Violence in the Old Testament
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
There are a lot of really disturbing things in the Old Testament. Genocide, infanticide, slavery, polygamy, objectification of women... all not only occurred but often appear to be sanctioned by God, even commanded. Consider this example:
In the historical novel "Silence", Shusaku Endo tells the story of a Jesuit missionary in seventeenth-century Japan who is faced with the dilemma of being forced between watching as his peasant flock was tortured and killed before his eyes, or to trample upon an image of Christ placed at his feet as a sign that he had denied Christ. The priest is torn in two between the love for his flock, and faithfulness to his Lord. His foot aches, when he hears Jesus speak to him,
It is a good thing for us to seek to understand the difficult parts of Scripture and to struggle with them. But when we find ourselves justifying atrocities in our attempt to defend God, then something has gone terribly wrong. God does not need us to defend his honor and reputation, he calls us to follow Jesus in his way of loving so radically that he was accused of blasphemy and unjustly condemned. God came into the world not to defend his honor, but to be trampled for the sake of the lost and sinners. If we wish to follow him up to Golgotha, we must trample. So I will say, with my foot trembling over the image of Christ, that these accounts of genocide, of the slaughter of "children and infants", were not commanded by God and that this account in the Bible when it claims it is wrong. God have mercy, here I stand, trampling.
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (1st Sam 15:2-3)Most likely you have heard sermons where the pastor would attempt to explain why God would command the slaughter of every "man and women, child and infant". One explanation often given is that God is holy and so could tolerate no "tainting" of Israel. But this begs the question: how is that any different from what the Nazi's said? The website rational Christianity says that the demonstrations of God's faithfulness and justice to Israel "gave them reason to trust God even when he commanded them to do something they might otherwise refuse to do". Again, this statement strikes me as extremely dangerous. Does that mean that when I sense that something goes against my conscience that I should do it anyway of I feel God telling me to? The potential for abuse here is staggering. But on the other hand, if we simply deny this part of the Bible are we not either saying that either God is unjust or that the Bible is unreliable?
In the historical novel "Silence", Shusaku Endo tells the story of a Jesuit missionary in seventeenth-century Japan who is faced with the dilemma of being forced between watching as his peasant flock was tortured and killed before his eyes, or to trample upon an image of Christ placed at his feet as a sign that he had denied Christ. The priest is torn in two between the love for his flock, and faithfulness to his Lord. His foot aches, when he hears Jesus speak to him,
"Trample, trample! It is to be trampled on by you that I am here."When we are confronted with difficult passages in the Bible like to one above we are placed in a similar situation. On the one hand we are compelled to condemn the horrific idea of genocide. On the other we want to defend God's justice as well as the infallibility of the Bible. If we do not defend God here, are we not admitting that our God is unjust? We need to remember here the scandalous message of the cross: God came into the world and was falsely declared guilty and condemned on a cross for the sake of the ungodly. He did not seek to defend himself, but was condemned for the sake of the unrighteous. Jesus gave his life for his enemies, God died for the Amalekites just as much as he did for sinners like you and me. Would not that same God call us to care not for his reputation but for the lives of those (not innocent but beloved) lives? When we seek to protect an image (as the priest did) or a book, but in the process need to condone the slaughter of human life we forget that Christ is not found in a book or an icon, but in the least. When we defend the foreigner, the poor, the outcast, the enemy we are defending God, as Jesus says "as you have done it unto these...you have done it unto me".
It is a good thing for us to seek to understand the difficult parts of Scripture and to struggle with them. But when we find ourselves justifying atrocities in our attempt to defend God, then something has gone terribly wrong. God does not need us to defend his honor and reputation, he calls us to follow Jesus in his way of loving so radically that he was accused of blasphemy and unjustly condemned. God came into the world not to defend his honor, but to be trampled for the sake of the lost and sinners. If we wish to follow him up to Golgotha, we must trample. So I will say, with my foot trembling over the image of Christ, that these accounts of genocide, of the slaughter of "children and infants", were not commanded by God and that this account in the Bible when it claims it is wrong. God have mercy, here I stand, trampling.
Labels: Bible, nonviolence, violence
RSS Feed 
43 Comments:
i have often pondered over and struggled with those types of passages you describe. you've done a good job here of articulating a way forward.
p.s.
have you ever read "god (a biography)" by jack miles? i'm reminded of a passage in that book where he is dealing with the transformation god progressively undergoes in the scripture with regard to his early genocidal tendencies:
"but first there will be a "day of the lord," on which the holy warrior will rage for one last, definitive time over all the earth. only then will men "cast forth their idols of silver and their idols of gold...to the moles and to the bats." (isaiah 2:20) this too is a scarcely believable new departure. even if it must be by warfare that the nations come to the lord, the notion that they can come to him at all is radically new. the deuteronomist warned israel endlessly against worshiping the canaanaites' gods but never entertained the notion that the canaanites would stop worshiping their own gods and start worshiping israel's. the assumption that no such development was possible was precisely what justified genocide: because conversion was impossible, extermination was necessary."
Derek, so are you also saying then that the Hebrew text is an authentic representation of the Hebrew writers' perceptions of God? I find it interesting how many times God is saying/doing something so that the people may "know" Him.
"Are you also saying then that the Hebrew text is an authentic representation of the Hebrew writers' perceptions of God?"
Yes, I would say that the whole Bible is about people who have encountered God and convey that encounter though their own perspective in the hopes that we can encounter God too. I'd also say that the Bible reflects a "progressive revelation" where we see a "dim Christ" in the OT and a clearer revelation in the NT.
Howard Yoder has pointed out that in the OT time that the practice of war was pretty much unquestioned, so the point of these passages is not really about whether war is ok or not (which they were not even asking, but more about God's faithfulness as they perceived it. Maybe its comparable to how I used to watch action films and not even question whether the glorification and trivialization of violence in them was bad.
Thanks for your interesting blog. It inspired me to do some reading. FYI, it is 1st Samuel 15:2-3.
the format of pale letters on orange background is difficult to read.
Wow, thank you for having such tremendous courage as to take such a stance! I just posted your article (with link to original site) on a discussion forum called "Why is the God of the Bible so angry? Also - Adam and Eve... come on?" in the self-help section of the discussion forums at amazon.com. http://www.amazon.com/tag/self-help/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_up_redir?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3V6J6V0PF1S41&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=Tx2LY2BRO8HZ4JG&displayType=tagsDetail&newContentID=Mx1ECC7DZE5BY81#Mx2IXYSGNDTY6SS
The discussion has been raging for a couple of weeks in this and several other threads in that section. I have been debating the Christians who say God did these things, and I say God is merciful and would not. Thank you - so nice to hear this from a Christian!
Tell you what. I am a born again Christian. I accepted Christ as my savior when I was 13. Now, open your mind and don't bring your ready made for you defenses to bear without thinking about this. I doubt that you can. It's way too disturbing to your comforting beliefs.
