (Luke 4:18–21) The Luke passage, about Jesus’ ‘manifesto for mission’ you quote but there is no comment about how Jesus stopped short in the Isaiah passage quoted by him. WHY? This is quite reasonable, given the context, but I think it nearly leads to not telling the whole story. I don’t think hardly any person in the pew knows that Jesus stopped short! It is never mentioned. They would have no knowledge of it!! And when I read many of the prophets when they talk about the last days and the Day of vengeance, (See Isaish 61:2b.)I am not surprised that Jesus stopped short! and the climactic parable of the sheep and the goats that Matthew places at the end of the public teaching of Jesus (Matt 25:31–46) draw strongly from Old Testament insights. Both demonstrate the priority that Jesus gave to practical actions of support, care, and advocacy within ordinary life—precisely what justice is!
Jesus highlights the judgement executed by God (Matt 8:10–12; Luke 13:28–30) and told a number of parables of judgement—particularly those collected in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 13:36–43, 47–50, 22:1–14, 24:44–25:46). Typical of Matthew. These stories use the threat of divine judgement as a warning against sinful injustice and as a spur to righteous living. Underlying these warnings is the fundamental principle that God’s justice undergirds all (Matt 12:17–20; Luke 18:1–8).
So in the ways that worship is described and criticised, and in the ways that justice is advocated, we see clear lines of continuity and connection between Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament texts.
I find this paper helpful but somewhat wanting in some areas. Thank you.
Why should Christians bother to read the Old Testament? Why should we have passages from Hebrew Scripture read in services of Christian worship. And why should anyone bother to preach on an Old Testament text in a service of Christian worship?
There are a number of key themes in the books of the Old Testament that resonate strongly within the pages of the New Testament. Take away any one of these key themes, and the New Testament would be impoverished, and our Christian faith would be less enriched. We need these Old Testament themes from the times of the patriarchs and matriarchs, the judges and sages, the prophets and kings, to make sense of the story of Jesus and the early church!
In this post, we continue with to further themes: redemption, and hope.
In the story about Israel that was told and retold by the people over centuries, the theme of Redemption holds centre stage. God is the one who Redeems Israel (Exod 6:6; 2 Sam 7:22–24; Ps 19:14, 78:35; Job 19:25; Isa 41:14, 43:14, 44:6, 24, etc) and who brings salvation to Israel (Exod 14:13–14, 15:1–2; 1 Sam 2:1–2; 1 Chr 16:8–36; Isa 12:2–3; 33:22, 35:4, 63:1; Jer 30:8–11, 42:11; and in many psalms).
The story of the Passover (Exod 14) and the Exodus from Egypt (Exod 15) The Passover and the Exodus are spoken as central stories. 17 references are given but only Exodus chapter 15 is referenced for the Exodus story. If people read this reference only, they will be reading, what many commentators call, The Song of Moses and the shorter Song of Miriam, and not the story of the Exodus as such. We know that the Exodus story, set in its context, begins at chapter 1 and continues for the 15 chapters. I would think the whole 15 chapters should be referenced. Maybe it could be shortened to 4:18 to 15. Some might regard what you have done by limiting the reference, as cherry picking. becomes the central and all-informing narrative for the people of Israel and with it the ultra-violent image of “God”???, regularly repeated in brief assertions (Exod 19:4, 20:2; Lev 11:45, 25:38; 26:13; Num 15:41; Deut 5:6; Judg 2:1, 6:8; 1 Sam 8:8, 10:18) and extended credal affirmations (Deut 26:5–9 does state in verse 8 ‘with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror, with signs and wonders’ but only a passing link to the violence of God.; Josh 24:2–8) Joshua 24:2-8 details of what God did in verses 5, 7, 8 and 9, but no comment or judgement on the violence. Verses 10, 11 and 12 compound God’s violence by fighting for ‘his chosen people’, and giving them the ‘promised land’, as well as sung in psalms (Ps 78:9–72; does comment on the violence of the Lord in verse 31, 34, 42-51 80:8–14, 136:10–22 Psalm 136:10–22 repeats in every verse ‘For his steadfast love endures for ever’, but only for his ‘chosen people’; and see Hosea 11:1–4 Beautiful.).
Indeed, it was the experience of Exile from the land, and the yearning to return to the land of Israel, that brought the story of the Exodus from Egypt to the centre of the identity of the people of Israel. Much of Hebrew Scripture was collated and constructed as a literary whole during this period of return to the land, with the rebuilding of the city and the restoration of the worship life of Israel in Jerusalem.
The Passover was retold and remembered, not only in the annual festival, but also in the psalms and stories of the people. Looking back, from the perspective of being once more back in the land, meant that the power of this story of leaving behind and moving ahead, took a stronger grip on the collective psyche of the people.
This Passover focus then shapes the story of Jesus and defines the central purpose of Christian faith. Jesus is described as the lamb of God (John 1:29, 36), the Passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7). It is Jesus who effects salvation (Luke 2:29–32, 3:3–6, 19:9–10; Acts 4:8–12, 13:26–31, 28:28; Rom 1:16–17; 1 Thess 5:9; Eph 1:11–14). It is Jesus who brings redemption (Luke 2:38, 21:28, 24:21; Rom 3:21–26; Gal 4:4–7; Eph 1:7–10; Titus 2:11–14; Heb 9:11–14) for the people of God. and a lot of this has been and still is interpreted as leading to Atonement, which theory is questioned a great deal these days, certainly not emphasised as a few years ago .
