14th April 2016
Part 1: Biblical Inspiration / Revelation / Violence
With the rise of socio-political violence and the scorn of ‘new atheists’ like Richard Dawkins who has stated that the God of the Old Testament is a genocidal, ethnic cleanser, a Christian response is required. Another issue that arises is that where Christians are committed to taking the Bible seriously they can be easily likened to the hardened religious extremist who is committed to the Islamic Koran. I personally find this disturbing enough to recognise that it is important to work through a number of related issues.
Explained very simply, biblical inspiration is the way of talking about how the Holy Spirit has guided the very different writers of the Bible so that their writings end up being an authoritative word that reveals the character and will of God. Before looking at the question of the violent texts of the Old Testament I have concluded that it is important to first revisit the question of what it means to recognise the Divine inspiration of scripture and its subsequent authority. What does it mean when we refer to the Bible as the Word of God and the Christian rule for faith and practise?
The Old Testament books themselves are explicit in declaring that what is said and written was from God. Over history and by the second century BC Judaism was agreed that the authors and prophets were spokesmen of the Living God. The debate waged around the subject of the unique inspiration of the Bible is ‘well worked ground’ and has a continuing history. While this attempt at theological reflection may be limited and people may not always agree with me, never the less I have always understood that the place the church gives to the importance of the Bible effects everything else. The inspiration and authority of the Bible along with the deity, incarnation, cross and resurrection of Christ, have always been important and central to the vitality of historic Christianity.
This is the first of a three-part article where I set out to clarify how I personally view the Bible. Secondly, I gather a few thoughts about progressive revelation and thirdly with the help of contemporary writers I reach some conclusions about the violent biblical texts related to Israel’s occupation of Canaan.
Inspiration of the text 2 Peter 1: 20-21. Also see 2 Timothy 3:16.
“For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it (to do so)- it never came by human impulse- but as men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit.” Amplified Version.
“men sent by God spoke as they were impelled by the Holy Spirit,” Weymouth.
“but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,” New Revised.
“men of God spoke because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit,” J. B. Phillips.
“but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” New International Version.
“men they were, but, impelled by the Holy Spirit, they spoke the words of God,” New English Bible
“Every Scripture is God-breathed---given by His inspiration—and is profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience and for training in righteousness. (That is in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose and action.) (Amplified Version)
What has been called the ‘Wenham defence’ is presented in a book by Rev. John Wenham. (1) Wenham’s approach is sound and straight forward. He looks at Jesus attitude and regard of the Old Testament, Jesus own teaching and that of the apostles as the teaching of God. (Jesus post-resurrection regard of the Old Testament as the Lord of Life confirms this) Therefore the Scriptures are wholly true and trustworthy. It is therefore belief in Christ as the supreme revelation of God that leads to belief in biblical inspiration. Stott refers to this as, “an Enlightenment-type of common sense philosophy.”
Evangelicals have historically held to the verbal, plenary (full-entire) inspiration of scripture and the church in varying degrees has submitted to scripture because our Lord Jesus himself did. Historically the Bible has been described as the ‘infallible’ Word of God, --- infallible meaning that in every word and expression of the biblical text perfectly reveals the mind, will and character of God and as such it is unique and authoritative. Understood in this way an ‘infallible’ word implies a direct, perfect transmission of truth through a human vehicle.
Daniel Day Williams says: “Revelation is disclosure through personal encounter with God’s work in his concrete action in history. It is never to be identified with any human words which we utter in response to the revelation.” (2) Williams is saying revelation is direct encounter not a human response or description of that encounter. I find myself needing to enlarge on this by suggesting that this need not mean holy men were ‘taken over’, possessed in a trance, robotic mechanical way to record God’s message word by word but that God allowed the authors to use their own, ‘God-given’ individual personality and creativity. They used the culture and expressions of their time along with their unrestrained emotions, songs, rage, etc to express the word/truth God intended. In other words, without depriving the writers of their individuality, the Holy Spirit superintended the process and in his sovereign way God chose to use human agents with all their frailty and faults to bring His revelation to humanity so that as it is, it stands as His reliable, authoritative word.
I align with John Stott who rejects a mechanical theory in favour of a concursive theory of inspiration. (co-operative understanding of revelation between God and man including human frailty) “The end result of the authors active work remains “the Word of God.” “A confessedly imperfect analogy with the two natures of Christ is brought forward with the concomitant application that neither the human nor the divine nature of Scripture should be emphasised at the expense of the other.” Stott did not believe a prior commitment to inerrancy is required for the authority of the Bible to be effective: “The hallmark of authentic evangelicalism is not subscription but submission. That is, it is not whether we subscribe to an impeccable formula about the Bible, but whether we live in practical submission to what the Bible teaches.”
