How do you reconcile the Old Testament God

antiskeptic

Our atheist brethern have a point: God of the Old Testament has, given even a cursory reading, some rather discomforting attributes. Instructing the slaughter of nations (genocide) ethnic cleansing and the annexation of other nations' lands.

It would appear he directed the israelites to rape and pillage and instructed the subjugation of defeated peoples into slavery and forced marriage.

One could hardly think of a more distasteful God - hardly one who is supposed to find his complete fulfillment amd representation in Jesus Christ.

What do Christians make of this? How do the reconcile God of the Old Testament with Jesus Christ?

Whilst I've frequently heard sermons reaching into the Old Testament, I've never heard one dealing with this uncomfortable issue.

I've come to my own conclusions (aided and abetted by one Greg Boyd). In short: the warlike Old Testament God is a projection of a previously pagan people onto God. They projected (and God allowed them to both project and record that projection) the attributes of typical middle-Eastern warlike pagan god onto God.

They continued to live according to the ways they had before they became a chosen people. This parallels the way Christians today continue to live according to ways they lived before they became Christians. You may be chosen then / saved now .. but that doesn't mean total transformation.

(This obviously has consequences for what it means when we say scripture is inspired. But I don't see anything terminal there myself)


I'd be interested in what other Christians make of it. How do you reconcile such a horrendous-sounding God with God who is love, patient and kind. God who is perfectly represented in Jesus.

John Hutton

The key thing is in the reading of it, and what one takes as the meaning. Do you take it "at face value", a literalistic meaning of the words? Or do you delve into it for a deeper meaning behind the words?

This is useful: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM

Some atheists are quick to decry fundamentalist protestant Christian beliefs like the earth is 6000 years old, yet then the atheists also insist in reading the Bible in the same literalist fashion. Odd.

The old testament is fundamentally a theological work, not a science or even a history book.

The Bible needs to be read in its entirety and taken as a whole, read through the prism of Christ. Essentially the Bible is a slow roll out of revelation to get people ready for Christ, where people get little bits from certain perspectives, learning a little at a time over many years until it all comes together in Christ.

antiskeptic

John Hutton wrote: »

The key thing is in the reading of it, and what one takes as the meaning. Do you take it "at face value", a literalistic meaning of the words? Or do you delve into it for a deeper meaning behind the words?

This is useful: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM

Some atheists are quick to decry fundamentalist protestant Christian beliefs like the earth is 6000 years old, yet then the atheists also insist in reading the Bible in the same literalist fashion. Odd.

Good point. There's a tendency too to focus on God of the Old Testament and clothes spun with the wrong kind of thread. Jesus, other than his being strung together by writers long after his time doesn't get much of a mention. Characteristics of the OT God aplenty. Nothing about the charateristics of the NT God. Probably because he actually comes across as quite attractive, if you leave aside the miracles and his talk of the wrath to come.

The old testament is fundamentally a theological work, not a science or even a history book.

The Bible needs to be read in its entirety and taken as a whole, read through the prism of Christ. Essentially the Bible is a slow roll out of revelation to get people ready for Christ, where people get little bits from certain perspectives, learning a little at a time over many years until it all comes together in Christ.

Given that, how do you reconcile an apparently genocidal God?

John Hutton

antiskeptic wrote: »

Good point. There's a tendency too to focus on God of the Old Testament and clothes spun with the wrong kind of thread. Jesus, other than his being strung together by writers long after his time doesn't get much of a mention. Characteristics of the OT God aplenty. Nothing about the charateristics of the NT God. Probably because he actually comes across as quite attractive, if you leave aside the miracles and his talk of the wrath to come.

Given that, how do you reconcile an apparently genocidal God?

You have hit the nail there "apparently", i.e. not really.

This is a great video:

antiskeptic

John Hutton wrote: »

You have hit the nail there "apparently", i.e. not really.

This is a great video:

In your own words? Maybe a brief outline.

John Hutton

antiskeptic wrote: »

In your own words? Maybe a brief outline.

He explains it better, but it boils back down to what I said previously, it has to be viewed through the prism of Christ. Essentially, much of the OT, especially the violent bits, are allegorical, metaphorical or symbolic and it represents the spiritual struggle, and the gradual revelation culminating in the Passion.

Go back to the catechism section I posted, here are a couple of important bits I'd suggest to look at:

In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words... ...
In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."... ...

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

What do Christians make of this? How do the reconcile God of the Old Testament with Jesus Christ?

Whilst I've frequently heard sermons reaching into the Old Testament, I've never heard one dealing with this uncomfortable issue.

I've come to my own conclusions (aided and abetted by one Greg Boyd). In short: the warlike Old Testament God is a projection of a previously pagan people onto God. They projected (and God allowed them to both project and record that projection) the attributes of typical middle-Eastern warlike pagan god onto God.

They continued to live according to the ways they had before they became a chosen people. This parallels the way Christians today continue to live according to ways they lived before they became Christians. You may be chosen then / saved now .. but that doesn't mean total transformation.

(This obviously has consequences for what it means when we say scripture is inspired. But I don't see anything terminal there myself).

