Currents of Divine Violence through the Old and New Testaments
God's doing what he's knows is the right thing, assuming that he has a better grasp on the knolwedge of good and evil than we do, and we should stick to sinful and not sinful.
I'm going to jump off from this comment and attempt to defend the idea that divine violence can be seen as a just practice consistent with God's character throughout Scripture.
I would say that liberalish North Americans (which probably includes everyone reading this) typically see violence as an inherently bad thing. This is natural for us, because we have witnessed it or experienced it in situations such as the Holocaust, the USA's ill-conceived invasion of Iraq, child abuse, slavery, September 11, suicide bombs in Israel and Iraq, KKK lynchings, police brutality, Europeans' removal/extermination of Native Americans, the Vietnam Conflict, and ongoing wars and genocide around the globe.
We can think of few instances where most everyone would agree that widespread violence was justifed, the easiest of which is the Allies' efforts to overthrow the Third Reich.
The Bible, on the other hand, often describes violence as being divinely ordained and therefore (at times) good, if regrettable. Just six chapters into the Old Testament, we see God's destruction of almost every person alive along with most of the animals, in the flood story. The theme continues with the plagues on Egypt, the conquest of Canaan (which involved wiping out men, women, and children), and the destruction and exile of Israel, then Judah.
(A quick note: for anyone skeptical of a religious group that claims God is always on their side, note that in the exile God specifically used violence against Israel. I would argue that this shows his concern was justice, not victory.)
One Christian response to this violence is to claim that things changed under Christ. True, we might say, the OT describes horrific acts, and maybe we don't know what to make of all that, but the important thing is that Christ has shown us God's true nature as a God of peace and love.
I think that biblically, this claim that divine violence died with Christ is partly right and partly dead wrong. Jesus' teachings on loving one's enemy and turning the other cheek are well-known, so I won't repeat them (check out the Gospel of Luke 6:27-36 if you've never read it). The problem is, the New Testament affirms its share of violence as well. God strikes dead Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), then Herod (Acts 12:23); Matthew apparently believes that God brings about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matt 22:5-7; 23:35-38); Paul warns the Corinthians that God is striking them with illnesses to teach them not to mistreat the poor in their assemblies (1Cor 11:29-32); and then we have the bowls of God's wrath poured out upon the world in Revelation.
Now, I'm not in favor of force-reconciling Scriptures that claim different things, but in this case I actually see a clear consistency in God's character throughout the Bible.
Looking back at the OT passages, I think it's significant that the ones I have mentioned are all specifically described as acts of divine justice against human wickedness. At the time of the flood, "every inclination of the thoughts of [humanity's] heart was only evil all the time" (Gen 6:5); the plagues are called "mighty acts of judgment" against Egypt (Ex 6:6); God implies to Abraham that his descendants will destroy the inhabitants of Canaan because of their sin (Gen 15:16); God tells Jeremiah when the destruction of Jerusalem is imminent, "Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, look around and take note! Search its squares and see if you can find one person who acts justly and seeks truth––so that I may pardon Jerusalem" (Jer 5:1).
The NT passages mentioned above, like the OT passages, all clearly indicate the human sinfulness that is being punished.
But here's the difference in the NT: humans no longer are commanded to carry out God's divine violence; that prerogative is reserved for God. God has established a new covenant, under which we no longer carry out his acts of violence for him. Consequently, I think Jesus' words show us not something about the nature of violence in the eyes of God, but rather a new way for humans to act.
The implication, as I see it, is that God considered, and still considers, widespread violence to be a legitimate act of justice in response to human wickedness. Under his covenant with Israel, he called on his people to carry out that violence. In Christ, he calls believers to renounce violence and allow him to avenge wrongdoing in his time.
So under Christ, violence is sinful, but not inherently evil. Oddly enough, this lengthy defense of the integrity of divine violence has landed me, as a human, somewhere near the camp of the pacifists.
25 comments:
So maybe 9/11 really was God punishing the US.
Hopefully, I can return with a constructive comment later.
I'm not so good at expressing things so I'll just ask some quick questions.