If you believe in a loving, all knowing, all powerful God, then answer me this: How can such a God allow an innocent new born baby to die in horrible pain when the house his or her family lives in catches on fire and the infant is consumed into a lump of charred flesh? We cannot know God's plan? Original sin? IF you had the MORAL COURAGE to really think about this, discard the easy answers that the church has seduced you with, then what justification can there possibly be for such a cruel and horrible act?
When I wrote in the above blog post "when we find ourselves justifying atrocities in our attempt to defend God, then something has gone terribly wrong." my point here is that I would never want to try to justify evil and tragic suffering. The death of a child is a terrible thing and I would never want to 'justify' it.
I think the only answer we can give in a time like that is to do what Jesus did when he encountered the death of Lazarus and the grief of his family - he wept. In the book of Job we see someone who is very angry with God for all of the suffering and loss he has endured. It is a frightfully honest book. I think one reason it is in the Bible is that God wants us to be real and not whitewash over our pain and doubt and anger.
We live in a world with a tremendous amount of evil and hurt in it. If God knows and loves each of us then he is touched by that suffering more than anyone. All of the pain and anger at the injustice you have seen God knows first hand. The question is how do we see evil like that and not become broken and destroyed ourselves?
If I could recommend a book to you: In “A Grace Disguised” Gerald Sittser tells how his mother, wife, and daughter were all killed in a car crash by a drunk driver. He speaks honestly about how he faced the devastating loss, rage, disbelief, and pain.
It's been a while since this what posted...but I'll comment nonetheless.
The position you take is certainly unorthodox. The only thing I can really gather from your interpretation is that, if God did not in fact command these atrocities. Then it seems like the writers of these passages simply used their authoring to mold their "God" into what they wanted in order to legitimize their behavior. They basically put words and actions in God's mouth in order to justify what they did. To me, that seems to leave the Bible on an incredibly shaky foundation. But I guess it's either that, or accepting that God is an abortionist. The latter does seem to be the greater of the evils.
Hi RedCoat,
I think you sum up my position well. It's not really intended to be a 'solution' so much as it is about living with a dilemma and in that tension. I think this is really the only way to face questions of suffering and injustice and still retain faith. The two other positions would be to
a) retain the integrity of the Bible, but then deny my own humanity, deny love, and ultimately deny who God is
b) to take an atheist position and deny God and the Bible all together, but again in doing so deny my very self, deny hope, and deny love, since to do so is nihilism.
That leaves me with an uncomfortable tension that I have to live in. And I maintain that this is the only way we can live if we believe in love in the middle of a world dominated by injustice and hurt. Faith means being uncomfortable in that world, but not succumbing to it. It also means living with my own helplessness, uncertainty, and lack of sight, but while believing.
Dear Derek,
If we call this order from God wrong, then the judgment on Saul in the same chapter was also wrong, and the slaying of Agag by Samuel was also wrong.
This passage is so critical to the understanding of how David succeeded Saul on the throne that to discount it wipes out vast swaths of the Bible.
I've been thinking about these things lately, and the more I think about it, the more I think that we do not fully understand the holiness of God.
If we truly understood how holy God really is, and always will be, I think we would start to marvel at the realization that we are alive at all.
Even the smallest sin is detestable to God. God cannot tolerate sin as we are so often encouraged to do in today's society. For if God tolerated sin, if he overlooked it as inconsequential, then God would not be good anymore. God cannot be love (as the Bible says in 1 John 4:8) if part of him enjoys hate. I'm talking of the sinful hate here, not the abhorrence of sin.
This is hard for us to comprehend, because all we see, from birth until death, is a sinful world. In order to get through this world, we need to tolerate others, we need to show mercy, we need to love. And this is as it should be, not because sin isn't so bad, but because God has shown us mercy.
But God has no requirement to tolerate sin. From God's perspective, sin absolutely must be dealt with. When we see passages of judgment from God in the Bible, we instinctively recoil. We see how weak we are, and we don't dare to be as judgmental as God can be. For if God can be as judgmental as that, what hope is there for us?
The truth is, there is no hope, except what God provides.
(continued below...)
(continued from "... except what God provides.")
To look at 1 Samuel 15 and criticize God for genocide is to entirely miss the point. Do we really expect God to overlook sin forever? Do we really want to test God and push for even more time before we repent and turn to him? This is what the Amalekites did. I don't want to go down that road.
We get used to our own level of sin. We bend the rules here and there, and we see the rest of the world doing the same thing. We're happy with that. We don't judge others too harshly, because we know we're not perfect. Sure, others are worse than us, but we'll be generous, we think. Certainly it can't be that bad.
Then we turn around and see terrible things going on in the rest of the world, and we cry indignantly to God, asking why he lets these things happen. How can a loving God allow such atrocities, we ask?
But God has to deal with ALL of this sin. There is no sin in God! We forget that in order to purge the atrocities, we ourselves need to be purged. We are all sinful before God.
Yet God is merciful beyond our understanding. He is so merciful, that we look at seemingly uncharacteristic judgment and think it can't possibly be from him. We have gotten so used to his mercy that we've forgotten his wrath.
How can I look at 1 Samuel 15 and claim that God is merciful? I look around. How long has this world been spinning, and sinning, and repenting? Thousands of years. And yet when Adam and Eve sinned, God could have put them to death immediately, before anyone else was even born, and been perfectly justified. That is how holy God is. And yet he lets us all live, for varied lifetimes, and albeit under the Curse, in order to give us a chance to turn to him and repent and be saved.
The sins we have committed are fully paid for in Jesus Christ. God has paid for our sins, and that was his plan before the beginning of the world. How great he is!
What is the remedy for sin? It's always been the same. Repent, believe God, turn to him, and obey. It would have worked for the Amalekites, and it will work for us today if we believe in Jesus Christ, God's son.
God consistently demonstrates in the Bible that he refuses to destroy a nation if there is a remnant of righteous left in it. The link in your original article lists them. From Sodom to Ninevah, God is always looking for those faithful to him.
So I can only understand, from the command in 1 Samuel 15, that there were no righteous men left in the Amalekite camp. Just as wickedness abounded in Noah's time (we haven't even talked about the Flood -- talk about a genocide!) it must have abounded in the Amalekites. I think the clips of history that I can find bear that out.
God is merciful, and God is holy. Please don't focus on the one, to the exclusion of the other.
In Christian love,
- Chris
But Chris, you are not describing holiness. You are describing a monster, a tyrant, a beast. I know who God is, both because I have experienced his transforming grace and love first hand, and be cause I see his character perfectly reflected in jesus in the pages of the New Testament. And so I can say with absolute confidence: God is not like that. And looking at Jesus this is not what holiness is either. It is a lie about holiness. Holiness looks like Jesus. Look at Jesus among sinners, loving them, healing them, forgiving them - that is what holiness looks like. Holiness is not a contradiction of love.
