21) Why does the God of the Old Testament seem so different to the loving father spoken of by Jesus?

Just the other night in our Bible study the observation was made to the effect that the God of the Old Testament  seems a very different God to the one spoken of by Jesus. It can be a bit of a shock to encounter texts that portray God as vengeful, punishing, jealous and demanding.  At the same time there are comforting texts that speak of the mercy of God and God's compassion not only for Israel, but for all creation. How do we make sense of the strong contrasts between these points of view?

One of the first things to remember is that Israel's understanding of God developed over time and that the Old Testament preserves different perspectives, sometimes even within the same period. There are texts that will focus on God's power to punish such as:

Lev. 26:18 And if in spite of this you will not obey me, I will continue to punish you sevenfold for your sins.

Psa. 59:5 You, LORD God of hosts, are God of Israel.
Awake to punish all the nations;
spare none of those who treacherously plot evil.

Is. 13:11 I will punish the world for its evil,
and the wicked for their iniquity;
I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant,
and lay low the insolence of tyrants.

These texts, like all texts, need to be interpreted and their purpose understood within their original context. Israel was often in a situation where it needed to be reminded that their God was, despite appearances, a God of power more than equal to the high gods of the nations that surrounded them. It was only natural that their language would reflect that of their contemporaries. If God was not acting for them how was this to be understood? If they were suppressed by more powerful nations, or in exile was it that their God was powerless, or was God punishing them for their sins? The people of the Old Testament needed to understand their history and if calamities befell them then this was often seen through the filter of being a direct punishment for the sins of individuals, or the nation.

This is not the only point of view that we encounter in the Old Testament.  By way of contrast there are texts that speaks poignantly of  Israel's God as the one who listens to the cries of the people:

Ex. 3:7 Then the LORD said, “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings "

Deut. 26:7 we cried to the LORD, the God of our ancestors; the LORD heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. 

 Psa. 40:1 I waited patiently for the LORD;
he inclined to me and heard my cry. 

The God of Israel's tradition was the one that Jesus called Father and there are plenty of texts that talk of the mercy of God rather than judgement.  A great example is God's self disclosure after the episode of the people's idolatry in Ex 32.

Ex. 34:6 The LORD passed before him, and proclaimed,
“The LORD, the LORD,
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness"

The traditions found within the prophets will speak of judgement, but they also speak of graciousness and mercy.

Joel 2:13 "rend your hearts and not your clothing.
Return to the LORD, your God,
for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love,
and relents from punishing."

It is worth reflecting on the fact that even among Christians today there are those more comfortable with a vengeful God rather than a merciful one. It should not surprise us that the same variation can be found within the Old Testament itself!

Karen Armstrong is well recognised for her work in the area of comparative religions and in tracing the development of the understanding of God. You may be interested in her work in this area and in the development of the idea of the Golden Rule and compassion within the major religions.

Karen Armstrong on the Roots of Religion

20) Covenant - Disciple Program week 4

One of the key concepts in the Old Testament is that of the covenant relationship between the people of Israel and their God. Being in this covenant relationship defined them as a people set apart, but it also challenged them to faithfulness to the living God, and living in right relationship with other members of the covenant community.

The first covenant is that with Noah:

 Gen. 9:11 "I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 

The next covenant is that with Abram and renewed under his new name Abraham in Gen 15.

 Gen. 15:18-21 "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” 

Gen. 17:2 "And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will make you exceedingly  numerous.” 

The covenant with the people of Israel looms large within the Pentateuch and it is the covenant with Moses at Sinai/Horeb that will take pride of place in Israel's imagination because now it is not just a covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but now the people are involved and must voice their own response. Moses is instructed by God to remind the people that:

 Exod. 19:5-6  "Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my   treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the Israelites.”  

For their own part the people now respond:  “Everything that the LORD has spoken we will do.” Exod 19:8.

This covenant will be renewed in the book of Deuteronomy (the second law) when the new generation of the people of Israel prepare to enter the land, and are reminded that the covenant made at Horeb is now made with them, and they are called to bind themselves to it.

Deut. 5:2-3  "The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.  Not with our ancestors did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. "

Photo By: G. Dall’Orto

Covenants and treaties in the Ancient Near East

This pattern of stipulations and acceptance is part of the making of treaties, agreements and covenants that were well established in the Ancient Near East.



Suzerainty/Vassal treaties were made between a great monarch and a lesser king and usually had six parts:

      1) Preamble
      2) Historical prologue
      3) Stipulations
      4) Provisions for treaty deposit & public reading
      5) List of Divine witnesses to the treaty
      6) Blessings & curses (for fidelity or infidelity to
          the treaty)

Parity treaties, as the name suggests, were made between two parties of equal status and these were made between rulers forging alliances, merchants in establishing trade agreements, and in marriage contracts between the father of the bride and the groom (the bride was not seen to be of equal status with the groom).

Another form of treaty was that of land that was gifted to a loyal subject as a reward for faithful service. In these treaties it is the donor who makes the promise of the land and there are no demands made of the recipient.