Couple of thoughts:

First, this isn’t a problem just for Christians, or a problem that only emerges when you contrast the Old Testament with the New. Even within the OT there are striking disparities between different presentations of God and, anyway, the warlike vengeful picture of God is problematic in itself. So you have, e.g., Jewish commentators addressing the same question (though, obviously, without any reference to Jesus Christ).

Secondly, the approach you suggest here is a common response. God’s revelation of himself unfolds in history, over time, and therefore the way in which God is perceived by his people changes. Scripture can be seen as a record of the evolution of our understanding of God.

There are time where is very pointed. For example, in the story of Abraham and Isaac, Abraham starts out by understanding God as the kind of God who demands human sacrifice, and ends up by understanding that God is not that kind of God at all. Given that Abraham is the father of the Jewish people, it’s not too hard to see that the points of this story include (a) "Once we thought that God demanded human sacrifice but now we don’t" and (b) "Understanding that God is not like that is one of the things that makes us Jewish".

Or, the story of God’s revelation to Elijah. Elijah is having a crisis of faith; his prophesying to the Israelites is, to put it mildly, not going well. In fact, he has to flee for his life. He becomes discouraged, and wants to die. An angel appears to him in a dream and tells him to go in search of God, so Elijah sets off on a journey, climbs a mountain and enters a cave looking for God. A great storm comes...

...and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the rocks in pieces before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.

So it was, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave. Suddenly a voice came to him, and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?...

It’s stirring stuff, obviously, and loaded with imagery and symbolism. But one of the things that’s going on here is that Elijah is looking for God in nature; in storms, and earthquakes and fires. And he doesn’t find him there; instead he finds God in a tiny interior voice. And the God that he finds there is a God that knows him by name, and that is concerned about him. And, again, if you think this story is about more than just Elijah, what it points to is a people who started out with a nature god, a god of thunder and earthquakes and so forth, but who have come to understand that God is, in truth, quite different from that.

Right. Christians add a further layer to that. We see Christ as the fullness of God’s revelation of himself, and therefore they see the evolving understanding of God that is laid out in the OT as leading up to an understanding shaped by the encounter with Christ. History is unfolding on a Christ-centred plan, in this view of the matter. But, as pointed out, the OT does not belong to Christians alone. Jewish commentators obviously wouldn’t adopt this Christ-centred reading, but I think they’d have no problem agreeing with the foundation of it, that the OT captures a progressively-unfolding understanding of God, and that people who start out looking for protection from storms and earthquakes, or seeking to find security in the ability to smite their enemies, begin by slotting God into that mould, and only slowly and over many generations come to understand God in the way he is, rather than in the way they want or need him to be.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

Couple of thoughts:

First, this isn’t a problem just for Christians, or a problem that only emerges when you contrast the Old Testament with the New. Even within the OT there are striking disparities between different presentations of God and, anyway, the warlike vengeful picture of God is problematic in itself. So you have, e.g., Jewish commentators addressing the same question (though, obviously, without any reference to Jesus Christ).

Which raises an obvious point. If God says something in the OT which is 'problematic', against what do we calibrate it and more importantly on what basis do we do so? For it seems that as soon as we decide 'that's not God speaking' we open up an a la carte problem.


Or is it that it's always God speaking and we have to interpret against a less obvious goings on. The case of Isaac in a minute..

Secondly, the approach you suggest here is a common response. God’s revelation of himself unfolds in history, over time, and therefore the way in which God is perceived by his people changes. Scripture can be seen as a record of the evolution of our understanding of God

Okay

There are time where is very pointed. For example, in the story of Abraham and Isaac, Abraham starts out by understanding God as the kind of God who demands human sacrifice, and ends up by understanding that God is not that kind of God at all.

Abraham could be forgiven for his understanding:

Then God said, “Take your son..

Even that test appears like something from the pit of Hell.

It’s stirring stuff, obviously, and loaded with imagery and symbolism. But one of the things that’s going on here is that Elijah is looking for God in nature; in storms, and earthquakes and fires. And he doesn’t find him there; instead he finds God in a tiny interior voice. And the God that he finds there is a God that knows him by name, and that is concerned about him. And, again, if you think this story is about more than just Elijah, what it points to is a people who started out with a nature god, a god of thunder and earthquakes and so forth, but who have come to understand that God is, in truth, quite different from that.

Right. Christians add a further layer to that. We see Christ as the fullness of God’s revelation of himself, and therefore they see the evolving understanding of God that is laid out in the OT as leading up to an understanding shaped by the encounter with Christ. History is unfolding on a Christ-centred plan, in this view of the matter. But, as pointed out, the OT does not belong to Christians alone. Jewish commentators obviously wouldn’t adopt this Christ-centred reading, but I think they’d have no problem agreeing with the foundation of it, that the OT captures a progressively-unfolding understanding of God, and that people who start out looking for protection from storms and earthquakes, or seeking to find security in the ability to smite their enemies, begin by slotting God into that mould, and only slowly and over many generations come to understand God in the way he is, rather than in the way they want or need him to be.