Dear Derek,
Does your vision of Jesus include the Jesus in Revelations 19:11-16? Yes, the Jesus in the gospels is kind, loving, forgiving, and meek. But those are not the only attributes of God.
When Jesus returns, it will not be quietly in a manger. It will be obvious, like lightning in the sky. (Matt. 24:27) And it will be with power and great glory. (Matt. 24:30)
I don't know why God decided to let humans deal with justice on earth, but it is clear from Romans 13 that the job of government was ordained by God: justice, punishment for wrongdoing, etc.
If this authority is given to mankind, is it beyond the realm of logic to think that God can and does use the nations themselves to mete out His justice? I think it is very possible, and considering that Israel is God's chosen nation, it would make sense that His decisions would be told to them directly, instead of how He often works through the nations beyond our view.
We as Christians are not called to this kind of nationalistic justice (thankfully!). We are called to the much more difficult task of loving our enemies and doing good to them that hurt us. But I think it is dangerous to ignore some of God's attributes just because they may be inconvenient or they don't match our viewpoint.
Taking only half of the truth turns the truth into a lie. Accepting only half of the Bible is also a lie. We need to balance the entire Word of God, otherwise we set ourselves up in judgment over God and His Word.
In Christian love,
- Chris
Chris,
I agree that we need to take all of the Bible into account, but I would propose that in addition to that there is another thing we need to take into account as well: our firsthand experience of knowing what love is in a personal transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. The things I am objecting to in my original blog post are not coming from my own personal discomfort, but from knowing who Jesus is, and having his heart move my own, learning through the Spirit to see people as he does, learning to think as he does, "not being conformed to the world but transformed by the renewing of my mind".
So it is not simply a matter of taking all of the Bible into account (which I agree we should) but also a matter of making sure that our interpretation of the Bible is in line with what we know first hand from God in a living relationship to be good, loving, and just. Otherwise we risk bowing before a god who is evil, and calling that "good", effectively justifying atrocities. Our understanding of Scripture must always always always be done through the eyes of Jesus. Or to state it differently, ethics must be the guide of exegesis.
Very simply put: no one in the world would ever think that mass slaughter of infants is in any way an example of "justice". It would be clearly seen as an atrocity, as horrific, as profoundly evil. If you heard about this happening anywhere in the world today - in Germany, in Afghanistan, and Darfur - this is exactly what you would think too. And yet here you are explaining why it would be okay, making an argument for the justice of genocide. Why is that? What's going on? I'll tell you: It's because you are turning off your moral conscience as you read the Bible, and thus saying that whatever it says must be good no matter how ghastly. As I have said above, ethics must guide our exegesis. When we turn off our conscience in order to read the Bible, we kill something in our souls, and we end up making statements that seem morally absurd, that sound, quite frankly, horrifying.
I just can't emphasize enough how important this is, because we turn off our conscience in an attempt to defend God we open ourselves up to the potential of all sorts of abuse and toxic faith. So I want to really encourage you to face this with your moral conscience intact, with what you know of Jesus and his love as you have experienced it in your own life intact, and to join me in struggling and wrestling with it.
Dear Derek,
I do wrestle with it. I struggle to understand the seemingly wild breadth of the Bible.
If I only look at the attributes of Jesus, then I risk discounting a large part of the Old Testament. But Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, not abolish them. (Matt. 5:17-20). If Jesus is incompatible with the God of the Old Testament, then who is the Father?
Thankfully, Jesus fulfilled the Law so that I don't have to. Which is good, because I can't. He also called us to a higher standard than the Law. Where the Law demands revenge, Jesus calls us to forgive.
But I think that setting ethics and my personal experience over the Bible is also risky... it lets my deceitful heart lead me down a path that may not be in line with God's Word.
Abraham would never have sacrificed his son Isaac if he had let ethics trump his obedience. But he had faith in God's goodness, even though the command seemed insane. And God stopped him just in time.
Abraham didn't have the Bible as his guide... he had to rely on his personal experience and his faith. We do have the Bible. So today, if "God" told me to commit genocide, I would know that it was not the true voice of God, because I have the Bible to check with, and God does not contradict Himself.
The command to Saul was specific. It was a one time command. It was also before the New Testament. The command we now have is general: to forgive and let God take care of the vengeance side of things (Romans 12:19). Some would even go so far as to believe that Christians should not join the army.
I guess I look at it similar to how Jesus looked at divorce. (Matt. 19:8) Jesus said that divorce was permitted in the law because the hearts of the Israelites were hard. That seems to me that divorce was ok from the point of view of justice, but it wasn't the ideal that God wanted. Similarly, the justice and "revenge" in the Law isn't ideal either. God would much rather we show mercy to one another. So the mercy of the New Testament is better than the judgment of the Old Testament, even though both are good and necessary. "Mercy triumphs over judgment!" (James 2:13)
But somehow I can't let the mercy of the New Testament erase the history of the Old either. There's a reason we should fear God, while loving Him at the same time. Just because we are not supposed to implement the wrath of God today doesn't mean that God won't someday. (Heb. 10:31)
I think I've said my piece, though. Thank you very much for your thoughtful replies. It is definitely a hard passage to handle.
God bless.
In Christian love,
- Chris
It's been good talking with you too. Grace to you my brother. Here are some parting thoughts. You write:
"So today, if "God" told me to commit genocide, I would know that it was not the true voice of God, because I have the Bible to check with, and God does not contradict Himself."
Now I don't see how you can make this conclusion since the Bible tells us that God commanded genocide (for example in 1 Sam 15 in the original blog post above). So if we were to go strictly by the precepts laid out in the Bible, we could claim that genocide is justified in God's name based on the Bible. And historically people have done exactly that. It's not just a hypothetical.
The difficulty here is that just as our sinfulness can cloud our own moral judgment, it can also cloud how we read the Bible. The Bible itself may be infallible, but I am not infallible, and my interpretation of it is not infallible. So it is a guide for us, along with personal experience of the holy Spirit, but both must be approached with humility and caution because of the reality of our own fallenness and blinders.
"That seems to me that divorce was ok from the point of view of justice, but it wasn't the ideal that God wanted. Similarly, the justice and "revenge" in the Law isn't ideal either. God would much rather we show mercy to one another. So the mercy of the New Testament is better than the judgment of the Old Testament, even though both are good and necessary. "Mercy triumphs over judgment!" (James 2:13)"
Here I think you hit the nail on the head. What I would like to challenge you to contemplate is that exactly that kind of superior healing, life-giving, regenerating, restorative justice is not only what we are to practice, but also what God will demonstrate when he returns in glory.
If there is a god, the OT is slander against him, it. He/she should sue.
