What About the Old Testament? - David Bentley Hart (Responding to Critics #2)

David Bentley Hart responds to another common criticism of his book, That All Shall Be Saved.
--
Please consider supporting the Love Unrelenting KZbin channel through Patreon: www.patreon.co...

[@wesleycardinal8869]

Thanks for posting this After seeing this interview, I now see DBH in an entirely different light and will read his books with a more critical and careful eye.

[@OrthodoxInquiry]

St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Those who reject the historical meaning in the God-inspired Scriptures as something obsolete are avoiding the ability to apprehend rightly, according to the proper manner, the things written in them. For indeed spiritual contemplation is both good and profitable; and, in enlightening the eye of reason especially well, it reveals the wisest things. But whenever some historical events are presented to us by the Holy Scriptures, then in that instance, a useful search into the historical meaning is appropriate, in order that the God-inspired Scripture be revealed as salvific and beneficial to us in every way” (quoted in: Dr. Mary D. Ford, The Soul's Longing: An Orthodox Christian Perspective on Biblical Interpretation (Waymart, PA: St. Tikhon Monastery Press, 2915), p. 69).

[@HApqzr77]

There’s little to no evidence that the Old Testament is historically accurate.

[@worldnotworld]

Exactly: "a useful search into the historical meaning" is appropriate. We do want to know what actually happened, if we can discover it, to know how those events were interpreted in Scripture.

[@encounteringthetrinity]

The OT is God's accommodation to the violent mindset of humanity until such time as Christ can subvert this system from within by becoming its victim.

[@stephengorman1025]

I agree with this comment.

[@jcismyall]

Perfectly explained

[@encounteringthetrinity]

@@jcismyall thanks for the thumbs up!

[@khole15]

This is what i came up with a couple a days ago also. Wonder if we are right though

[@encounteringthetrinity]

@@khole15 I believe so. Otherwise, why call the New Testament New? Rene Girard speaks of the Hebrew scriptures as 'a text in travail,' trying to give birth to Jesus. NT revelation relativizes everything in the OT, without discounting it as inspired. It's all part of God recreative, apokatastasic providential love bringing all things to perfection in Christ.

[@encounteringthetrinity]

As René Girard says, the OT is a 'text in travail,' trying to give birth to something new. That God will be all in all is the New, not without a hellish purification for those misaligned with the mind of Christ and the heart of God.

[@bayreuth79]

Where did Girard say that? Thanks.

[@encounteringthetrinity]

@@bayreuth79 in BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, I believe, and in interviews I’ve seen. Gil Baillie makes much of it in his study of Girard. Sorry I can’t be more specific.

[@encounteringthetrinity]

Reading the NT through the lens of the OT is looking through the binocs from the wrong end. Typologists as sophisticated as Scott Hahn still fall victim to this backwards hermeneutic.

[@paulpaulsen7245]

Popular example is Ezekiel 28 as wrong pattern for Lucifer as well as Isaiah 14. Ezekiel 28:2 clearly names a real prince of Tyre - בֶּן־אָדָ֡ם אֱמֹר֩ לִנְגִ֨יד צֹ֜ר

[@darthboxOriginal]

It's funny someone would equate temporary affliction with eternal torment. if God even was the sort to inflict the former, it doesn't follow that He would inflict the latter. It takes human imagination and ingenuity to come up with such a dreadful idea as burning children (and we are God's children), one that even the Old Testament account of God says He would never have even considered (Jeremiah 7:31)

[@christopher7725]

Is this supposed to help Christians or make them question their whole religion? Because he is basically saying that 95% of Christians need to rethink 99% of what they have been taught about Christianity. If the creation story, the fall, the flood, etc aren’t real, then how are they inspired by God? If they aren’t real, how does it show God’s nature? If it’s not inspired by God, then it’s just men writing whatever they think about an issue and how they BELIEVE their God would be. How do we know that’s even an accurate depiction of God? Without the fall, we have no idea of why there is original sin, why Jesus needed to die for us, or why we should even accept that gift. If a king’s priest could write “God commanded this..” about anything and it was accepted, then how can anything that is written about God be accepted? Many people leave the faith because they are not comfortable with God’s Old Testament commands, which means the fault lies on the church’s teachings for people leaving. Because they teach it incorrectly. How much research does the person with a day job have to do to understand which parts of the whole Bible are literal and which are not? Doesn’t this make the knowledge even less accessible or understandable?

