|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: 'Ethic' Cleansing: God's Love and the Genocide charge
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I find it very enlightening.
Yes - so do I. But Nigel M does seem to be working towards justifying OT reporting of ethnic cleansing as 'God given' even if it's in a round about way.
I'm wondering the same thing. Is this true Nigel?
In my own interpretation it is "God given" but at a higher level. That is, God commands that evils be extinguished, but not that the Amalekites (which represent evil in the text) be extinguished.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And does forbidding murder stop it? And this is another one weaseled round, so that it isn't murder if one's government does it, or orders one to do it.
Or if God asked Israel to wipe out all its enemies?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
ISTM that a major problem with this discussion is a failure to ask whether the meaning of "revelation" is the same when applied to the Old and New Testaments.
In the New Testament the "revelation" of God has a clear objective meaning: that Jesus is the manifestation of God. John's gospel is explicitly predicated on that proposition.
It is, however, misleading to use "revelation" in the same sense when referring to the phenomenon in the OT, where it is better rendered as "understanding" about the nature of God, and has a progressive and highly human subjective element. God as understood by Joshua is clearly very different from the God understood by the writer of Jonah. From a Christian perspective it was the defective understandings of God in the OT which, inter alia, made the manifestation of the the NT revelation necesssary.
It is a failure to recognise this kind of distinction which had led to some of the convoluted contributions to this post designed to deny that Joshua's conception of God was any different from that of the incarnation.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Nigel's contribution thus far lacks context and I appeal to him to provide such. In other words where is he coming from and, more importantly, where is he heading for?
The Israelites spent a lot of time exterminating the local populace and reportedly at God's command.
To most people this spells genocide.
Nigel disputes this claiming it is not really genocide but something else. The detailed analysis of the word "herem" as used in the OT is step 1 in his re-evaluation of genocide.
As explanation Nigel's posting is helpful. But the whole tenor of his argument thus far suggests more than explanation. It sounds like he is laying the groundwork for justifying it.
But we are left to guess.
So it would be helpful if he were to use the traditional method of advancing a Thesis ( or Theses) at the outset so that we may all know what his conclusion is. How he gets there would then be even more illuminating and his OT exposition would be even more valuable.
I for one am left wondering whether what drives his argument is not the relative use of the word "herem" but an attempt to prove that the Bible is in fact God;s word from beginning to end.
To Freddy's credit he is entirely up-front on this.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM that a major problem with this discussion is a failure to ask whether the meaning of "revelation" is the same when applied to the Old and New Testaments.
......
It is a failure to recognise this kind of distinction which had led to some of the convoluted contributions to this post designed to deny that Joshua's conception of God was any different from that of the incarnation.
I'm not quite sure what you are driving at.
As I understand it both the Old Testament and the New Testament were written by authors who thought they were writing their best understanding of the events and teachings they were given. Much of the Old Testament, however, proports to be directly dictated by God and written down or repeated by the prophet.
My take on it is that however it happened it was guided by God in such a way that it accurately captured what was necessary to convey His truth to all peoples.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I for one am left wondering whether what drives his argument is not the relative use of the word "herem" but an attempt to prove that the Bible is in fact God;s word from beginning to end.
To Freddy's credit he is entirely up-front on this.
Thank you. Yes, this is what drives the argument for me. Or rather, I am interested in refuting the two obvious positions that either:
- 1) The God of the universe did in fact order the slaughters and horrible punishments recorded in the Old Testament. This is the traditional belief.
or, - 2) These are just stories. God ordered no such thing. This is not God's Word. This is a more common current position.
I say that it was neither. God did not order any of these terrible things. Rather, He caused the history of a people to be written in such a way that, misconceptions and all, it could carry a holy message that would be understood by sincere people worldwide.
It is hard to deny that it has worked pretty well.
The effort has been astonishingly successful! The Bible is far and away the best seller of all time, and very few people who read it struggle with these issues. They root for Israel and aren't the least disturbed that God bashes its enemies.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Thanks for all the thoughts thus far. I will be adding the next stage on this journey a bit later tonight, but just to respond quickly to issues raised, with apologies if it appears terse time is not my favourite friend at the moment!
PaulBC if I understand correctly, the possible option is that God accommodated to the cultural set up of the time. There is certainly support for something along these lines elsewhere, e.g., permitting kings for Israel even when that institution was not necessarily a good thing. Possibly even the entire sacrificial system was an accommodation. I'm not sure, though, that God would tolerate destruction along the lines we thinking of unless it was part of his nature. the nub of this argument, of course, is being played out on this thread.
Seraphim a further thought on your good point about an intercessor. It must surely be one of the responsibilities placed on a Christian's shoulders to be such when the opportunity arises. That, I would think, is the heart of mission to represent God to people and people to God. At the moment on this thread, though, I'm leaving open the option that a reading of the OT in context gives us: that at some point God has to intervene in the face of persistent rebellion, especially when intercession has been rebuffed by the rebels. Shades of any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them perhaps?
Boogie first post would the criterion you use in respect of the OT be that we should ignore those parts that do not have Jesus' validation, or accord with what Jesus said and did? One thing I am testing out here is that if we do come across validation by Jesus of herem, would that alter your view on the OT texts? It might turn out that the NT texts were not so revolutionary as assumed. Even the connotations of the word 'love,' when tested, might cause us to reconsider the approach to the OT. On your point about self-defence, I think I'll have to leave for another day as I'm not sure it falls immediately into the same category as herem principles. The only thing that springs to mind is whether Jesus while being clear on one-on-one violence against the self may not have validated a different approach when it comes to third party violence (where the Christian comes across an assault by one person on a weaker person. Does the Christian intervene, and if so, how?).
Boogie second post the NT is on the way; I'll be working to it next. I take it you are one who checks the final chapter before buying a book! What I'm doing here is testing an approach. I've had the ideas around a contextual reading for some time, but this theme is as good as any to see where just such a reading would lead. My initial position for testing (OP = God's nature, as presented consistently throughout both Testaments of the bible and validated by Jesus, sets up principles (i.e., provides an ethic) for action against any persistent flouting of a committed relationship between God and his creation) is where I think we will end up, but the approach is informed by various historical, linguistic, hermeneutical and philosophical disciplines and may result in amending that thesis. This is just as well, because often giving an opinion doesn't really get us anywhere opinions can fly around too easily with no backing.
I'm going to have to leave the 10 commandments discussion alone here my apologies (though don't let that keep you from carrying on with it!). Time again, I'm afraid. I would just suggest trying to approach those passages using the same principles get into the mindset of the authors/hearers.
Freddy the question of attribution is probably not an issue for you, I know. What I need to do here, I think though, is suggest a reading strategy for those for whom it is a problem either (a) that God's nature / ethic contains the capacity to authorise this herem thing, or (b) that the canon we have received and that has a claim on our lives one way or another contains evidence that the writers attribute herem to God and that therefore it must be part of his nature / ethic. What would your church's position be on the physical existence of evil today i.e., not our internal struggle against it, but when faced with violence against those who cannot protect themselves? Oh dear... I fear I've derailed the thread!!!
