How is it possible to believe anything in the Old Testament when the God expressed there (in parts, at least) seems so different from the God embodied in Jesus? I believe this is a vital question to both ask and work at answering because it goes to the very heart of the nature of God, especially as God is revealed in the Bible. Maybe it is the most important and even the most difficult question to work with.
Of particular note, God requires that ‘Thou shall not kill’/’You shall not murder’(Ex 20:13) and then says to Joshua “whoever rebels against your word and does not obey your words, whatever you may command them, will be put to death. Only be strong and courageous!” (Josh 1:18) - i.e. kill your own people if they’re not patriotic enough - and then later “Then the LORD said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men… They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” (Josh 2:2, 21) - i.e. kill anyone else who doesn’t think, act or behave like you or your people. For the sake of completeness, compare also Deut 7:2 “and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” and Deut 20:16 “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.”
This leaves us with a paradox, of course. How can God, on one hand outlaw murder/killing from his people, and on the other hand demand it in ways that amount to the worst sort of killing, genocide? Can this circle be squared?
There would seem to me to be several ways of dealing with this…
The canon withing the Canon
A common approach taken is of observing that the Bible is deeply problematic if it’s read as a flat book without contours and with every verse equally relevant and important (c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16). As followers of Jesus, it is argued, there must be a distinct elevation of importance in the Gospels, decending to a high-altitude plateau through the rest of the New Testament and then the topography of importance drops down further as you go into the First Testament.
History is Written by the Winners
In essence…
- The ancient Hebrews thought that God was commanding them to carry out these acts of genocide but
they were mistaken.
- The biblical writers read back God’s commands into the war stories giving them a different emphasis.
Although it points out the dependency of the scriptures on writers and editors, this is obviously not very satisfactory as it undermines the authenticity of the biblical text. It certainly asks the basic question of how we understand what is true.
Social-Historical Factors
The ancient Israelites were clearly people of their times, when warfare was ruthless and merciless. They were trying to carve out a geographically-defined home for themselves as a political and social entity in this envirnoment. Some fighting must have taken place. This is in contrast with the Church, of course, which is not defined by geography, politics or culture.
A subset of this argument is the Myth of Redemptive Violence of Walter Wink (Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1992) - that the dominant worldview of the First Testament period was that of state-sponsored violence and the Hebrew Scriptures became inured with this worldview.
Unfolding Revelation
Biblical revelation is an unfolding process, in terms of understanding. God works with people within the confines of their cultural and historical setting, and the limitations on understanding that environment presents.
Archaelogical-Hermeneutic Considerations
It would seem that the text of Joshua, in particular, was not fully codified until the time of the exile. It
is likely that it is an agglomeration of exodus/taking-of-the-land stories, and so could prevent hermeneutic
problems if handled as a Plain Sense text rather than in the light of historical-archaeological findings.
Handling the Hebrew Text
Joshua was not seen by Israel [i]primarliy as a historical book but as a prophetic book, and Jewish biblical prophecy is more about forth-telling than foretelling. In this way, it should be seen as a weaving together of many historical strands and sources.
And also…- The liturgical nature of ‘passing on the story’ in the Jewish context
- The theme of “Yahweh is a warrior’
- The theme of ‘Yahweh is holy’
None of these approaches fully deals with the issue. I don’t believe that even taking a synthesis of these views fully squares the circle. So we are then left with an awesome question:
Is God good?
Can God demand that evil things are done? Does God’s divine end justify the means? Are we confronted with a God who is not benevolent but both Good and Bad simultaneously? How can we cling to the non-violence/subversion of violence of Jesus when that demands that we ignore or even dismiss outright huge swathes of scripture?
God's plan
I’m not sure that we have to decide between the given options in order to get a better understanding of what is involved with the battles of the OT. Interestingly, Joshua is a common source for JoeBlow’s examples. An intriguing part of the story of Canaan’s concquest is often overlooked, and, I think, illuninates the setting. Just before the ‘attack’ on Jericho, Joshua encounters a man with a drawn sword. “Are you with us or our enemies” Joshua asks (Jos 5.13). “Neither, but I have come as commander of YHWH’s army” is the reply, along with an indication that his presence has hallowed that space. An odd little episode, but introducing nicely the battles of conquest. The implication seems to be that what is about to happen is the activity of Israel’s god, who is above party politics and mere ancestral blood and land battles. Something higer is happening, and Israel happens to be the instrument. We know from YHWH’s covenant with Abram that he foresaw judgement on the surrounding nations for their practices, and yet he would not settle Israel *yet* because (supposedly in his mercy) their sin had not yet reached an extent where he warranted such drastic measures (Gen 15).