And so a natural return to the a la carte problem. It seems a starting point is needed from outside scripture. In my case that actual and logical starting point is own experience of God. It is through experiencing God that your rule is calibrated. Such as to wonder when you come across the smothin' and smitin' God of the OT. It is that (or is it that?) which undergirds the kind of conclusion I (and it appears you) have come to. Or is there another way to avoid the charge of a la cartism?

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which raises an obvious point. If God says something in the OT which is 'problematic', against what do we calibrate it and more importantly on what basis do we do so? For it seems that as soon as we decide 'that's not God speaking' we open up an a la carte problem.

It’s never God speaking.

Before you start piling wood around the stake to torch me, let me explain.

The scriptures (with the exception of a couple of psalms) are not written in God’s voice, or from God’s point of view. There’s an authorial voice telling us that this happened, that happened, so-and-so said this, so-and-so did that. Sometimes, so-and-so is God. In other words, God is one of the characters in an account narrated by the author. Sometimes the author is known. Sometimes the author is pseudonymous, or the text is attributed by tradition to a known person who may not, in fact, have written it. And sometimes the author is completely anonymous. But the author is never God, and never presents as God.

Right. When they author tells us that God said this, or God did that, it’s always in relation to an interaction with other characters. We see little of God’s interior life; nothing of his interaction with angels and archangels; cherubim and seraphim in the courtyards and gardens of the heavens. We never get God’s backstory. And God is never presented as directly addressing the reader; he always addresses, responds to, etc, other characters or events in the story.

From which we conclude; God may be author of creation, but he is not the author of the scriptures. The scriptures were written by humans - humans acting under divine inspiration, maybe, but humans. And the tell a story in which God only appears in his interactions with his people, and those interactions are told from the point of view of the people, never from the point of view of God.

So, the scriptures are not God speaking. They are men and women speaking about God.

So, turning to the story of Abraham and Isaac, one of the puzzling things about this story (apart from the obvious thing) is that God is presented as changing his mind. In verse 2 he wants Abraham to kill his son; by verse 12 he wants the exact opposite. Yet God is unchanging; the scriptures stress this at several points, and it’s one of the inevitable corollaries of his perfection. So how can an unchanging God change?

He can’t, is the answer, but our perception of him can, and scripture records our changing perceptions. We’re told in verse 1 that the point of the Abraham and Isaac story is that “God put Abraham to the test”. The obvious understanding is that the test was “Are you willing to kill your son for me?” But maybe, actually, there was another test; “Are you able to let go of the preconceptions you have about me, and come to a truer understanding?”

Abraham, as we already noted, is the father of the Jewish people; Abraham’s ancestors are not considered to have been Jews. Let’s call them the proto-Jews. The possibility is that the proto-Jews did practice child sacrifice; we infer this from the fact that when the Jews emerged as a distinct people the cultures around them (and from which they had emerged) practiced it. Most likely the repudiation of a past practice of child sacrifice is one of the things that shaped the Jews as a separate and a distinct people.

But, the thing is, if you’ve been practicing child sacrifice, it’s really, really difficult to repudiate it, since that means acknowledging that you have killed your children for no good reason. Once you have done something so dreadful, you have a really, really powerful need to continue to believe that you were right to do it; that you had to do it, since how else are you to live with yourself? So as a community, making the leap from practicing child sacrifice to condemning it is difficult and divisive and frightening and painful. And perhaps that is the test that this story points to.

Abraham’s initial perception that God wants him to sacrifice Isaac is wholly sincere. When the text says “God said ‘Take your son Isaac [and] offer him up as a burnt offering’”, that is what Abraham understood God to be saying. This account of what God said is offered from Abraham’s point of view, not from God’s. At the other end of the story, God sends an angel to stop Abraham. The angel is significant, because angels in scripture are especially authoritative messengers on God’s behalf. When a prophet tells you what God thinks on a particular issue, you can reject that (and people usually do); when an angel tells you, you listen. So the angel is there to underline the point that Abraham initially thought that God wanted a sacrifice, but now he thinks that God doesn’t - and, this time, Abraham’s got it right; this understanding is authentic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so a natural return to the a la carte problem. It seems a starting point is needed from outside scripture. In my case that actual and logical starting point is own experience of God. It is through experiencing God that your rule is calibrated. Such as to wonder when you come across the smothin' and smitin' God of the OT. It is that (or is it that?) which undergirds the kind of conclusion I (and it appears you) have come to. Or is there another way to avoid the charge of a la cartism?

A-la-cartism suggests that you pick the bits of scripture that appeal to you while dismissing the other bits. And, yeah, that would be easier, to be honest. But you’re right; that’s not good enough. The whole of scripture is important; that’s why it’s all scripture.