Kwesi welcome to the discussion! If the revelation of God in Jesus Christ validated herem, what would you do?
shamwari thanks for your patience. As I said in response to Boogie above, it's the approach that is being tested here as outlined in the assumptions and theses on the other site. If the approach is justifiable, then we are where we are and have to react accordingly. But just to offer a heads-up I will want to test not just this approach, but also the assumptions underlying the alternatives, as in years of reading and listening I haven't found a sufficient publicly-testable justification for many of the conclusions brought against texts of the bible.
Back later.
Cheers all.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And does forbidding murder stop it? And this is another one weaseled round, so that it isn't murder if one's government does it, or orders one to do it.
Penny
You have some good points, but I bristle at the implication that any interpretation of the commandment against murder which points out that not all killings are murder is "weaseling around" it. In the same Torah where God commands a proscription against "murder" (lo tirtsach), God commands the Israelites to kill various tribes and to put to death certain sinners in their midst.
An interpretation that the Sixth Commandment is a general prohibition of violence is completely belied by an Old Testament filled with divinely sanctioned bloodshed and a divinely promulgated legal code which specifically called for executions. Killing *wasn't* murder when done for permitted reasons, just as homicide in modern Anglo-American law isn't murder (and thus a crime) if it's done for self-defense or under some other legal justification.
You may argue that Christ revealed all killing to be anathema, but to claim that the commandment in the context of the Old Testament was about all killing and not just certain killing is just false.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Nigel
I think you have already indicated the "end game" for you
Quote:
" in years of reading and listening I haven't found a sufficient publicly-testable justification for many of the conclusions brought against texts of the bible.
"
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Nigel: quote:
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Nigel quote:
Kwesi welcome to the discussion! If the revelation of God in Jesus Christ validated herem, what would you do?
I'd have to become an active athiest to oppose the genocidal leanings of Christianity.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Freddy quote:
My take on it [Old Testament revelation} is that however it happened it was guided by God in such a way that it accurately captured what was necessary to convey His truth to all peoples.
But in many instances the OT prophets demonstrably failed to accurately capture what was necessary to convey His truth to all peoples. The treatment of Ai is not compatible with the God who entreats his hearers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. To me, the "truth to all people" is that God treats each individual and ethnic group with equal regard, which is not in conformity the more primitive beliefs of early Judaism.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
If the revelation of God in Jesus Christ validated herem, what would you do?
I'd say 'Welcome to South Africa, circa 1960'
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
If the revelation of God in Jesus Christ validated herem, what would you do?
I'd say 'Welcome to South Africa, circa 1960'
But was South Africa circa 1960 a 'Herem'?
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Freddy quote:
My take on it [Old Testament revelation} is that however it happened it was guided by God in such a way that it accurately captured what was necessary to convey His truth to all peoples.
But in many instances the OT prophets demonstrably failed to accurately capture what was necessary to convey His truth to all peoples. The treatment of Ai is not compatible with the God who entreats his hearers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. To me, the "truth to all people" is that God treats each individual and ethnic group with equal regard, which is not in conformity the more primitive beliefs of early Judaism.
Absolutely. I agree that this is the right conclusion if you analyze it.
But billions of Christians over the centuries have never done that.
The average Christian has always considered it normal for the bad guys to be destroyed.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm coming into this late, but I am struck that people seem to consider to fit the OT stories into their conceptions of God, that God necessarily inspired all of them, that there is necessarily a good that comes from some of the apparently great evils such as genocide. I say it is false and wrong.
Argument:
Is it not just simply that people told stories that they eventually wrote down, that some of their behaviour was awful, that they wanted to see God's hand at work, so they suggested that God actively directed some the obviously non-godly activities.
The bible is a collection of stories of a people, some of which we can see a probable hand of God, and others, that probably do not involve God such as exterminations of cities and peoples, but where the people simply explained things that way after the fact. The additional piece is that God has the power to redeem even pretty awful human material and behaviour. God can also take improbable people and make something of them for a divine purpose, like Amos or Saul/Paul.
So, no, God did not direct genocide, did not tell Joshua or anyone else that genocide was the plan. And the story that God did direct it was probably told on the eve of a subsequent battle to justify subsequent slaughters and make a brutal example seem positive so as to overcome inhibitions about killing. Doesn't make it of God, directed by God, and approvable by God.
Finally, is it not so that countries today think they are on missions where God inspires them, pray for victory, and decide God guided them to win battles and is testing them within setbacks? To the point that biblical verses are inscribed on weapons? Does anyone seriously consider God is directly involved? Really?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
But was South Africa circa 1960 a 'Herem'?
No - it was just one example of a regime claiming that their racism was God given.
Not the same, but similar.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Thanks, no_prophet, for your thoughts. I understand the argument and have come across it in various guises before. I problem I have with it is this: where is the evidence across the ancient near eastern context that nations post-dated the credit of events to their gods? We have evidence of people seeking god's will prior to taking action and this seems to fit the culture quite well; there were mediums, oracles, votive offerings, priests to consult before going to war... the whole feel is that these nations made sure they got their gods onside before doing anything dramatic. Actually, even farmers needed to get the gods onside before planting. Doesn't this seem a more likely scenario for Israel, stuck in the middle of that scene? After all, we have a number of passages where God complains that his people were not listening to him, but rather seeking the guidance of alternatives. I just feel that the context, taken honestly, drives us back to exactly what the writers say: that they attributed the herem to God. Whether they were right to do so or not is another question, of course, and I'm sure we'll come up against it when we do the NT.
In fact, I think it's time to start trekking towards the NT and particularly the record pertaining to Jesus. The natives are restless! Just in case this may not be clear (it probably is, but...), the reason for paying attention to what Jesus is recorded as having said and did is that as Christians we believe that Jesus was, if you like, the face of God on earth. He reflected the true nature of God and God's holy ethic. We've got statements to this effect in the NT, e.g., John 1:18 (No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known), John 14:9 (The one who has seen me has seen the Father), Philippians 2:5-11, and Colossians 1:15-17. If we want a cleansed ethic, in other words, we get to the ultimate cleanser (God) via Jesus.
A couple of further things need clarifying as we don the mountaineering crampons.
[1] I don't think it matters if you are unsure about the historical accuracy of the gospel narratives. Even if everything we read was the product of the early church, we are nevertheless in the same position as those who are unsure about the historicity of events narrated in the OT. The record has acquired authority among the community of faith and has been disseminated down the centuries. It has a claim over Christians. And, of course, the position becomes even more acute if one adds in God's inspiration and superintendence of that transmission. So if I (as I probably will) write Jesus said... or Jesus did... then feel free to substitute something like That particular early church community recorded Jesus as saying... etc.
[2] I want to draw on a concept that has been floating around in literary theory for a while, but which has been made famous by Paul Ricoeur: possible worlds. He developed this as an explanation of what a text does to a reader, how the author sets up expectations that trigger, in those who engage with the text, a sense that they are in another world. Authors who use language most effectively can draw their audience into using their imagination which really means utilising the worldview mindset they have and combining it will themes they have imbibed. Anyone who enjoys a good read will no doubt have experienced this.