[@christopher7725]

@@SamOgilvieJr I understand that these stories can contain “truths” without being true. But then how is it different than any other ancient tale that contains lessons on morality? This idea adds to the confusion because if the stories aren’t really true, then we don’t have an explanation of how sin entered the world and no explanation as to why we need to accept Jesus Christ as savior. The whole belief of Christianity is based on the idea that the stories inside, especially about Jesus, are historically true. If the stories aren’t true, then it’s just people saying “God told me this story about his nature” and we just believe them because it’s from a long time ago. Which means we don’t have any actual stories about God’s interaction with us since the stories have just been recycled from others.

[@christopher7725]

@@SamOgilvieJr How is the story of Jesus meant for the whole world but to accurately understand it, you must have extensive knowledge of 1st century Jewish culture? Is it then irrational to become a Christian without extensive knowledge of 1st century Jewish culture, since they would be incapable of really understanding it? Or is it rational to become a Christian, based on the NT, without extensive knowledge of Jewish culture? The Gospels are not first person accounts. Which one witnessed Jesus's birth or the dreams of Mary and Joseph or their travels, or Jesus talking to the Pharisees as a kid? Nowhere do the earliest manuscripts name an author. Authorship has been assigned by tradition only. Listen to Mike Licona or Bart Ehrman discuss how the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark (written 50-70 AD) as their source and those books contain passages borrowed from Mark. It would be strange for independent authors to write stories in the same order and to translate words from Aramaic to Greek the same way, about an event 20-30 years earlier if you eliminate collusion. Again, if priests can just write “God commanded this…” then priests could have done that for any part of the Bible when trying to make a particular argument that benefited their king or kingdom. Where do you draw the line? How do you know what God actually did or didn't command? The entire New Testament and story of Jesus relies on the historicity of the OT. Did God actually inspire the prophecies of the messiah? Or did a few priests just write about the kind of messiah God would to send to help save Israel from their current oppression? Did God actually create a covenant with Abraham, Moses, and David? Or did a priest just say that? In your opinion, if the OT is not historical, why did Jesus need to die on the cross for our sins? What event caused us to be separated from God? Why do we need to be forgiven? You are saying that the biggest questions regarding Christianity are not answered in the Bible.

[@christopher7725]

@@SamOgilvieJr So in order to accurately understand the NT you need “strong knowledge of 1st century Jewish culture” but you can have a personal relationship with Christ without that strong knowledge? Doesn’t that imply that you believe in Christ without accurately understanding the NT? Which are the teachings of Christ. Isn’t that the reason so many Christians misunderstand the Bible and why we are having this conversation? Because they have inaccurate interpretations of the Bible? And what if the reason someone doesn’t believe the Bible is because they don’t have strong knowledge of 1st century Jewish culture? Yes, the NT Gospel stories vary and there are minor differences, but where they are similar, they are almost identical. 97% of Mark gospel is duplicated in Matthew. Which doesn’t make sense if they are independent stories. And doesn’t make sense that independent authors would translate their accounts into the same Greek words, in the same order, from Aramaic. Google “The Synoptic Problem” on Bible . org. How do you know the Gospels are from first hand accounts when we don’t have their original actual accounts and we don’t know who wrote their accounts? I know Bart Ehrman is not the only scholar on the block. That is why I also mentioned Mike Licona, who is a Christian with a PhD in New Testament studies and Professor of Theology. Look up his research on the historicity of the gospels. It’s odd that you only called out Bart though. What do you mean we are not what we should be or were intended to be? Are you saying that something other than God’s will happened? You can choose not to answer, but my final couple questions for those who hold your view are: 1. How can you tell which parts of the OT are historical or said by God, and which were written by priests? 2. Did God actually create a covenant with Abraham, Moses, and David or was the just created by a priest and how can we tell the difference? 3. If the OT is not historical, how did we fall, why are we separated from God, and why did we need Jesus’ sacrifice?

