R.E. Slater - Interpreting the Violence of the OT

 

 

 

There is the temptation is to redact the bible and separate the "Actual God of the universe" from the "Textual God of the Israelites" - what one would call a "high view of the bible" as versus a "low view" of the bible. However, as someone who holds to the authority and inspiration of the bible (but not to its inerrancy), that would be to start down the path of textual redactionism which I do not wish to entertain for it is too easy to displace the bible with our own thoughts when thinking about this very difficult subject. In contrast, I would much prefer to study the bible eclectically from both viewpoints beginning with its Ancient Near-Eastern (ANE) setting using historical, anthropological, and literary research, in an attempt to discover just why its ancient texts and scrolls held such fearful and terrible commandments, acts, and attitudes by God and His ancient people. This approach would then utilize some of textual redactionism's tools and methodologies without removing the origin and preservation of divine authorship that subscribes to the high view of Scripture.

 

Consequently, when considering the violent acts of God within the bible upon the ungodly, one might say that we could be reading of Isarel's ancient Semitic beliefs correspondent to their cultural and political dispositions of the time. Not only did Israel have the temptation to replace their God (known as YHWH in the Jewish tongue) with the gods from their surrounding neighbours, but to also follow suit in their laws legally, their government politically, and their warfare militarily, in lockstep with the pagan, polytheistic nations around them. Thus, Israel did as the other nations did, crying out upon their enemies threats filled with violent speech, imprecations, and worse. Forcing the biblical reader today to discern whether the violence found in the OT is actually from God Himself, or from Israel's mis-representation of the God they embraced and believed they were following. So that we must ask, did God actually tell Israel to commit such horrible acts of obscene rape and pillage, butchery and genocide, or was it Israel's imposed understanding of God's commandments as astute observers of the surrounding nation's god's and their commandments? As example, if Assyria's gods took no pity upon Assyria's enemies, why should Israel's God take any pity upon Israel's enemies? At least this may have been the common thinking of the day back then, no less than it is now with ourselves, when facing situational ethics, world politics, and the vagaries of patriotic nationalism.

 

Thus, one approach might be to say that Israel acted like her enemies. An attitude that required God's patient teaching and admonition to His people to not subscribe to in their conduct with each other and the nations before them. However, though this approach is not altogether satisfying, it is not altogether naive as well - by its tacit admission that within Scripture we can, and will find, the cultural, religious, and politicized beliefs of Israel inserted deep within her own texts about the God they embraced and claimed to follow. Which is what is meant by utilizing an historical redactive approach to the Bible. Combining both the high view of Scripture with the low view of Scripture in a hybrid mix of some sort. One that believes Scripture is God's divine revelation, but not necessarily devoid of man's interjections and reassessments. Meaning that, though the people of God would declare God's divine authorship in the composition and preservation of the bible, we also have within this process the attenuation of the Spirit of God cleansing His people from the world's paganisms held in mind, body and spirit. Thus assisting Israel's dedication to YHWH's charters and covenants not by declaration alone, but to YHWH's integrity of purpose and behavior, by helps of His Spirit within and without the Jewish nation.

 

Against the ancient records of Israel's continued failures to hear and obey YHWH, came the requisite tasks of remembering her faith walk with YHWH from the waking dawn to the setting sun. Hence, from generation to generation God tells Israel's leaders and priests, people and peasants, to remember Him. To declare Him to their children. And to their children's children. Through oral legends, stories, and historical accounts. Including not only the stories of spiritual faith and success, but also by stories of failure and unbelief. And from this very fluid, dynamic milieu of charged cultural beliefs and traditions, came the Jewish Scriptures over Israel's many long generations. First by word, song, poem, re-enacted traditions, customs, icons, symbols and religious rites. Then by iron stylus applied to soft clay tablets, parchment pens onto failing scrolls, and a developing body of scribal authorities charged with remembering Israel's walk with God (we call this running narrative by the theological name of "salvation history"). Her tribal holy men we know as priests. And her temple scribes, teachers, and prophets, were spiritually charged with the holy task of preserving God's holy word and acts to Israel's moiling mix of believers and unbelievers. So that when we read the OT we are reading a very long, very old, narrative of God's continuing intercession with His people composed to both the godly and ungodly, the circumcised and uncircumcised, the redeemed and unrepentant, in their faith walk with the God of Israel.