I feel ya
Have you considered the idea that YHWH is not the Father of Jesus? That the OT describes the demiurge and not the transcendent God. This is the view of many of the so called "gnostic sects" as well as the Marcionites.
yes, I'm familair with that view. I does not seem to be the view Jesus took however.
It's the same old problem. Why is there evil in the world? If God is sovereign, (and HE is), then He could stop it anytime He wanted. Some say that He approves since He does not prevent it.
In the Old Testament, the Jews had no problem with a jealous and vengeful God. Many people are attracted to the kindness of Jesus. They have difficulty reconciling the Son and the Father.
It is an offense to some and a stumbling block to some.
Dear everyone,
This is a very interesting blog. All my life I have been given an abusive image of God which resulted in severe full-blown panic attacks for 2 years. That is certainly not: "HE CAME TO GIVE US LIFE AND LIFE TO THE FULL". I am so grateful for people who seek the honest lifegiving truth. Would you like someone you love to suffer from panic attacks? How would it make you feel if your theology damaged someones spirit?
I agree. I think it boils down here to who we want to defend. Do we feel the need to defend God's honor by explaining why such things would be justified? Or do we care for those whose faith may be damaged and broken by such a hurtful picture of God. I'd say looking at the example of Jesus, his priority was clearly on caring for the least and the wounded, even at the expense of his own reputation. So if Jesus is God (and I think he is) then we have a model of God not caring about defending himself, but instead of caring about those who are hurt and alienated from religion. In our theology we need to have that same priority of Jesus.
Thank you so much for your comments, I,ve been struggling with this very same passage for days now and the only conclusion I,ve drawn from it that we have to "work out our salvation with fear", not to take the love of God for granted. Although I would hope to bielive that God is merciful and loves us unconditionally, hence Jesus dieing on the cross for us.
Jesus said that we should fear the God who can cast us into hell -(Matt. 10:28). And the Apostle Paul said that we should live out our Salvation with fear and trembling...(Phil. 2:12)It's only those who stay in step with the Spirit that will enter the Kingdom of heaven because those are the people who do the will of the Father. Matt. 7:21
We cannot pick and choose what we want to accept and leave out what we don't like. Jesus doesn't contradict Himself - He is loving because though we all deserve Hell, He is willing to save the repentant. And He is just because all evil doers will be punished for their sin and rebellion against the God who gave them life.
Derek, the most loving thing I can tell you is that you might be becoming a stumbling block to others by watering down sin's offense against God.
Dear Anon,
I appreciate you concern and the caring spirit in which you express it. I would like to suggest however that the opposite is the case. For vast majority of people today, the stumbling block is a presentation of God as hateful and violent. This false image of God keeps many from faith and caused others to lose their faith. After all, how can we open our hearts in trust to someone who would do such horrific things?
So my concern and motivation here is pastoral and evangelical. I want to tell people that God is not like that. God is like Jesus. God is about grace, and God welcomes all of us, no matter how messed up we are, or how broken we are, or how hurtful we are. I want to remove the stumbling block so that people can come to God. Once we are there, yes certainly God will lovingly reveal to us not only hurt that needs to be healed in us but also call us to repent of the hurt we do to others. So I do not in any way deny our own human sinfulness nor our need for grace and repentance. I simply deny that God is a sinner like us.
That is not a matter of "picking and chosing" but of recognizing that Jesus is the ultimate and perfect revelation of God's character and then reading my Bible through his eyes. Seeing what he saw there, rejecting and criticizing what he did. It is not a matter of "what I like," but of what is Christ-like.
At 12:30 AM, Anonymous said... "From God's perspective, sin absolutely must be dealt with" This statement contradicts the idea of "Free Will" how can their truly be Free Will if there are known consequences?
The older I become the more I question "Religion" To me the teachings of Christ and Religion are completely separate things. In my opinion Religion focuses on the "Magic/Mystical" side of things, which in my mind are quite irrelevant when compared to the message of Christ. I mean, does it matter that he walked on water, or turned water to wine? Could those possibly be metaphors ie maybe the saying that he walked on water to calm the seas, could simply mean he had the ability to calm the soul of man! - Not saying it is,because I dont know. BUT if I found out today that all of Christs miracles did not occur, it would bother me not, for my Faith is in his message NOT his magic!
I spoke to someone who was very disappointed with the movie "The Davinci Code" where it was suggested that Jesus had children, when they asked me my opinion, I simply said that although I have no idea if it was true (and that it didn't alter the Message of Christ anyway!), that if it was true, in my eyes his Sacrifice was even greater than if he wasn't a father.
And whilst I do believe in God, its pretty hard to take the events and stories of the old testament seriously not to mention all the violence (which is hypocritical when the message is love!) - The Old Testament sounds more like the devil to me, and if you turn of your blind faith for one moment to question it, you will see that its impossible to justify such violence. The old testament is like the adult version of Santa clause!
Dear Derek,
I will start by saying this. God is God, not Dr. Phil, or Oprah, or Alexander the Great, or Hitler, or a Republican, or a Democrat, and certainly not me. He is an omnipotent being who says, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." - Isaiah 55:8
I have noted some of the language you (and those who agree with you) used in your post and comments, and it has me concerned. I'm afraid you may have joined a club on false pretense. I know you'll probably think, "No! It's a personal relationship with Je..." Yes, I know, but sometimes I use phrases like "joined a club" for satire, not because I mean it literally. Here are a few of the sources for my concern:
1. I want to tell people that God is not like that. - What if he is?
2. I want to remove the stumbling block so that people can come to God - What if it was put there on purpose so it trips people? (Romans 9:33)
3. Would you like someone you love to suffer from panic attacks? - No I wouldn't, but working out my salvation with "fear and trembling" might allow for a few panic attacks.
4. How would it make you feel if your theology damaged someones spirit? - Have you heard of heaven and hell? The latter is very damaging to one's spirit, and the idea to people who don't believe in Christianity.
5. When we turn off our conscience in order to read the Bible, we kill something in our souls. - Your "old" soul/spirit is supposed to be dead already (Romans 6), and you're supposed to die daily to "self", thus there is some precedent. Still, no one turns off their conscience to read the bible....Its supposed to offend you sometimes, because it is supposed to make you both love and fear God.
Those statements above seem to come from a sincere and emotional belief, but not one grounded in actual scripture or the possibility that your emotions/heart/ethics are not the measuring rule to put God on. Forget the Old Testament, they seem to come from someone who hasn't even read the New Testament. God forbid, I come across as arrogant, as that is not my intent, but a majority of "Christians" believe in a book they haven't read. Which is why Jesus himself said he will even cast away many to hell who "think" they believe in him (Matt 7:22-23).
I could sit here and debate, but I suggest you take 10 minutes out of your life and read Romans 9. It's only 33 verses long. The apostle Paul is actually has a mock debate with the reader in that chapter, in order to change the readers mind about what he assumes to be the nature of God. Funny thing is he also assumes the reader agrees with the idea that God is a teddy bear and couldn't possibly ____________(fill in the blank).