Finally, the theme of Hope is articulated in the Old Testament. The theme can be found in the stories of Israel wandering in the desert, searching hopefully for the promised land. Hope is articulated most clearly in the prophetic stream of writings. The prophets decry the infidelity of Israel and proclaim God’s judgement. They proclaim that judgement will fall on the people on the Day of the Lord (Isa 2:12–22, 13:6–16; Jer 46:10; Joel 2:1–11; Amos 5:18–24; Zeph 1:7–18; Mal 4:1–5). Yet they also look with hope to a time when peace will reign and justice will be done (Isa 2:1–4, 5:1–7, 9:6–7, 28:16–17, 42:1–9, 52:9–10, 66:12; Ezek 34:25; Hag 2:9; Zech 8:12).
Under the weight of oppression by foreign powers—initially Assyria and Babylon, and then after the Macedonian expansion under Alexander the Great—this prophetic Hope transforms into apocalyptic literature (Isa 24–27, 33-35; Ezek 38–39; Dan 7–12; Zech 12–14). Given the grim circumstances of daily life, the vision of a new era continues to motivate and inspire the people with hope grounded in a deep trust that God would overcome evil and institute a new era. Writers beyond the Old Testament continue to articulate this hope (1 Enoch; Testament of Moses; 2 Baruch; 4 Ezra; and a number of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
The theme of Hope also informs Christian faith. Jesus offers a vision of the Kingdom of God which has been influenced by Jewish ideas (Mark 1:14–15; Matt 4:17–20, 5:3–10; Luke 4:43, 17:20–21; John 3:1–8). So many of the parables of Jesus focus on this kingdom (Mark 4:10–34; Matt 13:24–52, 25:1–46). This vision of Jesus had clearly been sharpened by the yearnings for freedom that had percolated within Israel over centuries under the extended rule of foreign powers (the Seleucids and then the Romans).
Paul articulates a sense that “the appointed time has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29). He writes “that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Thess 4:13), affirming that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (1 Thess 5:2), that is, it will be very soon that the kingdom will come. The groaning of this creation yearn for that time to come soon (Rom 8:18–25).
The very last book of the New Testament, the Revelation attributed to John, portrays the dramatic and very violent events which lead to the ultimate instituting of “a new heaven and a new earth”, here on this earth (Rev 21:1–4). In the final chapter of this book, Jesus declares, “Behold, I am coming soon” (Rev 22:12), and invites believers to respond, simply, “come” (Rev 22:17). In my reading, this book has also been claimed to be the most violent book in all sacred literature. You can certainly find what you quote in the Book of Revelation but that again is not the whole story. Are you cherry-picking or even giving your readers a half-truth?
So it is that Hope, a central Old Testament theme, continues unabated right throughout the New Testament. Absolutely.
*****
We have thus reviewed a number of key themes, which indicate how the Old Testament connects with the New Testament, informing the faith of Jesus and his followers, shaping the beliefs of the emerging movement and the way that communities of faith lived out their discipleship. As a major influence for those times, so the Old Testament continues to provide guidance, nourishment, challenge, and inspiration, for faithful followers of Jesus in the 21st century.
So that’s why we should read, study, and preach from the Old Testament!! I think you have proved your point, but with numerous ‘selected’ passages, selecting sometimes to the extent of not telling the whole story. I realise that this sometimes has to be the case because your posts do not have, for me, an apologetic purpose.
Reading the Bible and reflecting on its message for us, is a fundamental activity for people of faith. Understanding the Biblical message and its application in our lives is the purpose of private meditation or devotion times, group studies, and preaching in worship. So thinking about how we undertake that process of interpretation is good to do, from time to time.
One of the issues that is raised, when we think about interpretation, relates to what we understand the biblical texts are. We need to appreciate the nature of the text we are reading; let it speak in its own right; let the kind of text that it is guide the way we go about reading it.
In our course on Exploring the Old Testament, we identified a number of different literary genres that are found within the Old Testament: narratives, laws, poetry, wisdom, prophecy, and apocalyptic. We also noted that we think about the nature of these texts, that will shape and inform the way that we interpret and apply them.
(1) When we read passages that comprise lists of Laws, we probably begin to think about how these laws were relevant to the ancient society, where people had different customs and practices. Are they still relevant today? Do we still keep slaves or stone sinners or slaughter animals for sacrifice? Such matters have shifted over time, so we automatically start to sift and sort amongst the laws. I think your comments about sifting and sorting are excellent and should be read 3 or 4 times and thought about very deeply. Sometimes, when people apply what I believe are laws that are not relevant for today, I want to ask them, ‘How many cows and bulls would you sell your daughter in marry?’
Some laws, we will want to keep, because they seem to apply across time and space, or because they contain fundamental principles (“love your neighbour as yourself”, for instance). Other laws, we will classify as no longer relevant. Can we reject these as being misleading and unhelpful to us today? I think we should and even be encouraged to do so! Some will sit in between and we need to think further about them. We happily engage in this process of sorting and sifting (Accepting and rejecting??!!) when we read Laws in the books of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy).
(2) Other parts of the Pentateuch contain extended Narratives, telling stories of the patriarchs and matriarchs (in Genesis) and of the origins of Israel as the people left Egypt, wandered in the wilderness, and entered into the land of Canaan (Exodus and Numbers, Joshua and Judges, and Ruth). Then follows a series of narrative books telling of the kings and the prophets (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles) and then, later, of the return to the land (Ezra and Nehemiah).
