Reading from Michael Bird’s brief Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission, and His Message reminded me of just how difficult the problem of the continuing relevance of the Old Testament law was for the early church. Bird (p. 150) summarizes the four major perspectives on the law reflected in the early church:
• Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who insisted on full observance of the Mosaic law, including circumcision.
• Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision, but did require converts to keep some Jewish observances.
• Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision or adherence to the Jewish food laws.
• Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision, adherence to the Jewish food laws or Jewish cults and feasts.
The incredible thing about the early church may not be as much that they survived intense persecution from the outside as that they survived each other and were able to overcome the Jew/Gentile divide from within the church. Paul’s instructions on how mixed congregations were to handle their conflicting convictions concerning the Mosaic Law serve as a model for how Christians today can continue to worship and serve together in unity even when disagreeing over secondary matters of conscience or conviction.
Paul taught that believers in Jesus were no longer “under the law” (Rom 6:14-15; 7:1-6). The coming of Christ and the arrival of the eschatological age of salvation had brought epochal changes with regard to the role and function of the Mosaic law. Believers were no longer under law in that: 1) Christ had delivered them from the curse of disobedience to the law (Gal 3:10-14); 2) the 613 stipulations of the Mosaic law were no longer the regulating code for the covenant between God and his people (cf. 2 Cor 3; Gal 3:19-24; 4:4-5); 3) the boundary marking behaviors separating Jews from Gentiles (circumcision, diet, Sabbath) were rendered obsolete by the formation of Jews and Gentiles into one people (Gal 5:6; 6:15); and 4) Christ, rather than the law, had become the “goal” or focal point of God’s revelation (Rom 10:4). However, the Mosaic law itself had not become obsolete. As the eternal word of God, the law continued to fulfill its roles of exposing human sinfulness and providing a moral guide for those who live under “the law of Christ.”
The arrival of this new era of salvation history meant that the Mosaic law was not to be imposed upon Gentile believers and that Gentiles were not required to become Torah-observant Jews in order to become full members in the new covenant community. The apostles and leaders clearly articulated this principle at the Jerusalem Council when members of the circumcision party were insistent on circumcision and Torah observance as conditions for the full inclusion of Gentiles in the church:
And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." (Acts 15:7-11)
Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch when Peter withdrew from eating with Gentile believers because of peer pressure from Jews belonging to “the circumcision party” reflects the importance of this insistence that Torah observance was not to be imposed on Gentile followers of Christ:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Gal 2:11-14)
By withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentile believers, Peter was implying that these Gentiles did not have equal standing in the new covenant community and that they were second-class citizens unless they became fully Torah-observant. Paul confronted Peter for his hypocrisy, reminding his fellow-apostle that such behavior was inconsistent with the gospel message of justification through faith in Christ. The insistence that Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to become Christians is what enabled Christianity to become a fully international movement. If the apostolic teaching had imposed Torah observance on Gentile believers, then Christianity would have become just another form of Jewish proselytism.
Paul’s instructions that Torah was not to be imposed on Gentiles in the church did not mean that Jewish believers were required to abandon their Jewish customs and practices. For reasons of culture, conscience, and testimony, the majority of Jewish believers likely continued to practice a Torah-observant lifestyle. Bird writes, “We should note that while Paul defended the right of Gentiles to be free from the forcible imposition of the law upon them, he did not demand that Jewish Christians give up all observance of the law” (p. 151). John McRay concurs: “I would suggest that no consideration of Paul’s teaching on the law can be deemed satisfactory if it does not recognize that he had one view of the law for a Jew and another for a Gentile.” (Paul: His Life and Teaching, p. 367). Mark Nanos, in his article “The Myth of the ‘Law-Free’ Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews,” makes a strong case for the idea that Paul continued for the most part to live a Torah-observant life even after his conversion to the Christian faith. In 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, Paul encourages believers to remain in the condition to which they were called (7:20), suggesting that Jewish Christian should continue with the customs they have practiced in the past. The book of Acts offers several examples of Paul’s practice of Torah: in 18:18, he cuts his hair in order to complete a (Nazirite?) vow; in 21:21-26, he performs rites of purification to counter the charge that he is encouraging fellow-Jews to abandon the law; and in 24:17-19, Paul recounts how he had been arrested when presenting alms and offerings at the Jerusalem temple. Paul also reminds the Corinthians of how he “became as a Jew in order to win Jesus” (1 Cor 9:19-23).
Jew-Gentile fellowship in the early church was made possible because two different convictions on Torah observance were allowed to peacefully coexist. Gentile Christians were given the freedom to not practice Torah observance, while Jewish believers were given the freedom to continue to practice many aspects of their former lifestyle. This same allowance for believers to practice their own convictions, while respecting those of others, carried over into other secondary issues of conscience. We learn from 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14-15 that the areas of major controversy in the early church revolved around food and fellowship. 1 Corinthians 8 informs us that some Christians believed that it was acceptable to eat meat that had been offered to idols; some did not. In Romans 14:1-15:7, there are some Christians who believe it is permissible to eat meat and drink wine and others who do not. There are some who observe the Jewish holy days and some who do not. In working through these issues, Paul allows believers to arrive at their own convictions. It is acceptable to do something or not do something that is morally neutral, and one is not better than the other. Bird comments: “Note that Paul does not argue for an uniform view of meat, drink and Sabbath observances, but recognizes the freedom of individuals to decide such matters for themselves. This is born out of the conviction that what unites Christians is infinitely stronger than anything that might tear them apart” (p. 153).
Christian love does not require that I surrender my personal convictions, but it does demand that I allow other believers the same freedom to live by their convictions, even when theirs are different from mine. Paul reminds us that if we are truly practicing Christian love, then the spiritual well-being of others will take priority over my personal convictions:
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.(Rom 14:5-8)
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding (Rom 14:17-19)
Bird (p. 154) offers these summarizing principles from Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8 on how Christians today should deal with issues of conscience and conviction:
• Learn to differentiate between areas of conviction and areas of command
• Don’t major on minor doctrines
• Withhold judgment where the gospel is not threatened
• Exercise your convictions to build others up, not to tear them down
• Do not exchange freedom in Christ for slavery to human tradition
• At all time act in love and fulfill the law of Christ.
Through the Spirit’s enablement, the fledgling church experienced remarkable harmony under the most difficult of circumstances as Jews and Gentiles came together to form the body of Christ. Paul’s willingness to set aside his own past prejudices concerning the standing of Gentiles before God is in itself a powerful testimony to the transformative power of the gospel message. When we constantly hear of secondary issues that divide Christians or that keep them from working together in fulfillment of the church’s mission, It seems a shame that we are not doing a better job of living out this reality in the American church 2,000 years later.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
David & Jonathan: Best Friends Forever or Something More
The newly released Sex and the Jews, a series of essays collected by Nathan Abrams, re-circulates the idea that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers and that the lack of censure from the narrator suggests that the Bible at least in some places has a more enlightened and tolerant view of sexual behavior than its later (and more repressed) interpreters. It is understandable how reading the story of David and Jonathan with modern eyes might lead to such a conclusion. The text states that Jonathan “loved” David and that his soul “was joined” to David’s (1 Sam 18:1), appearing to echo the intimacy reflected in the “one flesh” relationship between the husband and the wife in Genesis 2:24. In one of their final times together, the two men kissed one another in a highly emotional scene (1 Sam 20:43), and David later eulogized his dead friend by declaring that Jonathan’s love was more special to him than the love of women (2 Sam 1:26).
Robert A. J. Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is one of the best exegetical and historical defenses of the traditional view that the Bible is unanimous in its witness that same-sex intercourse is sinful. Through a careful analysis of the David-Jonathan narratives and their ancient Near Eastern setting, Gagnon (pp. 146-57) offers seven convincing reasons as to why we should not view David and Jonathan as having a homosexual relationship.
