Subject: Can we affirm the OT?
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:46:13 -0500
From: Daniel McLean < 
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

I continue to be surprised that Christians in the 
late 20th century affirm the Old Testament in its 
entirety as completely true and inspired, some in 
a thoroughgoing literalist fashion.  Don’t 
get me wrong, it’s not that I don’t 
value the Bible for my own faith or consider it 
greatly important in the life of the church, of 
which I am a part.  Therefore, I don’t wish to 
criticise and denounce the Bible from a position 
external to the church, Christian faith or 
appreciation of the Bible.

However I am concerned at the common affirmation of 
the Bible as entirely true by churchgoers in 
Australia.  IMO this is problematic, as the Bible 
contains material which conflicts with itself 
internally, with the common faith of modern 
Australians and with what I consider to be modern 
common sense held by most.

The OT is the easiest starting place for this matter, 
due to it’s greater cultural distance from our 
own situation.  Let us consider the case of two 
stonings in the Pentateuch:
Numbers 15:32-36 While the Israelites were in the 
desert, a man was found gathering wook brought him 
to Moses ... The the Lord said to Moses, “The 
man must die.  The whole assembly must stone him 
outside the camp.”  So the assemply took him 
outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the 
Lord commanded Moses.

Leviticus 24:10-23 Now the son of an Israelite mother 
and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, 
and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an 
Israelite.  The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed 
the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses ...  
Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer 
outside the camp.  All those who heard him are to lay 
their hands on hims head, and the entire assembly is 
to stone him.” ...

Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the 
blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him.

I consider these two accounts, in particular the first 
account, to be horrific, repulsive and clearly 
unacceptable.  Let us consider the first account:

how can we reconcile this death sentence with Jesus 
defence of the disciples picking heads of grain to eat 
on the Sabbath (Matt 12:1ff) and then Jesus healing on 
the Sabbath (Matt12:9ff); or with the disputed account 
in John 8:2ff of the woman Jesus saved from stoning.

how can we reconcile the account with our modern values - 
surely the man’s life was more valuable than the 
gravity of his wrongdoing in breaking the Sabbath law!  
Very few modern Australian Christian’s maintain a 
strict observance of the Sabbath - is this displeasing 
to God?  If not, then could the man’s collecting 
of wood on the Sabbath have been so displeasing as to 
deserve death by stoning?  It is hardly a fair punishment.

how can we reconcile this with our understanding of God - 
although just and holy, also loving, gracious and merciful.  
This _alledged_ ruling of God on the situation does not 
match with our experience of God.  The conservatives affirm 
that God is so merciful and gracious as to send his own 
(God the) Son to die in atonement for humankind - how 
does this extreme display of mercy and grace align with 
the account.

I am interested in hearing both positive and negative 
responses as a gauge of public opinion, and to hear how 
some people do reconcile this problem for themselves.

Regards,

Daniel McLean
--
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcl4/