I think the right approach is not to see scripture as a series of simplistic statements, some of which must be right and some of which must be wrong. The better approach is to think about scriptural texts as a whole; what the contradictions and contrasts mean, why are they there, what do they tell us? It’s not as though the generations that produced these scriptures, and the countless generations that have read them and engaged with them since, all failed to spot these inconsistencies and we are the first generation to be gifted with the critical insight of noticing them. The people who wrote, edited, compiled and redacted these texts (a) were as capable as we are of spotting these things, and (b) included them nevertheless, and (c) we believe, did so under divine inspiration. These contradiction and tensions and inconsistencies are there because they’re important. And if we find two statements that, read literally, contradict one another so that they cannot both be literally true, that may just underline one of the first lessons that we should be drawing from all of this; an excessively literal reading of scripture is not authentic, and is not what we are called to.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s never God speaking.

Before you start piling wood around the stake to torch me, let me explain.

The scriptures (with the exception of a couple of psalms) are not written in God’s voice, or from God’s point of view. There’s an authorial voice telling us that this happened, that happened, so-and-so said this, so-and-so did that. Sometimes, so-and-so is God. In other words, God is one of the characters in an account narrated by the author. Sometimes the author is known. Sometimes the author is pseudonymous, or the text is attributed by tradition to a known person who may not, in fact, have written it. And sometimes the author is completely anonymous. But the author is never God, and never presents as God.

True enough. Although I'm not sure what 'written in God's voice' means by way of differentiation. It would always be the author at work whatever voice he happens to write in

Right. When they author tells us that God said this, or God did that, it’s always in relation to an interaction with other characters. We see little of God’s interior life; nothing of his interaction with angels and archangels; cherubim and seraphim in the courtyards and gardens of the heavens. We never get God’s backstory. And God is never presented as directly addressing the reader; he always addresses, responds to, etc, other characters or events in the story.

Indeed. And some of the things he says (or the author has him say) are problematic.

From which we conclude; God may be author of creation, but he is not the author of the scriptures. The scriptures were written by humans - humans acting under divine inspiration, maybe, but humans. And the tell a story in which God only appears in his interactions with his people, and those interactions are told from the point of view of the people, never from the point of view of God.

So, the scriptures are not God speaking. They are men and women speaking about God.

Men and women quoting God. Now they might be quoting him correctly (in which case problems) or they might be quoting him incorrectly (in which case problems)

So, turning to the story of Abraham and Isaac, one of the puzzling things about this story (apart from the obvious thing) is that God is presented as changing his mind. In verse 2 he wants Abraham to kill his son; by verse 12 he wants the exact opposite. Yet God is unchanging; the scriptures stress this at several points, and it’s one of the inevitable corollaries of his perfection. So how can an unchanging God change?

Here's an example of a problem. From who do we get the idea that God is unchanging - if not from the author?

He can’t, is the answer, but our perception of him can, and scripture records our changing perceptions. We’re told in verse 1 that the point of the Abraham and Isaac story is that “God put Abraham to the test”. The obvious understanding is that the test was “Are you willing to kill your son for me?” But maybe, actually, there was another test; “Are you able to let go of the preconceptions you have about me, and come to a truer understanding?”

Abraham, as we already noted, is the father of the Jewish people; Abraham’s ancestors are not considered to have been Jews. Let’s call them the proto-Jews. The possibility is that the proto-Jews did practice child sacrifice; we infer this from the fact that when the Jews emerged as a distinct people the cultures around them (and from which they had emerged) practiced it. Most likely the repudiation of a past practice of child sacrifice is one of the things that shaped the Jews as a separate and a distinct people.

But, the thing is, if you’ve been practicing child sacrifice, it’s really, really difficult to repudiate it, since that means acknowledging that you have killed your children for no good reason. Once you have done something so dreadful, you have a really, really powerful need to continue to believe that you were right to do it; that you had to do it, since how else are you to live with yourself? So as a community, making the leap from practicing child sacrifice to condemning it is difficult and divisive and frightening and painful. And perhaps that is the test that this story points to.

Good development of the wider idea that the Israelite brought with them their past practices beliefs and projected them onto God.

Abraham’s initial perception that God wants him to sacrifice Isaac is wholly sincere. When the text says “God said ‘Take your son Isaac [and] offer him up as a burnt offering’”, that is what Abraham understood God to be saying. This account of what God said is offered from Abraham’s point of view, not from God’s. At the other end of the story, God sends an angel to stop Abraham. The angel is significant, because angels in scripture are especially authoritative messengers on God’s behalf. When a prophet tells you what God thinks on a particular issue, you can reject that (and people usually do); when an angel tells you, you listen. So the angel is there to underline the point that Abraham initially thought that God wanted a sacrifice, but now he thinks that God doesn’t - and, this time, Abraham’s got it right; this understanding is authentic.

Okay, so a horrific instruction was a case of being unable to make an omlette without breaking hearts. Fair enough.

How would you see the instruction to slay nations? A projection by the former pagans (putting words in God's mouth). Or God having a larger plan and point, such as with the Isaac example?

A-la-cartism suggests that you pick the bits of scripture that appeal to you while dismissing the other bits. And, yeah, that would be easier, to be honest. But you’re right; that’s not good enough. The whole of scripture is important; that’s why it’s all scripture.

By a la carte I meant how does one chose to suppose this is accurate reporting of what God said. And that is inaccurate (e.g. putting words in his mouth) reporting.