Once you read Chapter 9, if you're game, then read the entire book of Romans. Then read the entire New Testament. Then re-read those passages in the Old Testament that you never understood God to be capable of, in light of the New Testament explaining them all for you. You'll find the revelation to be exactly what God wanted it to be......a revelation.
In my personal experience and walk with God, he as been the kindest gentleman, the most loving father, but there has been occasions where I have felt his intense displeasure with sin in my life, and the feeling wasn't "damning", but intense and scary, and convicting, and inspiring, and encouraging.
"Consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in his goodness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22)
You have left the severity of God entirely unconsidered....
Your brother in Christ,
David
David,
I have read the New Testament many many times, and in particular the book of Romans. In fact I just finished translating it from the original Greek. So I think it is safe to say that I am familiar with the the New Testament. The fact is, you and I can both read the Bible and come to different conclusions. So the question is: why is that?
I would propose that you in fact are reading the passages of God's "sternness" within the larger context of God's grace and love both as you find it in the Bible and as you have encountered it in your own relationship with God. This larger narrative of grace determines how you understand these "stern" parts.
I am doing the same, but am taking it farther than you have. I being with Jesus as the ultimate revelation of who God is, and observe how he interacts with people. Both those who have been hurt by religion, and with those who were the keepers of religion in his time. There I see that Jesus places a priority on interacting with people in a way that brings them life, even when this is perceived by the religious leaders around him to constitute unfaithfulness to the law. So my approach is not coming from projecting my own sentiments onto the Bible, but rather from being formed by Christ and letting his heart shape how I see others. I need grace, and I try to encounter others with the same grace I need. Believe me, I certainly have considered the severity of God. In fact looking at this blog it becomes quite clear that it is a theme that I deal with repeatedly. But I see this within the larger story of God's action of grace towards all of us in Jesus.
First of all. I must say thank you for taking the time to reply me. You seem like a real classy guy, and it brings joy to my heart to know that you're a student of the Word.
I can completely understand how you can come to a different conclusion. I was of the same conclusion as you actually, but as I read the bible more, and had discussions with those more mature in the faith, and experienced God more, I found I had to change my conclusions for the sake of honesty toward God and scripture.
I consider you a brother in Christ, and that this "debate" or "conversation" is in no way critical to your relationship with Jesus. Nor do I presume to have a monopoly on correct biblical doctrine. But I will say that your stance "might" cause you to tread a thin line when it comes to adding to or taking away from the word of God (Rev 22:18-19).
As for your second paragraph in your reply to me, I think you misunderstand me. I am looking at those passages in light of the whole representation of the personality of God. My own experience is merely anecdotal. Given, I believe in the bible (mostly) Jesus says so, not Jesus because the bible says so.
I come to the conclusion that rather than trample, we are to be trampled alongside with Jesus. Did he not say people would hate us because of him (Luke 21:17)? People would persecute us? Was he not murdered himself? Google "buddy Jesus". This is the Jesus I believe modern culture can handle. Anything different, and our morally relativistic, accepting culture would be the first to crucify him again. Is that not the case if you attempt to preach anything other than a pixie fairy dust Jesus with a skateboard, and "Duuuude, where's my car?" tattooed across his chest?
I have great love and ongoing patience with those that are new believers, and have been hurt by religion, but Jesus expects children to grow. We are not supposed to keep Christians in a continual state of breastfeeding (1 Cor 3:2). There are things that we as Christians will have a hard time chewing on, and things the scripture says, we may not be ready to accept.
What I am saying is that there is a great deal to be lost if you trample under foot much of the Old Testament. After all, Jesus offers us the Old Testament to legitimize his claims. Was it not also Jesus who confirmed the story of the destruction of the world by a flood? (Matt 24:37-38) So lets pretend the rest of the Old Testament is hogwash....you still have Jesus himself corroborate that God destroyed all the inhabitants of the earth, save 8 people, with water. That is what we would call "genocide", yet Jesus did not feel the need to make any excuses for it, or "trample" on it for the sake of the weak around him.
We could entirely forget the Old Testament, and still the New Testament itself has enough evidence of God still showing this side of his personality from time to time:
1. Sending an angel to kill King Herod (Acts 12:23)
2. Ananias and Saphira being killed instantly by the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-11). Apparently this caused the Church great fear when they heard it. Including the baby Christians and people hurt by religion.
3. The existence of hell shows something far worse than any earthly genocide. The bible says not to fear man who can kill the flesh, but to fear God who can kill the body and soul in hell (Matt 10:28). Pretend God never killed on earth, but only in eternity by sending people to hell. Is that not worse than simply taking a life? Are you also going to tell baby Christians hell doesn't exist to cater to their sensitivity? Jesus was loving and sensitive, yet preached hell.
4. The destruction of the world again in the book of Revelation.
The list goes on and on, but I only have so many HTML characters to use...
- David
David,
There is a lot to respond to in your post, but let me just address one point: there is a profound difference between someone believing that God will judge people at the end of time, and someone believing God has told them to kill you and your family. The difference is that in the one scenario they actually kill you and your family. In the history of the church this has happened quite a few times on a massive scale. Real people being killed in God's name. So I do not think that God judging humanity is "just as bad" as actual humans committing real genocide for this simple reason: we are not God.
So I'm not really worried about people feeling comfortable, or having a "nice" Jesus. The cross is not nice or comfortable. But let's be clear: this is not about nice, it is about actual human beings killing other human beings - killing infants - because they think God told them to. What I would propose is that what we find in Jesus and Paul is that they frequently questioned Scripture. Take the Sermon on the Mount for starters. So for us to question a passage like that is not being unfaithful to Scripture, it is reading Scripture in the same way Jesus did.
PART 1:
People keep talking about "fear and trembling," but no one's mentioned Kierkegaard yet. Weird.
But anyway, I don't mean to defend genocide here, and I also don't like the usual "God's holiness is beyond our holiness" arguments. I don't think they're necessarily illogical; I just think they're basically unconvincing at the end of the day. "It is good to sacrifice your life out of love for others because all life is precious! But God loves to kill babies; he’s just different; don’t question it." It's just kind of...it takes too much squirming to make it feel right, as you pointed out.
All That Said, I feel like you're absolutely not being fair to the New Testament (or Christ) by simply tossing off the verses that make you want to drop the religion altogether. Let me clarify. First of all, Christ would have been Fully aware of the "Old Testament" as it stood. Even if he weren't divine, he would have been Well versed in those works. Not Once does he Not mention the "problems" of the Old Testament. And I do believe this was intentional. If it were so horrendously wrong, as it feels, it seems like he would have at least Mentioned it. Instead he mentions the Current works of the Jews. I think this is important. Not only this, he uses the Old Testament’s argument to make His argument. THIS CANNOT BE IGNORED and you are ignoring this by tossing it off as immoral. His argument is something like "You're not understanding the law good Enough; you admonish others for their sins, but you're way more sinful! So you will be destroyed." And they Were. More on that later.