Does it become a sin then to act in a way that is going against what God is bringing about? For example, take God supposedly using the Romans to destroy the temple. What if some act of war or genocide today is God bringing about divine justice. Would a person calling for peace in such a situation be in the wrong?
Would you say that nothing is inherently bad, but only right or wrong in that God says so? I guess this goes back to: is something right just because God does it, or does God have to live according to standards?
If one views these actions ascribed to God as wrong, what reason would one have to “follow” or “worship” God besides maybe an attempt to attain something (heaven) for oneself.
I don't think attempting to bring about peace in a situation where, as an assumption, God is trying to engage in divine justice through some violent means is sinful. Notice, I again refrain from using the word wrong, because right/wrong and good/evil are something beyond purely human comprehension. We have examples of Abraham pleading with God for the sake of Lot's life. It comes down, again, I think to perspective. If a person is willing to attempt to try and show mercy to group A, group A being the target of some rather nasty imminent divine intervention, and God allows this mercy to be shown, I'm assuming its because now an act of a person (willfully) to let God operate through him and to intervene in a different way in group A brings about the oppurtunity to bring about a change in group A rather than eliminating them.
Here's an interesting point which I think goes to the crux of this matter. It is the very nature of God's personhood. Is it right because God does it, or does God have to live according to standards? God is not an abstract set of rules. God is Ruler in person. And has, of course, a God's eye view of all the comings and goings of earth, people on it, and other invisible things which we cannot immediately percieve. Not only this, but he has a view of, at the very least, all of history, including the purpose for which all things were created, and I would say even the culmination of all things. So, rather than God solely as an abstract standard of right and wrong, God is a person with an objective, which I cannot claim to understand or comprehend. Think of it all in terms of the movie Powers of Ten, by Charles and Ray Eames, but with God as the ultimate limit to which we can back up our perspective. It is that perspective, coupled with what we must believe to be God's inherent goodness, that makes what he says right, rather than making him a standard to himself. We see this in scripture. Jesus speaks of God as the Father, and in terms of our interaciton with the Father and the Son, it is often described as a knowing. Virtually, if not actually, all refferences to the divine and the divine's interaction with humanity is in relational terms. Not in terms of following a codified set of rules. It is easy to think of God in purely rational and logical terms. But I don't think this is the case. What if God changes his mind? We see this happen with Joseph. God tells Joseph to go somewhere, but later changes his course and tells him to go to a different place. Why? who knows why things happened that exact we, we can't, we don't have divine perspective. And so, it would seem that things do only become right and wrong because God says so. And we develop an ability to discern this through developing a relationship with God, through knowing him. what "reason woudl ne have to 'follow' or 'worship' God..."? Well, historicaly we have the crucifixion, the resurrection, various miracles....but presently we have is involvement in our lives, becuase we know him as good through development of a relationship with him, perhaps because he loves us. Again, this isn't all about if X, then Y. Its not about, if I worship God, appease this ever distant entity, I will attain a reward. We're even told that, to do this, cry out Lord Lord, just isn't enough. We'll be told "I didn't know you." And here it is again, that relationship refference, a knowing. So, do we follow, do we worship? No. We have to know. And the reason for that relationship is because in getting to know God, we get to know that he is good. An element of trust is inherintley involved here. We will never be certain of anything in a logical and scientific way. But you may be as certain of God as you are that your most trusted freind will do for you what he or she says they will.
ps: 9/11 was the bringing about of violence by people, and by the premise of this entry, not therefore divine violence.
Anonymous--thank you for your comments; please let us know your first name at least, if you don't mind.
As to Connor's question:
Would you say that nothing is inherently bad, but only right or wrong in that God says so?
In my post, I tried to argue that Scripture says God's violence is actually just, by which I hoped to kind of avoid this question; but, I agree it's a fair question.
A good example of the ambiguity of the whole situation is Romans 9. Paul is defending God's election of Jacob over Esau as just, but he seems instead to show God unjust by noting that God raised Pharaoh up in order to destroy him. To a possible objector who might ask how that is just, Paul replies, "Who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, 'Why have you made me like this?'" (Rom 9:20).
Does Paul mean that God is just because he has made the world and therefore can do whatever he wants with it?