Authors also wrote the New Testament so the issue arises. Where is our starting point from which to build if all is subject to being erroneous words (such as God unchanging - a place you argue from but which relies on that being correct reporting of Gods words)

I'm not an atheist looking to entrap. Just wondering what your approach is.

I think the right approach is not to see scripture as a series of simplistic statements, some of which must be right and some of which must be wrong. The better approach is to think about scriptural texts as a whole; what the contradictions and contrasts mean, why are they there, what do they tell us? It’s not as though the generations that produced these scriptures, and the countless generations that have read them and engaged with them since, all failed to spot these inconsistencies and we are the first generation to be gifted with the critical insight of noticing them. The people who wrote, edited, compiled and redacted these texts (a) were as capable as we are of spotting these things, and (b) included them nevertheless, and (c) we believe, did so under divine inspiration. These contradiction and tensions and inconsistencies are there because they’re important. And if we find two statements that, read literally, contradict one another so that they cannot both be literally true, that may just underline one of the first lessons that we should be drawing from all of this; an excessively literal reading of scripture is not authentic, and is not what we are called to.

I'm not all that upset that scripture is as you say. My faith initiates elsewhere and doesn't rest on my being able to defend or understand all of scripture.

Maybe you're the same and don't need a scriptural immovable starting point.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

True enough. Although I'm not sure what 'written in God's voice' means by way of differentiation. It would always be the author at work whatever voice he happens to write in

I’m saying that there are few or no texts in which the authorial voice is that of God in the way that, say, the authorial voice in the Letters of Paul is that of Paul. When one of Paul’s letters says “I did this” or “I think that”, we understand that Paul is telling is that he himself did it, or he himself thinks it. But there are few or no scriptural texts in which God addresses us directly like this. The most we ever get is formulations like “The word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, saying . . .”. What we have here is an anonymous author telling us that Jeremiah understood God to be saying whatever it was - God’s thoughts relayed to us at third hand, rather than directly.

It’s a matter of literary form. My point is that the scriptures are written in a literary form which emphasises that what we learn about God from them is mediated through the experiences and understandings and accounts of other people.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Men and women quoting God. Now they might be quoting him correctly (in which case problems) or they might be quoting him incorrectly (in which case problems)

Or they might not be quoting him at all. The scriptures aren’t journalism; that particular literary genre wouldn’t be invented for many centuries. Presenting a set of thoughts to us in between inverted commas isn’t necessarily intended as a representation that God said these exact words.

antiskeptic wrote: »

By a la carte I meant how does one chose to suppose this is accurate reporting of what God said. And that is inaccurate (e.g. putting words in his mouth) reporting.

For the people who composed, wrote down, edited, redacted, etc, scripture, and for the audience they had in mind at the time, this question doesn’t even arise. You’re essentially asking “when are we supposed to read scripture like a newspaper of record, and when are we not?” And you can’t even frame that question, never mind answer it, until newspapers have been invented, and until we have a cultural perception that journalism is the highest and purest way of recording and communicating what is true and important.

Which is why simplistic biblical literalism only emerges as a way of reading scripture in the modern era; you need a distinctively modern mindset to think that this is a normative or authoritative or even sensible way to read the scriptures, and only we moderns can have a modern mindset.

(And which is also why atheists reject religion and/or criticise the scripture on the grounds that they can’t be read like this, or that reading them like this yields confusing or absurd results. As moderns, they are unthinkingly buying into the assumption that the scriptures should be read like this; that journalism is the literary genre in which divinely-inspired revelationw would definitely be expressed.)

So, if we don’t read it like this, how do we read it? I suggest we should take a step back. We note that different people understand God differently, or that he is differently understood in different times or in different contexts. We note that both understandings are embodied in scripture; therefore we accept that they are both important, as is the tension between them, and we must pay attention to them. We can’t just pick the one we like, ignore the other one, and pretend that that resolves the tension.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Here's an example of a problem. From who do we get the idea that God is unchanging - if not from the author?

From the author. Or from other (scriptural) authors. Or from theological reflection. Or from personal experience. Or from all of these.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How would you see the instruction to slay nations? A projection by the former pagans (putting words in God's mouth). Or God having a larger plan and point, such as with the Isaac example? . . . Authors also wrote the New Testament so the issue arises. Where is our starting point from which to build if all is subject to being erroneous words . . . I'm not an atheist looking to entrap. Just wondering what your approach is.

“Texts of terror” is a useful search term here. It’s the title of a book written about precisely the kinds of problematic texts that you are concerned about, but it's such an apt term that it has become a commonly-used phrase in discussions of the issue. The book is written from a feminist viewpoint and focusses on texts in which women get the sh!tty end of the stick but its approach to the problem, and the possible responses to it, can obviously be broadened to other similarly problematic texts. Here’s a review of the book by “a relatively theologically conservative 36-year old man”.