1. The term “love” (אהב) (’ahav) has a broad range of meaning, and the large majority of the uses of this root in the Hebrew Bible do not refer to sexual or romantic love. In this context alone, the term refers to Israel’s “love” for David as a military hero because of his victory over Goliath (1 Sam 18:1), to Jonathan’s love for David (1 Sam 18:1, 3; 20:17; 2 Sam 1:26—though note that there is never a clear reciprocal statement that David “loved” Jonathan), to Michal’s romantic love/attraction to David (1 Sam 18:20, 28), to the esteem of Saul’s servants for David (1 Sam 18:22) and to the love and esteem enjoyed by Saul and Jonathan because of their heroic lives (2 Sam 1:23).
2. The term “love” is common terminology for loyalty between covenant partners in ancient Near Eastern treaties, and this nuance of the term relates to the promises and oaths that David and Jonathan made to one another (note their oaths to each other and the use of the term חסד (hesed) in 1 Sam 20:8, 14, 15). Kings expressing love for one another in ancient treaties were obviously not wanting to hold hands or go steady but were merely affirming their commitment to the covenant stipulations:
--King Hiram of Tyre is David’s “lover” (or “friend”) in 1 Kgs 5:1
--Note the use of the terms “love/hate” for those who are loyal/disloyal to David in 2 Sam 19:6-7
--Future vassals of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal were instructed: “You must love [him] as yourself.”
--Tursatta, the king of Mitanni says to the Egyptian Pharaoh: “My lord, just as I love the king my lord, so (do) the king of Nuhasse, the king of Ni’i….”
The covenantal commitment between David and Jonathan is the key component in the biblical portrayal of their friendship. Jonathan extended total loyalty to David and was willing to give up his position as royal heir to the throne on David’s behalf. In their first encounter, Jonathan makes a covenant with David and hands over to David his robe, sword, armor, bow, and belt as a symbol of royal investiture (cf. 1 Sam 17: 51, 54; 2 Kgs 11:10; and the significance of the “robe” as a symbol of political power in 1 Sam 15:27-28). Jonathan lives up to the covenant agreement by twice warning David of Saul’s plots to put David to death (1 Sam 19:1; 20:35-42), the second time in connection with the renewal of covenant loyalties between David and Jonathan (1 Sam 20:8, 13-17, 42). In turn, David makes a covenant promise to Jonathan that he would show hesed to Jonathan and his descendants for all time (1 Sam 20:14-17), a promise David later kept by providing for Mephebisheth, Jonathan’s crippled son (2 Sam 9). In their final meeting together, David and Jonathan once again affirm their covenant commitments before the Lord, and Jonathan acknowledges that David will become the ruler over Israel (1 Sam 23:16-18).
Politics in ancient Israel was a bloody and violent affair. Abimelech killed 70 of his brothers in an attempt to become Israel’s king (Judg 9:5), and Jonathan’s father wanted David dead because of the threat that David posed to the family’s dynasty. When David died, there was a bloody dispute over the right to succession in his own family (1 Kgs 2). During the time of the divided monarchy, 8 of the 19 kings of the Northern Kingdom were either murdered, assassinated, or committed suicide as a result of various forms of political intrigue. Jonathan’s act of surrendering the right of succession to a friend outside of his family was an incredible act of selfless devotion, and this unheard of magnanimity is what leads David to proclaim that Jonathan’s love for him surpassed that of women. Gagnon (pp. 152-53) comments: “Jonathan’s repeated display of (non-sexual) kindness to David at a time when Jonathan was in a position of power, selflessly risking his own life and certainly his own kingdom surpassed anything David had ever known from a committed erotic relationship with a woman.”
3. The expression that Jonathan’s “soul (נפש) (nephesh) was “united” (קשר) (qashar) to David (1 Sam 18:2) also describes the deep love of Jacob for his son Benjamin in Genesis 44:30-31, where it is clear that nothing sexual is intended by this expression.
4. The verb חפץ (haphets) used to describe Jonathan’s feelings toward David in 1 Samuel 19:1 is used by Saul himself to express his own pretended affections for David in 1 Sam 18:22.
5. The kissing of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:41 is not erotic in nature but rather an expression of deep emotion by two friends who recognize that they may never see each other again. In the OT, the verb “to kiss” (נשק) (nashaq) carries no sexual connotation in 24 of its 27 uses. The term refers to kisses between relatives 15 times, and there is nothing erotic in the kisses between unrelated males in the four other contexts where they occur (cf. 1 Sam 10:1; 2 Sam 15:5; 19:40; 20:8). This farewell scene where David and Jonathan are overcome with emotion recalls the episodes in Genesis where Joseph weeps and kisses when he reveals himself to his brothers in 45:5 and where he weeps and kisses his dead father in 50:1. Even in Middle Eastern cultures today, it is not uncommon for men to kiss, hold hands, or have physical contact in a non-sexual way that is strange or uncomfortable for Western males.
6. David’s heterosexual vigor (cf. 1 Sam 18:17-29; 25:39-43; 2 Sam 3:2-5, 13-16; 5:13-16; 11) and Jonathan’s marriage (1 Sam 20:42; 2 Sam 9) do not preclude the possibility of a homosexual relationship between the two, but would seem to raise further doubts concerning the likelihood of such a relationship. David’s strong attraction to women is a major source of his problems.
7. The narrator never states that David and Jonathan had sexual relations, and the terms “to lie with” (שכב) (shakav) or “to know” (ידע) (yada‘) do not appear in the text. Of course, one could argue that the narrator has tried to suppress the true nature of the relationship between David and Saul, but Gagnon rightly questions why a narrator trying to suppress the relationship would focus so much on the closeness of their relationship. He writes that there is no “indication that the narrators were in the slightest bit concerned about a possible homosexual misunderstanding. Indeed, far from censoring, the narrators did their best to play up the relationship between Jonathan and David. The more covenants and the greater the emotional bond between these two, the merrier. Why were the narrators unconcerned about a hint of homosexual scandal? The answer is obvious: nothing in the stories raised any suspicion that David and Jonathan were homosexually involved with one another. ” (pp. 154-155)
The point here is not that David having a homosexual relationship with Jonathan would have precluded God from using David as a great leader or that such behavior would have been a worse form of sin than the actions surrounding his adultery with Bathsheba that brought great ruin to his kingdom and heartache to his family. God extends his grace to both heterosexual and homosexual sinners and delights in using individuals despite their character flaws and moral failings. The point is simply that the biblical text does not portray David and Jonathan as lovers. To suggest otherwise is poor exegesis and a desperate attempt to use the Bible to validate homosexual behavior. For seminary students and those preparing for a ministry of preaching and teaching the Scriptures, this issue is another reminder of the importance of knowing biblical languages and remaining committed to grammatical-historical exegesis in an age of reader-centered hermeneutics. The message of the text, and not our personal agendas or what we want the text to say, must remain our primary concern.
Robert A. J. Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is one of the best exegetical and historical defenses of the traditional view that the Bible is unanimous in its witness that same-sex intercourse is sinful. Through a careful analysis of the David-Jonathan narratives and their ancient Near Eastern setting, Gagnon (pp. 146-57) offers seven convincing reasons as to why we should not view David and Jonathan as having a homosexual relationship.
1. The term “love” (אהב) (’ahav) has a broad range of meaning, and the large majority of the uses of this root in the Hebrew Bible do not refer to sexual or romantic love. In this context alone, the term refers to Israel’s “love” for David as a military hero because of his victory over Goliath (1 Sam 18:1), to Jonathan’s love for David (1 Sam 18:1, 3; 20:17; 2 Sam 1:26—though note that there is never a clear reciprocal statement that David “loved” Jonathan), to Michal’s romantic love/attraction to David (1 Sam 18:20, 28), to the esteem of Saul’s servants for David (1 Sam 18:22) and to the love and esteem enjoyed by Saul and Jonathan because of their heroic lives (2 Sam 1:23).
2. The term “love” is common terminology for loyalty between covenant partners in ancient Near Eastern treaties, and this nuance of the term relates to the promises and oaths that David and Jonathan made to one another (note their oaths to each other and the use of the term חסד (hesed) in 1 Sam 20:8, 14, 15). Kings expressing love for one another in ancient treaties were obviously not wanting to hold hands or go steady but were merely affirming their commitment to the covenant stipulations:
--King Hiram of Tyre is David’s “lover” (or “friend”) in 1 Kgs 5:1
--Note the use of the terms “love/hate” for those who are loyal/disloyal to David in 2 Sam 19:6-7
--Future vassals of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal were instructed: “You must love [him] as yourself.”
