I had a friend recently tell me that Jesus would've corrected Joshua about going to war with Israel's enemies in the OT on the basis of his statements, "Love your neighbors as yourself as a way of showing that you Love God." It got me thinking two thoughts: one, could this be true; and two, am I witnessing a new type of hermeneutical movement that plans on grossly re-writing the OT from a NT perspective by way of refashioning a principle known as "meta-narrative"? The former thought is addressed by John Yoder's latest book and I think the latter is begun to be addressed as well.
I have always been of the mindset to let each Testament stand on their own equally, but of course this doesn't work in light of Jesus and the NT. Jesus (Christology) offsets everything from the way we look at Systmatics to the way we look at Biblical Theology. He is the midpoint of history and the circumventer of all of mankind. But I still think that Joshua must stand on his own and answer for the revelatory light that he had been given then (not now, in the NT era). It is actually our problem as Christians of the 21st Century to determine how, and in what manner, we will "love our neighbor" when dealing with nationalistic issues of security, defense, trade and basic communications. The onus is on us, not Joshua.
Moreover, I'm extremely skeptical of re-writing the OT by this newer, undefined principle of Meta-Narrative coming from the old school hermeneutic of contextual, grammatical, literal. DL Baker's "Two Testaments, One Book" as ever been my guide in this discussion as he over-weights the NT against the OT in light of the Incarnation-Event. So that, when we as NT Christians read the OT we understand its "higher" historical or redemptive significance in Jesus while we sympathize with our OT brethren struggling to obey God without knowledge of Jesus' set examples, words and ministry.
Moreover, I'm extremely skeptical of re-writing the OT by this newer, undefined principle of Meta-Narrative coming from the old school hermeneutic of contextual, grammatical, literal. DL Baker's "Two Testaments, One Book" as ever been my guide in this discussion as he over-weights the NT against the OT in light of the Incarnation-Event. So that, when we as NT Christians read the OT we understand its "higher" historical or redemptive significance in Jesus while we sympathize with our OT brethren struggling to obey God without knowledge of Jesus' set examples, words and ministry.
Used aright, I think that this newer Meta-Narrative hermeneutic will be another good addition to the contextual, grammatical, literal reading of the Testaments by postmodern emergent Christians; but used in another sense - in the re-writing (by adding or subtracting) traditional Christian orthodoxy into something else, it may become a mis-leading tool by Christians already given to subjective, eisegetical statements and thought (and this would include both camps, both traditional and emergent Christians!).
Peace,
skinhead
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john+howard+yoder
Book Review – John Howard Yoder’s, “Nonviolence”
by Scot McKnight
April 8, 2011
Just war is the game nations play but John Howard Yoder argued it was not a game Christians were to play. Inevitably, as we’ve already seen in this series, someone asks about the wars of Israel in the Old Testament and, to strengthen the argument, connect God to the justification of war.
Here are the points he makes in this chp:
Two approaches: (1) In the age of Moses and Joshua, war was morally obligatory; Jesus tells us it was wrong. There are significant problems here. There’s a plot in the Bible, to be sure, but it’s not OT vs. NT, Jesus vs. Moses. (2) Some Jesus’ teachings were for the church alone or only for face-to-face relations. He finds both of these arguments “legalistic.”
So he examines the holy wars.
1. YHWH is a warrior.
2. The gods of the ANE religions were warriors.
3. YHWH alone was the warrior in the Red Sea, Jericho, Gideon and Jehoshaphat. The Israelites didn’t fight in these battles.
4. The essence of the Israelite response was to trust YHWH, not themselves and not in their military strategies.
5. Israel had to remain faithful to the covenant.
6. Holy wars ended with David, and the nature of war changed with David. It was connected now to the warriors in Israel.
(But this pattern changes within the pages of the Old Testament — seen in the ambivalence about their being a king and in the lack of political sovereignty under Ezra and Nehemiah. See below.)
But what about today? Do these apply to today?
First, he says, those battles were unique and they were commanded by God, and we’d need prophets to reveal holy wars for today. And, second, Jesus’ listeners knew of mighty deeds by God that led to victory, so his peace plan was not something unusual and utopian and unrealistic.
He then examines, and he’s known for this argument, how Judaism became peaceful within the pages of the Old Testament and developed a pacifistic stance by its end and then on into rabbinic Judaism. He contends that among Jews more than among Christians we find the pattern and practice of Jesus’ own teachings! Few doubt the pacificist ways of Judaism.
Ezra and Nehemiah established a nation without “political sovereignty” (79). Jeremiah showed how to live among the nations peacefully and seeking the welfare of the city wherein they existed. Rabbinic communities were non violent. Why?
1. Blood is sacred.
2. The Messiah is not yet come, but when Messiah comes it will be peace. So be peaceful now.
3. They learned from the Zealot experience not to go that way.
4. How God directs the Gentile world can be trusted but not always known.
5. Suffering has a place in the divine economy.
--------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Maybe rabbinic Judaism has embraced a pacifism, but the state and nation of Israel most certainly has not. But in this present age and time it seems obligatory to at least have the means to defend one’s citizens from invading nations. (Romans 13) A most dangerous entity on earth might be a nation or political party or any entity which calls itself Christian or imagines itself Theocratic. Exception being para-church organizations (I work for one) and of course, churches.
The church is the reality of the people of God today, certainly not meant to live on this world’s terms. To live in the world, while not of it, in and through Jesus. Walking in his way, following him. Which means carrying one’s cross, and never a sword.
Comment by Ted — April 8, 2011 @ 3:56 am
2. This is a good series! I’m a pacifist and dont’ involve myself in civil politics, either. I pay my taxes because I believe that’s all a Christian is suppose to do with the government (give unto Caesar…). I would go further than Yoder and say that because God slowly reveal God’s self to the world, the Israelites misunderstood God’s character. So because the other nations god’s told them to fight, I guess ours does too. Doesn’t this sound similar to the “god tells us to be wealthy.” gospel? You hear in the scriptures what you want to hear. Of course, to accept this view I have, to have to have a historical critical view of Scriptures and not an inerrant view.
@Ted, there are some that would argue even with Romans 13. They would look at the scriptures and say that we are to follow a government who only meets the description, and that there is NO government that does. The only who which does is God’s kingdom. We also have to put it to light that Paul was civilly disobedient and was thrown into jail a few times
Comment by Amber-Lee — April 8, 2011 @ 4:30 am
3. Does this reconcile with the current Jewish state?
Comment by DRT — April 8, 2011 @ 5:56 am
4. Again, hi Ted. And Amber, I agree with your comments. I believe the witness of Jesus and the early apostles is that we put down our carnal weapons. Period.
Comment by Diane — April 8, 2011 @ 7:19 am
No comments:
Post a Comment