In a sense, I would say yes, Paul does think (in God's case) that "might makes right," or at least that being the creator has its prerogatives. But more important is how God actually uses this prerogative. Paul goes on to say: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory––including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" (Rom 9:22-24).
Paul's claim, then, is that God shows more patience and mercy to everyone than any of us deserve. If that's how God is going to use his right to do whatever he wants, then we presumably should find that kind of rule very palatable. The fact that we can trust God (as anonymous notes) is what makes the whole situation right, rather than dreadfully wrong.
This is not attractive for moderns who believe in democracy and personal rights. Americans believe slavery is wrong because we can't imagine a just human master; but Christians believe we are slaves to God. Americans believe despotism is wrong because human despots inevitably misuse their power; but Christians place ourselves under the lordship of Christ.
I would argue that despotism is not a bad thing if the ruler rules justly, and in love. God is the only one we can trust to do so. I think that's actually central to the Christian faith; it's what allows us to say "Jesus is Lord" with boldness rather than with a disclaimer.
So the question is whether we can accept the God described in Scripture as just and loving. I realize that many people don't think they can. Personally, I'm willing to accept that that's God and that he's trustworthy, which is why I can feel confident worshipping God (even with all the violent things he has done) in light of Connor's questions.
May I request to remain anonymous in all senses of the word? Unfortunately, you have a classmate whose regaling I fear should I reveal even the slightest information on my identity. Can we agree on a psuedonym for the sake of continuity? How about johanus.
So the question is whether we can accept the God described in Scripture as just and loving.
The problem for me here is that in life and relationships we judge things/ideas/people to be just, unjust, loving, etc. based on something. To say God is just or loving without a standard or reason seems meaningless. I guess the whole trust/faith aspect could come into play at this point.
Secondly, what does it mean to say that God is trustworthy? What are we trusting in?
Add-on to last comment:
To say God is just or loving without a standard or reason seems meaningless.
A possible reason is that God says he is just. Not very palatable but it is a reason.
Scoots said:
Under his covenant with Israel, he called on his people to carry out that violence. In Christ, he calls believers to renounce violence and allow him to avenge wrongdoing in his time.
This just seems to be a pretty drastic about-face. It doesn't entirely discredit your interpretation, of course, but it makes it pretty hard to swallow.
Lemme think about it a bit.
Also, can we use "Johannes" instead of "johanus"? Something about the rear end of that name is a bit disagreeable.
Sury, anonymous, a pseudonym sounds great, however you wish to spell it.
Johannes says:
Johannes it is. No more time to comment right now, studying for a rather large test.
Oh well, I'll just post 'em as I think of 'em.
Johannes says:
Notice, I again refrain from using the word wrong, because right/wrong and good/evil are something beyond purely human comprehension.
Discarding the words "right", "wrong", "good" and "evil" seems like a bad idea. Our vocabulary contains these words for a reason, and I think the reason is that there's a universal sense that some things are good (beautiful, life-giving, and whatever else that entails), and some things are evil (corrupt, life-destroying, etc). To reserve understanding of good and evil for God alone disregards that moral sense, and may also disregard the biblical theme of moral responsibility. (They shall become like us, knowing good and evil?)
In other words, if God's acts are always by definition good, there's no grounds for trust, or faith, or whatever. There's no way to tell whether God's claims to be a "good god" are legitimate, or crafty bits of halo-polishing. Why follow the God of the bible? Why not the god of Scientology? Or why not throw in with the Satanists, who claim that Satan is the true God, and this other god is a trickster, and the real Satan? You can't claim that one should choose to follow the "good" God ... because good is whatever God does, right?
Scoots said:
So the question is whether we can accept the God described in Scripture as just and loving. I realize that many people don't think they can.
Another option is to take with a grain of salt the parts of the Bible that seem antithetical to the goodness of God.
For example: the Bible claims that God is a loving and just God. This theme seems to arc across all of scripture. But there are certain scriptures that bring this goodness and lovingness into question.