These Narratives have the appearance of historical accounts—they are organised chronologically, they have a series of key characters, and they focus on developments, challenges, and changes in society. Indeed, we label the main stream of these books with the term The Deuteronomic History, laying claim to their character as history.
Nevertheless, careful study of these books indicates that this is not always history as we know it in the contemporary world. We have other expectations and patterns in our modern histories. And we certainly should not consider these to be “objective history”; they are not, as the biases and prejudices of the authors are evident. (And, besides, is there actually any such thing as “objective history”? Are not all accounts told from a particular perspective with a specific agenda in kind?) These narratives are history-like, but not exactly history per se.
So as we read these history-like texts, we can have a number of questions in mind, that help us to enter into the story, understand the dynamics at work, and identify with or against the various key characters. As we do this, we may well develop an understanding of how God is portrayed as being active in the story as we have it.
(3) In fact, in some cases, we decided that these narratives are more like Myths. We defined a myth as “a purely fictitious narrative involving supernatural persons”, or as “a traditional story, usually associated with the time of origins, paradigmatic significance for the society in which it is told”. The passages that we saw as fitting into this category are the Creation Stories in Genesis 1–3; the story of The Flood in Genesis 6–9; the account of The Exodus in Exodus 14–15; Again, ‘the account of The Exodus’, should be listed as being in the first 15 chapters of the book of Exodus, not just chapters 14 -15. Chapter 14 is the account of the final episode from a much longer story, and chapter 15 is the Song of Moses and the shorter song of Miriam. Are you protecting readers from the ultra-violent activities of ‘God’ in the 10 or so previous chapters? and the period of Wanderings in the Wilderness that is recounted in parts of Exodus and Numbers.
What do we make of these mythological passages, which so many people take as straightforward historical accounts? How do we preach on mythological passages in ways that assist our listeners to be open to the interpretations and applications that we offer them? It takes skill to find ways that connect and engage at depth with people, offering them a new or different point of view, without antagonising them or causing them to shut off from what you are saying.
Myths are invitations for us to engage our imagination, to enter into the story, to put aside the notion that “this really happened”, “this is a fact”, “this is the truth”. Myths invite us to step out of the world that we inhabit day by day, to step into another world that is created within the story. That invitation to step out and then step in can open up all manner of possibilities in understanding life and faith. Seeing certain narrative texts as myths may well open up new insights when we allow the text to engage us in a quite different way.
(4) When we come to Poetry, we bring with us an assumption that we will be reading words that have been carefully chosen, artistically arranged, and designed to create specific feelings in us as readers. We don’t come expecting the poetry to apply directly in the way that some of the Laws apply. Nor do we expect that poetry needs to be read as objective factual accounts of things that happened. Rather, we accept that the creativity of the author is designed to inspire our own imaginations.
So we bring a different method of interpretation to this kind of literature. We appreciate the structure of the songs in the book of Psalms, or of the oracles of various Prophets, enjoying the skill of the wordplays and imagery employed for their own sake, as well as for what insights they offer into the human condition and how we relate to God. The love poetry of the Song of Songs and the wistful poems of The Preacher in Ecclesiastes
(5) Wisdom sayings such as we find in Proverbs are different again, and we read them with a different set of expectations in mind, asking a different set of questions, with another bunch of conclusions emerging from our consideration of them. By their nature, proverbs are quoted without any specific context—they look just like “general sayings”—and are strung together to form longer sections of text which actually have no sense of plot, character, development, and so on.
We can perhaps happily extract individual proverbs from their biblical context and talk about how they apply to us today, with apparent relative ease. Perhaps there is a place for this, although gaining understanding of the social and historical contexts in which the proverbs were created and passed on, can offer different insights and deeper understandings 9f what is being said in such texts.
(6) Prophetic words are found largely in the books named after individual prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve grouped together as “minor prophets” (Amos, Joel, Hosea, Jonah, etc …). Some prophetic words are embedded in the history-like narratives noted above; this relates to figures such as Samuel, Nathan, Elijah and Elisha.
The classic way to approach prophetic texts has been to scout these books looking for “words that have been fulfilled by Jesus”. That is a very narrow way to approach such texts. For one thing, it actually discounts many of the verses in each of these books. For another, it discounts the political, cultural, social and religious contexts in which the prophetic oracles were delivered.
Prophecy, in its fundamental character, is not fore-telling, oriented to the future. Rather, it is more naturally understood as forth-telling, proclaiming a word of the Lord into the current circumstances of the prophet. So understanding the original context assumes a greater significance in the way we approach prophetic writings. Likewise, exploring both the impact of the poetic language and the reasons for the literary ordering and shaping of the oracles merit careful attention.
(7) In some of the books of the prophets, we find sections that are characterised as Apocalyptic (Isaiah 24-27, Ezekiel 38-39, Joel, Zechariah, and Daniel). These are passages which paint a picture of a time and a place that is differs from the time and place of the author. They are texts which claim to reveal how God is going to act in the future, to judge the wickedness that exists and bring about the kingdom of justice and peace on the earth.
The word Apocalyptic is a transliteration of a Greek word that means “unveil” or “revealing”. An Apocalypse is usually presented as a message that has come through a dream or a vision, in which a messenger from God speaks about what is yet to come. It most often contains vivid, dramatic scenes that we cannot interpret as literal scenes; Apocalyptic is thoroughly symbolic.