Authority is not therefore, tied to inerrancy. Stott says, “what God has revealed is true, and--- our only reaction must be to listen, to believe and to obey.” It has been pointed out that this seems to link the trustworthiness of the Bible to its authority. He believed that the Bible was totally trustworthy as a consequence of its entire truthfulness and argues that all evangelicals should agree on this principle. (3)
I also align with Anglican scholar SR Driver who said that, “as inspiration does not suppress the individuality of the biblical writers, so it does not altogether neutralise their human infirmities or confer upon them immunity from error.” (Church Congress speech cited by F.W. Farrar, The Bible, its Meaning and Supremacy, Longmans, Green & Co 1897)
Others have sought to modify a tight ‘mechanical’ view by asking, “In what sense is the Bible inspired?” The Liberal school’s distrust of biblical accuracy enables many to say that the Bible is inspired at a human level and is impressive literature but it is more a work of art than a Divine word. The Neo-Orthodox school attempts to separate God’s real message as the primary Divine author from the human authors mistakes and superstitions. (The Liberal and Neo Orthodox views will be mentioned again below.) (4) While God brings his revelation about by delegating authors to speak on his behalf, what human authors affirm is not necessarily identical to what God as the Divine author affirms. While God chooses to use human speech, the style and personality of the authors, to understand this process we must ask, “What is the text saying”? In light of all the scripture do we have good reason to think God is agreeing with the text?” Caution is needed here because this assumes that parts of the text could be embellished, obscured or wrong and that we also have the theological equipment to decide what is morally right or wrong.
Historical Theories
View A. The Reformers guarded their view of the Bible from the errors of rationalism and mysticism. It was Calvin who noted that the Word of God was spiritual---it was God-breathed --- breathed out from his mouth 2Tim. 3:16. The emphasis was not on the transformation of thoughts which were already there, rather that the words of the prophets spoke were actually breathed out of God’s mouth. This was no mystical substitute for learning or for careful exegesis/examination of the text. Learned scholars were not free of emotional or cultural influence, therefore to interpret the scripture, the mind needed to be spiritually illuminated. The recognised rule or objective standard for the Reformers was found in Scripture being its own interpreter. From the whole text clarity comes in Jesus Christ. From part of the text and the person of Jesus Christ the whole is understood. While we may question the text, the text also questions us. Historic Christianity then says the biblical presentation as it is and the pattern of thinking about that revelation is an objective standard. This Word of God is not a dead letter that enslaves us but it is a living sword of the Spirit that addresses us and a word that successive generations repeatedly encounter as the Living Word of Christ.
View B. The only standard we have for testing fallible human testimony and judgment is our own fallible judgements and subjectivity. This position that looks upon scripture as simply a fallible human witness to God’s revelation forms the basis for two different ways of interpreting scripture but it also begs the question, “Why God should ‘inspire’ the revelation, and yet be unable or willing to inspire the witness to the revelation sufficiently to make it a trustworthy bearer of revelation.?”
(1) The Liberal School has given emphasis to scholasticism and human reason and says the Bible is inspired at a human rather than a Divine level. In early times Marcian held a reductionist view of the Old Testament. He said the Old Testament God was typical of a retributive tribal deity, incompatible with the God revealed in and through Jesus. During the 18th, 19th centuries with the rise of natural science and rationalism an increased bias and scepticism about the supernatural and biblical inspiration arose. Sources of the biblical text were given different classification by different approaches. Higher Criticism/Literary Criticism and Lower Criticism/Textual Criticism. While critical study of the Bible as a ‘human’ book is valid, it need not undermine “the historic Christian conviction concerning the authority of the Scripture.” (10) Stott and McGrath see this critical approach of scholarship as built on the sub-Christian presuppositions of the Enlightenment.
By examining the historical text grammatically and tracing the themes of different parts of the historical text this view attempted a synthesis. G Von Rad in 1938 demonstrated how the theological outlook of the first authors were important. Different from the grammatical approach, this literary method carved up the Old Testament into different time periods on the basis of how the first authors saw their world. From this information fuller theological implications were drawn. (eg the documentary hypothesis about the authors of the Pentateuch---(first five books of the Bible) also the JEDP theory. While providing reasoned insights this view maintained that rather than being the inspired Word of God, the Bible only contained the Word of God. Julius Wellausens, (1870s) Gunkel and Rudof Bultman also shared this interest in redaction criticism.
While Luther and Calvin recognised the need of objective exegesis and learning (as previously mentioned) it is obvious that authors and scholars are never free from pre-suppositions, emotional and cultural influence. For instance, today it is very easy for modern scholarship to quickly assume that to safe-guard the authority of the biblical text it needs to be corrected and brought up to date with current knowledge. The problem is that with all good intention we tend to think that we are the superior masters of biblical thought-form and this scholarship becomes the standard for testing/discerning the Word of God.
