On the side, btw, I think my friends would agree that religious conservatives would be wise to dump the tools they put on the television (Jabba Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Richard Land, John Hagee) and have Tony represent them on the national stage. It might turn out badly for the GOP, but religious conservatives everywhere would be grateful.
But back to my topic... About this OT God. Don't get me wrong. I believe. I choose to believe, and it isn't always easy. And I can even make sense of some of the odder parts of the OT, including this story from 1 Samuel:
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' '"If you don't know the story, the Israelites and Amalekites evidently hated each other tremendously, and there are numerous conflicts between the two of them. At this point in the story, God tells the Israelites to wipe them out. All of them. Out.
Growing up, I don't think I read this story or heard it from the pulpit. As an adult, I heard one sermon on the radio, but it focussed on the second part of the story--where the Israelites actually don't kill everyone and get in trouble. God told them to wipe them all out and they greedily saved some of the rich Amalekites and valuable cattle and sheep. The sermon's lesson was always obey God. I once wrote Hank Hannegraf (after all, he is the Bible Answer Man) and he explained it as the Amalekites "had it coming." God had given them numerous chances to repent, he noted, and when the UN refused to enforce the Amalekite no-fly zone, God had no choice but to invade....
Ok, maybe not, but it might as well have been. The "they had it coming" defense certainly makes sense, and when placed in a cultural sense of ancient tribal society, makes perfect sense. It certainly makes sense that in these battles between the two groups, a lot of atrocities were committed--mistakes were made, as it were. It also makes sense that the Israelites, who were recording this particular history, would place themselves in the best light possible. Suggesting that God told them to do this makes sense too.
But please don't ask me to believe that the God of peace, the God of justice, and the God of creation, committed genocide. Don't make me defend infanticide and say that "God's ways are higher than our ways." What is the lesson of killing the women (including, we must assume, pregnant women) and infants? The lesson I take away from that (if forced to read it as literal truth) is that God is a two-faced God--on one side the compassion and love for the humanity he created--on the other side a capricious and angry God who destroys entire peoples. How do people opposed to abortion based on the sanctity of life still believe that the God who created that life and instilled that sanctity was so willing to erase infants and unborn?
And if we look further at the story, we find more inconsistencies. God, we assume, could have done the killing himself, but in this story--amidst the same ancient texts that gives us the vaunted 10 commandments that conservatives tell us will save our sorry moral state if posted on schoolhouse and courthouse walls--God commands these flawed human beings to kill for him. "Thou shall not kill" unless God changes his mind?
I choose to believe. Please don't ask me to believe that God did this. I can accept this story as metaphor and even as an example of how we can and do kill each other. Don't ask me to believe that God so loved the Israelites that he was willing to slaughter their enemies.
6 comments:
Are we supposed to ignore all of the other stories in the Bible where God or the Israelites kill? Besides the one you mention, there is plenty of killing, plenty of plagues, and plenty of other acts we would consider heinous.
I agree that the Bible contains many metaphors, but I don't think that we should say every story that seems nasty is just a metaphor.
FWIW, there is plenty in the OT that I struggle with.
Perhaps I misspoke. I don't mean that all nasty stories are simply metaphor, but neither am I interested in believing that God is the author of evil, and that is my defining point, perhaps.
I remember a wise pastor saying that many of the stories in the OT reflected what happened, but not what SHOULD have happened. I can understand all of these stories in a desert tribal society, but not when they say God told them to do whatever.
I also remember a story about the Israelites and the Red/Reed Sea. I believe this comes from the Jewish tradition, but the story goes that angels return to God bragging about how they drowned the Egyptian army. God shakes his head and says, "didn't you realize they were my children too?"
Streak- Perhaps when a group of people considers themselves chosen of God, whether they are or aren't in actual fact, personal or corporate ambition can become confused with God's will/direction? The distinction can blur between being chosen for the purpose of blessing to those around you and being chosen as some elite class who can do what they want because "God is on our side". Add onto that the prevailing tribalism and methods of warfare of the times and there's lots of blood. (similar to the "what did" vs "what should have" happened).-Later- BB
My wife and I are reading through one of those one year Bibles. We are just getting into Joshua. I will admit that there is plenty of stuff that makes me wonder. Destruction...plagues for disobedience...punishing people down through the 3rd and 4th generation.
It seems to me, when these sorts of arguments start that people quickly forget the Who of the argument and go for the what. I really like your statement about the stories in the Hebrew Scriptures being what happened, not what SHOULD have happened.
As I understand it, Jesus is the final and most true revelation of the character of God to us, violence in the Jewish world, notwithstanding.
Streak, I love your search and I hope you never get too distracted by the conflict, since by then it's not really Jesus that matters at that point anyway.
Thanks, Monk. You have given me more to think about, and I appreciate the kind words and encouragement. I know I can be distracted or drawn to the conflict easier than I want to be.
Post a Comment