The possible world that a reader of a text experiences may not necessarily overlap completely with that of another reader, it all depends on the worldview, presuppositions, themes imbibed, etc. If a young girl reading a story asks her father to explain what a unicorn is and the father (who must have had a deprived youth) comes out with Er... well... it's a sort of pink elephant with one eye in the middle of its head, then the girl might be brought up with a shock when she sees the Harry Potter films. Anyway, the point is that I think it helps to read the gospels as narratives opening up a possible world. We should let our imagination go with the flow. However and it is a big however we are not likely to get at the author's intended meaning if we are coming at things from a different worldview. Witness the countless home groups of Christians trying to understand a passage in the bible and who each come out in turn with Well, to me this means... and when you've been round the circle you're not really any better off than before. Which 'meaning' has more claim on that group of Christians? A unicorn by any other name be just be a pink elephant. I fear we have to do the hard work with the gospels just as much as with the OT we need to get into the worldview of the authors. Only in this way can we appreciate properly the possible world that they want us, as readers, to inhabit, to learn from, and to adopt in our lifestyles.
The good news (not the same thing as The Good News™) is that there is a way into the gospels and NT more generally. It's through the OT. The worldview coming to light there can illuminate the NT.
This approach is premised upon one of the assumptions set out on the dumping ground website, to wit: The NT writers were operating within an environment whose presupposition were informed by Hebrew/Aramaic writings (the Jewish scriptures). I'm working on the basis that we will not really be able to understand what the NT writers meant by what they said (and in the way they said it) without having done the grunt work of understanding what the OT writers said (in the way they said it).
I know this causes concern to some. Hart touched on this issue earlier, but I know that others will have additional concerns, e.g., that we should come at the NT from the other side seeking to understand the NT on the basis of how it was interpreted by, say, the Church Fathers, or spiritual giants, or Reformation theologians... This is such a huge question which prism one takes to hand, and why, to act as a filter for interpretation, that I have to beg the indulgence of Shippies who haul on a different mast at this point. The issue may become relevant later. We'll see.
What I can do, though, at this stage is provide a couple of examples of how this may work in practice.
Example 1: The Col. 1:15-17 passage mentioned earlier taps directly into Gen. 1:26-27 (Then God said, Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth. God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them). This in turn taps into the purposes of images in the ancient near east; senior kings would have their image erected in controlled territories to remind everyone who was the boss, but they would also label their subordinate kings 'image' to drive home their responsibility to rule the territory just as if it was the senior king there in person, ruling directly. The implication of Gen.1 is that humans were appointed by God to be his deputies (or stewards) here on earth. Jesus was appointed to be the fulfilment of that (demonstrating it was possible) so that all humans could follow his example. Our ethic would be cleansed so that we would act appropriately as stewards over creation. Anyone wishing to trace the development of this idea might be interested in reading David Cline's 1968 article "The Image of God in Man", particularly from section IV (p. 80) onwards, and a follow up 1991 review of scholarship since then by Gerald Bray "The Significance of God's Image in Man".
So when Paul wanted to demonstrate how the Christians should bear fruit and grow, he pulled the curtains back on the creation scene and on ancient near eastern empire practices. His affective language use (rhetoric) would have enabled his readers' minds to draw on existing imagery and 'create' a possible world in their imagination and thus feel interpretation in them. What they wouldn't have done, I suggest, is come at this text wondering about God's essence, or whether he must have an upright posture.
Example 2: Mark 1:2-3 Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way, the voice of one shouting in the wilderness,Prepare the way for the Lord, make his paths straight. This opening gambit in Mark's gospel draws directly on a couple of OT passages: Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. I'd like to suggest that Mark is not proof-texting in the manner anathematised by seminaries and theological colleges. He is opening up a world for his readers right at the start, so that they are in the right gear and on the right road for what follows. He only needs to take up a little space with these direct quotes, but I think his aim is to do just enough to trigger the wider picture that Malachi and Isaiah themselves drew.
Mark's intended possible world would then run something like this: from Exodus 23:20-23 we have the concept of a messenger:*
quote:
Watch me send a messenger before you to protect you as you journey and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Pay attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not tolerate your transgressions: my name is in him. If you do absolutely obey him and do all that I have said, then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and I will be an adversary to your adversaries.
Malachi also refers to a messenger (same word as in used Exodus in both the Hebrew and Greek LXX = mal'ak / angelos, not that that is necessarily proof of anything) who will prepare the way for God's coming like a refiners fire and a launderer's soap (3:2). Malachi goes on to identify this messenger with Elijah (4:5, 3:23 in LXX and MT), who will be sent by God just in advance of God's day that will burn like a furnace, to provide a final opportunity for retuning to God. Failure to comply will result in God executing sentence. The term herem is not used in this passage, but the components are in place: a final warning given after a period of rebellion; those in the rebel camp cannot have any excuse that they were unaware of what awaited them if they continued with their rebellion. Mark then enriches the context with the Isa. 40 quote day of judgement seen from the other side, that of the faithful, but still with the concept of God coming as a judge. It's from there that Mark takes off with John the Baptist urging repentance and so on.
I know I said I would provide just a couple of examples, but I found this one a bit of a tease: John 3:16, beloved text of many a Christian (For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son...). What connotation of the word 'love' springs to mind when you hear that verse? God had such a deep affection for the world? Or is it possible that the world in the mind of John's readers encompassed the coming of God's kingdom as proof that he was so committed to his side of the covenant bargain, and that the sending of a Son included the concept of judgement? Does this not fit better with ...that whoever believes in him shall not perish** but have eternal life?
We're not yet really into the nitty of the gospels, just mapping the path to them. I've tried to provide backing for some of the assumptions listed on the other site:-
- The processes of translation and interpretation require an adequate understanding of ... worldviews/presuppositions
- The biblical texts need to be taken on their individual contextual merits, but need also to be seen as contextually placed within a wider collection (canon)
- The NT writers were operating within an environment whose presupposition were informed by Hebrew/Aramaic writings (the Jewish scriptures).
I'll pause again in case there are queries on the approach thus far.
- - -
* Most English versions opt to translate the Hebrew with 'angel,' but I think that risks skewing the reading in the same way that 'genocide' or 'love' or 'soul' does it opens the door to modern inherited concepts being imported. Discussion for another thread, perhaps unless the idea causes issues here.
** The verb used here is apollumi, a strong sense of being utterly destroyed, not simply 'killed,' or 'die.' It's the verb the Greek translators chose to use when describing the extinction of rebels in covenant contexts, e.g., Deut. 28:20.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
But was South Africa circa 1960 a 'Herem'?
No - it was just one example of a regime claiming that their racism was God given.
Not the same, but similar.