Let’s start with a basic premise. The whole overall argument of the Bible (BOTH OLD AND NEW) is this: Sin will be punished. Sin against God's people will be Extra punished.
So, if we look at the Old Testament, we have people basically being punished for their sins. For some reason, he gives "Israel" a system that "fixes" their sins, at least temporarily, or at least in a way that is moving in the right direction.
So, any sin (violence, abuse, etc.) brought against the Israelites (in whatever form) is absolutely punished As Long As the Israelites put faith in God. Not only this, God is willing to basically kick out people of a land to give these Israelites their own land. This in itself would be a sin by most human standards. You invade a people to set up your own nation? Not very nice. But God likes these Israelites above all others for some reason. He has people, and anyone who is not his people are punished basically automatically. This whole scenario set up is the Overall argument of the entire Bible. This Israel issue is the groundwork by which Christ preaches. Without it, his argument makes no sense. Let's keep going through the history.
So, over and over again, you have Israel turning away from God. They start to worship other Gods, ignore the law, rule unjustly, etc. etc. All the prophets and judges and kings speak to this problem. And every time (or most) it is God who punishes the Israelites. I mean, read the book of Judges. You have God giving the Israelites over to various enemies because they have betrayed him. And it's not until the Israelites go "Oh no! We need God to survive" that God comes back and destroys the exact people he put in control over the Israelites. Why not just use an earthquake to punish Israel? For some reason, he wants to use real people to punish his people, and then he wants his people to overcome those oppressors. That is his system.
SEE PART 2
PART 2
This happens over and over and over again. Let’s look at Psalms for a while. It’s considered one of the nicer Old Testament books. But really take a look at it. It’s basically a string of resentful arguments. The basic premise of Most of the psalms is this: “We are holy, and you are sinners. You abuse us because you are sinners. As such, GOD WILL PUNISH YOU, AND YOU DESERVE IT.” It’s true that the Psalms don’t really call the Israelites to kill and punish sin on their own, etc. but they clearly understand that God will eventually punish those who deserve it because that is right.
Now, let’s take a look back at the Old Testament as a whole. We have a lot of premises. One, God punishes people for sins. Two, God punishes anyone who messes with Israel. Three, God will punish Israel if it turns against him. Four, despite all the turning and punishing, God always says he’s going to keep his promise to save Isreal, and from that, the whole world. From all these premises, it can be assumed that there is something special or “holy” about Israel. Or, more accurately, Israel would clearly Think this. I mean, wouldn’t you? You get special treatment just for being Israel.
So, let’s jump to the New Testament. Jews are doing their thing in Israel. They are trying to rule it, gain their power back from Rome, etc. They feel oppressed like they always do. And it can be inferred that they are oppressed because they’ve once again turned away from God. So Jesus shows up and claims to be this savior and says exactly that, that they have to repent and follow him to be saved from the oppressors. But the Jews expect him to violently overtake Rome. This makes sense! That’s what God has always done. But instead Jesus turns against Them for good.
Jesus preaches to them that they will be punished for Their sins. In other words, the argument in the Old Testament, that oppressors of “God’s people” would be punished, is being turned on the Jews in one final sweeping movement.
Jesus (YHWH himself!) makes Isreal the ultimate evil nation. He is saving his people From Israel. This is a complete turn around, and this is the exact reason, I think, Jews rejected Jesus so violently. All that is to say, Jesus is using the Same Argument that the Old Testament had been using all along. God unequivocally punishes those who oppress his people. All Jesus did was say Everyone is “his people” if they believe in him (whatever this means!?) and that Israel is the oppressors. Unprecedented.
So, he tells “his people” (his new followers) to run for the hills because it’s about to hit the fan. This, I believe, is all his apocalyptic speech about the end of the world. Israel would be coming to an end. He was ending Israel forever and rebuilding it as the new church. Is he giving up on his promise? I don’t think so. He’s basically redrawing the map of Israel to include the entire world. But the argument stands. Oppressors of Israel (in whatever form it takes) are punished by any means necessary. So who destroys the oppressors in this scenario? Rome. In 70 AD. Israel is destroyed by the exact people they thought were the oppressors. This is the exact same thing God does in the Old Testament over and over again. He destroys Israel with the enemy to punish them. More than this, though, he makes the enemy his people. Or at least he extends the friend banner to them. “Grafts them in” as it were.
SEE PART 3
PART 3
But in this case he’s done forever. Israel is gone. Or moved. Forever. He was either fed up with Israel (I don’t think this is the case) or he knew its destruction would be the only way that humankind could be saved. That is, the whole system of punishment and forgiveness was finally solved in Christ. Now, I don’t claim to know how That works, but I do recognize a pattern when I see it. Your Old Testament god hasn’t gone anywhere in the New Testament. He’s the same guy. He absolutely prophesied (through Christ) the fall of Israel, and he absolutely razed it to the ground in 70 AD with real people. This wasn’t a random natural occurrence. This was real people killing real people through God’s will.
I only went through the whole history because I wanted to show that Jesus’ argument (the man and argument you are so close to) is the Same as the Old Testament argument. It’s punishment and forgiveness. God punishes those who oppress his people. He will oppress his Own People if they turn from him. If they repent, he forgives them and destroys the oppressors. This is exactly what he did in Christ. I will admit that Jesus seems a whole lot nicer. And there is something to that. But to toss off the Old Testament in this way is just…it’s not honest.
The Old Testament is Jesus’ argument. It’s the place he started from. It’s Paul’s argument as well. Paul laments having lost the Jews. Why would he do this? Because he knows that they are being (or are going to be) punished. He knows that they will never get back in to God’s favor without Christ, that the final plan to redeem all of mankind had begun and they’d missed the boat. And not only that, they would be punished (once again!) having missed the boat by So Much.
I don’t mean to ignore your anguish. I go through the same problems. “How can God expect me to be fair and just when he seems to just pick the Israelites for no reason!” or “If punishing Sin is his bit, and he is the root of all holiness, how can we have Any idea what sin is when he called people to do things that are clearly sinful!” I don’t think I’ve torn apart your argument here, that the God of the New Testament works through love and peace and joy while the Old seems just plain mean. And that wasn’t my intention. But I do think it’s important to really notice the similarities in form. He’s not changing patterns here.