--Tursatta, the king of Mitanni says to the Egyptian Pharaoh: “My lord, just as I love the king my lord, so (do) the king of Nuhasse, the king of Ni’i….”
The covenantal commitment between David and Jonathan is the key component in the biblical portrayal of their friendship. Jonathan extended total loyalty to David and was willing to give up his position as royal heir to the throne on David’s behalf. In their first encounter, Jonathan makes a covenant with David and hands over to David his robe, sword, armor, bow, and belt as a symbol of royal investiture (cf. 1 Sam 17: 51, 54; 2 Kgs 11:10; and the significance of the “robe” as a symbol of political power in 1 Sam 15:27-28). Jonathan lives up to the covenant agreement by twice warning David of Saul’s plots to put David to death (1 Sam 19:1; 20:35-42), the second time in connection with the renewal of covenant loyalties between David and Jonathan (1 Sam 20:8, 13-17, 42). In turn, David makes a covenant promise to Jonathan that he would show hesed to Jonathan and his descendants for all time (1 Sam 20:14-17), a promise David later kept by providing for Mephebisheth, Jonathan’s crippled son (2 Sam 9). In their final meeting together, David and Jonathan once again affirm their covenant commitments before the Lord, and Jonathan acknowledges that David will become the ruler over Israel (1 Sam 23:16-18).
Politics in ancient Israel was a bloody and violent affair. Abimelech killed 70 of his brothers in an attempt to become Israel’s king (Judg 9:5), and Jonathan’s father wanted David dead because of the threat that David posed to the family’s dynasty. When David died, there was a bloody dispute over the right to succession in his own family (1 Kgs 2). During the time of the divided monarchy, 8 of the 19 kings of the Northern Kingdom were either murdered, assassinated, or committed suicide as a result of various forms of political intrigue. Jonathan’s act of surrendering the right of succession to a friend outside of his family was an incredible act of selfless devotion, and this unheard of magnanimity is what leads David to proclaim that Jonathan’s love for him surpassed that of women. Gagnon (pp. 152-53) comments: “Jonathan’s repeated display of (non-sexual) kindness to David at a time when Jonathan was in a position of power, selflessly risking his own life and certainly his own kingdom surpassed anything David had ever known from a committed erotic relationship with a woman.”
3. The expression that Jonathan’s “soul (נפש) (nephesh) was “united” (קשר) (qashar) to David (1 Sam 18:2) also describes the deep love of Jacob for his son Benjamin in Genesis 44:30-31, where it is clear that nothing sexual is intended by this expression.
4. The verb חפץ (haphets) used to describe Jonathan’s feelings toward David in 1 Samuel 19:1 is used by Saul himself to express his own pretended affections for David in 1 Sam 18:22.
5. The kissing of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:41 is not erotic in nature but rather an expression of deep emotion by two friends who recognize that they may never see each other again. In the OT, the verb “to kiss” (נשק) (nashaq) carries no sexual connotation in 24 of its 27 uses. The term refers to kisses between relatives 15 times, and there is nothing erotic in the kisses between unrelated males in the four other contexts where they occur (cf. 1 Sam 10:1; 2 Sam 15:5; 19:40; 20:8). This farewell scene where David and Jonathan are overcome with emotion recalls the episodes in Genesis where Joseph weeps and kisses when he reveals himself to his brothers in 45:5 and where he weeps and kisses his dead father in 50:1. Even in Middle Eastern cultures today, it is not uncommon for men to kiss, hold hands, or have physical contact in a non-sexual way that is strange or uncomfortable for Western males.
6. David’s heterosexual vigor (cf. 1 Sam 18:17-29; 25:39-43; 2 Sam 3:2-5, 13-16; 5:13-16; 11) and Jonathan’s marriage (1 Sam 20:42; 2 Sam 9) do not preclude the possibility of a homosexual relationship between the two, but would seem to raise further doubts concerning the likelihood of such a relationship. David’s strong attraction to women is a major source of his problems.
7. The narrator never states that David and Jonathan had sexual relations, and the terms “to lie with” (שכב) (shakav) or “to know” (ידע) (yada‘) do not appear in the text. Of course, one could argue that the narrator has tried to suppress the true nature of the relationship between David and Saul, but Gagnon rightly questions why a narrator trying to suppress the relationship would focus so much on the closeness of their relationship. He writes that there is no “indication that the narrators were in the slightest bit concerned about a possible homosexual misunderstanding. Indeed, far from censoring, the narrators did their best to play up the relationship between Jonathan and David. The more covenants and the greater the emotional bond between these two, the merrier. Why were the narrators unconcerned about a hint of homosexual scandal? The answer is obvious: nothing in the stories raised any suspicion that David and Jonathan were homosexually involved with one another. ” (pp. 154-155)
The point here is not that David having a homosexual relationship with Jonathan would have precluded God from using David as a great leader or that such behavior would have been a worse form of sin than the actions surrounding his adultery with Bathsheba that brought great ruin to his kingdom and heartache to his family. God extends his grace to both heterosexual and homosexual sinners and delights in using individuals despite their character flaws and moral failings. The point is simply that the biblical text does not portray David and Jonathan as lovers. To suggest otherwise is poor exegesis and a desperate attempt to use the Bible to validate homosexual behavior. For seminary students and those preparing for a ministry of preaching and teaching the Scriptures, this issue is another reminder of the importance of knowing biblical languages and remaining committed to grammatical-historical exegesis in an age of reader-centered hermeneutics. The message of the text, and not our personal agendas or what we want the text to say, must remain our primary concern.
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Missionary God of the Old Testament
Christopher J. H. Wright’s book The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative is one of my favorite theological works because it provides a biblical basis for missionary endeavor by tracing the theme of mission through the whole of Scripture. Many Christians mistakenly think that missions began with the Great Commission (Matt 28:19) or in Jesus’ final words to the apostles before his ascension (Acts 1:8) and fail to see that the Old Testament itself is a missionary book. In fact, Wright describes the Bible itself as a “missional phenomenon” in that it is “the product of and witness to the ultimate mission of God.” Of all the books of the Old Testament, Isaiah more than any other highlights the theme of God’s missionary concern for the nations and the promise of Gentile inclusion in the blessings of salvation. Tying Isaiah into the larger story of the Old Testament, the prophet anticipates the fulfillment of the original promise of the Abrahamic covenant that all the families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12:3).
As with much of the book of Isaiah, this emphasis arises out of Isaiah’s initial vision of Yahweh in Isaiah 6. Isaiah sees that the glory of the Lord fills the earth (6:3), and it thus becomes incumbent that the nations know this God and give him the glory that he is due. The following passages illustrate the recurring theme of Yahweh’s salvation extending to the nations in the book of Isaiah:
Isaiah 2:2-4
It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
Isaiah 25:6-8
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken.
Isaiah 42:6
"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations,
Isaiah 49:6
It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.
Isaiah 52:10
The LORD has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.
Isaiah 56:3-8
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from his people"; and let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree." For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. "And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant - these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, "I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered."
Isaiah 60:1-3
Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the LORD will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.
The most amazing of all these Isaianic passages focusing on the inclusion of the nations is Isaiah 19:19-25. Wright describes this passage as “one of the most breathtaking pronouncements of any prophet, and certainly one of the most missiologically significant texts in all of the Old Testament” (p. 491). The passage looks forward to the eschatological kingdom as a time when Israel, Egypt, and Assyria will be the three peoples of God. Isaiah includes Israel’s representative enemy from the past (Egypt) and Israel’s primary enemy from the present (Assyria) among the future people of God. After a terrible time of judgment, Egypt will experience a national conversion, in which they speak Hebrew (“the language of Canaan”) and give their loyalties and worship to Yahweh as the true God (vv. 19-21). After once again striking Egypt with plagues, Yahweh will reverse the exodus story by this time intervening to save Egypt (v. 22). Like Israel, Egypt will become the recipient of the Lord’s mercy and salvation.
