Rules and Regulations - Bible Scholars?

[Perd Hapley]

I'm reading the Pentateuch again.  The lists of rules and instructions for the tabernacle and the "how-to" section on skin diseases are not my favorite parts.  I was wondering what significance our various Bible-readers attach to them.  Are they just quaint instructions for a by-gone era?  Is each law symbolic of some moral lesson?  What use are they today? 

[Marnoot]

     We studied the Old Testament in Sunday School last year, and I spent the majority of the year teaching it every other week, so I spent a lot more time with it than I have before. Prior to my closer look, when I thought about the Old Testament I generally had visions of endless genealogies and as you say, skin diseases, etc. But finally spending some real time with it helped me to see the lessons among the pages. There are pages and pages that I think really amount to nothing more than dull instructions for properly performing X and Y. But the Law of Moses itself, and these dull instructions from a wider perspective, have great lessons that still apply to us today. The idea of seeking to be clean before the Lord, for instance, is still an idea that should be followed today; though in a more spiritual sense than the physical and ritual cleanness discussed by the Law.
     Obviously from a Christian perspective I see Christ among the pages and in the Law as a whole, but from a wider Judeo-Christian perspective, there are many lessons that apply to our relationship with God as well as with our fellow man. While it certainly has parts that just plain don't seem to apply, I think the Old Testament is far from obsolete. Too many lessons and truths that transcend the ages for it to be obsolete.

[The Rabbi]

You're reading the wrong Bible. 

[ilbob]

While it certainly has parts that just plain don't seem to apply, I think the Old Testament is far from obsolete. Too many lessons and truths that transcend the ages for it to be obsolete.

What parts don't you like?

I always find it fascinating at how people claim to believe in the Good Book, yet reserve to themselves what passages they want to accept. Its like deciding there are certain laws you don't believe in, so it is OK for you to go 70 mph in a speed zone.

[Perd Hapley]

ilbob, it sounds like you've never read the Old Testament.  If you have, you could answer the question instead of jumping to conclusions about people.  If you haven't, why comment at all?   


Rabbi, I was hoping you would comment, if only to be snarky.      I just picked up a "New JPS Translation" of the Tanakh.  Is that a good one?  Right now I'm reading an NIV arranged in chronological order.  And that's just so cool. 

[The Rabbi]

If you dont look at the commentary of Rashi and of the Abarbanel none of it will ever make sense.

[SteveS]

What parts don't you like?

I always find it fascinating at how people claim to believe in the Good Book, yet reserve to themselves what passages they want to accept. Its like deciding there are certain laws you don't believe in, so it is OK for you to go 70 mph in a speed zone.

I think there is a danger in being overly legalistic and there are plenty of examples of Jesus breaking the rules or telling the people to ignore certain prohibitions.  My wife and I are working our way through the OT and it is not easy, by any means.  I am certainly interested in what other people think because we could use the help.

[The Rabbi]

It was a work designed for a specific group of people for a specific purpose.  So it is no wonder it is a closed book for anyone else.

[roo_ster]

It was a work designed for a specific group of people for a specific purpose.  So it is no wonder it is a closed book for anyone else.

You are speaking mostly to folks who are not too hip on the whole idea of binding commentaries on scriptures, canon law, etc.  A goodly proportion of protestants are even opposed to creeds/statements of faith.  Most will try to go it alone.

That said, the OT is not a diffucult row to hoe, IMO.  It just has several James Clavelle novels' worth of content.  Give it the time it is due and don't forget that you'll have to learn the history of the region to make some of it more accessable.

As to fistful's original questions:

I was wondering what significance our various Bible-readers attach to them.  Are they just quaint instructions for a by-gone era?  Is each law symbolic of some moral lesson?  What use are they today?

For Christians, Paul & Peter nailed that one by bringing the Gospel to all nations.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Yes, there is more to it, but it is pretty apparent that the mosaic law intended to govern a people and their particulars and was not meant to govern all of humanity.

I think the law was what Hebrews 10:1 said it is: a shadow of good things to come.  Those who are Christians do not have to watch the shadow of the law for guidance, we can watch the fulfillment of the law in Christ.

Christians would be wise to have an understanding of them and how they were to be observed by the Jews.  Some have ethical content, some are Good Ideas^TM generally, some are just commands from God to the Jews and beyond our understanding as humans.  Spending too much time contemplating the proper dress of a Levite priest will yield up little.  Such time is more fruitfully spent elsewhere in the Bible, IMHO.

[The Rabbi]

It was a work designed for a specific group of people for a specific purpose.  So it is no wonder it is a closed book for anyone else.

You are speaking mostly to folks who are not too hip on the whole idea of binding commentaries on scriptures, canon law, etc.  A goodly proportion of protestants are even opposed to creeds/statements of faith.  Most will try to go it alone.

That said, the OT is not a diffucult row to hoe, IMO.  It just has several James Clavelle novels' worth of content.  Give it the time it is due and don't forget that you'll have to learn the history of the region to make some of it more accessable.

