Recently I was discussing with a friend the concept of war/violence with regard to peace and he asked me if there was war in the Bible and I said that there was, but that too needs to be re-framed. When we view the Bible, generally people split it into two parts with the first part being referred to as the Old Testament and the second part being referred to as the New Testament. This in turn causes some issues, because it means that we can ignore the Old Testament, except when it suites our purposes such as thoughts on war and God being violent and allows us to focus on the New Testament, except when it talks about peace and nonviolence, in which case we just skim over those passages until we read something that we want. Of coarse this is not the proper way to look at Scripture, because it is meant to be read from beginning to end; only by reading the Old Testament or as I prefer the Hebrew Scriptures, first can we begin to understand what the New Testament authors were thinking about when they wrote. Let's face it, they did not have the New Testament only the Hebrew Scriptures, so doesn't it make sense that we should start there and work our way forward?
When it comes to war/violence in the Bible we look at the Hebrew Scriptures particularly the parts talking about Israel being led by God to destroy the opposing nations and take the promised land by force, kind of like what the British did when they came to America. Again this is about framing and sense Israel was an oral community, meaning that they mainly used stories to talk about their history instead of writing it down, they would have to tell their history in a way that could not be forgotten easily. I believe that Israel framed their violence around God, saying that he was on their side, so they would be blessed by their violent actions. This may be difficult for many to hear because in our culture we place them, the Hebrews and the Bible authors, on a high pedestal, making them more god like and less human just because they are in the Bible. This is the way our framing looks at sacred objects, but I believe to truly understand them in their context we need to re-frame them to be fully human.
Granted someone will read this and ask me then if I believe the Bible is authoritative and inspired by God (which to be honest is a frustrating question to ask because no answer I can give will satisfy and nothing will be gained by our dialogue)? My answer would be yes, and even though I have re-framed the people in the Bible as human does not change the fact that the entire Bible is a narrative about a creator God who works within creation to bring about its renewal. The Hebrews were human and as such they were emotional, just as we are emotional. In order to make it appear that God was with them when they used violence against another nation all they had to say was that when they won that God had given them the victory and when they lost they could either say that they or someone among them was sinning and that is why they lost. It is easy to get lost in the details of such a narrative and see phrases like "God was with them" or "God ordered" etc. and miss the over all theme that starts back in Genesis and is continually weaving its way through the story as a cloth maker uses the loom to bring together all the pieces of string and make a whole fabric image. This type of view can be framed within a kingdom or imperial type mindset.
Once we re-frame the Hebrew Scriptures it is time to re-frame the New Testament thought...
Posts
2 comments:
I'm glad to see you asking questions, Aaron. I believe that true faith can happen only through doubt and questioning. With that being said, I think youre heading the wrong way.
I'm not arguing with you. Not debating.
We're conversing. Asking these questions together.
Let's assume that your re-framing of the history books of the Hebrew Scriptures is completely accurate. Let's assume that YHWH never once commanded the Israelites to destroy every living thing in a village. I like that picture of Him more anyways. It's much more compatible with modern Judeo-Christian ideas.
What do you do with the prophesy books. They put a lot words into YHWH's mouth about death and violence and wrath and judgement. Let's assume that all the prophecies of the about the other nations like Gog and Edom were also human interpolation. We can say the authors said those things to encourage the Israelites; they were helping their fellow countrymen justify their pillaging.
But what about the prophecies of the Hebrew future?
Read Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Joel.
They talk all about the destruction of the nation. Promises, supposedly from YHWH, that YHWH would destroy the nation with violence. In Amos 9:
I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said:
"Strike the tops of the pillars
so that the thresholds shake.
Bring them down on the heads of all the people;
those who are left I will kill with the sword.
Not one will get away,
none will escape.
Though they dig down to the depths of the grave,
from there my hand will take them.
Though they climb up to the heavens,
from there I will bring them down.
Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel,
there I will hunt them down and seize them.
Though they hide from me at the bottom of the sea,
there I will command the serpent to bite them."
Pretty violent.
You have three options here:
1. It does need to be re-framed. The human authors saw where the Hebrews were headed and guessed about who would overtake them and when and how. Centuries before it happened in some cases. Which takes YHWH out of the equation.
2. The dating of the writings is just wrong. They were written after the events described occurred. The authors motivation being to encourage their people as to why this tragedy had befallen them, and to provide hope for a better future.
3. YHWH actually spoke these words to these men. Which leaves you with the conclusion that YHWH is in fact a righteous judge who does not look lightly upon His bride (us) breaking our covenant.
As far as I can see the third option is the only one that allows for the scriptures to be "authoritative and inspired by God."
But I truly would like to know what you think about this. Again not a debate. A conversation. I'm confused as to what to do with those passages; I truly am. Not just saying that.
Last a word of advice from a long ago friend.
Quit reading anything about God except the Bible for awhile. No McClaren. No Claiborne. No McCarthur(who I'm sure you're not reading). No Bell. No Driscoll.
Just the Bible. And read like Kierkegaard suggested.
As a letter from one lover to another. Or from a Father to a son.
Hopefully you respond;-)
Hey John, thanks for reading and commenting! I really do enjoy dialoguing with people, especially a long ago friend! That being said, let me respond the best way that I can.
Before I respond though, let me trying and clarify my view of the Hebrew Scriptures in a minor way, compared to my next blog post that should be up soon (part 3 of the current topic). I see two options for viewing God's character within the Bible as a whole.
Option one the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is a different one than we see in the New Testament or...
option two God is the same and did not change and if that is the case then what do we do with the differences in let's say Amos vs Matthew, God is violent in the Hebrew Scriptures yet Jesus is non-violent in the New Testament.
For me I do not believe that God has changed and since Jesus is the incarnation of God and the one whom Christians are supposed to follow then he cannot be violent (ie kill other people). It also does not mess me up to take issue with the violence in the Hebrew Scriptures and still believe that the Bible is "inspired and authoritative". Whether or not the violence in the Hebrew Scripture is actually God telling them to do this or if it is the author's interpretation does not change the fact that the New Testament authors interpreted it in a certain way and saw their world as a continuation of that narrative.
I would say that the prophecies of the Hebrew future were just that, prophecies. They described what would happen if Israel would not fulfill their obligation to the narrative contract, not that God was necessarily doing that to them.
I do not mind talking about these issues, but I am afraid that if we focus on these issues, we loose our focus on my main issue, that of re-framing peace. In bring up the violence in the Hebrew Scriptures I was mainly addressing a few concerns that people have raised in the past with this topic, in which is only a small issue within the scope of the entire topic, but that we should wrestle with nonetheless in view of the larger topic.
I agree that we must read the Bible by itself without reading what others have said into it. This is good, but it is important to read the Bible in its context instead of ours. In doing so I have understood the Bible as a narrative of God and Israel, God as Creator, and God's promise of his covenant.
I hope that this helped clarify some of my thoughts on this topic, and I encourage you to continue reading my blogs, if not all of them at least this series, and please keep commenting, I really admire your thoughts and you personally!
Post a Comment