After this remarkable promise concerning Egypt’s future, the prophet goes even further in bringing the hated Assyrians into the sphere of the Lord’s salvation and blessing (vv. 23-25). In Isaiah's day, Israel was gripped in the vice of the superpowers Egypt and Assyria, but there will one day be a highway from Egypt to Assyria and through Israel facilitating travelers coming to worship Yahweh. The Assyrian war machine had wreaked havoc on the nations, but in the future kingdom, Assyria will be with Egypt and Israel a source of “blessing” to the whole earth. Wright comments on what this passage ultimately envisions: “The scattering oppressors become the ingathered worshippers. History is inverted in this eschatological transformation. The enemies of God and Israel will be at peace with Israel and with each other.” (p. 492).
Isaiah 19 is in fact pointing to something even greater than the salvation of just Egypt and Assyria. Wright explains that the prophet uses Egypt and Assyria “in a representational way; that is they stand for a wider inclusion of other nations, not just the specifically named nations.” (p. 492). In his Handbook on the Prophets, Robert Chisholm offers a similar explanation of the significance of Egypt and Assyrian in exploring how this prophecy will be fulfilled. The prophecy transcends its era and the vision of two powers from the ancient world of the Old Testament become “archetypes of the powerful, warring kingdoms of the earth that would one day lay down their weapons and acknowledge the Lord as the one true God.” (p. 59). This prophecy in Isaiah 19 is thus anticipating the vision of Revelation 5:9-10 where people from every tribe, tongue, and language group will belong to the throng of worshippers bowing down before the Lamb of God.
We may not be able to hear with modern ears how radical these promises concerning Egypt and Assyria would have sounded to Isaiah’s original audiences. However, Jacob Neusner (“Repentance in Judaism,” 60-61) notes how a statement from the Jewish Talmud (b. Gittin 57b) has effectively captured the extreme nature of God’s love for Israel’s enemies: “Grandsons of Haman [from the story of Esther] studied Torah in Bene Beraq. Grandsons of Sisera [from Judges 4-5] taught children in Jerusalem. Grandsons of Sennacherib [the king of Assyria who attacked Jerusalem in 701 B.C.E.] taught Torah in public. And who were they? Shemaiah and Abtalion [who were the teachers of Hillel and Shammai].” Offering a modern equivalent, Neusner states that “to understand the power of this statement, we only have to say, ‘Hitler’s grandson teaches Torah in a yeshiva of Bene Baraq,’ or ‘Eichmann’s grandson sits in a Jerusalem yeshiva, reciting prayers and psalms and learning Talmud.’”
We see a similar expression of God’s radical love for the nations and his enemies in Isaiah 19. Every time I read this passage, I am reminded of the wideness of God’s mercy, his willingness to include all who genuinely turn to him for salvation, particularly those I would want to exclude.
As with much of the book of Isaiah, this emphasis arises out of Isaiah’s initial vision of Yahweh in Isaiah 6. Isaiah sees that the glory of the Lord fills the earth (6:3), and it thus becomes incumbent that the nations know this God and give him the glory that he is due. The following passages illustrate the recurring theme of Yahweh’s salvation extending to the nations in the book of Isaiah:
Isaiah 2:2-4
It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
Isaiah 25:6-8
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken.
Isaiah 42:6
"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations,
Isaiah 49:6
It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.
Isaiah 52:10
The LORD has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.
Isaiah 56:3-8
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from his people"; and let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree." For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. "And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant - these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, "I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered."
Isaiah 60:1-3
Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the LORD will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.
The most amazing of all these Isaianic passages focusing on the inclusion of the nations is Isaiah 19:19-25. Wright describes this passage as “one of the most breathtaking pronouncements of any prophet, and certainly one of the most missiologically significant texts in all of the Old Testament” (p. 491). The passage looks forward to the eschatological kingdom as a time when Israel, Egypt, and Assyria will be the three peoples of God. Isaiah includes Israel’s representative enemy from the past (Egypt) and Israel’s primary enemy from the present (Assyria) among the future people of God. After a terrible time of judgment, Egypt will experience a national conversion, in which they speak Hebrew (“the language of Canaan”) and give their loyalties and worship to Yahweh as the true God (vv. 19-21). After once again striking Egypt with plagues, Yahweh will reverse the exodus story by this time intervening to save Egypt (v. 22). Like Israel, Egypt will become the recipient of the Lord’s mercy and salvation.
After this remarkable promise concerning Egypt’s future, the prophet goes even further in bringing the hated Assyrians into the sphere of the Lord’s salvation and blessing (vv. 23-25). In Isaiah's day, Israel was gripped in the vice of the superpowers Egypt and Assyria, but there will one day be a highway from Egypt to Assyria and through Israel facilitating travelers coming to worship Yahweh. The Assyrian war machine had wreaked havoc on the nations, but in the future kingdom, Assyria will be with Egypt and Israel a source of “blessing” to the whole earth. Wright comments on what this passage ultimately envisions: “The scattering oppressors become the ingathered worshippers. History is inverted in this eschatological transformation. The enemies of God and Israel will be at peace with Israel and with each other.” (p. 492).
Isaiah 19 is in fact pointing to something even greater than the salvation of just Egypt and Assyria. Wright explains that the prophet uses Egypt and Assyria “in a representational way; that is they stand for a wider inclusion of other nations, not just the specifically named nations.” (p. 492). In his Handbook on the Prophets, Robert Chisholm offers a similar explanation of the significance of Egypt and Assyrian in exploring how this prophecy will be fulfilled. The prophecy transcends its era and the vision of two powers from the ancient world of the Old Testament become “archetypes of the powerful, warring kingdoms of the earth that would one day lay down their weapons and acknowledge the Lord as the one true God.” (p. 59). This prophecy in Isaiah 19 is thus anticipating the vision of Revelation 5:9-10 where people from every tribe, tongue, and language group will belong to the throng of worshippers bowing down before the Lamb of God.
We may not be able to hear with modern ears how radical these promises concerning Egypt and Assyria would have sounded to Isaiah’s original audiences. However, Jacob Neusner (“Repentance in Judaism,” 60-61) notes how a statement from the Jewish Talmud (b. Gittin 57b) has effectively captured the extreme nature of God’s love for Israel’s enemies: “Grandsons of Haman [from the story of Esther] studied Torah in Bene Beraq. Grandsons of Sisera [from Judges 4-5] taught children in Jerusalem. Grandsons of Sennacherib [the king of Assyria who attacked Jerusalem in 701 B.C.E.] taught Torah in public. And who were they? Shemaiah and Abtalion [who were the teachers of Hillel and Shammai].” Offering a modern equivalent, Neusner states that “to understand the power of this statement, we only have to say, ‘Hitler’s grandson teaches Torah in a yeshiva of Bene Baraq,’ or ‘Eichmann’s grandson sits in a Jerusalem yeshiva, reciting prayers and psalms and learning Talmud.’”
We see a similar expression of God’s radical love for the nations and his enemies in Isaiah 19. Every time I read this passage, I am reminded of the wideness of God’s mercy, his willingness to include all who genuinely turn to him for salvation, particularly those I would want to exclude.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Old Testament and the Problem of Divine Sovereignty/Human Freedom
Craig Blomberg’s recent reflection “Why I Am a Calminian” provides a helpful reminder of the very real tension in the Scriptures between divine sovereignty and human freedom:
There are countless passages throughout Scripture that, seemingly paradoxically, affirm at one and the same time God’s sovereignty and human freedom (with accountability). Philippians 2:12-13 commands us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, but only because God is the one at work in us to do his good pleasure. Isaiah 10:5-13 finds God using Assyria as an instrument to punishment faithless Israel but then promising to turn around and punish Assyria because of her evil motives in conquering God’s people.