I think this raises two issues:
- YHWH has the right to judge his creation, and to employ ‘instruments’ to do so (indeed, it is later the Babylonians, Assyrians and Romans who become YHWH’s instruments against ISRAEL!)
- This is one stage in the creator’s plan to redeem his creation. Preserving Abraham’s descendants, and, especially, preserving their revalation of YHWH as the one true god, was, evidently, vital for that plan. Repeatedly in the OT we read that the total anihilation of these other peoples was necessary to keep the chosen instrument alive and not totally compromised. Perhaps this statement is an alternative or a part of one of the options JoeBlow gave us on interpretion of the Bible, though.
Perhaps this response is too flat. I just re-read Joshua, and that episode before the battles really stuck out at me for the first time as either really misplaced and odd, or as intended by the author to provide perspective on all that will follow. Even those called by God to be his instruments must remember that they are HIS instruments, and not vice versa. None of this going off to battle and glibbly declaring that a god is on YOUR side.
EricB
Yahweh is a warrior
The theme of ‘Yahweh is a Warrior’ exemplified in your quote of the fall of Jericho is a common theme in many passages in the Bible. It crops up as a symbol frequently in the Psalms, for example (cf. Ps 44, and interestingly, Ps. 89:10). And, Lord have mercy!, is it pleasant to see those themes in there because otherwise there would certainly be the implication that Israel were a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers who invoked their God to justify their slaughter.
However, I would say in many ways that makes God’s predicament worse. In your particular example it is God who is the bloodthirsty warmonger because it is the theophany that is holding the drawn sword and who is leading the people in to the genocide of the city of Jericho. Following just a few verses on from the arrival of your theophany/angel/whatever is the text I previously quoted… “Then the LORD said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men… They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys” (Josh 6:2,21).
In my opinion, I’d say that, not only does this not square the circle, it turns the circle into a spiral of destruction. It certainly leaves violence in the very nature of God, which I find deeply unpalatable.
With regard to the Creator’s redemption plan (which I wholeheartedly long for the consumation of), it’s a very hard thing to reconcile with a God who is violent. Many Iraqis apparently struggle to believe that Dubya’s redemption plan (since his administration is the creator of their ‘liberated’ nation) is anything to hope in. Certainly in the story of Joshua, God’s redemption plan has more to do with Wink’s myth of redemptive violence than Jesus’ redemptive love/non-violence. Is this God the same God as the one Jesus incarnates?
Tom Wright seems to say in J&VoG that Israel got it wrong somewhere along the way, with regard to preserving Abraham’s descendants. Rather than being a separated, holy, exclusively elected people, their call was to be the light to the gentiles/nations. How can you hold in any semblance of tension the ‘total anihilation of these other peoples’ and being a light ot the nations. If being a light to the nations includes genocide, then you end up with the cesspool world we live in, rather than the Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed.
making peace with God's Past?
joeblow raises some very important considerations and it’s precisely the starkness of his final question - Is God Good? – that has got me thinking LOTS so, if for nothing else, a big thank-you to joe for the blow to my brain!
I think this quandary comes from insisting on “Jesus-perceived” as considerably ‘other’ than the LORD revealed in the OT. I tentatively submit that this is just one of the manifest problems that Paul was hinting at II Cor 5: 16. I also want to make the assertion that the only instance when the LORD is involved in a total wipe-out of a city, tribe or nation, is always in the context of a righteous judgement and should never be confused with the killing that comes out of the heart of man.
I want to propose that the real question we should ask is “Can Goodness Command That Judgement Be Brought Using Sinful Man?” Incidentally, this counter-proposal is precisely the question considered by Habakkuk et al so where we do find ourselves in such a tight corner, I submit we’re actually quite scriptural and we’re probably in very good company!