Isn't that one of the points that Nigel was trying to make? That Herem is not the same as war and people can claim all sorts of things in the name of God, but actually there seem to be very strict criteria and contexts that those Biblical OT writers were presenting? Whether we like what it says or not, I think it is the failure of this understanding that has caused so many people to misuse the scriptures and cause much damage to people's faith and lives. No, I think for Christians, similar doesn't do it.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Freddy the question of attribution is probably not an issue for you, I know. What I need to do here, I think though, is suggest a reading strategy for those for whom it is a problem either (a) that God's nature / ethic contains the capacity to authorise this herem thing, or (b) that the canon we have received and that has a claim on our lives one way or another contains evidence that the writers attribute herem to God and that therefore it must be part of his nature / ethic.
Yes, I think that describes the project.
I of course don't think that God's nature contains the capacity to authorise this herem thing. Nor do I think that the OT writers' attribution of herem to God means that it must be part of His nature / ethic.
Rather, these descriptions represent on some level what actually happens and therefore the way that God created it to happen. That is, it is a law of creation that evil rebounds on its author. And since it is also a law of creation that God rules all things, it is only natural that herem would be attributed to God. But this is due purely to the primitive idea of God that can conceive of "ruling" only as direct causation without any concept of complexity of cause and purpose.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
What would your church's position be on the physical existence of evil today i.e., not our internal struggle against it, but when faced with violence against those who cannot protect themselves? Oh dear... I fear I've derailed the thread!!!
I don't think this derails anything. My church works on the principle of useful service. The question is always what the most useful alternative is, or which alternative provides the best outcome for the greatest number of people.
Self-defense is consistent with this principle because if an aggressor's injury or death prevents many other injuries or deaths then this is the better alternative.
On the other hand, non-violence may be a better alternative, even if it permits aggressors to cause more destruction in the short term, if it is believed that this will lead to a long term prevention of aggression.
I would call that hopelessly naive. But the point is that the determining factor should be the rational assessment of long-term benefits.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I wish I could keep up with this thread but I can't because I'm not online much atm. Try for a few small things.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If it isn't this way then how could the descriptions of bloody slaughters be something Divine?
They cant. Period.
Then doesn't this blow the whole Christian concept of the Bible as the Word of God?
As someone said above, Jesus is the eternal Word of God.
The bible is the word of God but it is not eternal because it is subject to human finitude.
So it is subject to time/space/culture.
God is not subject to such things.
If God wishes to speak to us through prophets/evangelists/kings/normal people, God must do so using human limitation.
Otherwise, it would be incomprehensible.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Nigel quote:
Kwesi welcome to the discussion! If the revelation of God in Jesus Christ validated herem, what would you do?
I'd have to become an active athiest to oppose the genocidal leanings of Christianity.
A fuckin men.
I had to do a write up of a church I recently attended (mystery worshiper style) that believed in penal substitution.
My last point on the experience was I would rather be an atheist than succumb to such an abhorrent theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I for one am left wondering whether what drives his argument is not the relative use of the word "herem" but an attempt to prove that the Bible is in fact God;s word from beginning to end.
To Freddy's credit he is entirely up-front on this.
Thank you. Yes, this is what drives the argument for me. Or rather, I am interested in refuting the two obvious positions that either:
- 1) The God of the universe did in fact order the slaughters and horrible punishments recorded in the Old Testament. This is the traditional belief.
or, - 2) These are just stories. God ordered no such thing. This is not God's Word. This is a more common current position.
I say that it was neither. God did not order any of these terrible things. Rather, He caused the history of a people to be written in such a way that, misconceptions and all, it could carry a holy message that would be understood by sincere people worldwide.
It is hard to deny that it has worked pretty well.
The effort has been astonishingly successful! The Bible is far and away the best seller of all time, and very few people who read it struggle with these issues. They root for Israel and aren't the least disturbed that God bashes its enemies.
Not so.
Lots of Christians in history have been quite happy to wipe out their enemies; contrary to Jesus' injunction to love them.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As someone said above, Jesus is the eternal Word of God.
The bible is the word of God but it is not eternal because it is subject to human finitude.
So it is subject to time/space/culture.
God is not subject to such things.
If God wishes to speak to us through prophets/evangelists/kings/normal people, God must do so using human limitation.
Otherwise, it would be incomprehensible.
I've never heard it said that the Bible is the non-eternal word of God.
I agree, though, that if the Bible had been given directly from God without human media it would be incomprehensible.
That's why I think that metaphor is such a brilliant solution to the question of how it can be from God and yet written and understood by humans.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The effort has been astonishingly successful! The Bible is far and away the best seller of all time, and very few people who read it struggle with these issues. They root for Israel and aren't the least disturbed that God bashes its enemies.
Not so.
Lots of Christians in history have been quite happy to wipe out their enemies; contrary to Jesus' injunction to love them.
Yes, Christians have historically been willing to wipe out their enemies. Often they think they are doing God's will. But I think that everyone knows that this was wrong.
What I'm saying is that there are lots of sincere Christians who have it right, who love their neighbor, who are not prone to wiping out their enemies, and who yet root for Joshua as he conquers Canaan. I would even say that this way of thinking is the norm. There are literally billions of people like this.
By contrast the number of people who wonder if there is a God because He ordered genocide in the Bible, or think that the Bible must be untrue for this reason, is comparatively small.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
How do you know that number is small? There are lots of people who don't go to church, all over the world, even though they live where exposure to the Bible has been available. How do you know that is not why they aren't there?
Those passages are certainly among the reasons why those I know have problems with Christianity. Those, and the adherents who don't see them as a problem. I don't know many, it's true, and I tend not to discuss the matter with the born again types I know (or any religious matter).
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
How do you know that number is small?
I might be exaggerating when I claim that "billions" of Christians have no problem with the idea that Joshua conquered Canaan. There are only 2.1 billion Christians in the world, leaving only 10 million to be troubled by Joshua's aggression, if my math is right.
My opinion is based on my understanding of the prevailing mindsets in African, Asian and South American culture, which is where most Christians are. Also on my understanding of the way your typical American and European Christian sees it.
I could, of course, be way off. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Maybe someone is aware of a poll that would measure this.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
But was South Africa circa 1960 a 'Herem'?
No - it was just one example of a regime claiming that their racism was God given.
Not the same, but similar.
Isn't that one of the points that Nigel was trying to make? That Herem is not the same as war and people can claim all sorts of things in the name of God, but actually there seem to be very strict criteria and contexts that those Biblical OT writers were presenting? Whether we like what it says or not, I think it is the failure of this understanding that has caused so many people to misuse the scriptures and cause much damage to people's faith and lives. No, I think for Christians, similar doesn't do it.
Of course 'similar' covers it. When we are talking about excluding people, marginalising them and treating them as 'other'. Herem is simply worse and therefore it's even more impossible that a God of love and life would sanction it.
What is this 'damage' you speak of?
<typo>
[ 24. August 2011, 15:30: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Quick responses to thoughts will post later on NT. Probably lengthy!
Evensong and Kwesi Wahay! Two closet atheists on the Ship!
Penny S One of the drivers that has motivated me to try to find publicly justifiable positions to take on the bible is the knowledge that some non-Christians will struggle with passages therein. More importantly, I think, is also the missional need to be able to argue one's case in the face of disbelief, because there are plenty of apologists for anti-Christianity who find it easy to throw mud, based on the likes of Joshua 6. Websites a-plenty!