I have little doubt your first point is correct.  That's why it will remain a mystery to those who hold that opinion.
As to your second point, it is a very difficult document.  And the more closely one looks the more difficult it becomes.

[lee n. field]

Right now I'm reading an NIV arranged in chronological order.  And that's just so cool. 

I kind of have my doubts as to how useful that really is.  Arranging the material strictly chronologically will screw up any internal structure a book may have.  If you're up on the king lists it shouldn't be too hard to keep track of when you are while reading (since most of the time chronological references are to the reigns of the various kings.)

Prior to my closer look, when I thought about the Old Testament I generally had visions of endless genealogies and as you say, skin diseases, etc.

We don't read geneologies the way they did.  They are important.  They would have helped connect the readers into the history they were reading.

But finally spending some real time with it helped me to see the lessons among the pages. There are pages and pages that I think really amount to nothing more than dull instructions for properly performing X and Y. But the Law of Moses itself, and these dull instructions from a wider perspective, have great lessons that still apply to us today. The idea of seeking to be clean before the Lord, for instance, is still an idea that should be followed today; though in a more spiritual sense than the physical and ritual cleanness discussed by the Law.

One of my recent reads was Michael Horton's God of Promise http://www.amazon.com/God-Promise-Introducing-Covenant-Theology/dp/0801012899/sr=8-1/qid=1170981442/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6695510-2135862?ie=UTF8&s=books.  Of much interest is a chapter in there on the relation between the Pentatuch, and ancient middle eastern suzerein/vassal treaties.    The Old Testament is not just a collection of random stories and moral lessons.

[Perd Hapley]

Right now I'm reading an NIV arranged in chronological order.  And that's just so cool. 

I kind of have my doubts as to how useful that really is.  Arranging the material strictly chronologically will screw up any internal structure a book may have.  If you're up on the king lists it shouldn't be too hard to keep track of when you are while reading (since most of the time chronological references are to the reigns of the various kings.)

It might not be such a good idea if that were the only way you ever read the Bible.  This will only be my second time reading the complete OT, but I plan on reading it a few more times, at least.  I really think more people should read the Bible chronologically.  Interspersing Paul's letters in the book of Acts helps one understand the context of the letters.  I have trouble keeping things in order in my head, and I bet I'm not the only one.  As you said, "the Old Testament is not just a collection of random stories and moral lessons."  I think its canonical arrangement just adds to that misconception.  You have two accounts of the kingdoms' histories in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles and only much later do you read David's musings in the Psalms and Solomon's writings.  And why is Job up there, instead of somewhere closer to the Pentateuch?  By the time I get to Isaiah and the other prophets, I'm picturing them in the rebuilt Jerusalem, rather than before the exile.  I think I will get a lot more out of these things if I read them more in context.  It didn't bother Jesus to juxtapose sayings from different prophets, so I think I'm OK in changing the order.  The ancients weren't so accustomed to ordering their books chronologically, but we modern Westerners are, so it would seem to make more sense. 

I'm reading from a chronoligical Bible, but there are a few chronological reading plans on the internet that can be used wtih any Bible. 

[SteveS]

Right now I'm reading an NIV arranged in chronological order.  And that's just so cool. 

We are, too.  Just got done with the 10 commandments.

[Perd Hapley]

Neato.  One Year Bible? 

[lee n. field]

The ancients weren't so accustomed to ordering their books chronologically, but we modern Westerners are, so it would seem to make more sense.

Read much science fiction?  If you can handle a time travel story, you shouldn't have trouble with the order of the Old Testament.

Also, there're parts that we really don't know for sure when they were written.  Malachi?  Post-exilic, but exactly when?  Joel?  No real clue internally.  Ecclesiastes, many of the Psalms -- they're out there with nothing to firmly nail down exactly what time they're talking about.

Does it make any sense to require yourself to read Job at the same time as the Pentatuch? 

'm reading the Pentateuch again.  The lists of rules and instructions for the tabernacle and the "how-to" section on skin diseases are not my favorite parts.  I was wondering what significance our various Bible-readers attach to them.  Are they just quaint instructions for a by-gone era?  Is each law symbolic of some moral lesson?  What use are they today?

I read OT and NT straight through in parallel, but not to any strict schedule.  The last read through I ended up reading the last half of Exodus, at the same time I was reading the epistle to the Hebrews.  Interesting, yes?  Reading about the construction of the earthly tabernacle at the same time I'm reading about that of which the earthly is a copy and a shadow.

[Perd Hapley]

Lee, I'm glad you're not bothered by the Bible's non-chronology.  I happen to enjoy reading it in chrono order.  Maybe you should try it.  And I happen to find the canonical order just confusing enough that I'd like to read it chronologically a few times to help me sort things out.  Once I have a better grasp on the chronology, perhaps I'll be comfortable enough to appreciate this internal structure of which you speak.  As it is, I don't know if that really matters to me right now, but maybe I can learn to appreciate it.