Long before Joshua’s campaign, God had been involved in quite a few mêlées: Jesus speaks of them matter-of-factly in order to teach about the emerging Kingdom of God (ironically). At Luke 17: 26 – 29, he describes judgement upon Sodom and Gomorrah and the small matter of a global hydraulic catastrophe (the Flood) NB: He evidently believes in the historical nature of these – why else appeal to them? – so that might open a whole new debate for some! These two instances alone illustrate a Christ entirely consonant with coming judgement and whose own mission incarnates this. Jesus knows where he’s coming from, he knows the Father and it seems pretty clear that he accepted, believed in and promoted the LORD who has done and will do all these things. Again, Jesus has a cause that is at once both unifying and divisive: prefigured by the Elijah of the New Testament (the Baptist – consider Malachi 4: 5 – 6) together with Jesus’ confirmation of the relevance of that Malachi prophecy (Matthew 11: 13 – 14) and His own impact (Luke 12:49 – 53). Moreover, Scripture has a very sobering way of reconciling us to the Enormity and fathomless Purposes of God. We read “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God” (Hebrews 10: 30 – 31) This whole chapter has a salutary and timely call to consider repentance in earnest.
Finally, he adds a sobering angle on getting your own fears in perspective (Luke 12: 4 – 5).
Sometimes, Jesus splashes REALLY cold water on our faces (to wake us out of a stupor?) and sometimes he calls us to drink deep (Isaiah 55: 1). Maybe failing to recognise and reconcile Jesus with JHWH of the OT means we don’t drink as deep as we would like to? John 4:10 highlights this sense of frustration, which Jesus re-visits in the upper room at John 14:7. Elsewhere, a whole generation of Egypt shall perish in one night at God’s express command (Exodus 11: 4 – 6; 12: 12, 29) and later still, Jonah will flee from pronouncing ‘Nothing-But-Judgement’ on Nineveh because his personal theological reflections will not stomach God bringing judgement in his time (Jonah 4: 2).
I think that, failing to heed Jesus’ call in the John references above, what we are left with is the prospect (or fear) of a YHWH whose commandment of death upon His People’s enemies is disconcerting to our post-Resurrection mind and I wonder whether that really is the same thing as ‘the mind of Christ’ that Paul speaks of at I Cor 2: 16? I submit the heart and mind of sinful man appropriates His ‘go to war’ commands as intrinsically genocidal but we learn from Ezekiel 18: 23, 32 and Ps 5: 4 that the heart of God cannot bend in this way. Moreover, we know that Jesus is pretty withering when it comes to highlighting what comes out of our hearts (Mark 7: 21 – 22) and we chime in with Jeremiah how “desperately wicked” our own ‘Resource’ can be (Jeremiah 17: 9). By inference, do any of us think the people in Canaan were dwelling in a peaceful, guiltless state: saying ‘We’re descendants of the sons of Noah and…Aggghh! Israelites! Run to the Hills…!!!” Scripture is specifically silent at this juncture on their relative ‘condition’ but before too long, incorporation of their practises is disastrous to say the least. I presume (and I may be shot for this! :o) the purposes of God are not established by a geo-political entity but by the sentiment expressed at Romans 9: 22 – I think we have a long way to go in growing up in Christ and living in agreement with Him but the one thing we must do as a matter of urgency is come to terms with His Awfulness and Grace – just a quick glimpse at Daniel’s “one like a son of Man” should convince us of the Nature of Jesus that should rule in the depths of our heart. I submit that will enable us to powerfully overcome Evil with Good.
Pardon the preach this turned into. I ain’t wrote owt like this in ages. :o)
The Assyrians, Babylonians, and Rome
I would just like to tag a short commment onto Ga_ge’s comments: It was Rome, after all, that Jesus was warning his contemporaries in Jerusalem that would bring the Kingdom-coming judgement to their city and temple. This would be the doing of YHWH, to vindicate his true Israel.
Incidentally, it wasn’t that Jonah couldn’t stomach God’s judgement that he ran away, it was that YHWH was a gracious and compassionate god who would relent from judging if the Ninevites repented. And he was right … and I cannot believe that the same compassionate god did not give the people in the land of Caanan ample opportunity to repent in over 400 years of child-sacrificing (see Psalm 106).
We seem to be calling God's
We seem to be calling God’s character into question here. I, for one, advise caution. It is one thing to question God’s application of violence and quite another to question God’s goodness. Exactly how does the clay frame such a question to the Potter?
