The Old Testament can be a source of continuous inspiration in our
spiritual life. It offers endless scope for widening our spiritual horizon. It
deals with aspects of life which are not mentioned in the gospels or the
letters of the apostles. In fact, it is four times as voluminous as the New
Testament. Many Old Testament texts are presupposed in the New, so we really
need to know them for understanding the gospel. In spite of all these good
reasons, many people are not on intimate terms with the Old Testament. They
find it foreign and bizarre. Just ask them what they think about the Old
Testament and they are likely to give you a blunt answer!
“The Old Testament is strange. It requires reams of commentary and explanation. It's too remote from my life.”
“There are so many ugly episodes in the Old Testament; too much violence; too many unsavory texts.”
“It all happened so long ago! How does it affect me? I prefer books written today.”
“Will the time I'll devote to it really pay off? I find all I need in the New. Why bother about the Old?”
Let us admit that our misgivings about the Old Testament are usually more emotional than rational. Intellectually we may be convinced. What is lacking is a feeling of attraction, the experience that the old Testament can inspire us. “Strangeness,” “ugliness” and “irrelevance” are affective notions; they describe relationships. Most people associate close and familiar with friendly, beautiful and relevant. A dilapidated house may still be “home sweet home” for the person living in it. Judgments are greatly influenced by feelings. And so it is our feelings we should be talking about.
Consider the example of Ruth. She was a woman from the country of Moab who married an immigrant Jew. When her husband died, her mother-in-law decided to go back to her native land, Israel. Ruth had never been outside Moab. She would find it hard to settle in Israel whereas in her own country she might easily find a new husband. So Naomi, her mother-in-law, urged her: “Why come with me? Stay with your own people.” What went on in Ruth's mind and heart? Certainly, no love was lost between the people of Moab and the Israelites. The Israelites would never forget how King Mesha of Moab had massacred 7,000 of their people “as a pleasing sacrifice to his god, Kemosh.” They had made it a rule that no Moabite, even if resident in Israel for 10 generations, could become a member of God's people. What sympathy could Ruth expect in such a hostile nation? But she loved her mother-in-law and decided to take the risk. “Don't ask me to leave you. Let me go with you. Your people will be my people; your God will be my God.”
Our spiritual life will only grow and mature if we are willing to strike out into unknown territory. We have to break out of the circle of close acquaintances. We have to free ourselves from our exaggerated fear of what is strange. What would have happened to us if we had always remained enclosed within the protected circle of our family and neighbors? Have we not made many exciting and lifelong friends when we broke free by going to school, starting a new job or moving into a new neighborhood? Some of our best friends may have come into our lives through chance meetings. They may be all the more valuable to us because they are different, because their family background or temperament seems just the opposite of what we ourselves would have thought congenial and acceptable.
Ruth was rewarded for her courage. She followed Naomi into a strange country to settle in Bethlehem, a town in which she knew no one. But there she met, and eventually married, a wealthy and kind man called Boaz. Through this marriage she became the great-grandmother of David and ultimately one of the ancestral parents of Jesus himself. Sometimes our greatest opportunities lie where we least expect them!
Perhaps you will say, “But Ruth had Naomi to guide her. Naomi introduced her to her new surroundings.” Certainly. But we have Christ. With him we may confidently enter the unfamiliar world of the Old Covenant.
What did Jesus think about Old Testament texts that are full of violence, that are unsavory and crude? He knew exactly how to deal with them. He either left them alone or corrected them explicitly when needed.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ [from Ex 21:24; Dt 19:21]. But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too” (Mt 5:38-39).
Jesus knew that there were many imperfections in the Old Testament. He accepted this as a matter of fact. Yet he loved the Old Testament. He derived many values of his kingdom from its teaching. Jesus overlooked many of the ugly traits because they were part of a face that was dear to him.
This is the way Jesus read the Old Testament, the way he expects us to read it. The Pharisees and scribes lacked precisely that vision.
“You study the Scriptures, because you think that in them you will find eternal life. And these very Scriptures speak about me! Yet you are not willing to come to me” (Jn 5:39-40).
“This people will listen and listen, but not understand; they will look and look, but not see” (Mt 13:14).
“How terrible for you, teachers of the Law! You have kept the key that opens the door to the house of knowledge; you yourselves will not go in, and you stop those who are trying to go in!” (Lk 11:52).
The problem with the scribes was that they clung to a very narrow and literalistic interpretation of the Old Testament. They could not see how an ancient passage could carry a dynamic, new message. Consider the time they accused Jesus' disciples of picking ears of corn on the Sabbath.
Harvesting was one of the activities listed by the scribes as forbidden on the Sabbath. Even picking two ears of corn amounted to a full transgression. I imagine that one of the scribes or Pharisees raised his voice in the ensuing argument and shouted: “What you are doing is forbidden by the Word of God!” At this moment Jesus became silent and thoughtful. He was extremely sensitive to the Word of God. The exclamation challenged him, forced him to consider what the scriptures had to say about the point at issue. Jesus allowed the Old Testament texts to pass through his mind. Two passages spoke to him convincingly, and he answered:
“Have you never read what David did that time when he needed something to eat? He and his men were hungry, so he went into the house of God and ate the bread offered to God. This happened when Abiathar was the High Priest. According to our Law only the priests may eat this bread- but David ate it and even gave it to his men” (Mk 2:25-26).
“Or have you not read in the Law of Moses that every Sabbath the priests in the Temple actually break the Sabbath law, yet they are not guilty? I tell you that there is something here greater than the Temple!” (Mt 12:5-6).