But perhaps the text that says it best of all is the first one in the canonical sequence, Genesis 50:20. Joseph has been reunited with his brothers, but now that their father is dead they fear that Joseph may at last exact vengeance on them. Joseph allays their fears by explaining that he understands that God had different, good purposes in mind with their action of selling him into slavery in Egypt, even though their purposes were evil. Two separate agents, two separate wills, at cross purposes with each other, neither described as logically or chronologically prior to the other. Neither is said to cause the other; they occur simultaneously.
This tension is at work throughout the Old Testament. In line with Reformation theology, the Old Testament affirms divine sovereignty and grace as the basis of God’s election. The recurring motif of God choosing the younger over the elder in the book of Genesis reflects that God’s selection of individuals stands apart from human measurements of value and worth. Noah is righteous because he finds favor in the eyes of the Lord and not vice-versa (Gen 6:8-9). God chose Abraham despite the fact that the patriarch came from a long line of idol worshippers (Josh 24:3). Paul explains that behavior did not factor into God’s election of Jacob over Esau for inclusion in the line of blessing (Rom 9:11-12). He does not tell us, “God made his choice because Jacob the deceiver was at least better than Esau the reprobate.” Divine grace and love is also the only explanation for the election of Israel as God’s “holy nation” and “treasured possession” (Deut 4:37; 7:7-8; 9:4-5).
We also learn from the Old Testament prophets of God’s sovereign work in salvation. The Lord promises through Isaiah that “a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression” (Isa 59:20). The reality, though, is that such a turning will only occur when the Lord overrides the human disposition to sin and unilaterally writes his law on the heart of his people through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Isa 32:15; 59:21; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:24-27). Then, and only then, will Israel’s cyclical history of disobedience come to an end. God’s sovereign work will guarantee Israel’s perpetual obedience so that there will never again be the need for more punishment or another exile (cf. Isa 33:20-24; 60:18-21; Jer 32:38-41; Ezek 36:28-30).
The other side, however, is that the Reformed view of divine sovereignty and its all-determining God does not appear to satisfactorily explain the interaction between God and man in space and time and how God’s choices are contingent upon human actions. The theological principle of God’s willingness to alter his intentions based on human response is summarized in Jeremiah 18:7-10:
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
As Longman explains, the point here is, “If those announced for judgment repent or those who are established sin, then all bets are off.” One of God’s intrinsic qualities is his willingness to change his mind or to alter his intended actions (Deut 9:13-14; Ps 106:23; Joel 2:13-14; Jon 4:2). Of course, there are instances where God has decreed and refuses to deter from his intended plan (cf. Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Jer 4:28), but such occasions occur far less often in the OT than those where God is willing to change. The intercession of Moses (Exod 32:14) convinces the Lord not to carry out his intended destruction of the rebellious Israelites. Peter Enns writes, “It certainly seems that Moses, through argument and pleading, has been able to get God to alter his plans. To put it in plain English, Moses gets God to change his mind. There is really no other way to read this, and we should not try to avoid it.” The prayers of Amos in response to two separate visions portraying God’s imminent destruction of his people are similarly effective (Amos 7:1-6). Abraham negotiates more favorable terms for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:22-33), and Hezekiah successfully petitions for a 15-year extension to his life after the Lord has announced that he is about to die (2 Kgs 20:1-10; Isa 38:1-8). The repentance of Hezekiah and Judah postpones Micah’s announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 26:17-19; cf. Mic 3:12), and the repentance of the citizens of Nineveh similarly reverses Jonah’s announcement of the impending destruction of that city (Jon 3:1, 10).
Human response (the repentance of the king of Tyre?) is perhaps the reason why Ezekiel’s original prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s total destruction of Tyre (Ezek 26:1-14) is later altered by the divine promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be given Egypt instead as recompense for his 13 years of frustration in the incomplete conquest of Tyre (Ezek 29:17-20). Israel’s fearful response when the king of Moab sacrifices his son on the city walls appears to turn Elisha’s prophecy of total victory into a disappointing retreat (2 Kgs 3:19, 27-28).
Reformed theologians are certainly correct in calling attention to the narratival perspectives of the Old Testament and the use of accommodation and figurative language when the Bible speaks of God “changing his mind.” God changing his mind obviously does not mean the same as when contingencies force us to alter our plans on how we will spend the afternoon. Open Theism has read too much into this language in its denial of God’s omniscient foreknowledge (cf. 1 Sam 23:6-12, where God not only knows the future, but the outcome of a hypothetical event involving free human choices), but there is the equal danger of reading too little into this imagery as well. More than simply the language of appearance, the idea of God “relenting” expresses the extent to which God has entered into real relationships with his creatures. We are forced to reckon with a God who is both inside and outside of time and with the reality that there are things that will or will not happen in our world based upon our choices and decisions. The sovereign God has allowed for there to be flexibility in his decrees.
We clearly see the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom in the story of the plagues and the hardening of the Pharaoh’s heart in the book of Exodus. At first glance, we might feel sorry for the Pharaoh, as he unknowingly plays the role of marionette, compelled to bring about the destruction of his own kingdom for the enhancement of Yahweh’s glory. And yet, in his response to Aaron’s rod becoming a snake and six of the first seven plagues, it is Pharaoh who hardens his own heart (cf. Exod 7:13, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34). The divine sentence of hardening only comes as the appropriate punishment for the Pharaoh’s willful unbelief in the final plagues and the drowning of the Egyptian army in the sea (cf. Exod 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 17). The statements that Yahweh will harden the Pharaoh’s heart at the beginning of this process (cf. Exod 4:21; 7:3) are an expression that Yahweh’s purposes will ultimately prevail in this struggle but not that he dictates or determines the Pharaoh’s responses.
The idea of an all-determining God is especially problematic when considering the divine-human interplay as God uses the Assyrian and Babylonian armies as his instruments of judgment against Israel and Judah (Isa 10:5-6; Jer 21:3-7; 25:8-11; 27:6-7) but then punishes these nations for how they exceed his intentions (Isa 10:7-19; Jer 25:12-14; 50:29-32; 51:6-8). God will “hand over” Jerusalem to the Babylonians, but he appears to be hands-off in how the Babylonian army executes their siege and conquest. The Babylonians go beyond Yahweh’s explicit intentions, and Yahweh is “grieved” (nacham) over the disaster that befalls his people (Jer 42:10). This paradox is perplexing, and yet, as Mark Biddle has suggested, the prophets’ perspective on God’s involvement with these pagan armies provides a way forward in understanding and speaking of God’s continuing involvement in a sinful world. God was at work in the events of 9/11 and is at work in the Gaza Strip or on the streets of Baghdad despite the violent acts and injustices that he does not directly determine.
Biddle writes, “While God is perhaps the most powerful actor on the stage, the play is, to a degree, an improvisation. Whether by choice or necessity, God does not script every dialogue nor direct every gesture. Instead, God becomes involved in genuine relationships. The other actors are free to act as they will. . . . . God responds within the limitations established by the choices of God's partners.” God’s sovereignty is such that he controls all things without necessarily orchestrating every detail. His providence at times takes the form of the micromanaging the smallest details, like the trajectory of the enemy arrow that finds its way between the chinks of King Ahab’s armor in fulfillment of the prophetic word (1 Kgs 22:34). But, there are many other times when God’s providence takes the form of a more indirect or even laissez faire control. God allows the suffering of Job within prescribed boundaries, but it is the job of the Satan to determine the form and sequence of Job’s afflictions. Using the analogy of the Divine Chess Master, God controls the game not by directing every movement of the individual pieces but by controlling the outcome and winning the game no matter how the pieces might move. The ultimate triumph of God’s purposes without direct determination of every contingency only heightens the greatness of his wisdom and sovereignty.
Biddle again comments, “History is the dance between God and humanity—neither partner alone defines its movement. History is, therefore, often herky-jerky, complex, messy.” Only a truly sovereign and omniscient God could accomplish his purposes in such a world. The Bible is a messy book in its stubborn refusal to resolve the irreconcilable tensions between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Rather than forcing the Bible into our own ideological confines, we are better to live with the tensions and to allow the biblical text to speak for itself.
