If a historical analysis is taken of the Old Testament, we see several
different "faces" of God in the Bible .
There is the personal God of the Patriarchs, known by such names as the
"Fear of Isaac" and the "Mighty one of Jacob. "
There is the God of Exodus, Judges, and Kings, who appears to be the
merciless, invincible warrior God who crushes Israel's enemies.
There is the just and righteous God of the prophets.
There is the God of priestly and ceremonial law, concerned with ritual and
sacrifice.
In my opinion , there is an undoubted tension between those views of God
in the Old Testament. See, for example , Isa. 66:1-4 for a prophetic attack
on the Priestly view of God.Moreover, each view of God incorporates elements
from the other views. The prophet Ezekiel, while stressing the prophetic
view of God, still is quite concerned about priestly law. One could finish
reading the Old Testament with the question, which is truest portrait of
God?
I believe that the New Testament resolves that question in favor of the
prophetic view of God, but the other views are not completely effaced.One
still sees something of the "warrior" God in Revelations, and the "priestly"
God in Hebrews.
I would argue that in the Bible, we see a progressive revelation, in which
God accommodates his revelation to the capabilities and expectations of a
primitive Bronze Age tribe, creates a history with this people, and then
finally brings forth his fullest revelation in Jesus of Nazareth. At each
point, God reveals as much of his true nature as the people are prepared to
see.Plainly, there were many times in which they COULD not see what God
intended. In the context of an all-out , centuries-long struggle for
existence with the Canaanites, perhaps all Israel wanted to see of God was
that He would crush the enemy with overwhelming power.From this they (mis?)
interpreted God's word to them in terms of a genocidal " Holy" War".
Another approach may be simply old style dispensationalism. In the Old
Testament dispensation, Israel is permitted to do things forbidden under the
present dispensation.
I have to admit, neither approach really satisfies me. My 0.02 cents...
----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of george murphy
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 2:22 PM
To: John (Burgy) Burgeson
Cc: grayt@lamar.colostate.edu; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: cosmology & polygamy
"John (Burgy) Burgeson" wrote:
> Terry wrote: "What I was saying was that I don't have a problem
> with what happened in the Old Testament. God was executing righteous
> judgment against the Canaanites."
>
> I appreciate your candidness about that, Terry, while at the same time I
> have to say that I cannot fathom it. Not at all. I have seen one
commentator
> say that the god of the OT is a "dirty bully," and while I also have a
> problem with that statement, it is also a fact that I simply cannot
claim
> that an edict to kill the children and rape the young girls (as a god
> purportedly commanded Saul) can possibly be reconciled with the Father
God
> whom Jesus proclaimed.
>
> Thought question. Tomorrow Billy Graham, the pope, and about every other
> respected religious leader you want to include issues a press release
that
> they are proclaiming God's message and that the message is to nuke Iraq.
>
> Some would "cheerfully" urge compliance with this, I know. After all,
didn't
> god once command just such an action?
>
> I doubt very much if you would go along. But why not?
>
> I suspect that were I able to time travel back to Saul's day, I'd advise
him
> NOT to follow god's command, even if it cost him the kingdom. I would
tell
> him that, IMHO, the message is not from the "real" God at all.
>
> If this be heresy, then that's what it must be, I guess.
>
> Cordially, to those who think differently,
1) But I suspect (as I noted in an earlier post) that if you had
simply
been born in that culture
rather than carrying with you 3000 years of further theological & ethical
development, you might
have gone along with Samuel & "hewed Agag to pieces."
2) Perhaps more significantly: If this wasn't the real God,
where - if
at all - was any revelation of the real God taking place at that period?
IF what you say is heresy there is an old tradition behind it,
that of
the gnostics of the early Christian era who denied that the God of the Old
Testament, the creator of the world, was the Father of Christ. In
particular,
Marcion rejected the OT all the parts of the NT which he thought too
Jewish - in
part because of the type of arguments you make.
It's one thing to say that the "turn the other cheek" is an
improvement
on "eye for an eye", & quite another thing to say that "eye for an eye"
never
had any validity.
One has to be wary of domino theories but it is important to check
out
implications of one's theological assumptions & criteria. It is not
always easy
to stop.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 21:00:48 EDT