(2) The Neo-Orthodox school. Through the Patristic period an allegorical interpretation of Scripture was imposed over the grammatical approach. This was more a creative extension of the text, more an art than a technique. Origen held what has been described as an “inflammatory” view of the Old Testament text typical of the Neo-Orthodox school that gives emphasis to revelation as subjective existential experience. It shifts the basis of authority from what Scripture says without to what experience says within. The Bible is inspired when and how it speaks to the individual. The doctrine of rational divine revelation is overshadowed for truth in the Logos of John 1:3. (In personal encounter Scripture becomes the Word of God.) Some suggest that the resurrection and deity of Christ were trimmings that were added by writers of the New Testament in a burst of mystical religious fervour. This divorce of faith from factual reality/history lands us in a cloud of make-believe and the Christian faith ends up being an unsubstantial myth or daydream. Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and Rudof Bultman are prime examples in the 20th century.
William Temple describes revelation as, “An intercourse of mind and event not the communication of doctrine distilled from the intercourse.” He said the historic Christian idea of revelation has been truncated. The old notion that one part of God’s complex activity of giving us knowledge of himself --- teaching us truths about himself is ruled out --- we are forbidden any more to read what is written in Scripture as though it were God who had written it. We are to regard Scripture as a human response and witness to revelation but not in any sense revelation itself. Temple wants us to escape from “intolerable dogmatism” that claims God’s truth is identical with some human formulation of it, he says, “it leaves us to our own subjective, critical resources with no reliable objective revelation.” (5) This view leaves us to establish the accuracy and reliability of the text in order to restore the literary, cultural meaning of the text. This emphasis on a critical re-examination is intended to lead to a more informed revelation. This raises a number of problems.
(1) Biblical interpretation. (an exacting specialist science.)
Rev Dr Dean Drayton points out that where in the old world it was the church and the educated priest who was the authorised reader, dispenser of the Word, we have turned the full circle so that today again the laity depend again upon the specialised academic and literary scholar (the new priestly figure) to translate and impart the Word of God. (6)
(2) The preference for relativity. (the theory that all things depend on something else)
“Among the most characteristic prior reasons for finding fault with the specific details of biblical revelation is a shift of allegiance from the concept of divine authority and absolute eternal truth to those of relative authority and relative truth.” (7) In other words what we bring to the text affects how we interpret the text. Our study of the past is controlled by the principle of interpretation we bring to it. Before we bring our prejudice or assumption that scholarship can improve or change the text we need to bring our humility. As the Reformers attested in their time, so today we need to come with open hearts and minds, - with Holy Spirit wisdom and discernment. We cannot bring our theology assuming that some texts are wrong. Human reason in itself cannot be viewed as a source of truth because we are to think God’s thoughts after Him. Isaiah 5:7-9. Brown says we do not reject certain details of biblical revelation because we find them false but we find them false because in a prior decision we have already rejected them. He says,
“Undoubtedly there are problems of detail in texts and interpretation but to strongly question detail of the text effects the substance, to challenge specific content of revelation is a challenge to its authority. If certain texts, propositions, commands, promises come in their content from God—they have authority which must be recognized, accepted, believed, obeyed---but it is often felt we can have a kind of authority without a definite content—a Word of God without any definite words of God.” (8)
Emil Brunner thought that words like ‘verbal’ or ‘plenary’ inspiration petrified or imprisoned the Spirit of God “within the covers of the Bible.” He thought this was similar to locking God into the paltry words and ink on the pages of a book. Brown however explains the Evangelical position,
“We recognise it as the words of men who were given a divine revelation and were inspired to communicate it to their fellows, and as Calvin puts it, ‘it is beyond all controversy that men ought to receive it with reverence.’ The Bible is for us the only sure and accessible repository of divine revelation and so of the knowledge of God that makes us wise unto salvation. Without it we would be in the position of the pagan world, left to grope after God if haply we might find him. ---And so we recognise and reverence the Bible as the Word of God written, and we bow before its authority as before the authority of its Lord. In so doing we think we are following the example of our Lord and Saviour who inspired his mission, waged his conflicts, comforted his heart and guided his steps, in dependence upon the written Word.”
(3) The problem of no objectivity. If the Bible is no more than human witness to revelation and this witness and scholarship is fallible and faulty as all humans are, our expression of faith becomes fluid and we lose its substance, there is no objective criteria or doctrine-teaching content. This is an apt description of how much of the Western world regards the Bible today. James Packer asks, “What guarantee can we have that our apprehension of revelation corresponds to the reality of revelation itself? What standard do we test it by? (9)
I conclude that the Bible provides an inspired revelation that enables us to test our responses and to discern God’s word. To provide this, God chooses to enter the human sphere and to use what is imperfect in order to make a ‘perfect’ disclosure. By the word ‘perfect’ I mean that what we finally end up with, amid all its human limitation is exactly what God wants us to have. It is not always ideal, nor are its parts always a full revelation of God’s intent or character. How ever it is God-approved. It is to be regarded as holy, authentic, word, to be fully trusted as the Word of God. In this sense inspiration and authority go together.