Now, I don't read a lot of science fiction, so I don't know what kind of novels you're talking about.  I would guess that most of these follow a consistent chronology anyhow, that being the perspective of the time-traveler.  So the analogy may not really hold.  Even if they're all chopped up like Pulp Fiction, which I found entertaining, the Bible is not quite the same genre, not to mention it's longer, has more characters and is much more complex. 

Maybe it has something to do with my historically-minded way of thinking, but I like to have things laid out a little more understandably.  Of course, in history there are always a lot of diverse threads going on.  I have the same problem with other historical books, too. 

I understand there is some controversy about the chronology of the various books, so I do keep that in mind.  As I said, I'd like to read it chronologically a few times, hopefully with different chronological schemes, so I can see which order makes the most sense.  From what I've read about Job, and from the text of the book itself, it is one of the oldest books in the Bible, perhaps even older than the later chapters of Genesis.  My chrono Bible puts it between the tower of Babel and the story of Abraham.  To me, this makes perfect sense.  Job belongs with the universal story of mankind (Noah, the table of nations, Babel) so he should be dealt with before we move on to the story of God's chosen people. 

[Stand_watie]

While it certainly has parts that just plain don't seem to apply, I think the Old Testament is far from obsolete. Too many lessons and truths that transcend the ages for it to be obsolete.

What parts don't you like?

I always find it fascinating at how people claim to believe in the Good Book, yet reserve to themselves what passages they want to accept. Its like deciding there are certain laws you don't believe in, so it is OK for you to go 70 mph in a speed zone.

It was a work designed for a specific group of people for a specific purpose.  So it is no wonder it is a closed book for anyone else.

I'm not sure specifically if Rabbi was responding to ilbob's post or not, but his answer fits.

[Marnoot]

What parts don't you like?

I always find it fascinating at how people claim to believe in the Good Book, yet reserve to themselves what passages they want to accept. Its like deciding there are certain laws you don't believe in, so it is OK for you to go 70 mph in a speed zone.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm referring specifically to things like Chapter 13 of Leviticus; for instance:

When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests:
And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.

Do you honestly believe that to be a good Christian that believes in the Good Book I should go see a priest if I get some skin sores? Were I living under Mosaic law I would do so, but I don't. So instead I would go a dermatologist who may or may not be named Aaron. I never even hinted that there were passages I "don't accept," nor did I say there were parts I "don't like." I simply said "it...has parts that just plain don't seem to apply." If you find passages like the one above relevant to your life today, I apologize.

[ilbob]

ilbob, it sounds like you've never read the Old Testament.  If you have, you could answer the question instead of jumping to conclusions about people.  If you haven't, why comment at all?     

You might be surprised to find out I have read it, several times. And I find it to be quite consistent. You may not agree with certain strictures and prohibitions, but that is another thing.

[Stand_watie]

ilbob, it sounds like you've never read the Old Testament.  If you have, you could answer the question instead of jumping to conclusions about people.  If you haven't, why comment at all?     

You might be surprised to find out I have read it, several times. And I find it to be quite consistent. You may not agree with certain strictures and prohibitions, but that is another thing.

How about the New Testament? Who do you refer to when you say

"..I always find it fascinating at how people claim to believe in the Good Book, yet reserve to themselves what passages they want to accept..."  ?

I'd like to make sure I understand your point, before trying to respond to it.

[The Rabbi]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm referring specifically to things like Chapter 13 of Leviticus; for instance:

When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests:
And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.

Do you honestly believe that to be a good Christian that believes in the Good Book I should go see a priest if I get some skin sores? Were I living under Mosaic law I would do so, but I don't. So instead I would go a dermatologist who may or may not be named Aaron. I never even hinted that there were passages I "don't accept," nor did I say there were parts I "don't like." I simply said "it...has parts that just plain don't seem to apply." If you find passages like the one above relevant to your life today, I apologize.

Like I wrote above, without an understanding of the larger issues it is simply a closed book.
I mention someone would get a better understanding of this if he reviewed the dialogue of Moses at the burning bush and the quarantine of Miriam.
And the passage is very relevant to life today.

[Marnoot]

Like I wrote above, without an understanding of the larger issues it is simply a closed book.
I mention someone would get a better understanding of this if he reviewed the dialogue of Moses at the burning bush and the quarantine of Miriam.
And the passage is very relevant to life today.

I'm always up to learning more from those books, and will review the two items you state. Like I was saying before, before I began any real examination of the Pentateuch and the Prophets I mistakenly viewed the whole Old Testament as not being particularly relevant. Now that I've spent some time with it, I've seen how much it does in fact have to offer, I'm sure that the more time I spend with it and the more I learn that I'll find understanding of the kinds of verses that right now have no meaning for me, like the one I listed.

Rabbi, are there any particular published versions of Rashi's commentary you recommend? I've seen several versions at the bookstore with various commentary on his commentary, etc., but don't know whether such super-commentary would be a help or a hinderance.

[SteveS]

Neato.  One Year Bible? 

Yes.  I htink we are a few days behind, as we just got back from a trip.  I enjoy the chronological order.