The manner in which Jesus uses these texts is very instructive. First of all, notice how he sees them in a new light. David, God's elected servant who was meant to become the ancestor of the Messiah, was in danger of death. Saul's soldiers were on his heels. David and his men might die of hunger. To save their lives the High Priest took the extraordinary step of handing over the sacred loaves to David, loaves that had been dedicated to God and thus had become God's exclusive property. Preserving David was more pressing, more sacred a need than observing a ritual law. The same situation, Jesus sees, applies to himself. He is the Messiah, the awaited Son of David. If his disciples are hungry the same exception from the Law applies to them. Moreover, if the priests are permitted to work in the Temple in spite of the Sabbath because the Temple requires such service, the same tolerance should be extended to those who work in the service of the kingdom. For Jesus, these texts teach that the welfare of God's servants and service for the kingdom are higher values and weightier priorities than conformity to law.
But there is more that we can learn. The story of David which Jesus quotes has its crude elements. The 85 priests serving in the Temple and the whole population of Nob were killed by Saul in punishment for the help given to David.
Saul also had all the other inhabitants of Nob, the city of priests, put to death: men and women, children and babies, cattle,dorkeys and sheep-they were all killed (1 Sm 22:19).
Jesus ignores this side of the story. He does not approve of it. He does not draw inspiration from it. He simply accepts it as an aspect of the ancient, imperfect covenant. He knows only too well that revelation unfolded itself through human language and thus bears the imprint of its human history.
Thirdly, and this is truly amazing, Jesus quotes the Davidic episode inaccurately. He says: “This happened when Abiathar was the High Priest.” But in 1 Samuel, chapter 21 we read that it was Ahimelech who gave David the sacred bread to eat! Abiathar was Ahimelech's son. He escaped from the massacre and became High Priest at a later date. So Jesus gave the credit to the wrong High Priest! Some commentators feel embarrassed about this and suggest that the mention of Abiathar may be due to a later interpolation or to an oversight on the part of the evangelist. I don't understand their anxiety. In fact, I find it consoling and worthy of meditation to take the text as it stands and to make Jesus himself responsible for the inaccuracy. Jesus was quoting from memory, after all, and nothing was more natural than for him to make such a slip, especially because Abiathar was so prominent in David's life during a later period. The comfort I derive from this mistake on Jesus' part is that it shows categorically that the historical detail itself was of no consequence. Whether Abiathar or Ahimelech was High Priest at the time was not a matter about which Jesus was concerned. His mistake teaches us with unmistakable authority that we too should read the Old Testament texts (and the New Testament ones for that matter) with our attention focused on the central message, not on historical detail.
The Old Testament books are very human. They show this human characteristic in the style of writing, in frequent neglect of exact reporting, in prejudiced views and attitudes, in a slowly developing appreciation of who God is and what he wants. Though written under inspiration, they could not be more human than they are. It is good to be aware of the fact that this human (and therefore imperfect) quality did not stop Jesus from finding inspiration and guidance in the old texts.
Indeed, the way Jesus used the Old Testament texts can lead us to a path of new awareness. Jesus will help us discover exciting values and precious openings we never knew of. His enthusiasm will open our eyes as it opened the eyes of the two disciples on the way to Emmaus.
Then Jesus said to them: “How foolish you are, how slow you are to believe everything the prophets said! Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things and then to enter his glory?” And Jesus explained to them what was said about himself in all the Scriptures, beginning with the books of Moses and the writings of all the prophets (Lk 24: 25-27).
I am always struck in this text by the word all in the phrase “all the Scriptures.” The early Christians kept collections of favorite texts culled from various Old Testament books. Luke says, in effect, that a comprehensive list of that nature went back to Jesus himself. Jesus had a way of reading the Old Testament that was personal and unique.
How interesting it would have been for us if we could have been there, listening to Jesus quoting and explaining the Old Testament. Surely, Jesus was not referring to these texts merely for the sake of argument, to furnish rabbinical proofs as it were. No, the Old Testament scriptures were his Father's words to him and he undoubtedly spoke of them with enthusiasm. Listening to Jesus might have cured us in one stroke of our doubts and misgivings. We could not have failed to catch some of his interest and excitement.
Taking the Old Testament seriously is like undertaking a new journey. We move into unknown territory, ready to encounter new friends among strangers, our eyes open for what God is going to show us. If this is the spirit in which we take up our Old Testament reading, we will be surprised at the spiritual profit it will bring us. The purpose of this book is to give you the “feel” of what your journey could be like. I am talking to you as a fellow traveller, pointing out routes I found useful myself, sharing some of the experiences I had on the way. I hope and pray that the insights I have received and the exhilaration I feel may somehow rub off on you, may prove contagious so that you will joyfully start your own explorations. Part of the way we can walk together. Afterward you will have found your feet. You will then go forward with confidence.
Though God is ready to give us great gifts, he does occasionally wait for us to make the first move. Let us call to mind that remarkable story of the three strangers who were Abraham's guests.
As Abraham was sitting at the entrance of his tent during the hottest part of the day, he looked up and saw three men standing there. As soon as he saw them, he ran out to meet them. Bowing down with his face touching the ground, he said, “Sirs, please do not pass by my home without stopping; I am here to serve you. Let me bring some water for you to wash your feet; you can rest here beneath this tree. I will also bring a bit of food; it will give you strength to continue your journey. You have honored me by coming to my home, so let me serve you.”
They replied, “Thank you; we accept” (Gn 18:1-5).
The story continues to describe Abraham's hospitality: how he made Sarah bake new bread, how he prepared a fatted calf, how he served the meal himself, with milk and cream. Abraham did not know it, but God himself was one of the three guests. Toward the end of the visit God blessed the home with the promise that Abraham and Sarah would have their own son - something they had prayed for during their whole lives.
We said at the beginning of this chapter that the Old Testament texts may at first give the impression of being ugly, strange and irrelevant. Could they be the three strangers standing in front of our tent during the hottest part of the day?