I am not suggesting that we should be naïve by interpreting everything literally. Nor should we ignore investigating the text or ignore the cultural context of the authors. What we can be certain about is that in God’s sovereign supervision and choice of overshadowing the human content of the revelation that comes to us, we can have confidence that it is God’s inspired, authoritative Word.
End Notes:
(1) Whenam, John, Christ and the Bible, Baker Book House 1994
(2) Henry Carl FH Ed. Revelation and the Bible Baker Book House, Michigan 1958 p 96 Ref -- Packer, James I, Contemporary views of Revelation. - Interpreting Theology 1918-1952 London SCM 1953
(3) Stott, John, Evangelical Truth: A personal Plea for Unity (Leicester: IVP, 1999) pp 60-61, 73-74. Gatiss, Lee The Theologian http://www.theologian.org.uk/doctrine/biblicalauthority.html 2/25/2016.
(4) Copan, Pauland Flannagan, Matthew, “Did God Really Command Genocide, coming to terms with the justice of God.” Baker Books, 2014. See p 22 Raymond Bradley.
(5) Henry Carl FH Ed. Revelation and the Bible Baker Book House, Michigan 1958 p 96 Ref -- Packer, James I,Contemporary views of Revelation.- Intepreting Theology 1918-1952 London SCM 1953
(6) Curnow,EA, Bible Christian Methodists in South Australia 1850-1900, Uniting Church Historical Society SA, 2015. Enlightenment in Reverse. p479.
(7) Brown, Harold OJ, The Protest of a Troubled Protestant, Arlington House 1969, p 191.
(8) Brown, Harold OJ, The Protest of a Troubled Protestant, Arlington House 1969. p 190- 191.
(9). Henry Carl FH, Ed. Revelation and the Bible Baker Book House, Michigan 1958 p 96 Ref --James I Packer, Contemporary views of Revelation. - Intepreting Theology 1918-1952 London SCM 1953
(10) McGrath, Alister, A Passion for Truth, pp 99-100.
PART 2: Progressive Revelation
It would seem that in the course of God’s self-revelation that when it comes to the Biblical authors, firstly, the authors motives and purpose in writing largely determines the meaning and significance of the text. Secondly it is important to make a clear distinction between (1) actions that God himself is directly responsible for and
(2) other human actions which God seemingly permits but does not necessarily approve of. (when tested alongside the whole biblical revelation) In spite of the authors human limitations and our weaknesses I have satisfied my mind that the text of Scripture is inspired and authoritative as it stands. I now turn to the concept of progressive revelation as an important way to better understanding why biblical literature includes violence, concepts and language that may seem strange to us today. The question is, “Why does the biblical text, like a never-ending story, span the ages and introduce very different leaders, and what appears to be conflicting values at different stages through history?” Progressive biblical revelation helps our understand here and corrects the simplistic accusation of the sceptic who, without serious reference to history, claims that the God of the Bible is an advocate of violence. It is so easy to take an ethical ideal from the New Testament and to assume that it can be imposed as an ethical judgement on the Old Testament text and the character of God. This is not only ignorant and confusing but it can be used in an emotive way to support a self-serving agenda.
Here the intention is to distinguish between two kinds of developments, the distinction between a natural moral evolution and a gradual progressive biblical revelation.
Natural moral evolution is derived from, and driven by a moral capacity that flows from people being created in the image of God. We have been created as moral beings. Over time as humanity develops so a social consciousness and self-awareness evolves that results in the construction of a corporate culture and civilisation. This process is built on a positive drive and the natural gifts we have to discover, dream and create. Our aspirations lead to learning, social-moral education, and to social engineering as a way of reaching human ideals. However, at the same time this aspiration and inner drive to achieve overlooks a hard-wired human condition that leaves us morally and spiritually weak and flawed. The reality of God’s presence is hidden. From a self-serving and mis-guided humanism that is illustrated in the story of the building of the tower of Babel, (Gen. 11) human-kind seeks to develop a future world. This is a spiral view of life that assumes that without God, but with hard work, achieving a future social/political fulfilment can be anticipated.