Apocalyptic literature was written in situations where the people of Israel felt oppressed, dominated by a foreign power, forced into compromises in their religious and cultural practices. The vision or dream portrayed life in a positive, hopeful manner. It was offered as an encouragement to people of faith to hold fast to their faith and look to the promised future, when God would act in their favour.
*****
In each of these genres, the questions we have in mind, the presuppositions we bring, the reading tools that we have honed and developed, will inform and guide how we interpret each form of literature. There is no general, overarching, blanket set of rules. Each text needs to be dealt with on its own terms.
I believe this post could be suggested as compulsory reading for lay preachers and clergy who are beginning their work of conducting church services and preaching from the Bible. However, there are certain areas where the writer could be accused of telling half-truths and thus being misleading in his emphases. Maybe my comments in RED could be inserted, with the intention of creating more room for thought and debate.
In our course on Exploring the Old Testament, we spent some sessions dealing with texts that we characterised as myths. These are narrative sections of the Bible that look, on the surface, to be historical reports—but, in fact, we have come to the conclusion that there is little, or no, evidence from outside the Bible to support our reading them as history.
In fact, in some cases, we decided that these narratives are more like myths. We defined a myth as “a purely fictitious narrative involving supernatural persons”, or as “a traditional story, usually associated with the time of origins, paradigmatic significance for the society in which it is told”. Some of the passages that we saw as fitting into this category were the Creation Stories in Genesis 1–3; the story of The Flood in Genesis 6–9; the account of The Exodus in Exodus 14–15?? Already commented on! Again, are you perpetrating a questonable emphasis.; and the period of Wanderings in the Wilderness that is recounted in parts of Exodus and Numbers.
What do we make of these mythological passages, which so many people take as straightforward historical accounts? How do we preach on mythological passages in ways that assist our listeners to be open to the interpretations and applications that we offer them? It takes skill to find ways that connect and engage at depth with people, offering them a new or different point of view, without antagonising them or causing them to shut off from what you are saying.
Myths are invitations for us to engage our imagination, to enter into the story, to put aside the notion that “this really happened”, “this is a fact”, “this is the truth”. Myths invite us to step out of the world that we inhabit day by day, to step into another world that is created within the story. That invitation to step and and then step in can open up all manner of possibilities in understanding life and faith.
We do this every time we reread a children’s story to our children, or grandchildren, or tell a story as the “children’s address” in worship. We do this whenever we go to the theatre and watch a play, created by a playwright, set in an imaginary location at another time. We do this when we listen to music that enriches our spirits, that takes us “out of ourselves” into a different place. The saints of the Celtic church talk about “thin places” where the environment can invite us to pause, reflect, imagine, and as we move out of ourselves and gain a deeper sense of God, present with us.
So we know the dynamic of stepping out of the concrete, specific, material, historical realm, and entering into a deeper, expanded, transcendent dimension. We can do that in the ways noted above (and more); why not also in the times that we read scripture? We can perhaps do this when we listen to one of the parables of Jesus, knowing that they are stories, not historical accounts. Can the same be done for other, longer, narrative sections of scripture?
The German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer writes about “a fusion of horizons” that can take place when we step out of our familiar world, into the world of the story, the myth, which has its own dynamics and patterns. The basic premise of this understanding is that the familiar world that we inhabit in daily life has its own horizon; we see all of life encompassed within the overarching framework that is provided by the furthest horizon of our culture. We instinctively operate within that horizon. We have our own understanding of the world; we operate within our own experiences, our own received traditions, our own expectations and patterns of living.
Myth that is offered in a biblical text has another horizon, a different horizon. The patterns of behaving, the structures of relationships, the ethos of the culture, are each set in a different way by the different horizon of that text. Stories that are myths offer us alternative experiences and patterns of living, and different traditions and customs. These patterns and experiences shape a different horizon within the story. Recognising the extent of that horizon—how it is broader, or how it is closer, than our familiar everyday horizon—is a part of the process of interpretation.
When we provide an interpretation—when we start to think and talk about how “that text” relates to “our context”—we are fusing the horizon of the text with the horizon of our life. Our everyday horizon incorporates what we have been taught, what we have experienced for ourselves, and thus what resonates in the depths of our soul. These are the prejudices (the pre-judgments) that we bring into the process of interpretation. Those prejudices need to be named and acknowledged. They are not barriers to interpretation; they are factors that facilitate our interpretation.
The horizon of the text may introduce new factors, bring different awareness, invite fresh experiences. Those new and different factors need to be integrated into our familiar horizon. That process is the pathway of fusion, as the two horizons are brought into relationship with each other. The creativity and imagining that a myth offers, invites us to reshape our familiar patterns of interpretation as we enter into a framework with a different horizon of understanding. That is a great gift offered to us through this particular genre.
*****
Hans Georg Gadamer defines a horizon as follows:
Every finite present has its limitations. We define the concept of “situation” by saying that it represents a standpoint that limits the possibility of vision. Hence essential to the concept of situation is the concept of “horizon.” The horizon is the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point. … A person who has no horizon is a man who does not see far enough and hence over-values what is nearest to him. On the other hand, “to have an horizon” means not being limited to what is nearby but being able to see beyond it. … [W]orking out the hermeneutical situation means acquiring the right horizon of inquiry for the questions evoked by the encounter with tradition.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg (2013). Truth and Method. Translated by Weinsheimer, Joel; Marshall, Donald G. (revised 2nd ed.). London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-7809-3624-6.