[@gre8]

Yes, Christians, especially us in the west should rethink 99% of what we learned about Christianity. We've been taught so much nonsense and outright evil stuff that passes for Christianity that a healthy reevaluation of it all is not only desirable but necessary if Christianity is to survive into the third millennium. Christianity must become "good news" again and not a collection of confessional creeds that requires us to believe in eternal torment, talking snakes and jealous gods. There is too much chaff to be burned away. As for the complexity of the task of correctly understanding scripture, why should it be easy? I think this is a protestant prejudice that is deeply misguided. Scripture itself (if we take Peter into account) reveals how dizzying and complex Paul's theology was to it's audience. The bible should not be treated as an easy book of readily available oracles we can read at leisure, but something we should struggle with seriously and diligently. That will involve considerable intellectual and spiritual effort.

[@leonardo-wh9xx]

@christopher7725 I have the same questions like you. It's so complicated to find anwers and it can be really frustating. I wonder if you can recommend books that had help you in your understanding of this topics?

[@Liesdestroylives]

If you get the chance, read ‘At the Back of the North Wind’ by George MacDonald.

[@paulpaulsen7245]

Wikipedia for example lists some 283 instances of quotations from the Old Testament found in the New Testament. The most oft-quoted Old Testament books in the New Testament were Deuteronomy (35 instances), Psalms (95), and Isaiah (75). The figure of using old testament scripture is manifold. For instance, in Paul’s writings, earlier scripture was allegorized to give it an entirely new meaning in a Christian context (see Galatians 4:22-31). A look into the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA alone reveals the most unusual (to today´s western understanding) ideas of bible hermeneutics.

[@paulpaulsen7245]

So what? The bible is far from being a "hand book on God & human response", but rather a general "book on humans in all colors"! It is a work being utmost challenging to human minds & reason for creation of human culture between GOOD AND EVIL. Example for good? Human rights movement! For evil? Theocratic systems like the "Münster rebellion", see Wikipedia. What follows in different forms & systems lead to terror regimes of Marxism & capitalism. The bible is an essential collection of human dreams, fantasies & hopes/expectations. It has thus influenced the entire human history. And it underwent over the centuries of history a complex transformation between highly poetical works of poets, like Shakespeare & perverted dreams of tyrants, like the religious nut Stalin. The bible exposes humans as sinners. It is the book of truth insofar it also tells on real human abominations & imagined divine mysteries packed in anthropomorphic "garments".

[@paulpaulsen7245]

But best of all appears to be the "openness to a manifold of approaches & opinions" - the book is used by a wide range of human existence and colors, from believers, agnostics, communists, humanists, devil worshippers, satanists, slave holders, child molester & sinners in general! Why is that? In my opinion, this is leading to what Paul tells in Rom 11:32, that God is locking up all humans into unbelief in order to show mercy to all humans - συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ. I summarize - 1. the OT was written for Yahweh´s folks exclusively with slightly openings to universalist thoughts beginning with the prophet JONAH & ISAIAH; 2. whether someone reads the bible or not, is of no effect - on the contrary, there appears the phenomenon of countless people finding God in ways transcending all human imagination & as recently JORDAN PETERSON, finding most general patterns in the bible; 3. it appears a wonder that the bible is becoming THE LIVING WORD OF GOD, often in ways nobody expected & mirroring the SPIRIT OF GOD WORKING. In any way - the bible is to me the most unusual & challenging book I know, and I love those stories & enjoy them deeply. And often I hate this book! And want to throw it away! But always I come back & thank God for it! Greetings, love, thanks & Christ from Germany!

[@worldnotworld]

You seem to be suggesting something; what are you suggesting?

[@gfujigo]

This is one of the few places wherein I disagree with DBH. God could command the ending of anyone’s life. It’s just the end of their earthly journey and then after they are purified they get to spend eternity with God. When you think of folks like the US Confederacy that fought for slavery, or Hitler, you can’t just let them run amok. What is God supposed to do exactly? So God commanding the destruction of people from their earthly journey is not incompatible with Universal Salvation. It’s just God’s way of saying you are done here, time to experience the cleansing fire of my love.