One expression of this futurism philosophy peaked around the 1920s when it anticipated that the learnt lessons of the first World War would be enough to end all future wars. Socially and politically this human idealism is still very much alive today. What I am saying here is that history itself is not the measure of all things. The revelation of a greater reality is not simply produced by the passing of time but by relating to biblical revelation. For Christians, history is important because it records and it embodies the acts of God, but not all change and history is good, it needs to be interpreted. Carl Henry says, “God did not act in history in such a way that historical events were eloquent in themselves.” (1) Through the various phases of history Christians believe God has chosen to intervene and to draw aside a veil that reveals a greater reality. A progressive biblical revelation provides this insight into life and human nature but it must be understood within the historical context and period in which it was given.
Progressive biblical revelation, in contrast to the above view recognises that the Creator-God revealed in the Old Testament and who, in the New Testament, Jesus acknowledges as Father, is the one who is rightly known as the Lord of history. God stands above history but moves through the ages from antiquity towards a fullness of time, towards the parousia, the final installing of His kingdom. In helping us to understand this, the Old Testament is incomplete and preparatory in character. The Bible is God’s historical self-disclosure where he makes himself known progressively. In Abraham God takes ancient man where he finds him with whatever notions he has of God along with his primeval culture and early concepts of what is moral. Early cultic folk-gods of that period were less than righteous and often acted immorally, but as time unravelled God revealed himself and monotheism emerges. A relational covenant is established and God commits himself to his people. Later a code with moral qualities that requires an exclusive loyalty to God alone and that Israel is to live by emerges. The nationalism of Israel is distinguished from other nation-states by the holy righteousness of their God. Alongside of the brutality of war and the righteous, conquering God who punishes idolatry and overt paganism we find that the justice and mercy of Israel’s God emerges. God is personal, gracious, merciful, loving, slow to anger and quick to forgive. The purpose of God’s formation and interaction with Israel becomes clearer as ethical ideals, ways of worship and a redemptive hope in a messianic suffering servant emerges. Through the incarnation and death of Christ God’s redemption plan moves on to embrace all the nations and not only a lost humanity but a broken creation.
While the primitive cultures of the past are not ideal vehicles of God’s revelation we cannot limit the scope of God’s grace to cultural boundaries. The Holy Spirit as well as socio-political factors were all involved in revealing God’s word and plan. With the coming of the Christ there is not just an expanded revelation but an important fulfilment of all that has gone before. In the incarnation we have Jesus who says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” and it is through Jesus that we are able to interpret the past.
The writer of Hebrews begins by saying, “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.” Hebrews 1:1.
Mark Buchanan points out that Jesus gives us a clearer and deeper revelation of God, but not a different one. The God Jesus spoke with and spoke for, the God he unveiled is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob---The strangeness of the cross is “what the cross pushes back is as much the wrath of heaven as it is the power of hell. God disarms himself at Calvary. To put it in another way, at the cross God made a way for his mercy and love to triumph over justice and judgement.” (2)
In this new context of God’s progressive revelation instead of depending on a remote reconstruction and interpretation of ancient texts we are confronted with the fact that God personally chooses to enter a world locked into time and a limited cultural framework to reveal himself and to subject himself to less than perfect witnesses. This does not imply that the biblical material is deficient. It is all God’s truth as far as it goes; the only difference is that some parts go further than others. (3) What is important is that we relate various phases of biblical revelation to their proper historical contexts. Not to do this when it comes to the Old Testament is to impose the ethical values and the revelation of Jesus and the Gospels onto the values and conduct of people in a primitive stone age.
The significance of the text then is best understood when the Holy Spirit reveals God’s word in light of the period in history, the context and driving motivation of the author.
End Notes:
(1) Henry, Carl H, Ed., Basic Christian Doctrines, 1962, pp 9,11.
(2) Buchanan, Mark, “Can we Trust the God of Genocide?” Christianity Today, July/August 2013.
(3) Stott, J, Authentic Christianity, Timothy D Smith, Inter-Varsity Press, 1995 p88.
Part 3: Violence in the Old Testament.
Having worked through the proceeding stages, now comes the matter of violence and the Bible. Drawing on a number of sources including the book, “Did God Really Command Genocide---coming to term with the justice of God.” ---(Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Baker Books 2014), we ask the question, “How do violent Old Testament texts sit with the Bible being the Word of God?” Exodus15:1-18, Deut 2: 31-34, Duet 7:1-6, Joshua 10:16-40, 1Samuel 15:1-3 etc. Is the severe harsh and violent God sometimes portrayed in the Old Testament the God and Father of Jesus Christ? How does the ‘holy war’ and the atrocities perpetuated in the name of Islam differ from what it appears God instructed Israel to do under Joshua?