For added perspective beyond Joshua, we ought to remember that failure to precisely follow God’s commands led to Saul’s loss of the kingdom.
With all due respect to N.T. Wright and joeblow, I don’t quite see the contradiction between being a holy, elected and called out people who obey their God in all things and a light to the surrounding nations. Perhaps the visible relationship between God and his people is a light to the nations.
I don’t fully grasp the inclination to drag the U.S. President and Iraq into the discussion or the precise connection to the discussion unless it is to suggest a comparison between, 1.)President Bush and God, both being “bloodthirsty warmonger(s)” and 2.)Iraq and Jericho, both being unjustly predated by bloodthirsty warmongers.
Nevertheless, the introduction of “Dubya” serves nicely to make a larger point.
To make the point I will use an example of some of President Bush’s most devoted and loyal fans, the Dixie Chicks. Those familiar with these young ladies’ ouvre’ will no doubt be familar with a song about a guy named Earl, the quintessential drinkin’, fightin’, cheatin’, wife-beatin’ red-neck Texas hillbilly. In the song, the abused wife and her friends decide enough is enough, killed Earl and buried him. The local Sherriff obviously aware of what happened dropped his investigation and tells the ladies (with a tip of his Stetson) to let him know if they hear from Earl. Part of the chorus says something like “Earl had to die”.
It is one of their most popular songs probably because it reverses the usual outcome where husbands abuse their wives. Usually, after multiple police visits, judicial restraining orders and several trips by the wife to the hospital, the husband finally succeeds in killing her.
The song cries out for justice in a situation that often seems hopless. Though repugnant, violence to Earl seems almost justified by the motive to preserve the life of the innocent wife. In the American Civil War, the Union’s great battle hymn says, “as Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free”. The reunion of the country and the abolition of slavery were achieved by extreme violence.
It is not without irony that the Dixie Chicks can see justification in violence to Earl yet be opposed to it applied to the former dictator of Iraq, his sons and their henchmen whose execution sheds, torture chambers, rape rooms and acid baths have killed and maimed possibly a million of their people.
Both the Dixie Chicks’ song and the Battle Hymn of the Republic make a case for violence, if not justified by, at least extenuated by motive and circumstance.
Though perhaps we do not agree with the justification or extenuation, we understand the concept and can debate and discuss it. This being the case for mere mortals, should not God, whose purposes and motives are often unclear to us, be given the benefit of doubt? Might we consider for our discussion that possibly God has motive with justification for his actions and commands in the old testament and conduct our discussion in that arena without assailing God’s character?
Alario
addressing what's out there
I appreciate Alario’s concerns re questioning God’s character but precisely because the question has been asked, precisely because one can find oneself in a position where God’s characater IS suddenly a matter for speculation demands we find answers - answers I believe - and I hope my brief post above begins to illustrate - are crucially understood by restoring the supposed difference in perception between the LORD Jesus and the LORD/YHWH/El Shaddai etc etc. I think we can no longer warn about treading disrespectfully on Holy Ground AND leave it at that - we must address why those questions are being asked and identify there causes and remedies as a matter of urgency.
(NB: I still maintain Jonah couldn’t stomach God’s proposed message because there appears to be no exception regarding God’s Mercy in the message Jonah eventually delivers (Jonah 3: 4)- i don’t want to ‘argue from silence’ on this one but even at the book’s beginning, there is no mention of what Jonah should specifically say, so why on earth he flees rather than obeys is perplexing…but that’s the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one! :o)
Jonah/Israel
I concur with ga_ge that the message God gave him, as far as we know, did not have an “if” statement that allowed for repentance. However, Jonah makes his own motive in fleeing obvious and self-admitted at the conclusion of the tale: “When god saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. He prayed to YHWH, ‘O YHWH, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate god, slow to anger and abounding in love, a god who relents from sending calamity. Now, O YHWH, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live’” (Jonah 3.10-4.3). J. did not flee because he hated some cruel word from YHWH that seemed unjust to his own fancy. Rather, he ran because he knew very well that if YHWH cared enough to send them a message, it was because there was the potential that they would be spared. Indeed, the concluding verses (4.10-11) make it quite clear that this was YHWH’s intent all along, and the implication is that Jonah knew it, but could not stomach the thought of YHWH being FOR anyone other than his own people. Isn’t this the story of Israel, in short? I think a good argument could be made that this, in fact, is exactly why Jonah was written: to expose Israel’s own refusal to be salt and light to the rest of the world and to pose the question to her: “But Ninevah has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hadn from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?”
good eggs!