[@Jordan-hz1wr]

It is an anti-Christ picture of God, in stark contradiction of the nature of God as revealed to us by Jesus. Would Jesus have commanded that? No. Then neither would God. Lest you're not a Christian.

[@gfujigo]

@@Jordan-hz1wr So in your view how does God correct, punish or discipline when it is needed? We know God does not punish eternally in hell. We know God is love. Love disciplines and corrects when necessary. What do you think God should do about people actively engaged in enslavement, child sex trafficking, enslavement, genocide, etc.?

[@Jordan-hz1wr]

​@@gfujigo What "should" he do? Who am I to say? All I know is what he's told us to do. DBH puts it best: Let us grant, for argument’s sake, that the death penalty is indeed a just and proportionate response to willful murder. So what? That has never been the issue for Christians, for the simple reason that the Gospel does not admit the authority of proportional justice, as either a private or a public good. The whole of the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, is a shocking subversion of the entire idea. Christ repeatedly and explicitly forbids the application of such punishment, even when (as in the case of the adulterous woman) this means contradicting the explicit commands of the Law of Moses regarding public order and divinely ordained retribution. According to Paul, all who sin stand under a just sentence of death, but that sentence has been rescinded purely out of the unmerited grace of divine mercy. This is because the full wrath of the Law has been exhausted by Christ’s loving surrender to the Cross. Again and again, the New Testament demands of Christians that they exercise limitless forgiveness, no matter how grievous the wrong, even in legal and public settings. And it insists that, for the Christian, mercy always triumphs over judgment. In a very real sense, Christian morality is nothing but the conquest of proportional justice by the disproportion of divine love.

[@gfujigo]

@@Jordan-hz1wr I fully agree with the DBH quote. As a Christian universalist I believe that through Christ all are saved. The point I am making is that humans still need discipline and correction in the short term. The Bible affirms that God chastises all that he loves and he loves all humans. So in the end, all humans are saved. That’s the not the issue. However I see no issue with God correcting human behavior or punishing some humans for bad behavior and evil, or otherwise ensuring that people face some of the consequences of their actions. All are eventually saved regardless. That’s my point.

[@davidlyons6235]

@@Jordan-hz1wr that's a great quote but he's incorrect about Jesus contradicting the law of Moses in the case of the adulturous woman. This is an old post of mine: //Yet Jesus went to the mount of Olives. Now early He again came along into the sanctuary, and the entire people came to Him. And, being seated, He taught them. Now the scribes and the Pharisees are leading a woman who has been overtaken in adultery, and, standing her in the midst, they are saying to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been overtaken and detected committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses directs us that such are to be stoned. You, then, what are you saying?" Now this they said to try Him, that they may have something to accuse Him of. Now Jesus, stooping down, wrote down something with a finger in the earth. Now as they persisted asking Him, He unbends and said to them, "Let the sinless one of you first cast a stone at her."And, again stooping down, He wrote in the earth. John 8:1-8 Have you ever wondered why Jesus bent down to write in the dirt at this accusation against the woman? I have. I wondered why He did it and I wondered what it was He wrote. If you read the King James Version, there appears the words, "as though He heard them not." These words depict a very inaccurate picture of what really happened. So why did Jesus write a message in the dirt and what did He write? Thanks to the Companion bible, this mystery is easily solved. Jesus was writing the curse as instructed in Numbers 5:11-31(note verses 17 and 23). In the case of Numbers 5:11-31, death is not the punishment, so which law were the Pharisees referring to? Deuteronomy 22:23-24. Is this an apparent contradiction between Numbers 5 and Deuteronomy 22? No, it's not. But what's more important is that the Pharisees lied. Note the distinction between the two laws. In Numbers 5, the situation is of a wife committing adultery and in the case of Deuteronomy 22, it is referring to a betrothed bride committing adultery. By writing the curse in the dirt, Jesus was revealing two things. One, the woman the Pharisees wanted to put to death was married and was not to be put to death according to the law and two, that the Pharisees were found to be guilty of bearing false witness against the woman they brought to Him. The penalty when giving false testimony leads to the death of the accused, is death. I think those who attended the near stoning of this woman saved their lives by walking away, they were not repentant as the KJV depicts.//