It was the second century Bishop Marcian who taught that the Old Testament God was a jealous, angry retributive deity who smites people, an incompatible God revealed in Jesus Christ who was a benevolent God of love and compassion. Clearly there are parts of the Old Testament that appear irreconcilable with the teaching of Jesus and the mercy he demonstrated in the events of his death. Should we regard some Old Testament narratives simply as primitive theologising that misunderstood the true nature of Israel’s God? Eric Seibert states, “The concept of ‘virtuous violence’ in the Old Testament text has been used to justify colonialism, ethical violence and the abuse of women.” (1) If this is only half true, the questions it raises about how we read the Bible needs to be well considered rather than ignored. Struggling with the issue and ethic of God being both holy-loving and holy-just along with the Divine-human authorship of scripture being an authoritative, objective word of God, it needs to be said again from the outset that these combined issues stretch well beyond the limits of the thoughts shared here.
Instead of beginning by assuming that we are in a position to reflect on the character of God who is holy-transcendent, we need to begin by acknowledging that as Creator, and giver of life, it is the Lord God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth who alone is the right judge over all things. Ultimately God has the right to set the boundaries and to choose to give or withdraw life according to his will.
Phillip Cory suggests that to approach this subject in context we are more like the gentile women Rahab in the Old Testament, the Canaanite prostitute in Jericho than we are an Israelite. We belong to those who were bound for destruction because we offend against the holiness of God. However, like Rahab we have received mercy and benefited from a blessing originally given to Abraham that finds fulfillment in Christ and that extends to all who believe. Our approach should be dressed then with a teachable humility that flows from the mercy of God rather than an arrogance that dares to judge God. (2) Tom Wright goes further by saying life is full of all kinds of things which are wonderful and terrifyingly horrible and we shouldn’t be surprised when we meet this reality in scripture. What does God do with the stuff that is horrible? The answer is, if God is good “He must utterly reject it, and must hate it, and must ultimately destroy it---If God is a good God, he must react extremely strongly against that which destroys, corrupts or defaces human life.” (3) In other words we need to put the biblical narrative in its context. Both the Old and New Testaments present a God who judges evil. The motif is judgment of evil and in establishing the nation-state of Israel, Israel was used as a vehicle of judgment. Note however that Israel itself often understood itself as a victim, it records its own destruction and captivity as God’s wrath and judgment upon her sins, Amos 5:8
From the outset then we must humbly acknowledge that here we are trying to explain a mystery, things in life that we have no final explanation for and things and that we need to be willing to live with as ongoing mystery. Laziness of course is unacceptable so we must present a reason for faith and at the same time listen to God who speaks through Isaiah 55:9.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
It is possible that most of us will approach this subject with preconceived impressions and ideas. This is where Tom Wright undoes most of us by pointing out that to think in terms of the “retributive versus the merciful” God is ill-conceived. He says that some of the fiercest statements of warnings about judgment are pronounced by Jesus “and some of the most dramatic, spectacularly, extraordinary statements about overflowing mercy are in bits of the Old Testament.” In fact, Christ reveals that God upholds both judgment and mercy. This is difficult because while we are familiar with a God of social justice who is passionate and determined to support the weak and bring wholeness to the creation, we struggle to comprehend a God, who in love judges evil and will not allow injustice to stand. There is a sense in which the holiness of God remains a moral threat to us and there are times when our words are totally inadequate. After Job’s testing and suffering he approached God as we should in repentance saying, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore, I have uttered what I did not understand.” Job 42:6.
Amy Orr-Ewing also highlights the continuity in the Old and New Testament by pointing to the cosmic struggle, a battle between good and evil and how the tension of God’s judgment and mercy are always held together. Rather than a contradiction between the old and new there is continuity here. Alongside of Old Testament wrath and judgment is a God compassionate and gracious, “slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.” Exodus 34:6. Stories of mercy like that of Jonah who complains because God is too patient and compassionate or that of Rahab who respected Israel’s God and escaped death demonstrate God’s mercy. (Josh. 6:25) Another example is the whole book of Lamentations that is an emotional, theological response to war.
However, Orr-Ewing says, there is also discontinuity. The coming of Jesus is not about establishing a nation-state. Unlike Islam’s Mohammad whose violence is ongoing there is a transition away from the limited physical struggle of the nation-state of Israel. Once settlement took place in Canaan Israel was forbidden from further war conquest Deut 2: 4-9. “All divinely sanctioned battles after Joshua were defensive in nature. There was no standing army” Israel was not commanded to clear a space—simply for its own benefit. The promises of God were moving towards God’s people gathered from every tribe and nation on earth. Gen 12:3, Deut. 4:5-8, Isa. 2:2-4, Ps. 87:4-6 (4)
It is clear from a biblical perspective that as part of God’s holy nature, judgment and mercy are not opposed to each other but go together. Wright asks, Did God change his mind about the nation of Israel at the time of Christ’s coming? “Emphatically not.” (Romans Chaps 9-11)
“Holding onto this idea that what has happened in Christ is what God always intended to happen—is a very difficult concept. –From the call of Abraham onwards, what God is committing himself to do is to act to bring about the restoration of the world, but to act through deeply flawed human beings, who constantly need to be reminded that they’re deeply flawed. That then produces all kinds of (to our minds) ambiguities. And I see all of it coming together in the cross. The cross is the moment when I see Israel’s God performing the salvific event, which is simultaneously the worst and most blasphemous act of judicial, theological murder than one can ever imagine. And somehow the cross itself says: these things are now reconciled.”