Freddy Not strictly about herem I know, but if I were to stumble across someone assaulting another person (e.g., a domestic dispute that got out of hand in the street), what would the longer-term benefit be that should inform my decision on what to do? I appreciate that this is a hypothetical and probably not fair, but if I were to scale it up, what would God's ethical instruction be to his people if they came across a group of people persistently killing children? I'm thinking of similarities with Israel coming up against groups who sacrificed kids in the manner of Molek.
Boogie Re: your discussion with Pooks: herem as presented in the OT is more of a judicial act, an authorised action on behalf of a divine ruler. This is why I think we have to veer away from terms like 'genocide' because as this is understood in English is does not do justice to what happened in Canaan. The (then) policy makers in South Africa were not invoking herem in support of their behaviour any more than they invoked genocide as a justifiable act. Their justification, in so far as theology was concerned I think, went more to the question of territorial allocation a la Genesis 10.
On your 'love' point, I would define 'love' on the terms given in the bible in the light of the writers' worldview context; I would say (from what I've read in the bible) that it's impossible that a God of love and life would not sanction herem. That's not the same as saying that God sanctions war or violence generally, or sanctions apartheid, or anything else. Herem is in a totally different category. Or so the bible would seem to say.
More later...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
I'm utterly out of my depth here (and have not read everything in detail) but many of these verses/concepts really do make me question my faith & I too hope I would become a converted atheist if God asked me to commit genocide. (I also hope I would leave any church where it was encouraged to actively hate another group, however impure). Love the sinner, hate the sin (As the bible does not directly say)
It is not the dying that gets to me - we all die & the wages of sin are death for us all: it is the active command to kill another group indiscriminately (so yes, I am a product of my time). Also we all have sinned and fall short - if this held the surprise is that Christ came to save not kill the dirt. Surely Christ's saving Grace (whatever the atonement theory) repudiates the old understanding?
I do think the understanding of God changed with time - just like the understanding of the afterlife and that this needs to be taken into account.
Also there does seem to be one thing missing in the discussion: what happens to the slaughtered in eternity? Is there any concept of eternity in these passages? - Do the slaughtered go to be with God, are they sent to hell or do they just die? Somehow it would make a difference to me if they went to live with Christ!?!!
Sorry but I could not just lurk & not protest even if I have totally misunderstood the arguement
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I hold my hand up
A 3rd closet atheist on the Ship. Actually I am the appointed treasurer of Kwesi's Active Atheists Against Genocide.
What's more the Methodist Church endorses this one.
[ 24. August 2011, 17:45: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Freddy Not strictly about herem I know, but if I were to stumble across someone assaulting another person (e.g., a domestic dispute that got out of hand in the street), what would the longer-term benefit be that should inform my decision on what to do? I appreciate that this is a hypothetical and probably not fair, but if I were to scale it up, what would God's ethical instruction be to his people if they came across a group of people persistently killing children? I'm thinking of similarities with Israel coming up against groups who sacrificed kids in the manner of Molek.
The answer is easy and obvious. Almost anyone would know how to handle this.
You do the thing that will have the best results, based on your understanding and opinion.
When people are caught in the act of assault we call the police. If that is not possible we attempt to intervene.
A group that is persistently killing children will be reported to the national authorities. If there are no national authorities - maybe we are talking pre-government here - you would do what you could to make it stop. It might include rescuing the children clandestinely. It might include armed confrontations with the perpetrators. It could easily escalate into outright battles, with many casualties.
I'm happy to allow that some of Israel's enemies really were immersed in evils that needed to be stopped at any cost. And for the most part, as it is recounted in Joshua and Judges, Israel was defending itself from attack, not attacking others. But there are not really any evils that justify the mass slaughter of an entire population.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Full Circle:
...many of these verses/concepts really do make me question my faith & I too hope I would become a converted atheist if God asked me to commit genocide.
I think there are lurkers a-plenty here, and discussion partners outside, who are in the same position FC, so I doff my cap to you for posting vicariously.
If I may assist here. While I do believe it is absolutely necessary to tackle the hard subjects head-on and not just hope for the best, I understand the pastoral risks here. So...
For anyone worried that this approach will force one to adopt a role or responsibility here on earth that conflicts with the concept of God's peace as expressed in both Testaments, then let it be known that I've seen the end and it ain't necessarily so!
I will have some questions - like the one raised earlier - on appropriate Christian responses to third-party violence (i.e. not violence against oneself), but hopefully the concept of herem for Christians today will be shown to be not what people fear it is. So take comfort.
Unless, of course I come across a passage stating otherwise.
Dang. Was that the right pastoral thing to say?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Full Circle:
Also there does seem to be one thing missing in the discussion: what happens to the slaughtered in eternity?
I know the answer to that one.
The good ones go to heaven. The bad ones go to hell. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
When people are caught in the act of assault we call the police. If that is not possible we attempt to intervene.
I've come across the tentative nature of this before, e.g., as in "I would try to reason with him..." But doesn't the word 'try,' like 'attempt' already acknowledge a risk that my intervention may not be successful? If my attempted intervention is non-violent, and the assaulter takes violent offence at my intervention, then I may feel morally vindicated as I pass out on the pavement, but my intervention only temporarily postpones the dusting of the other victim over the rest of the pavement.
I don't have an answer for this myself yet. It's a challenge for me, too. And I should say I'm not sure that it is on all fours with the concept of herem, so I may be talking about another completely different facet of God's ethical nature.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
When people are caught in the act of assault we call the police. If that is not possible we attempt to intervene.
I've come across the tentative nature of this before, e.g., as in "I would try to reason with him..." But doesn't the word 'try,' like 'attempt' already acknowledge a risk that my intervention may not be successful? If my attempted intervention is non-violent, and the assaulter takes violent offence at my intervention, then I may feel morally vindicated as I pass out on the pavement, but my intervention only temporarily postpones the dusting of the other victim over the rest of the pavement.
I think that we all understand that any human effort may fail.
Divine effort, by contrast, will always succeed. That's the hard thing to get our minds around.
This means that what is called "divine retribution" is inescapable. Evil will always rebound on the one who wills it. This doesn't mean that God is vengeful or even that He punishes. Only that the laws that govern this process are as constant as the laws of physics.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
Thanks for the response Nigel M (& Freddy)
I'm off back to my lurker's lair
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
Ok. Boogie, I misspoke. Clearly for plenty of Christians, 'similar' does it for them. I do envy you for being able to hold that position. I guess the reason that I reacted strongly was because I was reminded of my encounter with a Chinese lady a number of years ago. She was not a Christian at that time but was given a Bible to read. So she started from the very beginning. When we met, she said to me, 'Oh, it's great. Just like reading Chinese history.. lots of wars.' I remember my consternation at the time because she seemed to have completely missed the (theological) point of why those books were included in the canonised Bible. At the time I really didn't know what to say. Why were those wars included in the Bible? It's just nasty. I wanted her to be a Christian and really didn't want to talk about the nasty bit (which I myself avoided like a plague). I really would have preferred it if it wasn't included in the Bible, especially when that Bible has a big 'HOLY' in front of it. But... *shrugs*.