Dare I say it, but I think this post could also be compulsory reading for lay people and clergy who are beginning their work of leading church services!
A couple more posts on I wish to make comment, and with that I will stop taking up your valuable time, that is, if you are still with me.
Your post on women:-
Where have all the women gone? Women in the movement initiated by Jesus (Luke 10; Pentecost 6C)
This coming Sunday, we hear a story in which Jesus is in the home of two women: Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42). It’s a passage that is much beloved for the radical portrayal it offers: Jesus willing to teach a woman, Jesus willing to break the mould of traditional patriarchal expectations. This story gives is opportunity to consider the strong emphasis on women that is found in the story of Jesus told within the orderly account that we attribute to Luke. Yes! And whoever heard of a rabbi speak of the Kingdom of God (Not that it is mentioned as such) when talking about a woman doing some house work???
Feminist scholars have noted the prominence accorded to women as followers of Jesus throughout this orderly account, and the particular emphasis on women that surfaces at specific moments in the narrative. The presence of women amongst the movement initiated by Jesus, and their taking on of leadership roles within that movement, is no surprise, given that it is only in the second of the two volumes attributed to Luke that we find such a clear declaration about this matter.
Every Pentecost, when we read and hear the story of that day, we are told that Peter, in beginning his speech, cites in detail a prophetic word uttered centuries earlier by Joel. Speaking in the name of God, the prophet declares, “God declares that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy … even upon my slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit” (Acts 2:17–18).
This prophecy is significant, both in what follows in the events recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, but also in terms of the place that women occupy in the Gospel of Luke. Women have significant roles, both in the stories told in the ensuing chapters about the movement initiated by Jesus, and also in what has come before, the account of the words and activities of Jesus himself. I find it interesting that Mary is very prominent in the birth narrative of Jesus in Luke and Joseph hardly gets a look in! Never mind, Luke is a good balance to Matthew!
*****
In the Acts of the Apostles, this strand of female faithfulness continues, but appears to become somewhat diminished as the narrative continues. We need to keep asking, is what we find in this narrative (and what is missing) a result of the ordering of material undertaken by the author? If the specific mentions of women fade later in Acts, was this intentional or accidental?
Very early in Acts, the spirit is poured out upon males and females alike (Acts 2:17–18). This Pentecost scene in Jerusalem has a paradigmatic function for the narrative that follows (in the same way as the scene in the Nazareth synagogue functions in the Gospel). Many of the elements in the Lukan Pentecost story recur throughout the ensuing stories of the good news being proclaimed in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Antioch, throughout Asia Minor and Macedonia, into Greece (Corinth and Athens) and ultimately to Rome.
Amongst the significant women who are presented as positive models of faithfulness, we find Tabitha in Joppa, a woman “full of good works, acts of charity” (9:36); Mary, in whose house the believers meet in Jerusalem (12:12); Lydia in Philippi, who likewise provides hospitality to Paul and his companions (16:15); Priscilla, who with her husband, Aquila, teaches Apollos in Ephesus (18:26); and the four female prophets in Caesarea (21:9). Each of these women, we must conclude, exercise a leadership role in the early church.
However, the frequency of explicit references to women in Acts lessens as the narrative continues. Whilst there are faithful women noted amongst the converts in some places, women fade from view and are almost entirely absent from the latter sections of Acts. Is this intentional on the part of the author?
There are women in the audiences to whom preaches in various towns and cities in his travels, often specifically identified as being women of higher social status. We might assume that this was par for the course in the towns and cities of the Hellenistic world; at least, in four locations, this is clearly the case, as those listening to Paul include “devout women of high standing” in Antioch (13:50), “not a few of the leading women” in Thessaloniki (17:4), “not a few Greek women and men of high standing” in Beroea (17:12), and “a woman named Damaris, and others with them” in Athens (17:34). Were there, likewise, women in other crowds which heard Paul?
In Corinth, Paul stays for some time with “a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla” (18:1–4). We know about this couple from Paul’s own letters (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; and see 2 Tim 4:19; in each case, the female is identified as Prisca). The gathering in the house of Aquila and Priscilla clearly included females, hearing the proclamation of the good news that Paul brought.
However, in the face of intense opposition, Paul, with Silas and Timothy, “left the synagogue and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God; his house was next door to the synagogue” (18:7). When we learn that “Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household” (18:8), we can reasonably assume that this household included women—a partner, some children, and certainly some female servants.
There are no women specifically mentioned when Paul falls into difficulties in the theatre, the public arena, in Ephesus (19:23–41), nor when farewelling the Ephesian elders in Miletus, presumably in a private meeting (20:17–38). Yet, could it have been possible that this latter group included women? Whilst it may seem unlikely to us, if we focus on the dominant patriarchal makeup of society at the time, Jesus had established a movement in which equality of males and females was clearly advocated.
As Marg Mowcko notes, “In Paul’s more general teaching on ministry and ministry gifts, including his teaching on leadership ministry gifts, the apostle gives no hint that some ministries are for men and some are for women”—so could this apply to the group with whom he met in Miletus. See https://margmowczko.com/pauls-qualifications-for-church-leaders/ ; whilst the quote is from footnote 13, the argument of the whole post keeps open this possibility. If it was a possibility, and if the author of Acts knew this, then his failure to mention this would be striking. But this is a rather hypothetical line of interpretation.
