A Faroese solution to divine violence

August 17th, 2010 | 8 Comments

I’d like to point out a new contribution to the recent conversation in the blogosphere on the topic of the OT vs. NT depictions of God’s disposition — and not just because my blog is referenced! Arni makes some excellent statements, including the following:

Jesus not only preaches non-violence and lives non-violently when there was ample opportunity to do the opposite – he lays his life down in solidarity with those who suffer at the hands of violent power. Jesus is love and God is love, not violence.

Luther said somewhere that Jesus is the sun of the Bible. It is thus in the light of Jesus that the Bible should be read. Just like when the sun rises over a landscape, not all parts of the Bible receive as much light as other parts. There are mountains and valleys, the former receiving more light than the former.

via A “solution” to divine violence: Jesus as the sun of the Bible

I used to have a knee-jerk reaction to Christocentric interpretations of Scripture under the mistaken assumption that they all read Christ into the OT where he was not yet revealed and thus inaccurately portray the original meaning of the OT. But now I see the wisdom and importance of the type of Christocentrism that allows his testimony and example to stand in judgment over the views of God seen in various places in the Old Testament.

Please read and lend your contribution to the discussion!

FacebookRedditGoogle ReaderDiggStumbleUponPrintFriendlyShare

Related posts:

  1. Mondays with MacDonald (on the persistence of divine love) When once to a man the human face is the human face divine, and the hand of his neighbour is the hand of a brother,...
  2. Mondays with MacDonald (on divine command theory) I write for the sake of those whom the false teaching that claims before all to be true has driven away from God—as well it...
  3. Mondays with MacDonald (on divine humility) Inspired by Diglot’s Mondays with Moltmann feature, I am proud to announce my own such regularly recurring series featuring my own favorite theologian, George MacDonald,...
  4. Mondays with MacDonald (on divine forgiveness) A man will say: “I forgive, but I cannot forget. Let the fellow never come in my sight again.” To what does such a forgiveness...

August 17th, 2010

Tags: , , ,

  • http://www.facebook.com/arnizach Arni Zachariassen

    Cheers, man. And thanks for that clarification regarding Christocentrism. I’m unapologetically Christocentric (having marinated in Barthian juices my entire theological education), but as you say, there’s a difference in trying to read Christ in to all sorts of places where he simply is not to be found, on the one hand, and on the other to see Christ as the judge of scripture and reading it in his light, to use the Luther analogy.

  • Mairnéalach

    Interesting. Here we have a reading of Jesus which projects his immanent nonviolence as an ethic rendering the judges period of the OT as nothing more than the guilt-projections of chastened Hebrews in the exile period.

    If this is true, I think we ought to go ahead and project Christ’s immanent nonviolence into the eschatological dimension. Why restrict it to the OT? That’s not a very broad view! Let’s go ahead and say that John’s apocalypse is, like the OT, nothing more than the resentment-projections of a chastened Jew in the Roman period.

    That way, we get to say that none of that nasty stuff Jesus is said to perform in the “re-immanence” is going to happen after all. We need to leave all those detestable people in the future unpunished… that would help redeem us all from the sin of assuming that anyone in the OT merited punishment.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Hey now, don’t go getting all snarky! :-D

    The idea isn’t that there is no judgment. If you read my earlier posts on
    this topic, or my first comment on Arni’s post, you’ll see my take on it.

    God uses humanity’s failings, redeeming them for His cause, without their
    ever ceasing to be evil. For that matter, some have claimed that those who
    crucified Jesus should be exonerated in their cruelty because God wanted
    them to do it all to fulfill prophecy, perform judgment, etc. Nonsense. The
    same goes for the Assyrians, Persians, etc.

    Another part of me wonders what’s so scandalous about your sarcastic
    proposition. As you implied, making too sharp a break between the humanity
    of the OT and the NT is artificial and hard to motivate by evidence. As it is, however, I think there is no good reason to deny talk of “judgment” in the NT. Let’s just not pretend there’s no difference in holding the guilty accountable and systematically killing children in a divinely ordered razing of villages.

    I personally have much more interest in exonerating the character of God the
    Father (who is said to be “love” but never “petty, vicious
    revenge”) from charges He would doubtless condemn in fallible men than I
    have in defending an already otherwise falsified belief that He desired an
    inerrant Bible.

  • Mairnéalach

    You contrasted “love” with “petty, vicious revenge”. Sounds like a good contrast to me. Is it possible to actually apply pettiness or vengefulness to the stated motivations in the Canaan texts? Or does that have to be read into them?