And here’s a blog post you might be interested in. Briefly, the author looks at and dismisses two common responses to problematic texts. One is uncritical acceptance; we must accept this, or at least we must find a useful moral lesson in it. The second is silencing; if we pretend the texts don’t exist, maybe they’ll stop being problematic. And he calls for a third way:

We need to learn how to wrestle with difficult passages in a manner that is honest and authentic. We need an interpretive approach that is critical, yet aims to be charitable and constructive at the same time. We need to stay in conversation with Scripture, even when – or especially when – it presents us with topics that make us uncomfortable. Doing so has the potential to transform not only how we think about specific texts of terror but also how we relate to the Bible, and one another, in the midst of difficult topics.

Is that any help?

santana75

For a long time I didnt read the Old testament for fear of what I'd find. I recalled stories of fire and Brimstone from my childhood, where a priest would lay it on thick with trowel. But eventually I tipped my toe so to speak, starting with Proverbs, then psalms. I decided then to start from the beginning in Genesis and I couldnt put it down. I looked forward to reading it every day and after a while I started to think the OT was atually better than the NT. There was so much in there, Jesus is all over the OT, which blew my mind. It was only after reading the OT from start to finish that I was able to reconcile the so called genocidal God of that book. To me, I got it, there was no conflicts within me about things God did or said and I think its simply down to the fact that I trust God. Whatever he did I know he needed to do at that time. Take for example God's command to Joshua to go into the land of Canaan and wipe out the inhabitants. To the casual reader that would seem harsh but if you read the whole of the OT you can see what was going on in these places: Sacrificing children to Idols, orgies in the temple of God, sacrificing animals to false gods, sacrificing adults aswell, depraved sexual practices involving humans and animals and children, wickedness of every imaginable kind.......Theres also lots of mentions of the land becoming corrupted as a consequence of how people lived. Which makes me think about Global warming and climate change.
But God had reasons for doing what he did and in the end it comes down to whether or not you trust God and take him at his word.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m saying that there are few or no texts in which the authorial voice is that of God in the way that, say, the authorial voice in the Letters of Paul is that of Paul. When one of Paul’s letters says “I did this” or “I think that”, we understand that Paul is telling is that he himself did it, or he himself thinks it. But there are few or no scriptural texts in which God addresses us directly like this. The most we ever get is formulations like “The word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, saying . . .”. What we have here is an anonymous author telling us that Jeremiah understood God to be saying whatever it was - God’s thoughts relayed to us at third hand, rather than directly.

Fair enough. But even if someone cited God (or Jesus) we are reliant on them correctly citing. Does it not seem we can take nothing that is said as .. er .. gospel and approach things in that light?

It’s a matter of literary form. My point is that the scriptures are written in a literary form which emphasises that what we learn about God from them is mediated through the experiences and understandings and accounts of other people.

Okay, bearing in mind the above

Or they might not be quoting him at all. The scriptures aren’t journalism; that particular literary genre wouldn’t be invented for many centuries. Presenting a set of thoughts to us in between inverted commas isn’t necessarily intended as a representation that God said these exact words.

But God saying something to a prophet in a dream is no different to a politician saying something to a journalist. We can chose to suppose the intermediatary imposes a subjective slant. Or not.

For the people who composed, wrote down, edited, redacted, etc, scripture, and for the audience they had in mind at the time, this question doesn’t even arise. You’re essentially asking “when are we supposed to read scripture like a newspaper of record, and when are we not?” And you can’t even frame that question, never mind answer it, until newspapers have been invented, and until we have a cultural perception that journalism is the highest and purest way of recording and communicating what is true and important.

That's like saying a person can't speak of gravity until Newton. A person wanting to quote directly can't be restrained from doing so until the advent of journalistic rapportage. Why would or should we suppose them not reporting verbatim when it appears they are attempting to do so?

Which is why simplistic biblical literalism only emerges as a way of reading scripture in the modern era; you need a distinctively modern mindset to think that this is a normative or authoritative or even sensible way to read the scriptures, and only we moderns can have a modern mindset.

(And which is also why atheists reject religion and/or criticise the scripture on the grounds that they can’t be read like this, or that reading them like this yields confusing or absurd results. As moderns, they are unthinkingly buying into the assumption that the scriptures should be read like this; that journalism is the literary genre in which divinely-inspired revelationw would definitely be expressed.)

So, if we don’t read it like this, how do we read it? I suggest we should take a step back. We note that different people understand God differently, or that he is differently understood in different times or in different contexts. We note that both understandings are embodied in scripture; therefore we accept that they are both important, as is the tension between them, and we must pay attention to them. We can’t just pick the one we like, ignore the other one, and pretend that that resolves the tension.

Agreed. Our atheist friends are wont to pick what they perceive as the lowlights: cloth woven of the wrong kind of thread and the like. And Christians tend (in my experience) to gloss over the smiting God.

From the author. Or from other (scriptural) authors. Or from theological reflection. Or from personal experience. Or from all of these.

Could you expound? You have this author citing God as instructing genocide (although we might suppose them not citing verbatim) and another author citing God as love (although we are inclined to suppose them quoting him verbatim.

I myself suppose personal experience the starting point. When then tension then a reason to go look for an explanation for the apparent incongruity.

I'm not sure what other basis there is. Bar wanting God to be love and that want driving the search for explanation.