In this case, I think the right thing to do is to shelve those scriptures as questionable. So we might say something like: "Suuure, author of Joshua, God could have zapped the bad guys with instant death, but instead God said you should take your swords and hack to death all those moms and dads and babies. (It's awfully convenient, by the way, that God said not to hack up the virgins.) But anyway, because that seems to run contrary to all the other things I'm hearing about God ... particularly the things that Jesus is saying about God ... I'm gonna choose to overlook your bit of hebrew jingoism, and see if I can't find some bits of truth in this inspired scripture."
Or: "Suuure, author of Genesis. I've noticed that your creation account doesn't jive with modern science, and there isn't much evidence for a global flood. And by the way, God surely could have zapped all those bad people instead of making all of them suffer death by drowning. But because I believe that we have Genesis for a purpose, I'm going to assume that the purpose isn't to tell us that we have a God of infantcide or torture, and I'll keep looking for what the real point might be."
In general, I think we should expect *more* of God than we do of people, not less. And instead of attempting an OT-NT about-face, it's probably simpler to just acknowledge the human element in the authoring of scripture, and try to look around it to the revelation that we hope to see.
Johannes says:
matthew, I don't advocate for eliminating words like good/bad and right/wrong from our vocabulary. My point is that we can't use our concepts of right and wrong to judge God. I don't think that there are any universal senses of what is right and wrong in the sense that I think you use it. Many muslim middle-easterners think it is good/beautiful to engage in self-flagulation as a means of penatence, a practice they inherited from 13th century christian european knights. I certainly don't think thats a good/beautiful thing. There are some african tribes where to not abuse your wife is an insult against her. It's viewed as good in many places in India and Pakistan to involve yourself in vengence killings, burning your own daughter alive or stabbing her to death for bringing shame to your family. If there is any uniform sense of right and wrong, I think it comes either in a cultural context, or straignt from God's effect on our lives, from which I think the former borrows. That being said, our concepts of right and wrong ultimately coming from God, and ourselves being imperfect and less experienced, we shouldn't use our shadowy understanding of them to judge the Giver. I agree that we have a responsibility, morally, to abide by the "standards" God has set. But we get to know the standards better by knowing God, not by learning a code of statutes. Because God is the personification of the standard, so to speak. So, faced with a direct mandate from God (Abraham, go kill your firstborn), we shouldn't use our own moral judgement (God, I refuse to do what you say, because it's wrong). We must defer to him even when it seems to fly in the face of our own moral convictions. The reason being that God sees all ends, where we simply do not.
As far as trust is concerned, I think it builds a greater base for trust, rather than being the cause of its demise. If we had a objective, verifiable reason to point to with which to say, "God is good" or "God is trustworthy," the need for trust disappears altogether. Rather, we are left with our experiences, with stories, with the opportunity to get to know God, to experience him in a real way, tangibly rather than academicaly or logicaly, what he keeps asking us to do. Blessed is he who has not seen but believed (to paraphrase). Thus, contrary to what you suggest, we don't follow the "good god" becuase he says he's good and that's just what he is. We follow the good God becuase we know him, or we get to, and he's told us so many wonderful things so we that we give him a chance, and then we get to trusting him. We don't trust him because he is trustworthy, he is trustworthy, therefore we come to trust him. How to get to that point of acceptance, I leave to the apologists, outside the fact that all believers should be trying to bring everyone else to that point, whether by volition or acquiesence.
Johannes said:
matthew, I don't advocate for eliminating words like good/bad and right/wrong from our vocabulary.
So, using your definition, when would a person be justified in calling something "good"?
Many muslim middle-easterners think it is good/beautiful to engage in self-flagulation [sic]...
I'm not convinced that this is true of "many" people. On the other hand, I *am* convinced that a person's understanding of good and evil can be somewhat twisted by his upbringing, or his culture, or whatever. But by and large, it seems that people can agree on what's good and what's not ... for example, I expect that most people are appalled by vengeance killings. In my opinion, knowing the good is not the problem ... doing the good is the problem.
If we had a objective, verifiable reason to point to with which to say, "God is good" or "God is trustworthy," the need for trust disappears altogether.
I don't see how, unless this bit of evidence could be expected to apply in every situation. God may have delivered Israel, but knowing that doesn't work some magic that forces me to believe that God will deliver me. I like your argument that we follow God because our experience of God has shown God's goodness, but that sword cuts both ways. And as I am a bit of an apologist (even if my audience is only myself), the issue of showing God's goodness to outsiders is something I can't just leave to a specialist.