 

Several times over these past many years I have indicated that those generation's beliefs and legends have been modified, or perhaps lost altogether, creating a broken record at best of Israel's account of their walk with God. For didn't Josiah weep when discovering a lost copy of the Jewish bible before setting about to reform Israel of her ungodly paganisms? The miracle is that the Jewish scriptures have been preserved at all (in comparison, think of the many American Indian legends lost in the annuals of time over their many long generations never to be known again). But who can say how many times the oral legends have been added to, or subtracted from, against Israel's lost traditions and moiling mix of contemporary beliefs held within its many past antecedent generations? To me, this is a realistic approach to discerning the theology and teaching of the Bible - that there occurred within the original autographs of the bible later collations and emendations to its text. This is not to say that YHWH was not the Bible's author (the high view). Nor to treat the Bible as simply an ancient human record (the low view). But that in the process of revelation the story of redemption was preserved against cultural adjustments to its teachings (a hybrid view). So that it brings us back to the problem of how to objectively discern Scripture against our own reasonings and thoughts when confronted with commandments and actions within the bible that exhibit very ungodlike actions by YHWH Himself.

 

However, the problem created here is that by following this line of reasoning it becomes admittedly subjective. One that is - and isn't - helpful. And thus requiring our further attention to contemporary archaeological discoveries, as well as to contemporary theological discussions, often composed against our own ideological preferences. Hence, when reading of the violence in the OT, we must ask ourselves if whether God really did say these things, or whether they proceeded from Israel's cultural attitudes, and religious misunderstanding at the time? Certainly it is possible as we see time-and-again in Israel's own history YHWH's prophets preaching against her people's corrupted religion, abominable faith, and wickedness. Or even later in the NT when Jesus comes like an OT prophet of old upon the Jewish establishment of His day to declare the same. However, if God really did say such horrific things, then we must admit the hoary truth that this Christian God must be part monster. Making of Him a dipolar entity ethically and morally split from the God of the NT at the very least. And yet, it is highly doubtful that what was spoken in YHWH's name actually were by the commands of YHWH, but rather by Israel's own deficient understanding of God Himself. At least that is one of the arguments I think we could reasonably entertain without doing injustice to the spirit of divine revelation submitted into the hands of corruptible men.

 

Another approach to understanding the violence in the OT is to use a literary redactive approach. That is, one that concentrates on comparing the stories of the Bible against other, more popular stories of Israel's polytheistic neighbors. Who are themselves committed to various pagan forms of mythology (just as we Americans are today by our movies, games, and novels) such that where Baal is described as terrible, YHWH is described as even more terrible. Where a pagan covenantal treaty is broken and judgment is found to proceed immediately, YHWH's treaty when broken comes with judgments as well, but also with a degree of righteousness, grace, mercy and forgiveness. Where a flood story is remember as despairing and hopeless, another flood story is composed telling of YHWH's divine protection and shelter in times of destruction and woe. Where a creation story attributes birth to the sun and moon, another creation story is written telling of YHWH as creation's origin and purpose. For each legal composition written, each narrative rehearsed, each national act recounted by Israel's neighbours, God gave to Israel their own divine compositions, holy narrative writs, and compelling stories of grace and redemption.