There are countless passages throughout Scripture that, seemingly paradoxically, affirm at one and the same time God’s sovereignty and human freedom (with accountability). Philippians 2:12-13 commands us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, but only because God is the one at work in us to do his good pleasure. Isaiah 10:5-13 finds God using Assyria as an instrument to punishment faithless Israel but then promising to turn around and punish Assyria because of her evil motives in conquering God’s people.
But perhaps the text that says it best of all is the first one in the canonical sequence, Genesis 50:20. Joseph has been reunited with his brothers, but now that their father is dead they fear that Joseph may at last exact vengeance on them. Joseph allays their fears by explaining that he understands that God had different, good purposes in mind with their action of selling him into slavery in Egypt, even though their purposes were evil. Two separate agents, two separate wills, at cross purposes with each other, neither described as logically or chronologically prior to the other. Neither is said to cause the other; they occur simultaneously.
This tension is at work throughout the Old Testament. In line with Reformation theology, the Old Testament affirms divine sovereignty and grace as the basis of God’s election. The recurring motif of God choosing the younger over the elder in the book of Genesis reflects that God’s selection of individuals stands apart from human measurements of value and worth. Noah is righteous because he finds favor in the eyes of the Lord and not vice-versa (Gen 6:8-9). God chose Abraham despite the fact that the patriarch came from a long line of idol worshippers (Josh 24:3). Paul explains that behavior did not factor into God’s election of Jacob over Esau for inclusion in the line of blessing (Rom 9:11-12). He does not tell us, “God made his choice because Jacob the deceiver was at least better than Esau the reprobate.” Divine grace and love is also the only explanation for the election of Israel as God’s “holy nation” and “treasured possession” (Deut 4:37; 7:7-8; 9:4-5).
We also learn from the Old Testament prophets of God’s sovereign work in salvation. The Lord promises through Isaiah that “a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression” (Isa 59:20). The reality, though, is that such a turning will only occur when the Lord overrides the human disposition to sin and unilaterally writes his law on the heart of his people through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Isa 32:15; 59:21; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:24-27). Then, and only then, will Israel’s cyclical history of disobedience come to an end. God’s sovereign work will guarantee Israel’s perpetual obedience so that there will never again be the need for more punishment or another exile (cf. Isa 33:20-24; 60:18-21; Jer 32:38-41; Ezek 36:28-30).
The other side, however, is that the Reformed view of divine sovereignty and its all-determining God does not appear to satisfactorily explain the interaction between God and man in space and time and how God’s choices are contingent upon human actions. The theological principle of God’s willingness to alter his intentions based on human response is summarized in Jeremiah 18:7-10:
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
As Longman explains, the point here is, “If those announced for judgment repent or those who are established sin, then all bets are off.” One of God’s intrinsic qualities is his willingness to change his mind or to alter his intended actions (Deut 9:13-14; Ps 106:23; Joel 2:13-14; Jon 4:2). Of course, there are instances where God has decreed and refuses to deter from his intended plan (cf. Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Jer 4:28), but such occasions occur far less often in the OT than those where God is willing to change. The intercession of Moses (Exod 32:14) convinces the Lord not to carry out his intended destruction of the rebellious Israelites. Peter Enns writes, “It certainly seems that Moses, through argument and pleading, has been able to get God to alter his plans. To put it in plain English, Moses gets God to change his mind. There is really no other way to read this, and we should not try to avoid it.” The prayers of Amos in response to two separate visions portraying God’s imminent destruction of his people are similarly effective (Amos 7:1-6). Abraham negotiates more favorable terms for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:22-33), and Hezekiah successfully petitions for a 15-year extension to his life after the Lord has announced that he is about to die (2 Kgs 20:1-10; Isa 38:1-8). The repentance of Hezekiah and Judah postpones Micah’s announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 26:17-19; cf. Mic 3:12), and the repentance of the citizens of Nineveh similarly reverses Jonah’s announcement of the impending destruction of that city (Jon 3:1, 10).
Human response (the repentance of the king of Tyre?) is perhaps the reason why Ezekiel’s original prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s total destruction of Tyre (Ezek 26:1-14) is later altered by the divine promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be given Egypt instead as recompense for his 13 years of frustration in the incomplete conquest of Tyre (Ezek 29:17-20). Israel’s fearful response when the king of Moab sacrifices his son on the city walls appears to turn Elisha’s prophecy of total victory into a disappointing retreat (2 Kgs 3:19, 27-28).
Reformed theologians are certainly correct in calling attention to the narratival perspectives of the Old Testament and the use of accommodation and figurative language when the Bible speaks of God “changing his mind.” God changing his mind obviously does not mean the same as when contingencies force us to alter our plans on how we will spend the afternoon. Open Theism has read too much into this language in its denial of God’s omniscient foreknowledge (cf. 1 Sam 23:6-12, where God not only knows the future, but the outcome of a hypothetical event involving free human choices), but there is the equal danger of reading too little into this imagery as well. More than simply the language of appearance, the idea of God “relenting” expresses the extent to which God has entered into real relationships with his creatures. We are forced to reckon with a God who is both inside and outside of time and with the reality that there are things that will or will not happen in our world based upon our choices and decisions. The sovereign God has allowed for there to be flexibility in his decrees.
We clearly see the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom in the story of the plagues and the hardening of the Pharaoh’s heart in the book of Exodus. At first glance, we might feel sorry for the Pharaoh, as he unknowingly plays the role of marionette, compelled to bring about the destruction of his own kingdom for the enhancement of Yahweh’s glory. And yet, in his response to Aaron’s rod becoming a snake and six of the first seven plagues, it is Pharaoh who hardens his own heart (cf. Exod 7:13, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34). The divine sentence of hardening only comes as the appropriate punishment for the Pharaoh’s willful unbelief in the final plagues and the drowning of the Egyptian army in the sea (cf. Exod 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 17). The statements that Yahweh will harden the Pharaoh’s heart at the beginning of this process (cf. Exod 4:21; 7:3) are an expression that Yahweh’s purposes will ultimately prevail in this struggle but not that he dictates or determines the Pharaoh’s responses.
The idea of an all-determining God is especially problematic when considering the divine-human interplay as God uses the Assyrian and Babylonian armies as his instruments of judgment against Israel and Judah (Isa 10:5-6; Jer 21:3-7; 25:8-11; 27:6-7) but then punishes these nations for how they exceed his intentions (Isa 10:7-19; Jer 25:12-14; 50:29-32; 51:6-8). God will “hand over” Jerusalem to the Babylonians, but he appears to be hands-off in how the Babylonian army executes their siege and conquest. The Babylonians go beyond Yahweh’s explicit intentions, and Yahweh is “grieved” (nacham) over the disaster that befalls his people (Jer 42:10). This paradox is perplexing, and yet, as Mark Biddle has suggested, the prophets’ perspective on God’s involvement with these pagan armies provides a way forward in understanding and speaking of God’s continuing involvement in a sinful world. God was at work in the events of 9/11 and is at work in the Gaza Strip or on the streets of Baghdad despite the violent acts and injustices that he does not directly determine.
Biddle writes, “While God is perhaps the most powerful actor on the stage, the play is, to a degree, an improvisation. Whether by choice or necessity, God does not script every dialogue nor direct every gesture. Instead, God becomes involved in genuine relationships. The other actors are free to act as they will. . . . . God responds within the limitations established by the choices of God's partners.” God’s sovereignty is such that he controls all things without necessarily orchestrating every detail. His providence at times takes the form of the micromanaging the smallest details, like the trajectory of the enemy arrow that finds its way between the chinks of King Ahab’s armor in fulfillment of the prophetic word (1 Kgs 22:34). But, there are many other times when God’s providence takes the form of a more indirect or even laissez faire control. God allows the suffering of Job within prescribed boundaries, but it is the job of the Satan to determine the form and sequence of Job’s afflictions. Using the analogy of the Divine Chess Master, God controls the game not by directing every movement of the individual pieces but by controlling the outcome and winning the game no matter how the pieces might move. The ultimate triumph of God’s purposes without direct determination of every contingency only heightens the greatness of his wisdom and sovereignty.