All the talk about experiencing and knowing God through relation with God has reminded me of something. The reason that I don't believe that God called upon the Israelites to wipe out whole nations is because of my experience of God. Of course others experience has led them to believe that God did command the killings. Crazy and confusing. In the end I don't even think I have a choice to decide one way or the other, I just believe the way I do.
Maybe God needs to make it clear; more Ananias and Sapphira scenarios at church might clear things up as well as scare the crap of churchgoers.
Johannes says:
Matthew, sorry for the....typo?
By "leaving it to the apologists" I simply mean the logical arguments of how to do so. If you continue to read, I do send out the call to all to act in an appropriate way.
As far as the sword cutting both ways, that's absolutely correct. But it can't work any other way. You'll never come up with some system of evangelism that is 100% certain to convince a person of the goodness of God without a personal and conscious choice on thier part. There will always be an element of doubt which we have to chalk up to almighty intervention, so to speak.
I've always thought that the surest sign that we've invented God is that we understand and agree with everything he does. Persons with personalities aren't so transparent. All that said, we may indeed be stuck at what Connor says, that we all just believe what we do.
But what I'm trying to argue is that the God whom most Christians have experienced is actually consistent with the violent God of the OT. In any event, I'll keep trying.
Matt: interesting (and appealing) point about taking the OT with a grain of salt, but I'm not sure it fixes the problem.
If Israel really killed all those people, but God didn't want them to, surely the OT witness that affirms the killing is wicked, and we would expect God to have prevented it from being told that way.
If Israel didn't really kill all those people, then we would expect that the stories are at least theologically true, in the sense that those people deserved to be wiped out, even if God didn't do it.
But isn't character what one actually does? What does it mean to say something like, "God's justice demands punishment" if God never actually punishes anyone? That God has no spine? We could say that God's mercy totally negates his judgment (not unlike what Paul says in Romans 9), but then why wouldn't Scripture have just said that all along if it were true all along?
I should note, these aren't a couple of isolated stories of violence. Even aside from all the stories in Joshua and elsewhere, divinely-sanctioned violence and even genocide are a major part of the theology of Deuteronomy and all the historical books, if memory serves me correctly. And the prophets consistently claimed that God would use violence to punish Israel; what are we to make of their theologies if God would not do such a thing? Why should we believe anything else the OT says about God at all ?
And finally, if the stories are neither historically nor theologically true, then we have a tough time explaining our Bible as anything but offensive fiction.
Johannes, a quick point of logistics: if you choose "other" instead of "anonymous," you can enter your pseudonym in the name field (and leave the web page field blank) and still remain anonymous. Then you get your "name" in bold.
Scoots said:
surely the OT witness that affirms the killing is wicked, and we would expect God to have prevented it from being told that way.
Why? God's allowed other errors into the scriptures, why not that one?
If Israel didn't really kill all those people, then we would expect that the stories are at least theologically true, in the sense that those people deserved to be wiped out, even if God didn't do it.
Why? (I mean, why should we expect everything in the Bible to be even theologically true?)
divinely-sanctioned violence and even genocide are a major part of the theology of Deuteronomy and all the historical books, if memory serves me correctly.
Nod, I think you're probably right. But at the same time, I think it would be regrettable to discard the OT as simply a bunch of offensive stories. Because even with stories in which people attribute their own genocidal leanings to God, and with stories in which people explain their feeling of abandonment by God by calling it "God's punishment", there is still a lot of mercy in the OT too.
In general, I suppose I just begin with the axiom "God is love" and then try to look through that lens as I read scripture. I'm open to the possibility of someone showing me that, indeed, ordering genocide is something that could be done by a God of love. But until then, I think I'm more comfortable with the proposition that the OT is just wrong about some things, and that we see God most clearly revealed in Jesus. In fact, maybe part of the redemption of Christ is his redeeming our understanding of God.
So to go on, I'm wondering: What's at stake? What do we lose if we choose this approach? What do we gain? And what do we lose and gain if we choose to accept God as being a god of genocide and violence?