 

Thus, by utilizing comparative literary redactionism, the Bible now becomes more alive within the cultural and political milieus of its day. And similar to scribal/historical/cultural redactionism and accommodation, inserts a reality about the Scriptural passages previous unimposed if simply read naively, or non-historically, without regard to its ANE setting and folklores. To come to the Bible and interject our own flavor of cultural transcriptions is to do the texts of the Bible an injustice. One might call this popular approach a form of epistemological redactionism. Where we, as the current readers of the Bible, force our own presuppositions and attitudes upon the Bible without regard to its setting and text. Many popular theologies have found themselves at the forefront of the church's pulpiteers over the past 2000 years for this very same reason. For how could the barbarity of slavery have been encouraged in the Netherlands, Spain and England, without its teaching of the superiority of a Christian, European, race? Or how could the genocides of the Crusades have been committed without the superimposed belief of justifiable war against the innocent Muslim races of the Middle East? Or how could the cruel and terrible Inquistions have occurred without belief in the majesty of the Catholic Church? Nor the gender inequality endured by women; the bigotry of color, race, ethnicity; or the homophobia found amongst the church today? Don't be so naive as to believe we are above the act of turning the words and phrases of Scripture to our own prejudicial beliefs and purposes. Hence, such derivatives are not of God but from our own sinful hearts, making God guiltless as charged.

 

Another argument laid down besides that of historical and literary redactionism is that of utilizing a Christological approach to the violence found in the OT, albeit one that may be circular in reasoning, admittedly. In this approach we find Jesus acknowledging the God of the OT as His God. One whom He trusted, believed, obeyed, and followed, with his whole heart and life's committal. But Jesus went on to say more than this - that the YHWH of the OT was the same YHWH present within Himself by His incarnate birth. That the God of the OT was Himself, born in the flesh to lead men to salvation and unto the Kingdom of God. Jesus did not say that He was simply infilled, or clothed upon, by the spirit of YHWH, like the prophets and kings of old. But as One who was in the very nature and being as YHWH of the OT (John 1, 1 John 1). Who, in Himself, was YHWH come to man in the flesh. He, who was love, mercy and forgiveness, was one-and-the-same with the God of the OT that was full of fire and judgement, mercy and grace. To these teachings Jesus declared by the Jewish Scriptures YHWH's righteousness,love, mercy and forgiveness to the Jews of His day (which Jewish Scriptures were the only ones extant in Jesus' day. Not until after His death did Jesus' Jewish disciples write down the NT Scriptures many years later as a Jewish follow up to the OT). And further, Jesus illuminated those same Jewish Scriptures with His own original teachings about YHWH through His deeds, ministries, miracles, prayer and teachings, as endowed by the Holy Spirit.

 

And so, it is not enough to simply declare that the God of the OT is a dipolar God quite unlike the God of the NT. For Christianity does not worship two Gods, but one God. Who is one-and-the-same with the God of the OT and the NT by whatever name we know Him. Additionally, we have as our foremost-and-final arbiter Jesus Himself who declared the same. So that, like Jesus, we too recognize that the God of the OT (YHWH) is the same as the God of the NT (Jesus), creating for us a very real problem with the visceral violence we read of in the OT attributed to God's name. In comparison, Jesus and His disciples showed God's love, mercy, grace and forgiveness (even as the OT did in abundance to YHWH's name as well, though I have neglected to mention this as yet!). So that we must ask ourselves then, to what do we attribute these differences things too? Have we over-read the Scriptures with too literal a comprehension? Have we ignored its passages of literary genre to the exclusion of missing the God of those genres? Have we failed to understand what God's Covenant implied to Israel (protection and blessing) when surrounded by godless enemies committed to threats and deprecations, war and bloodshed? That if Israel did not follow God's commands she would suffer at the hands of her own enemies? As you can see, there can be many explanations for the violence spoken of in the OT.