“Texts of terror” is a useful search term here. It’s the title of a book written about precisely the kinds of problematic texts that you are concerned about, but it's such an apt term that it has become a commonly-used phrase in discussions of the issue. The book is written from a feminist viewpoint and focusses on texts in which women get the sh!tty end of the stick but its approach to the problem, and the possible responses to it, can obviously be broadened to other similarly problematic texts. Here’s a review of the book by “a relatively theologically conservative 36-year old man”.

And here’s a blog post you might be interested in. Briefly, the author looks at and dismisses two common responses to problematic texts. One is uncritical acceptance; we must accept this, or at least we must find a useful moral lesson in it. The second is silencing; if we pretend the texts don’t exist, maybe they’ll stop being problematic. And he calls for a third way:



Is that any help?

I'll have a read and get back. The author is, I think, right. The third way, as far as I can see, is personal experience. I can't see what hard measure you can otherwise use.

antiskeptic

santana75 wrote: »

For a long time I didnt read the Old testament for fear of what I'd find. I recalled stories of fire and Brimstone from my childhood, where a priest would lay it on thick with trowel. But eventually I tipped my toe so to speak, starting with Proverbs, then psalms. I decided then to start from the beginning in Genesis and I couldnt put it down. I looked forward to reading it every day and after a while I started to think the OT was atually better than the NT. There was so much in there, Jesus is all over the OT, which blew my mind. It was only after reading the OT from start to finish that I was able to reconcile the so called genocidal God of that book. To me, I got it, there was no conflicts within me about things God did or said and I think its simply down to the fact that I trust God. Whatever he did I know he needed to do at that time. Take for example God's command to Joshua to go into the land of Canaan and wipe out the inhabitants. To the casual reader that would seem harsh but if you read the whole of the OT you can see what was going on in these places: Sacrificing children to Idols, orgies in the temple of God, sacrificing animals to false gods, sacrificing adults aswell, depraved sexual practices involving humans and animals and children, wickedness of every imaginable kind.......Theres also lots of mentions of the land becoming corrupted as a consequence of how people lived. Which makes me think about Global warming and climate change.
But God had reasons for doing what he did and in the end it comes down to whether or not you trust God and take him at his word.

The trouble about the every kind of wickedness imaginable view is that its no different today. In wiping out nations God would have been wiping out people who didn't engage in such practices.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fair enough. But even if someone cited God (or Jesus) we are reliant on them correctly citing. Does it not seem we can take nothing that is said as .. er .. gospel and approach things in that light?

. . .

Okay, bearing in mind the above

. . .

But God saying something to a prophet in a dream is no different to a politician saying something to a journalist. We can chose to suppose the intermediatary imposes a subjective slant. Or not.

. . .

That's like saying a person can't speak of gravity until Newton. A person wanting to quote directly can't be restrained from doing so until the advent of journalistic rapportage. Why would or should we suppose them not reporting verbatim when it appears they are attempting to do so?

We need to disentangle two issues.

First, does God actually speak to (say) Abraham in the way that is anything like the way a politician speaks to a journalist? Phone call, or meet face-to-face in Doheny and Nesbitt’s? Bit of background and then a couple of quotes on the record?

We have no a priori reason to think that he does. He doesn’t speak like that to me or - correct me if I’m wrong - to you. Or to anyone we know. And people who do report encounters of this kind with God are generally taken to be, um, in need of an extended stay in a home for the bewildered. And if God doesn’t do this now, on what basis would we assume that he used to do this, but has abandoned the practice? If God is an interior voice, a growing awareness or a felt experience for us, why not for others?

The only reason we might think that God used to speak like this is that there are passages in the scriptures which, if read in as though they were journalism, appear to depict God speaking pretty much like this But, as already pointed out, it’s a mistake to read them as though they were journalism. The literary genre of journalism hadn’t been invented at the time; these texts weren’t written as journalism, and the audience for whom they were written didn’t - indeed, couldn’t - read them as journalism. To treat them as though they should be read as journalism is to presume that they’re a special revelation to modern humanity, and that the countless generations that came before the modern era were just not supposed to understand them. Which would be a theologically troubling presumption.

But this raises the second question. If God didn’t actually stand before Moses and speak actual words to him, why then would the text be written this way? The answer, I think, is that the focus of the text is not on how God communicated to Moses, but on what God communicated to Moses. And the best way to focus on the what is not to fuss about the how; just to say “God said X”, without explaining too much about what “said” means in that sentence, because the important thing is what “X” means. And your readers are familiar with this convention, because it’s a common one in ancient literature.

Remember, these stories were handed down in oral form for probably centuries before they were ever written down. Oral cultures have their own literary genres designed to ensure memorability, conciseness, and other qualities that are desirable if a text is to be accurately conserved and handed on orally. One of the useful conventions is directly attributing to God, in the form of speech, things which have been discerned as having been revealed by God. (Or indeed directly attributing speech to a teacher which encapsulates his teachings rather than repeating anything he actually said.)