Matthew said: Why? God's allowed other errors into the scriptures, why not that one?
and
Why? (I mean, why should we expect everything in the Bible to be even theologically true?)
Friend Responds:
For the word "error" to have meaning, a standard for perfection must be defined. What was God's standard for the Bible, that would give error, in that context, meaning?
A standard for perfection might also be expressed as a goal (of the Bible.) If God had a certain goal for his Word, and that goal was / is being achieved, one might say there is no flaw. It's only when the definer of goals and standards fails his goals and standards that he is rightly impugned.
And then, what specific error have you found that "God let in." Are you certain it's an error? Have you ever known someone to find fault, but in fact the fault was a lack of rightly considering all relevant information and reason?
I have heard that it's possible for someone to have an erroneous standard for the Bible, and thus find errors in places where God himself might not.
Assigning "error" without qualification and definition, can be erroneous itself.
I am eager to hear about the errors you have found and the standards in which they are premised.
Love,
Friend
Somebody's friend said:
I am eager to hear about the errors you have found and the standards in which they are premised.
Well, OK. Let's enumerate the possibilities of what I might mean by "error":
Internal Inconsistencies
Factual Errors
Questionable Cosmology
Questionable Biology
Questionable Theology
Have I missed any? Probably.
Now let's see if we can find any examples of those in the Bible. (This list will not be comprehensive.)
Internal Inconsistencies
2 Kings 8:26 - "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Chronicles 22:2 - "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
James 1:13 - "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Gen 22:1 - "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."
As well as any number of other scriptures, including ones that give contradictory numbers in the Ezra and Nehemiah censuses, claims about there being no "male or female" in Christ coupled with misogynistic ecclesiology and theology (saved through childbearing!?), claims about whether God punishes the children for the sins of the fathers, whether anyone has seen God, etc. etc.
Factual Errors
Jesus says the Kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed ("the smallest of the seeds") that grows into a tree. Problem is, other seeds are smaller than the mustard seed, and mustard doesn't grow on trees. Maybe this should go under Questionable Biology.
Leviticus 11:6 says that rabbits chew cud. They don't. Maybe this goes under Biology too.
Luke says that the census being taken when Jesus was born was the first census taken when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. But Quirinius wasn't the governor of Syria until AD 6-7, (when, incidentally, the first known Roman census in Palestine was taken), and the chronology of other events becomes a problem if Jesus was born this late.
Questionable Cosmology
First, it doesn't much look like the universe was created in 7 days. It appears to be billions of years old.
Also, several scriptures suggest a earth-centered cosmology, where you have heaven above, sheol beneath and the earth in between. Joshua making the sun stand still, for example. We're pretty sure that this cosmology is inaccurate.
Questionable Biology
Basically, it doesn't look like all the animals were poofed into existence. Apparently, this evolution thing has been going on for quite a while.
You can tack on the biological errors mentioned above.
Questionable Theology
This, of course, is the real question. We don't expect the Bible to be entirely accurate about cosmology or biology, but it sure would be nice if every thing it said about God were accurate. Problem is, even without the moral issues we've been discussing, contradictions in the scriptures make this highly unlikely. Add on the scriptures that seem to make God responsible for genocide and slavery, and you have a real problem.
(For a contradiction example, take the passage in James mentioned earlier. Does God tempt people, or not?)
My solution to these problems is to back off the claims of biblical innerancy. Do you have a different solution?
I have heard that it's possible for someone to have an erroneous standard for the Bible, and thus find errors in places where God himself might not.
In my experience, it's inerrantists that most often set an erroneous standard for the Bible. Their idea that God's word must be perfect leads them to find every way possible to say that each "seeming" contradiction isn't really a contradiction.
And yet, that's a standard which humans impose on Scripture. If we actually go to Scripture and find contradictions there, it seems to me the most faithful response as believers is to reflect on why God gave us a book with contradictions, not to go to (sometimes absurd) means to prove that they aren't really contradictions after all.
Ahhh, the old "God doesn't tempteth" but "temptethed Abraham." A worthy challenge to Scripture, to be sure. Hard to get around that one I'd say, while still maintaining a semblance of integrity about the Bible.