I think Nigel's exercise is helpful because it helps me to at least understand what was going on at the time and why they presented it the way they did. To seek to understand what happened during the OT time is not the same as saying OK, therefore we must go out and do the same. It is so that we can explain how it came about, why it is there and what theological understanding we can glean from it. The failure to do so (to the whole Bible) at best leaves lots of holes in the our understanding of the word. At worst, a lack of understanding of the context can leave us open to the 'name it and claim it' in the name of God by all kinds of leaders. I have known people who followed a preacher without question, only to be hurt later because they didn't know any better. That's what I meant when I say damage.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
OK. Into the NT we go.
Quite a bit of work has already been done on the worldview and presuppositions informing the NT writers and audience. More information from that time is available these days then was the case before the the middle of the 20th century. It has led to debates between those who follow this more historical approach (sometimes tagged The New Perspective or third quest) and those whose approach has been informed by more traditional theological debate. You may be aware of the debate in recent years between on the semantic content of the word 'justification' and its cognates, between N.T. Wright and opponents in more Lutheran and Reformed camps. Wright is preparing a volume on Paul's theology as part of a larger project on Christian origins and has based is approach on the need to get a grip on the worldviews that were operational during the second temple period.
One of the criticisms of the approach to reading the OT that I've been floating here might be the same as that made against the similar approach to the NT above: that it ignores centuries of Christian opinion, doctrine, and settled arguments. I understand that criticism, but I would argue that if new information comes to light as it has then in order to treat the biblical record honestly as God's communication to humans using human words, we need to take the new information seriously and investigate it. If necessary we must be prepared to ditch cherished beliefs or assumptions if they can no longer be substantiated. Little paradigm shifts may need to take place.
In a sense this is about continuous development in understanding the bible. That's not the same thing as developing our own subjective readings in whatever way suits us; it's anchoring the readings ever more firmly in the intention the author had using the words he used in the way he used them (which, somewhat crudely, is what 'text meaning' should really be).
Assuming, therefore, that the gospel writers had an intention to impact and affect their audiences in a particular way, there are two aspects to getting at this: the language used and the worldview informing that language use.
I'll focus first on the narrative around Matthew 10.
In the run up to this passage (in chapter 9) Jesus has been healing many and associating with those labelled 'sinners.' Jesus makes the point when challenged about this that his job was to bring a message to those 'sinners.' In the process of defending his actions, he quotes from part of Hosea 6:6 and tells his challengers to go and learn what that meant. That seems like a useful steer, so I've sought to go figure, as requested. The quote appears in Matt. 9:6 in Greek (though Jesus may well have spoken at that point in either Hebrew or Aramaic) and runs: eleos thelo kai ou thusian (= ἐλεος θεω και οὐ θυσιαν), which in English versions runs along the lines of I desire mercy, not sacrifice. The first word (eleos) is the one translated in English versions often by 'mercy,' or 'compassion,' or 'kindness,' or such like. I suggest that this is not a helpful translation. It misses the connotation badly and sets up English readers to mis-interpret what Jesus was saying.
Here's the reason why I think this. The word eleos and its derivatives as used in the Greek LXX version normally translates the Hebrew word hesed (= חֶסֶד), which is another of those words not having a simple equivalent in English. It refers to covenant faithfulness commitment to the covenant arrangements and responsibilities. This is the word used in Hosea 6:6 and translated there with eleos in the LXX. My argument is that Jesus and his audience would have had the covenant faithfulness connotation (indeed, even denotation) in mind when he quoted Hosea. Similarly, Matthew intended to open up that world among his readers/hearers when he recorded this episode. What Jesus was saying because that was what Hosea was saying is My message and ministry is to those who are not currently within the covenant relationship, even though they should be. He backs this view up when he says next, I came to call sinners (i.e., rebels), not the righteous (the loyal). The world set up by the quote is explained more fully in Hosea 6, especially the bit straight after v.6: With Adam they broke the covenant; Oh how treacherous they were to me!
This is why I think some English version have been too quick with their translation. 'Mercy' might well be a good translation for the Greek eleos elsewhere in literature, but it does not cover the semantic field in use here, based on worldview expectations and language use. The tenor of Jesus' message to the rebels was good news, yes, but it was also a warning: time is running out, God is coming to judge and if you are a rebel, this is your opportunity to be reconciled before it is too late.
How does this relate to chapter 10? Well, Jesus authorises his disciples to copy his mission and instructs them to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The word 'lost' in there is apollumi (= ἀπολλυμι), which carries a strong sense of loss destruction, irrevocable loss, death. The sense of what Jesus says here is that the priority for the mission should match his go to those who are under sentence of destruction, before it is too late. This is supported by the way apollumi is used in the LXX versions. It is used in passages connected with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19), and with cutting people off from the people when they are severely disobedient (e.g., Lev. 7:20-27, 20:3-6; Num. 16:33). Crucially, though, it is also used in connection with the practice of herem, e.g., Num 33:50-55
quote:
The Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, across from Jericho. He said: Speak to the Israelites and tell them, When you have crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan, you must destroy [= apollumi] all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy [= apollumi] all their carved images, all their molten images, and demolish their high places. You must destroy [= apollumi] the inhabitants of the land and live in it, for I have given you the land to possess it. ... But if you do not destroy [= apollumi] the inhabitants of the land before you, then those whom you allow to remain will be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your side, and will cause you trouble in the land where you will be living. And what I intended to do to them I will do to you.'
Similar references appear throughout Deuteronomy, again in connection with covenant faithfulness and herem against the Canaanites.
The point is that Jesus' mission (and that of his disciples) invoked the world of covenant, the fact of rebellion, the warning of judgement and the last call for repentance from rebels (sinners). It did this just as much as it revealed what they had been missing God's peace in his kingdom, which including healing and well-being. That there was a warning element in Jesus' message is exemplified in the instruction to his disciples to shake the dust off their feet in the event of resistance to their message, a sign that no further chance would be given and sentence would fall in the manner of Sodom and Gomorrah (10:14-15). In this way, Jesus has confirmed that destruction is a final judgement and sentence that will be authorised by God. He has validated the principle of herem as just that, and has also confirmed it is part of God's nature because Jesus reflects that nature.
Important at this point not to leap to conclusions from this. Nothing in this passage suggests that humans are authorised to conduct herem on God's behalf. Matthew 10 only goes to an aspect of mission as warning.
OK I've tried to follow a procedure based on some of the assumptions:-
* The processes of translation and interpretation require an adequate understanding of worldviews/presuppositions
* The biblical texts need to be taken on their individual contextual merits, but need also to be seen as contextually placed within a wider collection (canon)
* The NT writers were operating within an environment whose presupposition were informed by Hebrew/Aramaic writings (the Jewish scriptures).