Incidentally, I think this is exactly what is going to happen at the coming of Christ. This same pattern will be repeated. Those who oppose God’s people will be destroyed forever. Does that mean they will be damned or whatever? Who knows. Does that mean that sin will be erased from the universe? I think that’s the plan. Now, here’s the crux of the whole matter: did God’s people in the Old Testament have the same character requirements of God’s people in the New Testament? I think so. But there does seem to be a difference in the scope. For example, Jews were expected to be like Christ(?) to other Jews, to love, sacrifice, protect, etc. But that didn’t seem to be the case with respect to non-Jews. Or it doesn’t seem that way, anyway. Because all non-Jews basically seem to be Inherent oppressors.
This, I will absolutely agree, seems to be a main difference between the God of Old and the God of New. The God of Old seems to say “You’re not okay but can be okay (at least for a little while), and they are NOT OKAY---INHERENTLY.” The God of New seems to say “You’re not okay but can be okay through Christ, and they’re not okay but can be through Christ as well.” It levels the playing field and requires the person to be super introspective. To fear and tremble, as they say. Either way, it’s always implied through both testaments that the “not okay” are going to get punished. There’s no way around that, and by tossing out verses like that, you are, I think, missing God’s (and Christ’s!) main argument.
Hi Joe,
You raise a lot of important issues. Since I wrote the above blog post, I have continued to explore the issue of violence in the OT. I agree with you that a) Jesus did not simply reject the OT and thus b) neither should I. What I want to do is figure out how Jesus read his Bible and saw in it a loving God he called "abba" So I've been doing a massive study on how Jesus and Paul read their Bibles which I am currently working into a journal article.
You trace out a narrative of God's interactions with Israel connected to punishment and how this was the view inherited by Jesus (and Paul). While I agree that they certainly were familiar with that particular narrative, I think a careful reading shows that they did not embrace it, and that the NT in fact radically re-frames (or perhaps better: re-forms) that narrative. This is true of both Jesus and Paul, but for sake of space I'll stick to just outlining how this looks in Paul. Paul in Romans quotes a collection of Psalms in Ro 3, and as you say these all in their original context have to do with the “We are holy, and you are sinners, so God punish them!" theme. Paul uses these to make the opposite point: we are all sinner and so we should not call out for punishment but grace.
Paul formally as a Pharisee had adopted the narrative of punitive violence that you outlined, which led him to persecute the church. He now rejects that narrative of "us vs them" and holiness through separation and violence, and instead passionately champions inclusion of those "sinful" gentiles and salvation through taking on suffering. So Paul is aware of the OT narrative you outline and rejects it. It's subtle, but its there.
The thing is, that narrative is just one of many competing narratives in the OT. The OT is not so much a single plot line as it is a record of multiple voices struggling to get in touch with God's way. The narrative of punishment is one voice. There are others, and it is those others that Jesus (and later Paul) identified with. It's subtle because you need to read between the lines. Paul for example while he is completely changing the sense of the Psalms he quotes in Ro 3 does not announce that he is doing this, but he is clearly, and I'm convinced he does this very intentionally. In doing this, he begins with OT texts, but interprets them in a way that radically transforms them. He does not reject the OT, he affirms it, but he insists that it really points to a God who looks like Jesus, that is, a God who does not save through inflicting violence but by bearing it in love.
PART 1
Well, here's the real question then: is he reforming the narrative itself, or is simply recasting the characters? I lean much more toward the latter. I'm also not convinced the "us vs them" mentality is ever dropped in the New Testament. I feel like "us vs them" is very much a part of Christian theology. Now, I will agree that the theology is different than the OT in that it gives the "them" a way of becoming the "us," but I don't think the entire structure is changed. It has and will always be the holy vs the unholy. It's simply been remapped. A new cast has been chosen, but the underlying structure is the same. (This is not to say that the plot is identical in every way. I don't think salvation for humankind was possible without Christ, for example.)
I mean, look at the struggles that Paul and the other writers were addressing. The "them" was absolutely oppressing the "us" (a dynamic that modern Christians have trouble understanding, I think). Now, again, I will certainly agree that the New Testament writers and characters require the "us" to look inward, to make sure they are doing everything they can to be the "us" and not unfairly label others as "them," (which is a great message) but at no point is anyone ever arguing "everyone is the 'us!'" or "There isn't a 'them!'" Does that mean God is going to call the "us" to pick up weapons to destroy the "them?" It doesn't seem that way, and that really is the point of contention. Why did God do that in the past on a micro level but now asks us to turn away and "fight" with kindness and love on a macro level?
So, that's the real question. You argue that the message was "reformed," and I think that language is close to what I'm arguing. But what we don't seem to be agreeing on is the origin of that original message. Was the original message in the Old Testament about God's work in destroying evil and commanding the Israelites to do the same FROM YHWH? Or was that all a lie created by the Israelites to justify their evil deeds? You say "reformed" the message, but do you really mean that the message was incorrect and fabricated from the beginning? That someone lied? Or that the YHWH character was being perverted? Did YHWH actually originally say "Love the people who are in the land now and bring no violence against them. Don't drive them out, but keep peace. "Israel" is a metaphor, and you aren't really getting any land. Your enemies will be overcome by love."
If any of the above is True, it really calls a lot of theology into question. I'm not the kind of guy who goes wild over the "absolute inerrancy of the Bible," but I'm not really comfortable dropping a character like YHWH out of the Old Testament. It would simply allow Christians to rip out the front part of their books and move on. And I don't think that was Christ or Paul's intention at all.
You say that he does not reject the OT, but insists that it really points to a god who looks like Jesus. But as you pointed out at the very beginning, the god of the OT does Not look like Jesus (as we understand it). Where is that God that Jesus is pointing to? Is he simply hidden behind a bunch of Israelite lies? How does one overcome that problem? When the whole narrative of the OT is about using God to Overcome evil (often with force!) how can you possibly say "that's not really what he meant, and Jesus straightened it out."
SEE PART 2
PART 2 (I write way too much...)
The problem there, of course, is it makes it seem like all the ground Jesus (and every other NT writer) is standing on was very shaky (at best!). How do we determine when the god of the OT is being portrayed accurately? When he matches up with one's morals or one's (often extremely biased) view of Christ? Further, in light of all these issues, how do we determine that the Jesus in the NT is who we think he is? Why assume the OT is basically a shaky fabrication but then put all this faith in this Jesus character (who incidentally put all His faith in that shaky fabrication)?
I'm also a bit uncomfortable with this reading between the lines argument you have here. Not because it's wrong to do that (it's obviously not), but that it requires the reader to make huge jumps. For example, if Jesus and Paul rejected the OT argument, why didn't they just say so? It would have been very simple to; I don't see why they wouldn't considering the importance of it. Were they too scared to? Did they enjoy being so cryptic? And further, how does one lovingly interpret something like 1 Samuel 15:2-3? The Psalms are a bit easier, but what do you do with a huge chunk of the OT? It seems like you'd have to flat out toss those verses out. It's pretty hard to simply interpret a lot of that stuff away.