When Paul travels from Greece to Troas (20:1–6), only males are noted as his companions: “he was accompanied by Sopater son of Pyrrhus from Beroea, by Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, by Gaius from Derbe, and by Timothy, as well as by Tychicus and Trophimus from Asia” (20:4). There are no clear indications, either in Acts, or in Paul’s own letters, that women travelled with him on his journeys.
In Troas, when he meets to “break bread” (20:7), we can reasonably hypothesise that women were present along with men as “Paul was holding a discussion with them … [and] continued speaking until midnight” (20:7). Why might not the same apply to those travelling with Paul? Especially since this would have continued the model that was first provided by Jesus (Luke 8:1–3; 23:55).
When Paul arrives in Ptolemais, he greets “the believers” (21:7), presumably a mixed group of males and females. In the next city, Caesarea, Paul stays with Philip, the father of “four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy” (21:9). They remain unnamed, and also apparently inactive in terms of their giftedness; it is Agabus, a male prophet visiting from Judea, who provides active prophetic words (21:10–11).
On the next leg, into the house of “Manson of Cyprus, an early disciple”, Paul was accompanied by “some of the disciples from Caesarea” (21:16). Again, given the nature of the movement established by Jesus, the presence of women amongst those disciples can reasonably be assumed.
When he is arrested whilst undergoing a ritual in the Temple in Jerusalem (21:27–36), he is in the company of “four men who are under a vow” (21:23). It is considered that this was most likely to have been a Nazirite vow, akin to what he had previously undertaken in Cenchreae (18:18). Such a vow was originally open to men and to women (Num 6:1–4), but it is thought that it had become a specifically priestly vow by this time (see https://www.thetorah.com/article/can-a-husband-annul-his-wifes-nazirite-vow ) So no females are in the story of Acts 21, nor might we expect them to be.
After this arrest, when Paul is brought before a series of officials whilst under arrest (chs.22—26), before being taken as a prisoner to Rome (28:14–16), the protagonists in the story are all males. Only the consort of Felix, Drusilla, in Caesarea (24:10–21) and her sister Berenice, the consort of Agrippa, in later scenes in Caesarea (25:13, 23; 26:30), provide a female presence in this long section. Berenice engages in the discussion about Paul after his speech (26:30–31); the decision about Paul, however, is made by the two men, Festus and Agrippa (26:32).
*****
Have the faithful female followers of Jesus and the spirit-inspired women of the Pentecost prophecy dwindled away to nothing as the movement spreads across the Hellenistic world?
From the first sermon of Jesus, set in Nazareth and presented as a key moment for Jesus, Luke has him explicitly draw attention to the faithfulness of a woman. The anonymous widow from Zarephath in Sidon (Luke 4:26), alongside the named male from Syria (4:27), formed prototypes of those who would become faithful followers of Jesus. Both males and females became disciples of Jesus, and later, members of the early church communities. Discipleship was seen to be inclusive in gender terms.
At an equally-significant moment, in the way that Luke orders events and tells his story, at the coming of the spirit during the festival of Pentecost, Luke has Peter refer to an older prophecy which now is coming to pass: “God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy … even upon my slaves, both men and women” (Acts 2:17–18). The equal role of women and men is clear and central.
The movement appears to have followed that vision, but the way that the Lukan narrative is developed sadly allows that vision to slip from view. Women, spirit-inspired and strategic in leadership within the movement, disappear from view, even though, as we have indicated above, it is quite plausible to argue for the presence of women, alongside men, at virtually every step of the way.
Later evidence for the developing Christian church attests to the ongoing activity of women in preaching, leading, caring, hosting, and even writing. That Luke had a particular reason to hide, or at least diminish, this fact, is a worrying conclusion to draw—but it seems to be the most logical deduction. What that reason is, however, is not at all clear to me. Had the author of this second volume succumbed to the dominant patriarchal culture of the time, and allowed women to fall from view in his narrative?
This post has certainly given readers a lot to think about regarding what, I think, is the generally held view of people in the pew, that women were not very prominent in the life and journeying of Jesus and Paul and did not have a great participation in the leadership in the earliest times of the followers/disciples of Jesus. I have had it said to me that a recent Pope said something like, ‘We don’t have ordained women clergy in the church, because Jesus didn’t have any female disciples in his twelve.’ I hope a person like the Pope would not say such a thing because, for me, it is so shallow, infantile, and ignorant; not to say that it is also insulting to women.
Because this business of women’s leadership in the church is still a hotly debated topic, with such people as, I think it is, the Bishop of Sydney and many others, I would have found it helpful for you to have commented on some of the terrible texts in the New Testament. You probably know of others, but I mention 1 Timothy 2:11-15, particularly verse 5a, (a disgrace!) and Titus 2:4-5, particularly the last part of verse 5. I think they need to be rejected, or at least refuted with explanation.
The Bible I have dates back to 1959, a gift given to my late mother-in-law, and the page of 1 Timothy quoted above, is the only page in that Bible that has been moth eaten. I am thankful that the moths have done a good job!!!! I hope they didn’t get indigestion, but given the content on the page, they may well have become very sick!!!
Thank you for this post. I found it very helpful and instructive, but too limited in its scope.
And another post on the vengeful God:-
As we follow the various readings from the Prophets during this season after Pentecost in Year C, we encounter a striking passage this coming Sunday. It contains an impassioned love poem, in the words of God, concerning the people of Israel (Hosea 11:1–11).