[@youngman44]

I don’t find this question a problem. The entire premise and logic of this question (which was raised by Peter Kreeft in his review of That All Shall Be Saved) is flawed, imo. One could read the entire OT as a fundamentalist does, as literally true, and still conclude that All shall be saved. That God invokes or, rather, that God builds into the world, judgment on humans for evil behavior in no way argues against universalism. All such judgments were restorative rather than retributive. Sodom & Gomorrah is a classic case. Ezekiel 16:53-55 indicates Sodom will be restored. The LXX, in fact, employs apokatastasis - the same term used in Acts 3:21, and central universalist text. So, too Amos 4:11 (“I over threw you as Sodom & Gomorrah, yet you have not returned to me”). The ultimate “hell” of the OT was to have one’s progeny cut off. Eg Ahab. Divine judgment however flowed out of God’s love, which is a fire that consumes the evil within us. Universalism itself does not preclude divine judgment or even some version of “hell” as a post death scenario. It just precludes eternal damnation. And that judgment is designed to humble a person to see their own evil and its consequences. That the evil we do will be brought down on our own head. The fact that God is love entails that all judgments are for one’s ultimate good. For our transformation. And of course, as Hart has himself argued, there are plenty of other arguments against the goodness of God from human suffering such that the final judgment may entail God’s judgment on himself. This response to the OT is one area where I think David doesn’t give as effective a response as he could (of course he doesn’t read the OT as a fundamentalist). Nevertheless, such literal readings do not logically preclude universalism. And the NT has plenty of texts that describe the fierceness of divine judgment. Such as Heb 10:26-31! Thus, in no way does any reading of the OT preclude universalism.

[@jiggy6795]

DBH is quite blasphemous in this video by slandering God. The OT is literal and true. There is no equivocating temporal suffering and punishment with eternal punishment. Nothing that was done in the OT cannot be undone by God. There is no need to blaspheme in this way in order to support universalism. I sympathize with universalism, but find no need to take the OT in any other way than it is. There is no need to "alegorize" it away.

[@dorinamary7863]

Slandering God is accusing Him of doing evil. It's calling evil good.

[@jiggy6795]

@@dorinamary7863 God has deemed that we know that which is written down about Him. Just because some of His judgments are uncomfortable to your modernity cultivated sensibilities does not make them "evil". God is just in His judgments, even if that is the ending of life in this age to be reconciled later. He has a purpose and it will come to be. What God has said He has done, He has done. Period. And working oneself to the point like DBH where he says kings fabricated the deeds of God calls into question every single thing written. THAT is sandy soil to build upon that brings sorrow and gnashing of teeth.

[@Mrm1985100]

There is accommodation in the OT. That's Christ's teaching (Matthew 19:8). But I agree with you that Hart is taking it way too far and going totally overboard to the point of negating the OT practically.

[@dorinamary7863]

@@jiggy6795 Which of the two gods of the OT are you defending here? 1 John says God is love, and he that loveth not knoweth not God. Paul gave us a description of love, and it never says it's justified in harshness. If the true Father does not love, then He does not know Himself. It is blasphemy to say He is the one who steals, kills and destroy. Jesus told us who does that.

[@tommywarren4633]

Back then Kings would go out and slaughter another nation and then say God told him to do it!!

[@Mrm1985100]

It's true that's there is accommodation in the Old Testament to people's fallen culture, even God's commandments are accommodated in the OT. Christ says as much (eg. Matt 19:8). That said, the NT continues the OT story which started in Genesis 1. There is an overall story and message and it's inspired. It's not possible to just jettison the OT as Hart seems to do here. He also seems to use debunked German higher criticism in regard to the OT. His stuff about there being multiple Gods in the OT is just nonsense. I don't think all this works at all.

[@jefflinahan5853]

1:33 what passage is he referring to here?

[@bianco215]

1 Samuel 15:2-3

[@zarandrewstra7833]

what interview is this from? I’d like the whole thing plz

[@LoveUnrelenting]

The full interview was released unedited on Dr. Hart's Substack page for his subscribers davidbentleyhart.substack.com/p/universalist-musings-75e

[@zarandrewstra7833]

@@LoveUnrelenting excellent im a subscriber I’ll go find it. Thanks! You’re doing the good work.