Yep - no problems with that one, eric: it escaped me that Jonah could run away from God’s express command because it meant the proposition of mercy to a people other than Israel. Man, that’s harsh! (hmmm…hang on: i ain’t a million miles away from that myself)
Actually, as a point for reflection, does anyone think Jesus intimates a similar state of heart concerning ‘those-who-should-know-better’ when teaching at the synagogue on Elijah and the widow at Zarephath/Naaman the Syrian at Luke 4: 24 - 27 (I Kings 17 & II Kings 5)?
Again, if this consideration is legitimate, then hopefullyit contributes to integrating Jesus with a vision of YHWH in the OT who desires to be merciful first and foremost.
the heart of the gospel
Thanks for everyone’s thought-provoking and passionate comments.
The story of Jonah is an interesting addition to the discussion, and highlights for me what is at the heart of the matter and has consequent impact on what’s at the heart of the gospel, namely a God, Yahweh, who appears to have a bipolar personality:
- One the one hand is the God of the Jubilee - the god who is desperate to liberate humanity, to restore them and make them whole, and seeks judgement in the manner of restitution, putting things right. This god suddenly pops out of the pages of the First Testament in places like the Jubilee and Sabbath years, the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, Isaiah 61, Yahweh’s clemency in Jonah, Yahweh’s wooing of adultrous Israel in Hosea etc. etc.
- And then there’s the God of Genocide, the god of retribution and violence who we’ve observed amply above.
Since these opposing characteristics are present, we need to know who the real god is - would the real god please stand forward. And once we know whether we’re dealing with Dr Jeckyll or Mr Hyde, we can then proceed forward in our newly discovered hermeneutic vein.To rephrase, we can reconcile Jesus of the Gospels with Yahweh of the First Testament, as has been suggested above. The question is how. Is the dominant Yahweh the god of retribution or the god of restitution, violence or vindication? Is Yahweh’s judgement about putting things right, or about punishing wrong? The nice god is more attractive, to be sure, but the nasty god is there in the scriptures, like it or not.
So, how do we deal with those obscenely violent texts? If we tend towards Good Cop God, then how did all the texts which display a violent God get there and what place do they have in our faith? And if we go for Bad Cop God, how then can we ‘love our enemies and pray for those who persecute’ us when the god we’re aspiring to emulate and adore is no better than any of us. In fact, it wouldn’t be too hard to propose that a bunch people who have lived in the last 100 years are ‘better’ than that god in their moral, ethical, social, political and spiritual lives, lifestyles and choices.
It’s interesting that Habakkuk was raised by ga_ge. As ga_ge noted, the question Habakkuk was wrestling with was ‘How can Yahweh use a pagan as the instrument of His judgement?’. However, the context of Habakkuk’s question was his wrestling with the Israel’s election promises. Israel to that time had been living in an easy-believism: God’s has chosen us - just look at our history (cf. Hab. 3)… Creation; Abraham called out of Ur; the Exodus and crossing of the Red Sea; the battles fought an won by Joshua; David and Goliath etc. etc. If we’re about to be invaded by this pagan king (Babylon, whose modern corollary could be seen as Osama bin Laden/Al Q’aida on 9/11), where does all that stand? Are we not Yahweh’s chosen people? Was Yahweh wrong? Did we get the wrong end of the stick? And it’s out of all this reflection that the ideas/prophecies of the Exile and the Day of the Lord come about. So Habakkuk is really asking very similar questions to us - who is this god, Yahweh, and what does it mean for us to be the People of this God?
ga_ge said ‘Again, if this consideration is legitimate, then hopefullyit contributes to integrating Jesus with a vision of YHWH in the OT who desires to be merciful first and foremost’. It’s a wonderful aspiration and even sentiment, but the implication is there, though, that Yahweh will get to the end of being merciful and then come the other measures of penal judgement and retributive violence. ‘If the carrot won’t work, then I’m sure as hell going to use the stick!’
For me, I don’t feel that this is really answering the elemental quesion, is God Good?, except to end up with a God who is both Good and Bad. If that’s the case, that’s the case. But it does have incredible consequences for ethics and apologetics and…