Wright explains this by saying, that once God decides, with the call of Abraham to work to address the problem of evil, --“through people who are part of the problem, as well as part of the solution, there is again to be an awful lot of messiness which will reach its climax when God not only gets his feet muddy with themes of the world but his hands bloody with the nails of the world.” Wright says a new Marcianism would reject the entire Old Testament. He then compares the Old Testament to a ship that brings travelers to a destination. “Once they arrive they leave the ship and continue overland not because the ship was no good or the voyage misguided but because both ship and voyage had accomplished their purpose. I would add the present journey can only be explained by reference to the original ship voyage.”
There are many things that God does, has done or will do which are not waiting for my approval or sanction before he does them. You know that line, “Many people want to serve God, but usually only in an advisory capacity.” Bonhoeffer said that putting the knowledge of good and evil before the knowledge of God is the primary sin in Genesis 3. They go for knowledge of good and evil rather than what God says. Now that could just be an escape; it could just be throwing up our hands and saying we don’t know anything about God (when the whole point of the gospel is that we do know who God is, because of Jesus). However, if it’s the crucified Jesus, and if the cross means what it means in the light of the whole history of Israel, which is focused onto that, then---these narratives are the way in which all of those horrible, puzzling ambiguities, and all the awful things that happen – like Jesus saying. --- ‘what about
those eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam fell?’—there’s a sense that the cross gathers up all those puzzling, tragic horrible fragments of life, and says swoosh this is where it’s all going. The one thing you can’t do about all that is theorise about it. To theorise about it is to say, ‘We’re standing back as good enlightened people. And we’re going to say whether it was appropriate or not.’ The only thing when faced with a narrative like that is get down on your knees.” (5)
Because Israel’s God was unique their behavior was different from their pagan neighbors. In Duet. 20:10-15 Israel was commanded to adopt two strategies. They were to make specific rules for peace, and cities were first offered peace by being given an opportunity to surrender. Secondly there were rules of war laid out (Gen. 15:16. Even the rules of war—reflected a different way of conduct. Soldiers who were afraid were allowed to go home—a fairness and kindness were evident. Deut. 20:16-18. It is in Canaan after granting many generations the opportunity to stop grose abuses that God judges Canaan. Extreme annihilation is described (Deut. 20:16-18) as the means of judging the criminal atrocities and abominations of the depraved practices of the inhabitants, the reason provided is, --“so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods and you thus sin against the Lord your God.” (v18) It becomes clear that within a limited time frame God chooses to create a nation and to do that a choice is made to work in history at a human level. Israel is locked in as a component of the project in partnership with God. This means a space in which to live is made by forcibly displacing those who occupied the land. This is what Wright describes as, “the messiness of God getting his feet muddy with the mess of the world.” In other words, while a holy God judges evil He also makes himself vulnerable through the human limitations and distortions of Israel’s military strategies.
Looking at Deuteronomy 7:1-6.
“Destroy them totally—show them no mercy” Is this brutal command the command of God? Is God the author of atrocity or is this more matter of God permitting military rhetoric? It would appear that throughout the Old Testament the text absorbs something of the biblical writers own ancient Near Eastern values and beliefs---like patriarchy and ethnocentrism etc. (7)
Andrew Shead points out that there are important distinctions and odd contradictions here. What Moses commanded was really against Canaanite religion rather than people themselves and that while in Joshua 10:40 we read that Joshua destroyed “all that breathed,” then we read there was an on-going/continued presence of Canaanite people. (Joshua 13:1) If Moses commands genocide, why was it necessary to tell Israel not to inter-marry? Why does Joshua warn Israel not to adopt pagan religions if all was destroyed? Shead also points out, “Mosaic ethics include distinguishing combatants from non-combatants and not punishing innocent children for parental sins.” (Exodus 22:24, Deut. 24:16)
When it comes to understanding war strategy and policy it appears we also need to distinguish between military theory and practice, ---. In theory a common approach included three phases. (1) Destroy the military might/machine of the enemy (2) Conquer the territory to prevent further opposition/ build-up. (3) Demoralise the inhabitants by eliminating their will to fight. In this last point it becomes clear that there was a rhetorical aspect attached to military strategy.