I've also tried to show how a passage like Matthew 10 supports the theses on the other site, particularly:-
* Rebellion in a covenant is punishable; the senior partner has the right to restore order and peace by force, if necessary.
* The ultimate process for restoring peace and well-being in the face of continued rebellion is that of Herem.
* The process of Herem was always a final resort in the face of unrepentant rebellion.
We've also made a start on:
* The concept of Herem continues into the present and future.
The key question at this point is, If Jesus here validates the OT concept of herem as being part of God's loving nature (terms as defined in biblical use), what should be the appropriate position for Christians as his followers to adopt?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I am constrained to write in response to Pooks above.
Nigel's exegesis is not the only available. The more especially since he argues that Genesis 1 - 3 is the foundation document on which all else is built.
The fact of the matter is that Genesis 1 - 3 is a composite document.
Genesis 1 is a "Priestly" account written during the Exile in Babylon and therefore far too late for inclusion as a foundation document for the Joshua-Judges story.
Genesis 2-3 is basically an account written up during the time of King David ( 1000 BC).
"Herem" is also translated in English as "ban". It signifies the compelete "devotion" to God of things mentioned. Such devotiona includes the aspects of total annihalation/destruction of the thing "banned".
So Joshua "banned / heremed everything in Ai.
He did it not only out of an ill-imformed perception of what God wanted. Above all it was an attempt to enforce discipline on an army which had resorted to looting and complete indiscipline. Read the account in Joshua.
Attributing it to God is no more than the usual human attempt to claim Divine sanction for what are purely human reactions. The words "God said" are introduced to justify human judgements throughout the OT.
The OT writers are always retrospectively attributing to God what were the consequences of what happened. So Pharaoh sees his slave labour force retreating into the far distance and goes after them. The Bible says "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" as explanation of his U Turn.
Fact of the matter is that for Pharaoh it was a question of economics. Naught else.
I could advance many other examples of this. The OT writers failed altogether to distinguish betwwen Purpose and Consequence. When / whatever happened as consequence they attributed to the purpose of God.
In this sense they were no different from the Islamic mind-set which says of everything "It is as Allah wills".
Something Nigel will no doubt repudiate vigorously.
But is is a fact nevertheless.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
The key question at this point is, If Jesus here validates the OT concept of herem as being part of God's loving nature (terms as defined in biblical use), what should be the appropriate position for Christians as his followers to adopt?
The answer would be the same position Jesus takes.
Jesus makes numerous references to the idea that the wicked will be punished. This acknowledgment is fully in line with God's loving nature.
A loving judge will pass sentence on a guilty criminal.
A loving employer will criticize or release a poor worker.
A loving teacher will give poor grades to poor students.
The thing is that God is not like a judge, an employer or a teacher. He does not mete out worldly punishments. He is the source only of goodness, not evil. But when people pull away from Him they expose themselves to the forces that cause harm, just as blocking the light results in darkness.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
Shamwari, thank you for your response. Yes I am aware that Nigel's exegesis is not the only one available. I am also familiar with the JEDP hypothesis and the view that comes with it. Nevertheless, The OT we have today is presented in its present form to us along with the NT as the 'Holy Bible', so I feel I need to understand why the scholars who got together to consider which books to include in the Canonised version of our Bible would choose to include some of the more distasteful episodes if they didn't think the content of the text had some other merit . I doubt the reason was because those scholars approved of war and killing, they may well have thought such acts were horrible just like we do today, so my thought is that they must have other reasons to include these texts into the Canon, therefore I should do my best to find out what these OT texts are about.
Yes I can understand why people would say it's just Israelites using the name of God to justify their killing, because we see people do that even today, whether it's killing or something less drastic like claiming God's revelation by quoting a verse here and there for personal gain. But I think to therefore reduce our understanding of the OT to just a human element and leave it at that is not satisfying either. Because those Biblical writers could just as easily omit everything that is 'not nice or is ugly' and just have a write up about the nice things that God did and achieve the same thing. I am afraid I don't subscribe to the view that because they were ancients, therefore they don't feel the pain or understand the horrors of war and killing. So this is why I am open to different ways of looking at it.
Finally I would like to reply to your point - 'The OT writers failed altogether to distinguish between Purpose and Consequence. When / whatever happened as consequence they attributed to the purpose of God.' I can't say if you are right about this or not. But either way, doesn't that actually prove Nigel's point that they have a different way of looking at things and therefore a different mindset? Because of these differences, I think it is all the more desirable to try and put ourselves in their shoes and walk around a mile before we judge them as dishonest, or a failure. Because if we are not careful, we can equally apply your judgement of the OT writers to Jesus for doing the same thing.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It occurs to me that God almost having Abraham kill his son is parallel on the personal level. With the NT story of God not staying his hand from the slaughter of Jesus, what do we have then? A killer-god? Who likes people frightened near to death (post traumatic stress one would think). Who enjoys the killing of babies and even the family goat?
Can't be. or God is a god is not worthy of our attention. To use Evelyn Waugh's phrase: are there flies on the lamb of god? It has to be rejected if there appear to be.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think part of the point of the Isaac story was precisely to teach us that God is not that kind of God (the human sacrifice demanding type, I mean); if anyone's going to have to suffer that way, he'll take it on himself (which is what the incarnation of Christ means--that God "did it to himself" rather than to some unrelated innocent victim).
Before the Isaac incident, Abraham had no assurance God WASN'T that kind of god--after all, most or all of the deities he grew up with were precisely the kind of gods that would go for human sacrifice. After that incident, though, both Abraham and the rest of us are forever clear on the fact that God sees this as a horror and great evil, just as we do too, now. Thank God.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
I feel I need to understand why the scholars who got together to consider which books to include in the Canonised version of our Bible would choose to include some of the more distasteful episodes if they didn't think the content of the text had some other merit . I doubt the reason was because those scholars approved of war and killing, they may well have thought such acts were horrible just like we do today, so my thought is that they must have other reasons to include these texts into the Canon, therefore I should do my best to find out what these OT texts are about.
Of course they did. The OT texts are a backdrop, a scene setting. And, to some degree, a history - which lays the ground for the gospels.
But none of this is a good reason to believe that when it says in the OT "and God said .... " that God actually did!
I believe, wholeheartedly, that S/he didn't.
Especially in the story of Abraham and Isaac. Making someone, whatever age, truly believe that their Father is about to kill them is no act of a loving God.
No whitewash - no fluffybunnyism - a loving God is as a loving God does. No intimidation, no force, no cruelty, no 'Herem'.
God is a God of forgiveness, truth and light. And this fact can be relied on in the darkest and worst of circumstances. That's the message of Jesus and the NT - which could not have come about without Jesus and He was a man who lived at a particular time in history - thus the need for the OT backdrop to help us understand where He came from and he was up against.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Re the Abraham and Isaace story: Judaism having figured out early that their God did not desire human sacrifice, the Penal Substitutionists have sought to establish his blood-lust in the Christian era!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The fact of the matter is that Genesis 1 - 3 is a composite document. ...
"Herem" is also translated in English as "ban". It signifies the compelete "devotion" to God of things mentioned.