[@lanelester]

The God-directred genocide by Joshua sure reads like history, so I guess you're saying it's just not true.

[@Tyler_W]

Or it's hyperbolic, kinda like how in sports we talk about how our team completely destroyed the other team. To my understanding, this style of language was common in ancient propaganda when writing about warfare. I think we can clearly see that this is what was being done to whatever extent and that it isn't to be taken completely straightforward because some of the tribes that get "wiped out" or "completely destroyed" appear in later books, having either been driven out of town or made subject to Israel and God's laws.

[@doriesse824]

How could God have directed genocide? Jesus said no one had ever heard God's voice or seen His face, nor could they. How would God communicate His wishes to any human?

[@oliverbennett7431]

@@doriesse824where does Jesus say that?

[@doriesse824]

@@oliverbennett7431 John 5:37 37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

[@jacqueslucas8616]

Say what? God never commanded the atrocities in the Old Testament???? How dat?

[@alibongo5545]

💚

[@AlpacaLipps]

This makes me not trust DBH.

[@davidlyons6235]

I can't blame you. Sounded like trite nonsense. Picking knowledge from his tree must be done with careful consideration for what it's worth. He says some really good things defending biblical universal salvation but that's as far as I go with him.

[@AlpacaLipps]

@@davidlyons6235 That's good advise. Thank you. I started listening to him to find out more about universal reconciliation, but now I'm not sure about him. I don't know, but this video is enough for me to look elsewhere.

[@libatonvhs]

@@AlpacaLipps To his credit he doesn't deny the historicity (and literal-ness) of the Resurrection. But yeah, in his OT exegesis he goes way too far with allegorizing it.

[@fraserdaniel3999]

Didn’t this video begin by him saying, “If you are a fundamentalist, I have nothing to say to you and your religion is a joke to me”? @LoveUnrelenting did you cut that part out?

[@LoveUnrelenting]

That's correct

[@fraserdaniel3999]

@@LoveUnrelenting, oh no.. I really liked that part. If you aren't willing that have that as a part of your video, would you please send it to me?

[@LoveUnrelenting]

I had talked about it with DBH and we decided to cut it out. It wasn't really necessary for the main point of the video. I wouldn't feel comfortable sending it to people without him giving the OK

[@fraserdaniel3999]

@@LoveUnrelenting, owning fundies is always on point tho lol. On a serious note, I suspected you would have had a conversation with him before cutting it out. If he wishes that part not to be floating in public, I respect that. I'm eagerly waiting for your documentary to be released. Love all the good work you are doing and putting out. God bless :)

[@LoveUnrelenting]

@@fraserdaniel3999 thank you!

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Can you post without the cheesy music ?

[@LoveUnrelenting]

the full interview is here davidbentleyhart.substack.com/p/universalist-musings-75e?Fsearch%2Finterview&

[@bman5257]

@@LoveUnrelentingI like the music

[@OrthodoxInquiry]

Ah, what a video. Reminds me of when DBH basically came out as an unabashed Marcionite, more or less, in his response to Peter Leithart. Disgusting.

[@gilgamesh2832]

About as shocking as his affinity for Origen and admitted entertaining of the pre-existence of souls suggesting reincarnation. Hart is keen on making an alliance with Eastern Religions, and I don't mean Orthodoxy. "Vedantic" Christianity.

[@goldsmith001]

BS

[@Tornacuum]

I'm sorry but this video honestly makes me doubt universal reconciliation, and this man, who is so often referenced for UR arguments. As much as I wish UR was true, and as much as I do have difficulties accepting the "violent God of the OT", nothing he says makes any sense to actually support anything. The events didn't happen ? Then why does archeology prove many of the events factually happened ? Did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, never exist ? Or did they exist but they all did whatever they wanted in the name of a God who never actually talked to them ? How is this supposed to be "allegorical" ? Also, I'm a creationist, so hearing someone use very weak arguments from the book of Genesis like "oh look how it's poorly written and poorly done and weird" is just 0 on the scale of argument. Even if I was an evolutionist this would not convince me of anything. Is he even Christian ?