We still do this today, e.g. in writing hymns (and we do it for similar reasons). “I, the Lord of sea and sky, I have heard my people cry, all who dwell in dark and sin My hand will save” are not words that either scripture or tradition ever attributes to God, but we have no problem using them as an expression of the revelation captured in Is 6. And if we use fabricated “direct speech” to express discerned revelation, why would we imagine that the Israelites did not?

Have a read of, say, Genesis 18, which describes an encounter, and various conversations, between Abraham, three unnamed men, Sarah and the LORD. Trying to read it as journalistic account of events in which the LORD was one participant raises all kinds of curious anomalies and troubling questions. For example, the arrival and departure of other characters is explained, but not the LORD; he just pops up in the middle of the conversation and says stuff. This is bizarre; surely the LORD is both the most significant and the most remarkable participant in the meeting, and yet his arrival is the only one not remarked upon? Did he descend from the heavens in a fiery chariot? Did he take the form of a burning bush? We’re not expected to be interested, apparently. Even more bizarre is the fact that nobody else in the conversation seems surprised at the LORD’s participation, and both Sarah and Abraham are inclined to contradict the LORD, which apparently also doesn’t require any explanation. Perhaps they don’t know that he’s the LORD? No, Abraham addresses him as such. The three men never address the LORD or refer to anything he says; are we to infer that they are not aware that he is present, do not hear what he says? If so, why not say so? If that’s not the case, why do they ignore him?

Whereas if you read the LORD’s participation in the events as a literary device for expressing what is discerned to have been revealed by God in and through the events described, it all makes a lot more sense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you expound? You have this author citing God as instructing genocide (although we might suppose them not citing verbatim) and another author citing God as love (although we are inclined to suppose them quoting him verbatim.

I myself suppose personal experience the starting point. When then tension then a reason to go look for an explanation for the apparent incongruity.

I'm not sure what other basis there is. Bar wanting God to be love and that want driving the search for explanation.

Well, you have a problem either way. Even if you set aside the notion that genocide might be, you know, inherently wicked, if we read the texts simplistically then the two texts taken together present a God who is inconsistent, incoherent, contradictory, capricious, etc. That’s a problem. Whereas if we don’t read them simplistically then how do we read them, and what do we make of the bits that bother us? Have we any basis for doing this other than, as you put it, (a) “personal experience” of a loving God or (b) just wanting a loving God in preference to a genocidal one?

I think an answer, or at least the beginnings of an answer, might be found in the thought that scripture is not the only way in which God reveals himself. The Methodist tradition, just to pick an example, asserts that an understanding of God is derived from four sources - scripture, tradition, reason, and “Christian experience”. (Christian experience embraces what I think you refer to as personal experience, but it’s wider than that, since it also includes the shared, collective experience of the church; it’s not just individual.) So, yeah, you can certainly appeal to both reason (“genocide is obviously bad”) and experience (“this doesn’t resemble the God we encounter”) to help you grapple with the knottier bits of scripture. But this doesn’t mean dismissing the problematic bits. If we accept on the basis of reason or experience that God is not genocidal, then we have to ask ourselves why this particular passage paints him as genocidal, and why a passage painting him as genocidal has been received and canonised as scripture? And what are we to learn about God from that?

8kczg9v0swrydm

I think this debate touches on Biblical inerrancy. I found the following article by Edward Sri very helpful:

http://files.whatistruth.webnode.com/200000340-dc03bddf7f/A%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Biblical%20Inerrancy%20by%20Edward%20P.%20Sri.pdf

ChrisJ84

Good question OP, some brief thoughts on it:

First thing is that we can't ignore, minimise or dismiss the question. It is a fair one, as there are things that are described in the OT that make us deeply uncomfortable. I say that as a fairly conservative Christian who wholeheartedly affirms biblical inerrancy.

Second thought is that, with relation to the conquest of Canaan, we need to understand it in the context in which the bible presents it. The bible is clear in saying that the destruction of the Canaanite nations is a result of God's judgement on their sin, and that in this instance he uses the nation of Israel as his instrument to implement that justice. So, the Canaanite conquest can't be used to justify similar behaviour today. It's also interesting to note that mercy is still available for those Canaanites who turn to God in repentance (such as Rahab and her family).

I understand that to a non-Christian reader the above is just a lot of fluff to justify genocide, but it is important to understand how the bible presents and understands these events. The real question is whether God is right to judge his creatures, rather than whether the conquest of Canaan is morally questionable. And, as a modern person, I am still deeply uncomfortable with the whole thing!

Final thought is that God hasn't changed. He relates to mankind through his Son rather than through a single nation, but his judgement still hangs over those who don't turn to him in repentance and faith. Jesus talks as much about hell and judgement as anyone in the bible, so I don't think it's fair to say that God in the OT is all about judgement and in the NT is all about love and mercy. Even the most cursory reading of the whole bible shows that to be nonsense.

LineConsole

antiskeptic wrote: »

The trouble about the every kind of wickedness imaginable view is that its no different today. In wiping out nations God would have been wiping out people who didn't engage in such practices.

It’s actually the opposite as this verse makes clear -

Genesis 18:22-33

So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the LORD said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Abraham answered and said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking. Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” Again he spoke to him and said, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” He said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.