Re: new covenant theology

----- Original Message -----
From: <RFaussette@aol.com>
To: ""George Murphy"" <gmurphy@raex.com>; """jack syme"""
<drsyme@cablespeed.com>; """"""ASA"""""" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: new covenant theology

> George wrote:
>
> But let me add again: This view does not mean that we shouldn't 1st study
> OT texts on their own terms.
>
> rich:
> Thank you, George. It was hard to separate that one statement out from all
> the Christology in your responses. That is my position, that we should
> study the texts on their own terms. Now, what are the terms of the OT
> texts? And if we admit the evolution of life on earth, do we study the OT
> texts in terms of Zoroastrianism or the Vedic hymns or Assyrian religion
> all of which are reputed to have influenced the development of Judaism? In
> other words, once we accept humans evolved, do we begin at the beginning
> of human history to understand the evolution of religious thought or while
> accepting evolution do we stay restricted to the Bible and only the Bible
> like the creationists must because to them there really is nothing that
> came before and influenced Judaism and then Christianity?
> Do we look for prior influences on the OT or stay within the traditional
> paradigm and not look at religions prior to the OT? If we believe in
> biological and cultural evolution, are we then obligated to track the
> evolution of religious thought?

I believe I made that qualification before but let that pass. In brief,
Yes. We should take into account cultural &c developments that may have
influenced the beliefs of Israel & of the early church &/or the ways in
which their beliefs were expressed.

Then a bit more detail. The scriptures (OT & NT) are witnesses to God's
action in history whereby God reveals himself & his will for creation. That
action in the history of Israel which culminates in the Israelite Jesus has
a unique character: God reveals himself as the one who brought Israel out
of Egypt & raised Jesus from the dead. It is thus "special revelation" &
not simply one example of a general revelation or "natural knowledge of God"
which is in principle available to everyone through his/her experience of
the world. (I say that without prejudice to the question of whether there
is such a natural knowledge of God.)

In principle one could imagine God revealing himself by having an angel
whisper in someone's ear as Muslims imagine that the Qur`an was given to
Muhammed. But the belief that God does reveal himself in history, to the
extent of finally becoming a participant in history, points in a different
direction. It strongly suggests that that revelation and the witness that
makes it available to us is part of the historical process and is influenced
by all the things that may influence other historical phenomena. God
normally acts in the world through processes that are accessible to
scientific understanding - a point that my approach to religion-science
questions in terms of a theology of the cross insists upon.

Thus there are good theological reasons for saying that we should take into
account the influence of surrounding cultures in the development of OT
texts. But of course there are empirical reasons for doing that too. E.g.,
the role of Zoroastrian ideas in the development of Jewish thought on some
matters (e.g., Satan) during the Persian period seems fairly clear.

But then I would come back to the 1st point & say that this does not mean
that there is no "specialness" to the biblical tradition. The incarnational
analogy is important here. Jesus was ~155cm & maybe 60 kg of 1st century
Jewish male, fully human, who learned Aramaic & some koine in the same way
that other Galilean kids did AND was the unique Son of God, the definitive
revelation of God. & the OT & NT are collections of texts which developed
through the same kinds of processes in human history as other texts AND are
the unique witness to God's self-revelation.

Of course all this leaves open questions about how culture, and religions in
particular, do in fact develop.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu Mar 3 20:15:35 2005