Are you tempting me to go after the documentary hypotheses (and they are plural)???!!!!
I'm not sure how the English concept of 'ban' helps us either that arose at a late date, possibly in connection with the post-second temple Jewish idea of excommunicating someone from an assembly.
The source critical hypotheses are a side show here, shamwari, because as I said earlier it matters not when the documents attained their final form,* what matters here is how Jesus as the reflector of God's nature approached them. Jesus accepted the historical and chronological nature of the narratives (as did the prophets before him) and made the point that Gen 1-3 formed a basis from which to argue foundational principles (e.g., his teaching on divorce It was not like that from the beginning... Mark 10:1-12 and parallels). If that approach for drawing ethical pricniples was good enough for Jesus, isn't it good enough for us?
I say that last sentence because the stance often taken on the subject of genocide in the bible leans on the premiss that Jesus reflects God's nature and therefore we filter out elements from the OT on the basis of the life and work of Jesus. Has that stance now shifted? Are you asking me to address a different criterion for assessing ethics?
Personally I have no problem with taking Jesus' life and work as the filter. Fully signed up on that. But crucially I think it essential that we take Jesus' filter, not one we have imposed on him from a different direction. Which is why I have tried to take the context of the times seriously to better understand how Jesus himself understood the scriptures he had recevied.
And this is why I need to ask now, both shamwari and Boogie (only because you have both been good enough to enter the discussion on this point), to please define 'love' as you understand the concept in the bible, especially as expressed by Jesus.
I've set out what I think applies to Jesus, which is that he understood 'love' as a concept containing facets not all of which are applicable to the English word. What particular aspects of the evidence do you wish to challenge?
- - -
* the phrase 'final form' is a better one to use, rather than assuming documents arose instantaneously at a late date. There's a need to take seriously some of the valid criticisms of source criticism raised by, e.g., form critics (failure of the JEDP hypotheses to consider oral tradition), literary critics (how traditions/stories were transmitted in a developmental stage), and text critics (how the variety of evidence we have pertains to the authorising of a form of a text which received something of an imprimatur).
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But none of this is a good reason to believe that when it says in the OT "and God said .... " that God actually did!
I believe, wholeheartedly, that S/he didn't.
So do I. My take on it, though, is that this was really in the story from the beginning, that the ones who wrote it down really believed it, and that Abraham, Moses, etc. really did have these conversations.
The reason I say that it that my church teaches that before the Advent the Lord spoke to people through angels and spirits, and not directly. This is why the one speaking is often called the "Angel of the Lord". This angel or spirit, then believed that He was Jehovah and spoke from that belief. This kind of communication with spirits was common in ancient times, as voluminous ancient literature attests. Not that we believe it.
The problem was that this communication was limited by the nature of the angels and spirits themselves. Evil spirits called themselves "God" and communicated evil things. Pagan "gods" and "goddesses" were often nothing else. Modern people don't even believe that this kind of thing is possible, but it was universally believed in ancient times.
The point is that the one who spoke to Abraham and told him to sacrifice his son was not really God Himself, but was posing as God. The real God allowed this to happen, as He allows all kinds of things to happen, for the sake of the narrative that was to be written.
So it wasn't just a mistake, or an editor's addition. These things really happened, but the subjects of the story, or the authors, did not know the real nature of what was going on.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Origially posted by Boogie:
But none of this is a good reason to believe that when it says in the OT "and God said .... " that God actually did!
Ok. Assuming I accept your position on this. The problem then is the logic above can equally apply to say that there is no good reason either to believe any good they claimed that God did, i.e. God didn't actually do good either. So that gets me nowhere. I would also get a slightly absurd feeling that if I were then to adopt the position that God is love, I would be saying to myself: 'I believe God is good because these liars told me so.'
[ 25. August 2011, 12:05: Message edited by: Pooks ]
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
The problem then is the logic above can equally apply to say that there is no good reason either to believe any good they claimed that God did, i.e. God didn't actually do good either.
This isn't really a problem.
If we believe in what Jesus says, then this is the measure. People have done this intuitively from the beginning.
No one seriously believes the kind of mass extermination practiced in the Bible is a good thing.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
The problem then is the logic above can equally apply to say that there is no good reason either to believe any good they claimed that God did, i.e. God didn't actually do good either.
This isn't really a problem.
If we believe in what Jesus says, then this is the measure. People have done this intuitively from the beginning.
Dear Freddy, the trouble is, Jesus and the NT writers kept quoting those damn OT scriptures. My trouble with the intuitive approach is knowing where the wishful thinking begins and where it ends, if our understanding of God is not anchored in the world view of the texts themselves. That is not to say that I think we should adopt the practices associated with that world view, but I think there are important messages about God that the OT world view can inform us about. To dismiss bits and pieces because I have no stomach for it today, I think is doing a disservice to the texts and to myself.
quote:
No one seriously believes the kind of mass extermination practiced in the Bible is a good thing.
Exactly. So why were they put in the OT and transmitted to us as part of an authoritative text about God in the first place? Wouldn't it make better sense if they were not there, if no purpose is served about God's nature by them?
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
No one seriously believes the kind of mass extermination practiced in the Bible is a good thing.
Exactly. So why were they put in the OT and transmitted to us as part of an authoritative text about God in the first place? Wouldn't it make better sense if they were not there, if no purpose is served about God's nature by them?
A perfectly good purpose is served by them.
Sunday schools worldwide teach these stories to children, impressing on them the Lord's power and His punishment of the evil.
No one tells children that the walls of Jericho fell down but this is a great evil and God would never do such a thing.
There is one message: Evil is a bad thing and God will overcome it. This is a good message for children.
Adults, on the other hand, will ask the kind of questions we are asking here. I'm saying that there are perfectly good answers, but they require a higher level of understanding than most people have.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Nigel asked for my definition of "love" as expressed by Jesus.
My answer would be that Jesus stresses love as volitional rather than emotional. That straightaway puts right the many misconceptions inherent in the English word.
Further I would say that love of God shows itself in limitless trust ( cf Matt 7; 7-11); childlike reverence ( cf Mark 10: 14-15) and unconditional obedience (cf Matt 7: 21)
The love of neighbour which Jesus twinned with love of God is best expressed by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan and later defined by Paul as putting the interests of other above self-interest.
I would also point out that what Jesus said were the two greatest commandments are drawn from the OT ( Deut and Leviticus). But, importantly Jesus was selective in his OT quotes. He selected these two from a multitude of other commandments and from two different books. I dont believe you can argue from this that because Jesus quoted the OT he accepted the whole of the OT as authoritative.
Fact is that Jesus was selective and discriminatory. And time and again Jesus went beyond what Moses said (and the people accepted as God-inspired)and offered an alternative insight.
This "all or nothing" argument bedevils much of what has been implied on this thread. It underlies Pooks' concerns for one. I think it is a red herring
It is tangenital and I wont pursue it further. But for Nigel to say that the JEPD hypothesis ignores the oral tradition and what is known as redaction influence is quite wrong. To say otherwise is misleading. No more on that or else another thread.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