The poem depicts God as a human being, loving Israel as a child (11:1), calling to them (11:1–2), taking them up into God’s arms (11:3), kissing them and feeding them (11:4, showing warm and tender compassion (11:8), withholding anger (11:9), welcoming them back as they return from their wandering (11:11). God is the patient, loving, caring parent.
This is a striking passage. It confronts us in two ways: first, by depicting God in human form, and second, as it is a passage in the Old Testament which depicts God in a way that is quite different from many other passages that are often cited, where God’s anger with Israel bubbles over into aggressive punishment. I can’t count the number of times that I have heard this aspect of God used to characterise (or, indeed, caricature) the God of the Old Testament as violent and vengeful. I think there is quite a possibility that you may think I do that in some of my comments. I might add, however, that Brueggemann says that ‘YHWH is deeply enmeshed’ in a bible that ‘is permeated with violence’.
First, let’s consider the depiction of God in ways that indicate the deity is acting like a human being. Even though there are clear injunctions against having any images (or idols) representing God (Exod 20:4, 23; Lev 19:4; 26:1; Num 33:50–52; Deut 5:8; 27:15; Isa 42:17), God is nevertheless portrayed in the scriptures as being human-like. A major difficulty for me is that the Bible is saturated with it, from beginning to end.
In Deuteronomy, Moses had reminded the Israelites of what had taken place on Mount Horeb (Sinai of Exodus 19): “the Lord spoke to you out of the fire; you heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice” (Deut 4:12). He continued, “since you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take care and watch yourselves closely, so that you do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure—the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth” (Deut 4:15–18). That’s a comprehensive list of what is prohibited!
Nevertheless, at many places in Hebrew Scripture, God has eyes and ears (2 Chron 6:40; 7:15; Ps 34:15; Dan 9:18), a mouth (Deut 8:3; 2 Chron 36:12; Isa 1:20; 34:16; 40:5; 58:14; 62:2; Jer 9:12; 23:16; Mic 4:4) and nostrils (Deut 15:8; 2 Sam 22:9, 16; Ps 18:8, 15; Isa 65:5), as well as hands (Exod 9:3; 16:3; Josh 4:24; Job 12:9; Ps 75:8; Isa 5:25; Ezek 3:22) and feet (Gen 3:8; Ps 2:11–12; 18:9; Isa 63:3; Ezek 43:7; Nah 1:3; Zech 14:3–4).
God speaks (Gen 1:3; Exod 33:11; Num 22:8; Ps 50:1; Ezek 10:5; Jer 10:1; listens (Exod 16:12; Ps 4:3; 34:17; 69:33; Prov 15:29), and smells the aroma of sacrifices as smoke rises to the heavens (Gen 8:21; Lev 1:13, 17; 2:2, 9; 3:5, 11, 16; 4:10, 31; 6:15; 8:21; 17:6; cf. Lev 26:31). God even whistles (Isa 7:18) and shaves (Isa 7:20)! I have a long list in my book but, thank you, I didn’t have the reference to “God” shaving!
This depiction of God in human form is despite the polemic of Psalm 115, which derides idols as “the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; they make no sound in their throats.” (Ps 115:4–7; see also Deut 4:28; Isa 44:18; Hab 2:18).
The God with eyes and ears, then, laughs (Ps 2:4), has regrets (Jer 42:10), feels grief (Ps 78:40) and joy (Isa 62:5; Jer 32:41; Zeph 3:17). God experiences jealousy (Exod 20:5; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; 32:19–21; Josh 24:19; Job 36:33)—jealousy so intense that his wrath “burns like fire” (Ps. 79:5). “Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and by him the rocks are broken in pieces”, says Nahum (Nah 1:2).
Which brings us to the stereotype I noted above: that the God of the Old Testament was always violent and vengeful. To be sure, we can see intense flashes of God’s anger in incidents told in the historical narratives (Num 25:1–9; Deut 28:15–68; 29:19–28; Judg 2:11-23; 2 Sam 6:1–11) These readings have to do with ‘the Lord’ or ‘the Lord your God’ punishing ‘his’ people because of their bad behaviour. and in the regular refrain, “the anger of the Lord was kindled against XX” (Exod 4:14; Num 11:33; 12:9; 32:13; Deut 6:15; 7:4; 11:17; 29:27; Josh 23:16; Judg 2:14, 20; 3:8; 10:7; 2 Sam 6:7; 24:1; 1 Ki 16:7, 13, 26, 33; 22:53; 2 Ki 13:3; 17:17; 21:6; 23:19, 26; 1 Chron 13:10; 2 Chron 21:16; 28:25; 33:6; Ps 106:40). The vast majority of these readings have to do with Israel ‘following after other gods, soothsaying, worshipping and building alters to Baal’ etc. They nearly all refer to how God is jealous (not actually mentioned) of other gods and punishes ‘his’ people because of their idolatry. I have never understood the 2 references you make, to someone putting their hand out to steady the Ark when they thought it might fall and be damaged. I suppose it had to do with things being so ‘holy’ that they are taboo for touching, etc. You might have some helpful explanation, please.
The prophets proclaim that judgement will fall with a vengeance on the people on the Day of the Lord (Isa 2:12–22, 13:6–16; Jer 46:10; Joel 2:1–11; Amos 5:18–24; Zeph 1:7–18;.. Mal 4:1–5) whilst the psalmists invoke the wrath of the Lord upon their enemies (Ps 2:5, 12; 21:9; 56:7; 59:13; 110:5–6), note that God’s wrath punishes Israel (Ps 78:49, 59, 62; 88:7, 16; 89:38; 90:7–11), and petition God to turn his wrath away from them (Ps 6:1; 38:1; 79:5; 89:46). Such punishment is the consequence of breaking the covenant (Lev 26:14–33; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:31–32; Jer 5:7–9; Ezek 7:1–4).