 

So then, to what degree did God in the OT actually eviscerate Israel's brutal enemies everywhere abounding? Was it by their own sinfulness and wickedness? By their faithless disbelief committing them to destruction before the vagaries of this sinful world? By the hands of other faithless nations come for bloodlust and glory? Do we attribute these things to God's ferocious judgments or to the more refined view of God's inability to help redeem the wicked as they sowed whirlwind's of calamitous destruction upon their own heads? And to this, how are we to understand Jesus' command to love one's enemies? To bless them who curse you. To turn the other cheek. To offer cups of cold water to the thirsty? To give aide to those waylaid on the roadside? To what degree do we redact the OT material? Do we uphold it? Do we admit national/personal fear and confusion in the midst of sin and pain and broken biblical treaty? And to what degree do we accord Jesus His own personal redaction of Scripture back towards the contemporary Jewish understanding of His day against its straying elements of simplistic literalism? And, as central argument of all, do we utilize Jesus' depiction of YHWH through Himself as that truer picture of God in the OT. Both His anger and His grace; His judgments and His forgiveness; His terribleness and His beauty? To use the concept of Christology not only as a forward element in Scriptural interpretation prophetically, but as a backwards element of Scriptural interpretation didactically? Or, if we could create another word-image-concept: to utilize the theological idea of Jesus as the measure-and-meter of all of Scripture.

 

That is, through Jesus do we have the right idea of God in the OT. If YHWH appears un-Jesuslike, than we have reason to doubt whether the OT passages truly depicts God as God. Yet, you might ask, what about the warrior image of Jesus as the Lion of Judah come to smite His enemies in the book of Revelation? Certainly the Apostle John seems to depict Jesus in the image of YHWH's judgments and anger. And yet, should we turn those apocalyptic elements around on their head, perhaps the Lion that comes, comes as a Lamb covered in His own sacrificial blood, to the cursed and the damned requiring salvation. That the Armageddon we read of is by man's own doing; his destruction by a corruptible planet corrupted by man; of a universe that is indeterminate in its nature; and of a government and nations heedless of the Creator God, their Redeemer. Where then can be found the beat of drum and dash of sword except in the irony and paradox of the images under the Apostle's pen? And by our own conflicted hearts so warlike and unChristlike in its depositions of survival and glory, pride and ego, storms and loss? As we read forwards of Christ in the OT perhaps we should do the same backwards from the NT of the YHWH we thought we understood but missed. Who declared to Abraham His fidelity and love. Who cut treaty with Abraham using Himself as the propitiating, severed carcass. Who declared blessings and help within a wicked world crying for blood and disorder.

 

For I do not think it is correct to say that in the NT Jesus' commands have come to supersede YHWH's judgments - for then we have two very different Gods. One severe and the other gracious (to put it simply). But perhaps it is more realistically to admit that Israel misunderstood YHWH's laws and commands, and too easily fell from faith to behave just as her neighbours did around her. By interposing her deepest fears of God as a very terrible God who would do to Israel and He would do to her enemies, and worst, if she were not to obey. Or perhaps, doubting YHWH's protection, write of YHWH as a terrible God who would do terrible things to His enemies. Kinda like a small, weak kid saying to a large bully, if you do this to me, my dad will do worse to you. Largely, I think its a dialectic problem lost to us in our scientific, over-rationalizing cultures far removed from the ancient cultures and customs of the OT. For myself, I believe Jesus is the truest illumination of the God of the OT. That this same YHWH then is the same YHWH now come within our midst. To ascribe to God the violence we read of in the OT is to actually ascribe its violence to the sinfulness of our own hearts. That we are a wicked people who do cruel things to one another all in the name of God. And when done, give support to our wickedness by using God's word as support to our guilt and crimes. Nowhere in the NT do we see Jesus, nor His disciples, harm others, rape and pillage, kill or maim, in YHWH's name. The New Covenant cut in Jesus' blood was a sacrificial covenant cut as the same covenant as that of the Abrahamic Covenant, committing us to the Holy Other known to us by many names: King of Peace, loving Lord, Merciful One, Forgiver of my soul, Almighty One, Protector of His children, Benevolent One, and Father of all.

