Comments on: Old and New Testament: You Can Never Understand One Without the Other

By: Terry Maher (Past Elder)

Terry Maher (Past Elder) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:26:55 +0000

de Lubac was forbidden to teach or publish as a Catholic by his order, the Jesuits, from 1950 to 1959. The next year he is appointed by John XXIII as a consultant to the preparatory theological commission preparing for the upcoming Vatican Council, becomes a peritus at that council and a member of its Theological Commission, and is made a cardinal by JPII.

von Balthasar was banned from teaching as a Catholic in 1950. He was named — after the Council — cardinal by JPII, but died before being so consecrated.

1950 was also the year of Humani generis, the encyclical of Pius XII detailing the incompatibility of the nouvelle theologie with Catholic thought and faith — of which school these two, along with Rahner, Congar (also once banned then a cardinal), Chenu (who went from making the Index of Forbidden Books to being a peritus at Vatican II), and a number of others including a young fella named Joseph Ratzinger.

Oh well.

By: Carl Beckwith

Carl Beckwith — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:18:16 +0000

So, you are reading de Lubac and Balthasar these days. Something you want to tell us?

By: Dennis Voss

Dennis Voss — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:56:59 +0000

PTM, I agree with 100%. My sarcasm didn’t come through in what I wrote earlier. The NOT at the end didn’t apply to Jesus, but the postmodern theologians who think the Old Testament doesn’t have anything to say to us. They don’t apply.
Sorry for the confusion.

By: Karen Keil

Karen Keil — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:28:21 +0000

This reminds me of the NET Bible (http://www.bible.org) where the translators have taken the approach of translating the Old Testament in isolation apart from any consideration on how the New Testament viewed the Old Testament. I took issue with a paper on Isaiah 7:14 (woman instead of virgin) published on the website. The writer and translator, Daniel Wallace, replied in an e-mail that the Old Testament must be translated in the views of the people of the time period , not of a later time. This runs the risk of distorting the meaning of a verse when not all aspects surrounding a text are considered.

By: ptmccain

ptmccain — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:40:44 +0000

Dennis, may I suggest that you take another look at the post? The very point of the post is that we must read the OT precisely in light of Jesus Christ and efforts to read it and interpret it apart from Christ are wrong. The very thing Christ, in the texts you mention, urges us to do. Your comments are baffling.

By: Dennis Voss

Dennis Voss — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:34:03 +0000

So Jesus was wrong when He used the Law and the Prophets to show the truth to the disciples of Emmaus, and the Law, Prophets, and Psalms to teach the ten in the upper room on the first Easter Sunday. I’m glad we are so much more enlightened than our Savior – NOT!

By: Cory Howell

Cory Howell — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:04:27 +0000

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I would like to point out one fallacy sometimes committed by well-meaning Christians. In their zeal to interpret the Old Testament in light of the New, there can be a tendency to allegorize everything in the Old Testament. The Song of Solomon, for example, is read only as an allegory of Christ and the Church. The Psalms are read as a coded prophecy of the Messiah. Seeing the Old Testament only as a precursor to the New Testament robs it of much of its richness.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:59:30 +0000

Scripture reveals Scripture and when folks ignore parts, they inevitably become very unbalanced in their view of God, which is extremely dangerous and we see the results of this playing out in every Protestant denomination today.