Biddle again comments, “History is the dance between God and humanity—neither partner alone defines its movement. History is, therefore, often herky-jerky, complex, messy.” Only a truly sovereign and omniscient God could accomplish his purposes in such a world. The Bible is a messy book in its stubborn refusal to resolve the irreconcilable tensions between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Rather than forcing the Bible into our own ideological confines, we are better to live with the tensions and to allow the biblical text to speak for itself.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Violent God of the Old Testament
One of the ways that Christians today must “earnestly contend for the faith” is by defending the goodness and justice of the God of the Old Testament. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins has described the God of the OT as “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” The God of the OT commands the extermination of the Canaanites, puts Uzzah to death for touching the ark of the covenant, and responds to Elisha’s curse by having a bear maul 42 young boys who have dared to insult the follically-challenged prophet. Because of passages in the prophets where Yahweh punishes his unfaithful wife Israel with public exposure and degradation, feminist critics have depicted God as an abusive husband or a violent predator, the Divine Rapist.
Jeremiah 13:25-27: This is your lot, the portion I have measured out to you, declares the LORD, because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. 26 I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen. 27 I have seen your abominations, your adulteries and neighings, your lewd whorings, on the hills in the field. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! How long will it be before you are made clean?"
Ezekiel 16:35-40: "Therefore, O prostitute, hear the word of the LORD: 36 Thus says the Lord GOD, Because your lust was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your whorings with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children that you gave to them, 37 therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you hated. I will gather them against you from every side and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. 38 And I will judge you as women who commit adultery and shed blood are judged, and bring upon you the blood of wrath and jealousy. 39 And I will give you into their hands, and they shall throw down your vaulted chamber and break down your lofty places. They shall strip you of your clothes and take your beautiful jewels and leave you naked and bare. 40 They shall bring up a crowd against you, and they shall stone you and cut you to pieces with their swords.
Hosea 2:10: Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and no one shall rescue her out of my hand.
The Lord threatens the same type of judgment for the Assyrian inhabitants of Nineveh:
Nahum 3:5-7: Behold, I am against you, declares the LORD of hosts, and will lift up your skirts over your face; and I will make nations look at your nakedness and kingdoms at your shame. 6 I will throw filth at you and treat you with contempt and make you a spectacle. 7 And all who look at you will shrink from you and say, Wasted is Nineveh; who will grieve for her? Where shall I seek comforters for you?
Even taking Israel’s gross idolatry or Assyria’s violent brutality into consideration, the imagery in these passages is shocking and disturbing. How can we love and trust a God who inflicts this type of violence? Should we reject these passages as depicting a God inconsistent with the loving God of the New Testament?
As strange as it may sound, these violent images are an expression of divine mercy. The prophets generally announced to Israel and Judah what would happen if they did not change their ways. Unless God said otherwise, the die was not cast, and the fate of the people was not set in stone. The shocking imagery of the degraded woman was designed to motivate repentance so that the people might avoid the reality of what the metaphor depicted. If the people of Judah (especially the male leaders), in light of their understanding of these realities, can see themselves as the vulnerable woman about to suffer siege, rape, public exposure, and the loss of husband and children, then perhaps they will be motivated to change. While the prophet Nahum appears to speak of the unavoidable degradation of Daughter Nineveh, God had even sent the reluctant Jonah to warn the Assyrians that judgment was coming. The horrible destruction that befell Nineveh stands as a perpetual warning to all peoples who follow in her violent ways.
In her article, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Evangelical Concerns,” Robin Parry provides the helpful reminder that any biblical text only speaks authoritatively to the church when read in light of the larger canon of Scripture: “Classical Christian views of the Bible have seen divine authority mediated through the canon as a whole rather than its individual parts in isolation.” She adds that biblical texts “when incorporated within the canon, the way in which they are normative is modified by interactions with fellow texts. Thus any part of the Bible can only function normatively for the Church when seen within the context of the whole. Clearly, as the canon has grown and the plot line has moved on, the way in which different text function normatively changes.”
Canonical perspectives from both the OT and NT must inform a proper Christian reading of passages like Jeremiah 13:25-27. This terrible punishment is mandated by God, but executed by a foreign army (13:20-22). The prophets in general view Yahweh as the instigator and leader of the armies who attack Israel and Judah (cf. Isa 10:5-6; Jer 4:5-6; 21:3-7), but at the same time, hold these armies accountable for the manner in which they go beyond Yahweh’s intent to punish through their excessive violence and cruelty (Isa 10:7; Jer 50:11-13; Hab 2:15-17; Obad 15-16). The OT writers are generally not concerned to distinguish between God’s direct and indirect causation of events but are clear in affirming that Yahweh is not morally responsible or liable for the actions of sinful, wicked humans.
The prophets employ the metaphor of the ravaged woman for rhetorical impact, not as a prescript for the treatment of women. The OT reveals Yahweh as a God who has a special concern for oppressed and needy women (cf. Gen 21:14-19; Deut 10:18; Ps 146:9). Deuteronomic law limited Israel in its normal practice of warfare from acts of violence against non-combatants (Deut 20:13-15). A captive woman taken in battle was to be treated with dignity (Deut 21:10-14). In his judgment oracles against the nations surrounding Israel, the prophet Amos condemns the nations for their atrocities against each other (not just Israel) in war, particularly their abuse of women (cf. Amos 1:3, 6, 9-10, 13; 2:1). Nations who practice brutality will receive just recompense for their actions, the message behind the portrayal of Nineveh as a ravaged woman in Nahum 3:5-7 (cf. Nah 2:7-13; Hab 2:6-20). The lament and protest language of the OT and Yahweh’s own grief over the destruction of His people are testimony to the injustices of warfare and reflect the fact that the brutality of warfare is evidence of a world broken by sin (cf. Pss 44; 83; Lam 2:1-22; Jer 8:5; 9:7). The OT anticipates the future day of eschatological salvation on this earth when warfare and brutality will no longer exist (cf. Isa 2:1-4).
The female imagery in the prophets is ultimately restorative and testimony to Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness. The God who punishes His wayward wife is also the God who will forgive and restore her (Isa 50:1; 54:1-8; Ezek 16:60-63; Hos 2:14-15). Yahweh loves Israel with an “everlasting love” (Jer 31:2) and cannot bear to give up his wife (Hos 11:8), even when subjecting her to the worst forms of judgment. Jeremiah’s opening messages of judgment condemn Judah as a prostitute able to give lessons to the worst of women (Jer 2:20, 27; 3:6-11), but his message of hope is that Yahweh will restore “virgin Israel” to a place of glory and honor (31:4). Jeremiah envisions the future restoration as a time when “a woman will surround a man” (Jer 31:22; the JPS translates: “a woman will court a man”). Leslie Allen understands this verse to mean that the woman Isarel “would be empowered to show initiative as covenant partner.” She will be able to freely love and embrace Yahweh her husband.
The NT revelation of the person of God provides further canonical perspective on these OT texts portraying divine violence against female victims. As the incarnate Son, Jesus demonstrates the fullness of the Father’s love and his intense desire “to seek and to save the lost.” The extension of grace and forgiveness toward sinful women in the ministry of Jesus (cf. Luke 7:37-50; John 4:7-30; 8:3-11) complements the OT picture of Yahweh’s restoration of Daughter Zion and trumps the metaphor of the woman ravaged by divine judgment. In the incarnation, Jesus assumes the role of Divine Warrior, but wages war against spiritual (Satanic) rather than human enemies and emerges victorious in this conflict through his own suffering and death (cf. Col 2:13-15). Rather than the guilty woman being exposed and pelted with filth, Jesus endures the violence, abuse, and shame of the cross as he suffers for sinners. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ have inaugurated the new creation and transformed the gender relations reflected in the fallen order of ancient Israel’s patriarchy and androcentrism (Gal 3:28). The death of Jesus has propitiated divine wrath in a way (1 Jn 2:2) that has transformed God’s disposition toward humanity and delayed judgment so that sinners might repent and be spared from the final judgment.