    What transpired in Canaan was certainly appalling. I am curious though as to why it is more appalling than, say, a tsunami, which gruesomely drowns thousands of children. Sure, there is an old religious text which says God had to browbeat a bunch of ne’er-do-wells into carrying out one of those acts, while for the other act, we just have to assume God is responsible indirectly in some way.

    What exactly is strange about holding that God would, in one age, use people like “a force of nature” (and not just them projecting God onto it after the fact), and in another more amazing age, God using people like “a force of the spirit”?

    Our defenses of God must of course rise to his notice at some point. Surely you are interested in defending God’s character on behalf of anyone who is afraid that the Christians are going to come after them with machetes. The motivation is understandable, as we see some Christians in some parts of the world wielding machetes.

    There are other stricken parties you may have forgotten, perhaps. Think of those who also await comfort from God. However, they receive it from Christians who are appalled, not by God the Father who browbeat people into killing Canaanite children, but rather by the notion that they deserve no better than those children. Out of that spiritual hunger they serve their neighbors joyfully and gratefully, happy that God chose to inaugurate something different.

    Surely such motivation is not an accident or incidental to “inerrantism”, but is intimately connected to it in some way.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Mairnéalach, thanks very much for this conversation. It is helpful, I think.

    Is it possible to actually apply pettiness or vengefulness to the stated motivations in the Canaan texts? Or does that have to be read into them?

    It’s fairly explicit: “the wickedness of the Canaanites is…fulfilled,” “because of these detestable practices I am about to drive out the Canaanites before you,” etc. According to the text, God needed to judge the Canaanites because of their transgression of His standards of righteousness. But what makes the Canaanites’ transgression worthy of an awful death and that of people every day who die peacefully in their beds? The fact that their ancestors had settled on someone else’s prime real estate, it seems. Can anyone doubt that Jesus would have sent people in as missionaries to convert them first? No, this explanation strikes me as attributing to God petty revenge for personal affront, and I just don’t see God being that way, since He demands from us – humans imperfect in our love – not to act this way. When we are offended by someone’s wicked behavior toward us, we must turn the other cheek, but God can just smite away?

    What exactly is strange about holding that God would, in one age, use people like “a force of nature” (and not just them projecting God onto it after the fact), and in another more amazing age, God using people like “a force of the spirit”?

    There is a subtle but chasmic difference between the depiction of God’s role in natural disasters (and even overt judgment as depicted in the Flood narrative) and the type of judgment said to have been enacted by the Conquest. The significant distinction is the agent: if an abortion doctor got horribly injured in a freak accident, some of us might entertain the idea that God was somehow judging him via natural means. But what if a Christian inflicts the same injuries on the doctor under the claim that God commissioned him as His agent of judgment? Would we believe that person? It is God’s prerogative to deal with people as He wills, but it is problematic in the least to seriously entertain the notion that He would ask His followers to violate His moral decrees against violence and murder, particularly against the helpless and defenseless. Many if not most people who have occasion to kill another human will feel remorse over the taking of a human life, and this guilt will often plague them their life long — even when they believe in the war they’re fighting or are acting in self-defense. It is a soul-killing affair, and the description of the action not just expected but demanded of His followers in the Conquest would surely be even worse: would God demand that His people do this? God forgive me, I am saying, “Absolutely not.”

    The motivation is understandable, as we see some Christians in some parts of the world wielding machetes.

    There are other stricken parties you may have forgotten, perhaps. Think of those who also await comfort from God.

    I appreciate very much your tone and empathy here. There is an apologetics aspect, but there is certainly more to my contention than trying to make Him look good. Here’s what I mean:

    However, they receive it from Christians who are appalled, not by God the Father who browbeat people into killing Canaanite children, but rather by the notion that they deserve no better than those children.

    As I have detailed before, I do not hold to the supposition that God holds both passionate love and a passionate wrath against sinners in tension. He hates sin, but for its destructive effects, chief of which is obstruction of relationship; He is the embodiment of the old saw, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” He hates the sin because He loves the sinner.