******
However, this is not the sum total of God’s character in Hebrew Scriptures; there is much more to be said about God. The prophets, for instance, not only proclaim the coming “day of the Lord”, but also look with hope to a time when peace will reign and justice will be done (Isa 2:1–4, 5:1–7, 9:6–7, 28:16–17, 42:1–9, 52:9–10, 66:12; Ezek 34:25; Mic 4:1–7; Hag 2:9; Zech 8:12).
The psalmists praise God for the steadfast love (heșed) that he expresses to Israel (Ps 5:7; 6:4; 13:5; 17:7; 18:50; 21:7; 25:6–10; 26:3; 31:7, 16, 21; 33:5, 18, 22; 36:5–10; 40:11; 42:8; 44:26; 48:9; 51:1; 52:8; 57:3, 10; and so on) and prophets recognise this same quality in God (Isa 54:10; 55:3; 63:7; Jer 9:24; 16:5; 32:18; 33:11; Dan 9:4). As Jeremiah sings, “the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness” (Lam 3:22).
Micah asks, “who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of your possession?” (Mic 7:18). The answer to that question is sounded again and again in the refrain, “the Lord is a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Ps 86:5, 15; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jon 4:2).
This steadfast love (heșed)—also translated as loving kindness, or as covenant love—is a consistent characteristic of the God found in the pages of the Old Testament, along with the God who executes judgement and inflicts punishment. Like human beings, the God of Hebrew Scripture is complex, with multiple characteristics, exhibiting a wide range of behaviours.
Hosea 11 not the only passage where the deity is depicted as acting a human being. God is occasionally imaged as a woman, such as in the palmist’s comparison, “as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, until [God] has mercy upon us” (Ps 132:2–3).
God is described as being “like a woman in labour; I will gasp and pant” (Isa 49:15); she gives birth (Deut 32:18) and comforts her child “as a mother comforts her child” (Isa 66:13). The psalmist compares themself to “a weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me” (Ps 131:2). Such female descriptors for God emerge in the New Testament as Jesus evokes the image of “a hen [who] gathers her brood under her wings” (Matt 23:37; Luke 13:34), as well as in the parable of the woman searching for her lost coin (Luke 15:8–10).
In the love song of Hosea 11, God exudes heșed, loving kindness, or covenant love. In return, God expects that Israel will demonstrate that same covenant love (Hos 4:1), for “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice” (Hos 6:6). The prophet calls to the people, “return to your God, hold fast to covenant love (heșed) and justice (mishpat), and wait continually for your God” (Hos 12:6).
The chapter offers beautiful insights into how God deals with ‘his chosen’ people; Ephraim is mentioned 3 times and Israel once. You broaden God’s behaviour to ‘people’ with no mention of the specifics of the chapter. Maybe reasonable but with the strong emphasis in Hosea 11:1b, ‘out of Egypt I called my son’, I think the broadening interpretation is not really there in the text. it stands in stark juxtaposition to the many passages that describe the anger of the deity. It reminds us that the mercy of God, expressed in deep covenant love, must always be held alongside the justice of God, expressed in angry punishments meted out when that covenant is broken. Indeed, Hosea describes the covenant relationship between Israel in this manner: “I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy” (Hos 2:19).
Mercy and justice are two sides of same coin, two key aspects of the character of God. Accordingly, God requires of us both mercy and justice, as Jesus notes: “the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith” (Matt 23:23).
You call this post, Undoing the stereotype of “the vengeful God of the Old Testament” and you give numerous O.T. references as to how we might do this. You have rightly pointed out the ‘two sides of the same coin’ and this, for me, is very helpful. I believe you limit your ‘undoing’ to the relationship between God and ‘his chosen people’, but only once broadening it ‘people’ in general.
However, you hardly mention the enemies that God, ‘himself’ has. The worst exhibition of God’s vengeance in the O.T. is, for me, the command God gives to King Saul. 1 Samuel 15:3 “Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass”. This is the vengeful God of the O.T. and shamefully ‘he’ has harboured this anger for maybe more than 200, years because 1 Samuel 15:2, “Thus says the Lord of hosts ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came out of Egypt’.” Not only this. The Lord says to Samuel 1 Samuel 15:11, “I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” You don’t mention any of this in your post. Again, I question the possibility of be accused of telling half-truths. I think the above, deserves comment when dealing with this subject. As Jack Spong, puts it, in one of his lectures, “Tribal gods hate the nations who are enemies of their chosen people.”
In calling your post, Undoing the stereotype of “the vengeful God of the Old Testament”, you deal more broadly with God’s behaviour, more than just vengeance. You deal with punishments by God for various reasons, mainly, of course, for idolatry. These punishments point to the violence of God, although I don’t think you ever actually say that God is violent.
I’m sure you have not dealt with the Exodus story, in any sort of detail, in any of your weekly posts, because that story is not part of the 3-year lectionary. This is why I look forward to a considered response to my papers on it, that I sent to you some time ago.
If I was still conducting regular church services and if I used the lectionary readings, I would certainly read your weekly posts for biblical education, even though I think is somewhat inadequate in some areas.
I hope you enjoy your new job with ‘With love to the world.
My warmest greetings. Grace and Peace George.