 

Lastly, I would suggest a book by Father Jean-Pierre de Caussade, SJ, entitled Abandonment to Divine Providence. Here we'll find another world than the familiar world we live in today. An ancient world with forgotten customs and traditions, fears and sentiments, give to us some idea of the ancient Near-Eastern world of Israel's day when its people were growing and developing under the Abrahamic covenantal faith in its early days of tribal formation. Or under the Sinaitic (Mosaic) charter's observances in Israel's various stages of nationalism which theologians would describe in short as her "salvation history" under God as a forming, monotheistic people. Whose customs and traditions were fundamentally different from that of her polytheistic neighbors everywhere abounding around them. Becoming a people of God that were godly, Yahwistically-imbued, and culturally sensitised to the movement of God in their lives. Even as the church today is forming under Jesus' charters and observations in varying degrees of redemptive enlightenment and failure. Giving to us Christianity's many transitional forms from the first century until now, as we struggle to embrace what it means to be a people of God. A community of believers. A grace community bearing love and forgiveness. Holding to its trust in God against calamity, disaster, ill-will, harm, and destruction. Witnessing the transition of redemptive movement under the hand of God, and by His Spirit, to a forming kingdom of Light and Life. A kingdom hidden to the world but growing mightily like as a mustard seed. Or like yeast as it leavens out the whole world under the direction and rule of the Redeemer God of the bible. Not by might or by muscle. Not by war and pillage. Nor rape and injustice. But by service and humility, peace and assistance, sacrificial giving and wise justice. Well it has been said that the Church is ever reforming, renewing, reviving, rebirthing, resurrecting. Even now, let it be so once again in declaring to ourselves all that is Jesus, as a risen people unto His blessed name.

 

R.E. Slater

March 13, 2013

 

*For more Articles on this Subject please refer to the sidebars as listed below

 

 

 

 

Peter Enns was interviewed on the Drew Marshall Show

shortly after I wrote my piece referenced at the end

on the violence found in the OT...

 

 

I Have Conquered Canada: My Interview on The Drew Marshall Show

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/03/i-have-conquered-canada-my-interview-on-the-drew-marshall-show/

 

by Peter Enns

March 15, 2013

Comments

 

The Drew Marshall Show is “Canada’s most listened to spiritual talk show,” though probably not any more: last week they interviewed me.

 

All kidding aside, this was a fun 15 minutes and I hope to be invited back so I can pontificate further on Evangelicalism’s failure to offer a convincing explanatory paradigm, the problem of divine violence in the OT, and perhaps have a chance to dislodge the shoe from my mouth.

 

Drew Marshall show, 3-9-13

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Some Notes

 

mostly mine own by premeditated arrangement

:)

 

R.E. Slater

March 16, 2013

 

According to Iron Age tribalism, found between 1200 to 500 BC, it was believed that "God's" preferred means of conflict resolution was to slaughter people and wipe them out (sic, Noah and the Flood, Israel's enemies, even Israel herself through her Exiles). This was thought to bring about purity amongst people, and maintain fideism to God.

 

Consequently, the church has kept to old Israel's ancient ways and mindset by burning martyrs at the stake; banning witchcraft by the same; locking away and/or torturing those who differed with the church's "official" attitudes; subjugating people groups in power battles of "might-and-right."

 

Many centuries later, when Jesus came along in the NT, He changes things up and said, "Love your enemies. Pray for them that do evil against you. Don't kill each other. Don't wipe each other out so you can get their property and land. Don't stone those who differ from you, whom you thought has created transgression."

 

In effect, I say unto you "Stay in the tension you live in, and try to get along with each other justly, rightly, fairly, without resorting to murder, killing, and war. This is what God says... And by the way, 'I am God.' So, this is what I'm telling you to do. Not like what your ancient forefathers once thought I had told them to do. Nor by how they explained how I rolled with the universe. But to learn to love one another. To get along with one another. For if you love one another then have you seen God."

 

"Back then, in the OT, they couldn't explain me because they couldn't see any other way other than how they saw it being done around them. But my ways are higher than man's ways so much farther than the East is from the West, and the heavens are higher than the seas. Finally, I had to come to humanity to explain how God rolls through myself. Hopefully to make things absolutely clear how God operates, and what He thinks about people - those that doubt; those that live self-righteously; those that would make a religion out of a living faith of trust and commitment."