Though daunted, after 3 minutes of research, it turns out that this challenge about the word "tempt" is not entirely dissimilar from a complete distortion, as if someone went out of their way to quote a verse from an obviated version (the KJV) without any reference at all to the 99.9% of all the other versions (11 sampled so far, but could sample more) that show this for a charade of little significance.
Only the King James version uses the word "tempt" in Gen 22:1. Every other version that I could lay my hands on uses the word "test" in Genesis 22.1. God tests people all the time - nothing wrong with that I suppose.
Of course, all these other translations rendered "test" in all these other versions are not very supportive of your assertion. I must say I'm a bit nonplussed as well, because I thought your arguments came on strong at first too.
Is the King James the version you use the most? That would explain it. Otherwise it could possibly come off as just convenient to the argument for "Error in Scripture" to find an obviated section of an antiquated version that by all accounts is not the best reflection of the extant manuscripts.
KJV Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
NAS Genesis 22:1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
NAU Genesis 22:1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
NET Genesis 22:1 Some time after these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am!" Abraham replied.
NIB Genesis 22:1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.
NIV Genesis 22:1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.
NJB Genesis 22:1 It happened some time later that God put Abraham to the test. 'Abraham, Abraham!' he called. 'Here I am,' he replied.
NKJ Genesis 22:1 Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
NRS Genesis 22:1 After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
RSV Genesis 22:1 After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."
YLT Genesis 22:1 And it cometh to pass after these things that God hath tried Abraham, and saith unto him, 'Abraham;' and he saith, 'Here am I.'
A little lexical etymology:
Tempt/test
05254> hs'n" (nasah) (650a)
Meaning: to test, try
Origin: a prim. root
Usage: make a test(1), prove(1), put to the test(3), tempted(3), test(12), tested(9), testing(3), tried(1), try(1), venture(1), ventures(1).
Maybe the Bible does have error, but some say that the Mustard Seed and Tempteth challenges are cliche and all too reminiscent of other worn and weary challenges that are, forensically and logically speaking, weak and ineffectual in proving biblical error.
I'm all for stoning the adulteress with you, but let's be certain she committed adultery before picking out our rocks...is all I'm saying. Just because a girl is called loose, doesn't mean it's true, even if someone says, "It's the guys who insist on her virtue that are the problem."
I don't insist that the canon we call the Bible is perfect. I just haven't, as of yet, been given something that challenges the notion beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is not exactly an obscure standard for guilt.
-----
You seem bright enough to have figured out a little etymology of the word "tempt." And if you took the time to pose the question as a challenge to the integrity of Scripture, I would imagine you also took the time to make sure your assertion had integrity, that it passed the elementary self cross examination that anyone gives an accusation before it's pronounced and published?
And knowing you to be one of integrity, you undoubtedly found that the word for tempt in Hebrew has a variety of meanings? Or at least that some very reputable Bible translations (eg. most ALL OF THEM except the KJV) translate the Hebrew word as "test?"
And yet here it is, posted in an open forum, as a real challenge.
Okay - 0 for 1 so far. Let's look at another Bible breaker :) The Mustard seed conundrum:
Matthew 13:32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."
Jesus wasn't talking about plants that the Chinese plant in their Gardens, yes? He was talking about the plants his audience planted in their gardens I suspect.
Considering this, I am very impressed that you have excavated, found and read the ancient scrolls about Jewish gardening, and probably, from the sound of it, been to Jerusalem in a time machine to know what the average Jewish garden contained. Can you list their favorites here, so we can know which of the ancient Jewish garden seeds was smaller than the mustard seed? Surely you can at least give me a short list?
------- 0 for 2 it looks like. That is, unless our host cares to consider these defenses "absurd."
Before some of the others are addressed, why not factor in some background info on this debate:
God has powerful enemies, one so powerful that he leads the whole world astray:
Revelation 20:7-8 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations
Revelation 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down-- that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.
1 John 5:19 the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
-----
So every person crying "Error, error!" may not be acting alone, much less accurately.