    What children “deserve” is not punishment for the sake of retribution, but the love of their Father — even if it requires “tough love” and not mere disapproving looks in response to their misbehavior. As I said, I am not against the concept of God’s “judgment”, if and only if we mean “the setting of things aright”. But I reject the notion that our very model and type of fatherhood, our God, would try to set things aright by utterly destroying rather than by restorative discipline. Whatever harsh treatment God is responsible for cannot be inconsistent with that afflicted by a good father. When a child hurts his sister, does the father then commission the injured to retaliate? If it is the father who is personally injured, how much less likely is it that he would have the sibling retaliate on his behalf (with no restoration intended)? This is where my objections come from.

    And besides, I think there is an excellent explanation for taking the Conquest material as something other than historical narrative that I described in “Lessons from the Canaanite Conquest”. Sure, it depends on a rejection of inerrancy, but again, I don’t want to be so defensive of the literature recorded by men referred to only dubiously as “the word of God” that I’m not faithful to that most perfect expression of God’s nature, character, and heart who was explicitly described within that literature as “the Word of God”. Do you see where I’m coming from?

  • Mairnéalach

    what are quote tags for these comment blocks?

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    blockquote, between < and >

  • Mairnéalach

    It’s fairly explicit: “the wickedness of the Canaanites is…fulfilled,” “because of these detestable practices I am about to drive out the Canaanites before you,” etc

    What’s explicitly petty about that? If you’re going to say that any notion of divine justice is petty, then you’re going to have to say that the cross was a petty act. Then again, I know you don’t hold to the notion that the cross is connected to God’s wrath in any demonstrable way. But I’m just sayin’.

    According to the text, God needed to judge the Canaanites because of their transgression of His standards of righteousness.

    No, according to the text, God cited their transgression as adequate grounds for his judgment. The text never gives a sense that God “needed” to judge anybody, as if he was jumping around like he needed to pee or something. He determined to do it as part of a plan. He also revealed, even in the same time frame, various plans to spare various peoples who were also described as wicked. Why call the justice part petty, but not call the sparing party petty?

    But what makes the Canaanites’ transgression worthy of an awful death and that of people every day who die peacefully in their beds?

    Who said dying in your bed was peaceful? Ever talked to a dying man?

    The fact that their ancestors had settled on someone else’s prime real estate, it seems.

    The Israelites didn’t even want that real estate. They crawfished every chance they got. But you still want to ascribe psycho-religious projection to their motives. That’s weird.

    Can anyone doubt that Jesus would have sent people in as missionaries to convert them first?

    Jesus became incarnate during the reign of Caesar Augustus. Not Pharoah. The incarnation was the time of “taking on the form of a servant” and “not considering equality with God a thing to be grasped”. Prior to that, the agenda seems to have been different. Why say otherwise? Don’t you conduct your daily business in such a way, with defined agendas, etc.? If you had to sue somebody in order to redress some real grievance, but between court sessions, spent time praying for your adversary, could I accuse you of inconsistency? Of being alternately violent and peaceful?

    No, this explanation strikes me as attributing to God petty revenge for personal affront, and I just don’t see God being that way, since He demands from us – humans imperfect in our love – not to act this way.

    Jesus said “you have heard it said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I tell you, love your enemy.” He also said “I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.” If you want to put the OT at odds with the NT, you’re going to have to put his words at odds with each other.

    Besides, why would Jesus get all cranky and “violent” (find another word for it, if you dare!) in the temple? Because of his dear old dad’s honor? Pu-leeese. Of all people, Jesus should have been mature enough to know that dad wouldn’t want people screeching and lobbing things around on his behalf.

    When we are offended by someone’s wicked behavior toward us, we must turn the other cheek, but God can just smite away?

    One point that God consistently makes in ethics is to give people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible because you have to admit you’re also a sinner. (“Why do you, who do the same things, judge?” “Do not take to heart all the things that people say, lest you hear your servant cursing you. Your heart knows that many times you yourself have cursed others.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, etc.)

    I assume you are fond of such passages. I assume you would say that those passages describe we sons of Adam very well.

    Then, I’d have to ask you… exactly HOW do they describe God the Father? In other words… does a completely innocent and holy being retain the privilege of smiting anybody?

    In the flesh, Jesus was compelling to us for one reason… we knew he was innocent and holy, unlike us, yet he refrained from giving us what we deserved. That shows us God’s perfect will and trains us to be godly. The fact that God retains a right to smite does not sully this picture of him; it sharpens it and makes it more compelling. If God smites, it moves us to weep, not cry out “you hypocritical bastard.”

    Ironically, by your quest to defend God against the slightest taint of “violence”, you are cutting right at the heart of the emotional mechanisms that God uses to make us more like his Son.