While I absolutely agree with your interpretation of Romans 3 there, I feel like it kind of misses the point I think I'm trying to make. That is, it had to be reinterpreted, reformed, redone FROM something. What is that something? Was that something Wrong? Was it untrue? That something was what the Jews understood. That something was a God who punished and called his people (in very certain cases) to do his will. What was that something, and why was it what it was in the first place? That seems to be the issue here.
Was just reading through what I wrote late last night, and I saw I made a typo. This: "Not Once does he Not mention the "problems" of the Old Testament" should read "Not Once does he mention the "problems" of the Old Testament."
Joe,
"at no point is anyone ever arguing 'everyone is the 'us!' or 'There isn't a 'them!'
I'd say that Paul's statement "we wrestle not against flesh and blood" is arguing exactly that there is no "them". The "them" are no longer humans, but "principalities and powers".
You also ask whether I think the plot changed or just the actors. I would say clearly the plot.Consider passover: it was originally about one ethnic group being freed from another by the children of the enemy group being killed and then the armies of the other being drowned. With Jesus and the "new passover" the enemy is the devil, the liberated are all of humanity, and it is done by nonviolence. That's a very different story line.
Was the OT then a "lie" as you put it. I don't think so. But it is also not as if in the OT someone handed God a microphone and hit "record". Paul says that “to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away” (2 Co 3:14). That means it is hard to see God in the OT. He is obscured by that "veil". What is that veil? Imperfect human perception. Not just ours, but theirs too.
You ask "Where is that God that Jesus is pointing to? Is he simply hidden behind a bunch of Israelite lies?"
As I said, I don't think anyone is "lying" but I do see the OT as reflecting at best a dim Christ. In the NT we have a much fuller revelation. That said I think you are only seeing one narrative in the OT. There are a lot. There is the violent one you see, but there is also a narrative of grace. Jesus and Paul are finding that narrative of grace and embracing it. You might compare this to how we could look at the world we live in and see all sorts of pain, corruption, injustice, and abuse and conclude "see love is not in control, evil is, violence is" ...OR... we could look to find the little glimpses of grace in our world, we could cling to compassion. Maybe it is naieve or unrealistic to see the world like that, but that's what faith is all about: believing in love despite the evidence. With those same eyes Jesus reads the OT and sees in there a God of grace in that very unvarnished book that looks a lot like our world.
You ask "if Jesus and Paul rejected the OT argument, why didn't they just say so? It would have been very simple to; I don't see why they wouldn't considering the importance of it."
Again I don't think they did reject it. You are being too black and white. Think about your own Christian faith: someone might ask you why with all all the bad stuff in Christianity (crusades, angry fundies, pedophile priests, and so on) you don't just toss the whole thing. The way you frame things you would either need to embrace the crusades and the pedophiles, or call it a big lie. But is that only option? What if you could reject that and still call yourself a Christian? What if you could insist that despite how Christianity might look on the outside to your atheist friend that for you it means something very different? For you it is about grace. Well, that's how I think Jesus and Paul are approaching their own (Jewish) faith and the Bible. They do not just accept hook line and sinker everything in the OT any more than you would embrace everything that has been done in the name of Christ for the last 2000 years, instead they related to certain parts of that narrative just like you do.
But you do accept the New Testament hook, line, and sinker. At least as far as I can tell anyway. The options you present aren't fair when you say "They do not just accept hook line and sinker everything in the OT any more than you would embrace everything that has been done in the name of Christ for the last 2000 years."
Shouldn't it read "They do not just accept hook line and sinker everything in the OT any more than you would embrace everything in the NT?" I'm not really concerned with what's done in the name of God. I'm concerned about 1. the authority of the scripture (both testaments) and 2. if the New Testament can be understood if one extracts the punishment-forgiveness model.
I'm just saying you may be ignoring the most important and most prevalent narrative of the Old Testament, the narrative that is carried on through Christ's message and Paul's argument. I'm not trying to give special attention to any particular part of the narrative. God saves Israel through force an incredible amount of times in the Old Testament. This is the bulk of almost all the action. Am I just supposed to ignore that? Ignore may be too strong. If not ignore, how am I supposed to read that? I'm genuinely asking what you think.
Also, the enemies of God are real enemies. They are real people committing real acts. Yes, the Satan, the one who runs this world, is the great force behind the acts, but God is absolutely focused on the actors as well. Revelation speaks directly to this issue.
And what do you mean exactly when you say grace? For you, what is God providing grace from? What is a Christian being saved from? More importantly perhaps, what was an Israelite being saved from in the Old Testament? Grace is kind of a buzz word, and I'm curious what you mean by it.
Looking over my comments, I feel like I'm being confrontational and disrespectful, and I don't mean to be. We are brothers in Christ, and I am just trying to grow and understand. You've brought a lot of good insights, so I apologize if I come across as flippant or rude.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
You say your main concerns are
1) the authority of the scripture (both testaments)
2) if the New Testament can be understood if one extracts the punishment-forgiveness model.
For (1) I would say that the NT has more authority and is a fuller revelation than the OT. That is a very orthodox position. (2) I do not think we should "extract" the punishment-forgiveness model. I think that the NT transforms, reverses, solves, overcomes, annuls the punishment theme of the OT. Again, this is a deeply orthodox view. It is really the heart of what the NT is about. Let me elaborate on both of these...
You write "the enemies of God are real enemies. They are real people committing real acts." Very well, and how does God respond to his enemies in the NT? God loves his enemies. God the Son gives his life for his enemies. Now if "give your life to save your enemies" is not a complete reversal of "annihilate your enemies with genocide" then I can't imagine what would be. It's hard to imagine two things being more polar opposites.
You ask "This is the bulk of almost all the action. Am I just supposed to ignore that? Ignore may be too strong. If not ignore, how am I supposed to read that?"
Not ignore. The NT is fully aware of that theme and then reverses it. Jesus says "You have heard 'and eye for and eye'... but I say to you..." That is how you read. You read it as reversed by Jesus. As if Jesus says "Joe you may have read this in the OT, but I say to you that I love my enemies and have come to save and heal life not to destroy and I want you to do that too" You read it as transformed.
What is grace? Grace is love of enemies, which is at the heart of that reversal above. Grace is unmerited favor. Grace is loving and doing good to those who don't deserve it. What are we saved from? We are saved from Hell and hurt and brokenness. We are saved from all the horrible things we do and that are done to us. We are saved from the path of destruction we were on, because God has a better plan than just "do good or else". He has a way of transforming the bad into the good, a way of mending what is broken, and part of what is broken is the very system of "an eye for an eye", of sewing and reaping. So the system of retributive justice itself is superseded and annulled (and thus fulfilled in the way that 2.0 replaces and improves the old 1.0 software) by the superior system of restorative justice. That is the very heart of the gospel. In fact, that *is* the gospel.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home