One of the main themes of the Bible is "Children of light and children of darkness." Do children of darkness always have an awareness of their state? Additionally, even good men like Peter are possessed by Satan. If Peter could be sifted and try to misguide Jesus into not going to the cross, to which Jesus responded, "Out of my sight Satan!" couldn't we be susceptible to seeing errors where they do not exist?
Let's pose another possibility, which apparently is thought of as absurd by most of academia: What if Scripture really is perfect, but we just can't see it? Is this possible? Think of how many sins and flaws they found in Jesus, enough to crucify him as a common criminal. If TRUTH INCARNATE WAS CRUCIFIED for "error and lies," then how much more could humans fail to see perfection in Scripture, if it were (hold your involuntary shudders)...perfect?
God's Word and it's transmission is probably flawed...knowing God...but what if God got this one right? Is it a guarantee we would see it?
Love,
Friend
Someone's friend said:
I don't insist that the canon we call the Bible is perfect. I just haven't, as of yet, been given something that challenges the notion beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is not exactly an obscure standard for guilt.
Actually, it is a fairly obscure standard for guilt, one we only employ when considering the most serious crimes, and the most irreversible punishments. Error, in my mind, should not be categorized as a serious crime. You say that you don't insist that the canon is perfect, but you go on to suggest that the canon may be perfect beyond our ability to perceive it as perfect. So I'm not really certain anymore: do we agree that the Bible contains errors, or not?
And if you took the time to pose the question [about God tempting people] as a challenge to the integrity of Scripture, I would imagine you also took the time to make sure your assertion had integrity, that it passed the elementary self cross examination that anyone gives an accusation before it's pronounced and published?
Yes, although we probably have differing standards for the degree of research that is appropriate for comments on a blog.
The word study you provide is interesting, but it doesn't affect my argument at all, for at least two reasons:
1. The problem with "tempt" extends beyond a simple battle of word vs. word, and points to broader contradictions in the text. James says God doesn't tempt anyone, and regardless of how modern translations interpret the Hebrew, God's instructions to Abraham about Isaac sound a lot like tempting, and furthermore, other incidents involving King Saul and Pharaoh indicate that God encourages people to rebel. I pointed to these two passages in the KJV because they succinctly pose the problem, but also notice that I mention other contradictions in the text, both simple numeric contradictions (Ahaziah and the censuses in Ezra and Nehemiah) and broader theological contradictions (does God punish the children for the sins of the fathers, or not?).
2. If the KJV's translation of "tempt" is incorrect, that simply proves my point.
Regardless, this sort of argument is silly. If you can't accept that there are simple contradictions that call into question the overall accuracy of the text, then I'm not going to be able to convince you. Ahaziah's ages and the numbers in the censuses are flat-out numerical comparisons, and unless Satan is somehow clouding our ability to compare two numbers for equality, they represent a plain contradiction in the text, which means one of the two numbers must be wrong.
In practice, I think that most of us say "no big deal" to these conflicts, and also to conflicts about things like the size of mustard seeds. We expect the Bible to be about God, not about biology, and so we try not to expect to extract absolute biological truths from the book of Matthew.
But - and this was my question for Scoots - I think we diverge regarding whether the Bible contains errors in theology. I think that given other errors in the text, and the fickleness of human writers, and apparent theological contradictions in the text, it's natural to assume that the Bible should contain some errors in theology. On the other hand, I suspect Scoots thinks that the Bible is entirely theologically true. So my earlier question was: why should we expect perfect theology from the Bible, when we don't expect other types of perfection? On what can we ground the assumption of absolute theological accuracy?
(p.s. - I also don't agree that "children of light and children of darkness" is a Major Theme in the Bible. But I may have a higher bar for what constitudes a Major Theme.)
Friend (R?), this topic is emotionally charged enough. Please refrain from that degree of sarcasm in your future posts. Bluntness is fine, but sarcasm (at least when it's directed against another person's post) just makes people (or in any event, me) defensive and angry.
I tend toward sarcasm myself, but in my experience with online conversations like this, I've found that there is always a way to question someone's position in a straightforward way that leads to constructive conversation.
Even if you disagree, please respect my wishes on this blog. And please continue to post; you obviously have thought some of these matters through and have valuable things to offer.
Post a Comment