Ultimately, the OT images of God’s judgment as the violent treatment of women are a reminder of the incarnational nature of Scripture. Incarnated in human form, God’s word did not fall out of the sky but met specific peoples and cultures where they lived. The portrayal of divine judgment as the corporal punishment of an adulterous wife or the violence inflicted upon women in war is a cultural and time-conditioned image, but yet even this fading image of the old order reflects the abiding truth of Yahweh’s righteous anger toward human sinfulness. The OT prophets remind us of the inconvenient truth that our God is a “consuming fire,” and we ignore this truth at our own peril.
Jeremiah 13:25-27: This is your lot, the portion I have measured out to you, declares the LORD, because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. 26 I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen. 27 I have seen your abominations, your adulteries and neighings, your lewd whorings, on the hills in the field. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! How long will it be before you are made clean?"
Ezekiel 16:35-40: "Therefore, O prostitute, hear the word of the LORD: 36 Thus says the Lord GOD, Because your lust was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your whorings with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children that you gave to them, 37 therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you hated. I will gather them against you from every side and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. 38 And I will judge you as women who commit adultery and shed blood are judged, and bring upon you the blood of wrath and jealousy. 39 And I will give you into their hands, and they shall throw down your vaulted chamber and break down your lofty places. They shall strip you of your clothes and take your beautiful jewels and leave you naked and bare. 40 They shall bring up a crowd against you, and they shall stone you and cut you to pieces with their swords.
Hosea 2:10: Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and no one shall rescue her out of my hand.
The Lord threatens the same type of judgment for the Assyrian inhabitants of Nineveh:
Nahum 3:5-7: Behold, I am against you, declares the LORD of hosts, and will lift up your skirts over your face; and I will make nations look at your nakedness and kingdoms at your shame. 6 I will throw filth at you and treat you with contempt and make you a spectacle. 7 And all who look at you will shrink from you and say, Wasted is Nineveh; who will grieve for her? Where shall I seek comforters for you?
Even taking Israel’s gross idolatry or Assyria’s violent brutality into consideration, the imagery in these passages is shocking and disturbing. How can we love and trust a God who inflicts this type of violence? Should we reject these passages as depicting a God inconsistent with the loving God of the New Testament?
As strange as it may sound, these violent images are an expression of divine mercy. The prophets generally announced to Israel and Judah what would happen if they did not change their ways. Unless God said otherwise, the die was not cast, and the fate of the people was not set in stone. The shocking imagery of the degraded woman was designed to motivate repentance so that the people might avoid the reality of what the metaphor depicted. If the people of Judah (especially the male leaders), in light of their understanding of these realities, can see themselves as the vulnerable woman about to suffer siege, rape, public exposure, and the loss of husband and children, then perhaps they will be motivated to change. While the prophet Nahum appears to speak of the unavoidable degradation of Daughter Nineveh, God had even sent the reluctant Jonah to warn the Assyrians that judgment was coming. The horrible destruction that befell Nineveh stands as a perpetual warning to all peoples who follow in her violent ways.
In her article, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Evangelical Concerns,” Robin Parry provides the helpful reminder that any biblical text only speaks authoritatively to the church when read in light of the larger canon of Scripture: “Classical Christian views of the Bible have seen divine authority mediated through the canon as a whole rather than its individual parts in isolation.” She adds that biblical texts “when incorporated within the canon, the way in which they are normative is modified by interactions with fellow texts. Thus any part of the Bible can only function normatively for the Church when seen within the context of the whole. Clearly, as the canon has grown and the plot line has moved on, the way in which different text function normatively changes.”
Canonical perspectives from both the OT and NT must inform a proper Christian reading of passages like Jeremiah 13:25-27. This terrible punishment is mandated by God, but executed by a foreign army (13:20-22). The prophets in general view Yahweh as the instigator and leader of the armies who attack Israel and Judah (cf. Isa 10:5-6; Jer 4:5-6; 21:3-7), but at the same time, hold these armies accountable for the manner in which they go beyond Yahweh’s intent to punish through their excessive violence and cruelty (Isa 10:7; Jer 50:11-13; Hab 2:15-17; Obad 15-16). The OT writers are generally not concerned to distinguish between God’s direct and indirect causation of events but are clear in affirming that Yahweh is not morally responsible or liable for the actions of sinful, wicked humans.
The prophets employ the metaphor of the ravaged woman for rhetorical impact, not as a prescript for the treatment of women. The OT reveals Yahweh as a God who has a special concern for oppressed and needy women (cf. Gen 21:14-19; Deut 10:18; Ps 146:9). Deuteronomic law limited Israel in its normal practice of warfare from acts of violence against non-combatants (Deut 20:13-15). A captive woman taken in battle was to be treated with dignity (Deut 21:10-14). In his judgment oracles against the nations surrounding Israel, the prophet Amos condemns the nations for their atrocities against each other (not just Israel) in war, particularly their abuse of women (cf. Amos 1:3, 6, 9-10, 13; 2:1). Nations who practice brutality will receive just recompense for their actions, the message behind the portrayal of Nineveh as a ravaged woman in Nahum 3:5-7 (cf. Nah 2:7-13; Hab 2:6-20). The lament and protest language of the OT and Yahweh’s own grief over the destruction of His people are testimony to the injustices of warfare and reflect the fact that the brutality of warfare is evidence of a world broken by sin (cf. Pss 44; 83; Lam 2:1-22; Jer 8:5; 9:7). The OT anticipates the future day of eschatological salvation on this earth when warfare and brutality will no longer exist (cf. Isa 2:1-4).
The female imagery in the prophets is ultimately restorative and testimony to Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness. The God who punishes His wayward wife is also the God who will forgive and restore her (Isa 50:1; 54:1-8; Ezek 16:60-63; Hos 2:14-15). Yahweh loves Israel with an “everlasting love” (Jer 31:2) and cannot bear to give up his wife (Hos 11:8), even when subjecting her to the worst forms of judgment. Jeremiah’s opening messages of judgment condemn Judah as a prostitute able to give lessons to the worst of women (Jer 2:20, 27; 3:6-11), but his message of hope is that Yahweh will restore “virgin Israel” to a place of glory and honor (31:4). Jeremiah envisions the future restoration as a time when “a woman will surround a man” (Jer 31:22; the JPS translates: “a woman will court a man”). Leslie Allen understands this verse to mean that the woman Isarel “would be empowered to show initiative as covenant partner.” She will be able to freely love and embrace Yahweh her husband.
The NT revelation of the person of God provides further canonical perspective on these OT texts portraying divine violence against female victims. As the incarnate Son, Jesus demonstrates the fullness of the Father’s love and his intense desire “to seek and to save the lost.” The extension of grace and forgiveness toward sinful women in the ministry of Jesus (cf. Luke 7:37-50; John 4:7-30; 8:3-11) complements the OT picture of Yahweh’s restoration of Daughter Zion and trumps the metaphor of the woman ravaged by divine judgment. In the incarnation, Jesus assumes the role of Divine Warrior, but wages war against spiritual (Satanic) rather than human enemies and emerges victorious in this conflict through his own suffering and death (cf. Col 2:13-15). Rather than the guilty woman being exposed and pelted with filth, Jesus endures the violence, abuse, and shame of the cross as he suffers for sinners. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ have inaugurated the new creation and transformed the gender relations reflected in the fallen order of ancient Israel’s patriarchy and androcentrism (Gal 3:28). The death of Jesus has propitiated divine wrath in a way (1 Jn 2:2) that has transformed God’s disposition toward humanity and delayed judgment so that sinners might repent and be spared from the final judgment.
Ultimately, the OT images of God’s judgment as the violent treatment of women are a reminder of the incarnational nature of Scripture. Incarnated in human form, God’s word did not fall out of the sky but met specific peoples and cultures where they lived. The portrayal of divine judgment as the corporal punishment of an adulterous wife or the violence inflicted upon women in war is a cultural and time-conditioned image, but yet even this fading image of the old order reflects the abiding truth of Yahweh’s righteous anger toward human sinfulness. The OT prophets remind us of the inconvenient truth that our God is a “consuming fire,” and we ignore this truth at our own peril.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)