Hagiography--- Nicholas Wolterstorff
Etymologist Nicholas Wolterstorff and Young and Craig assist us here with an important insight into the nature of the biblical text. Wolterstorf suggests that hagiography (holy writing), an idealised, exaggerated account of events that may reflect historical events but that are “air brushed” to remove defects and to teach moral, theological lessons---rather than to tell exactly what occurred historically occurs here. This is typical of Joshua’s exploits. It is hagiographical history. On the other hand, accounts in the book of Judges appear to be ‘down to earth’ and should be taken literally.
Hyperbole--- Lawsen Younger
Younger concludes that Joshua includes an ideology that meant that one sided war stories had to be described in black and white terms. Such rhetoric was used in the Near East conquest accounts to inspire fear and obedience in the people who heard it. Hyperbole specifically included the use of exaggerated terms for the purpose of emphasis and calculated terror.
With Copan and Flannigan, Shead also points out that often Israel adopted a military rhetoric typical of their neighbours (Egypt, Assyria, Hittites) For example the Moabite king Mesha recorded a victory by optimistically writing that “Israel has utterly perished for always” (8) This is similar to saying that, “The footy team the ‘Crows’ annihilated ‘Carlton’ today.” Other general exaggerations are liberally used such as ‘all’, ‘young and old,’ ‘men and women.’ This sort of military propaganda or hyperbole is hardly acceptable in historical documents today but it was commonly used. One Canaanite account describes the goddess Anath as wading in blood ‘up to her knees-nay up to her neck.’ Copan and Flannigan conclude that a comparison of similar phraseology in Deuteronomy 7:2, 20:16-17, and Joshua 10 suggest a similar hyperbole and that the author of Joshua understood Moses command as hyperbolic. (9) “The utter destruction” (herem) of Deuteronomy was not intended to eliminate all Canaanites or Canaanite culture but to prevent the Canaanite religious and moral practices from damaging Israel’s spiritual and moral integrity. (10)
William Lane Craige, a Christian philosopher makes it clear that the biblical account to “utterly destroy” cannot refer to anything like “absolute extermination” since there are an even greater number of commands and descriptions related to “dispossession” or “driving out” the Canaanites. Ex. 23:27-31, Num. 21:32, 33:51-56, Deut. 7:17-23. The expectation is that the Canaanites would be driven out gradually. The fear of Israel and Israel’s God would go ahead of Israel resulting in confusion and terror. Josh 2:9, 24, 9:24. The Biblical text repeatedly states the Canaanites will not be exterminated but will be driven out Deut 9:1,11:23,18:12,14; 19:2. “Driven out” or dispossession is different from ‘wiping out’ or destroying’. Israel itself was driven out of Egypt by Pharaoh (Ex. 6:1) texts using the “utterly destroyed” language should not be read in a straight forward, literal way. (11)
Summary:
In sanctioning the occupation of Canaan God certainly allowed limited warfare as a means of judgment against sin. It is an over simplification to say this means God has a violent character. It means God is Holy but alongside his judgment of evil there is holy love and mercy also conveyed through the frailty and limits of an ancient culture.
This means that not everything in the Bible is automatically approved of by the Bible or is consistent with its overall message. It must be understood as a progressive revelation. Parts of the Bible can only be understood by first appreciating the language and culture of the author and by being interpreted it in light of the whole Biblical record.
End Notes:
(1) Seibert, Eric, The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament’s Troubling Legacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press 2012. Opan & Flannagan “Did God Really Command Genocide? Baker Books, 2014. P 40.
(2) Phillip Cory, ‘Gentiles in the Hands of a Genocidal God’. Christianity Today July –Aug, 2013.
(3 Wright, NT, The Bible Does Answer the Problem—Here’s How. Blogalogue. Posted byadmin.2/24/2016http:www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2008/04/thanks-bart-for-a-further.html/
( 4) Orr-Ewing, Amy, “God of War”, Hammersmith, May 2009. Web site “Good, Bad God, vital questions in a confused world.” 26 July 2010, St Paul’s Theological Centre.
(5) Andrew Wilson, Tom Wright Skewers the New Marcianism, blogalogue, 29 May 2013
(6) Copan, Paul and Flannagan, Matthew, “Did God Really Command Genocide,” Baker Books 2014, p 106-7
(7) Copan, Paul and Flannagan, Matthew “Did God Really Command Genocide,” Baker Books 2014. p 40
(8) Shead, Andrew “Holy War IS and Ancient Israel.”. Moore College, ‘Eternity.’ Paper Nov. 2014, p 20.
(9) Copan, Paul and Flannagan, Matthew, “Did God Really Command Genocide,” Baker Books, 2014.
(10) Copan, Paul and Flannagan, Matthew “Did God Really Command Genocide,” Baker Books, 2014. P 108.
(11) Copan, Paul and Flannagan, Matthew, “Did God Really Command Genocide,” Baker Books 2014. p 83.
Leave a comment