The Old Testament covenants share many of the elements of contemporary Ancient Near Eastern covenants and treaties, but they do not fit these patterns exactly. Clearly the God of Israel takes the role of the greater monarch, as in Vassal treaties but it is interesting to note that in Israel's history, for all the stipulations and agreed blessings and curses, God is always faithful, even when Israel is not.

Psa. 105:8-10  "He is mindful of his covenant forever, of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant that he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac, which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant "

Is. 54:10 "For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD, who has compassion on you."

19) Were there giants in Genesis?

The movie Noah has given rise to a number of questions from our study group, and one of those concerns the giants that feature in the movie, and whether there is any scriptural basis for them. The first thing to say is that the movie is a creative adaptation and there is no mention of eight-armed giants fighting with Noah in the Old Testament. In providing background for the Flood story Gen 6:1-4 mentions the Nephilim which some versions of the Bible translate as 'giants.' The New Revised Standard Version  transliterates the Hebrew word without indicating what it means, whereas other versions have opted to provide a meaning for the term such as giants. There are two texts in which the term Nephilim occurs in the Old Testament, the first being Gen 6:1-4.

When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. 

The Nephilim are also mentioned in Numbers 13:33" There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”  

The passage from Numbers would certainly support the idea of these people being larger and stronger than the people of Israel. Gen 6:4 describes them as heroes and warriors. Whether they were a race of giants as we would consider it remains to be seen, and in our own experience there is considerable difference in the stature of races. On the basis of the report of the size and strength of the Nephilim the people of Israel lose faith in God, and their ability to enter into the land of promise. It is for this reason that the people will then be punished by having to remain in the desert wandering until the next generation who would have the courage and faith to enter the land. The tradition about Goliath might support the idea of a larger race of people, but it could just as easily refer to a person who was a great warrior who was larger and stronger than the usual range.

The meaning of the word Nephilim is uncertain and it has given rise to much speculation over the centuries. Because it comes from the Hebrew verb 'to fall' it later became associated with fallen angels. The Hebrew of  Gen 6:4 is unclear whether the Nephilim mentioned are the same as the sons of God that feature in the same verse. A verse such as this has been used as evidence for visitors from other planets and I would suggest that great care needs to be taken to establish the meaning of the text before engaging in such speculation. The phrase  'the sons of God' has been interpreted as meaning angels, royal figures, or the godly descendants of Seth. There are times when we have to admit to the limits of our ability to unravel the meaning of an ancient text that has been interpreted and reinterpreted over centuries, and this is one of them! It is difficult enough to determine what the tradition about the Nephilim meant in its original context, and this complexity is further increased by the manner in which this ancient tradition is then incorporated into the book of Genesis.

18) Were there Old Testament tools that helped Christians deal with Jesus' death?

Since we have entered into Holy Week it is an opportune time to take you back in time to the days of the first generation of Christians and the ways they made sense of the death of Jesus. St Paul in the letter to the Corinthians expressed succinctly the enormous challenge they faced: " For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles " 1 Cor. 1:22-23. Jesus' brutal death was seen as a punishment by Rome for a failed attempt to set up an alternate ruler to the Emperor. Jesus was killed under the charge of sedition. While that may not have been a problem for those Jewish circles that opposed Roman rule, such as the Zealots and Essenes, it was a problem for the ruling elite made up of the Herodians and the Sadducees. Jesus, and those who followed him, were naturally seen to be subversive and viewed with suspicion. 

One resource that lay readily at hand from the Old Testament was that of the suffering of the righteous a theme often explored in the Old Testament, particularly in the Wisdom literature and the martyr tradition that developed in the inter-testamental period.

Psa. 94:21 They band together against the life of the righteous,
and condemn the innocent to death. 
Psa. 37:32   The wicked watch for the righteous,
and seek to kill them. 

Wis. 2:12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law"

Wis. 3:5 -6 Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good,
because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; 
 like gold in the furnace he tried them,
and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. 

This rich tradition helps us to understand that when Jesus dies in Luke 23:47 the centurion will not declare Jesus to be the Son of God, as in Mark 15:39, but one who is just and innocent. In this Luke refers to the well developed tradition of the suffering and vindication of the righteous.

We are all used to the moving and powerful text from Isa 52:13-53:12 that has shaped the imagination of countless Christians over the centuries that speaks of the mysterious figure called the suffering servant who carries the burdens of others. Matthew makes use of this figure to unpack the meaning of the ministry and the death of Jesus as having a saving power for others “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases” Matt 8:17. 

The Passover also provides a rich background in which early Christians could see the death of Jesus, particularly with Jesus identifying his sacrifice of self  in Matt 26:28 as a new covenant in his blood that is poured out for the forgiveness of sins. The death of Jesus is then a means used to bring humanity into right relationship with God. Both Mark 10:45 and Matt 20:28 preserve the saying of  Jesus as the Son of Man who comes to give his life as a ransom for others.

It was only to be expected that Jewish Christians would delve deep into their own tradition to provide a frame of reference in which the death of Jesus could be appreciated, and its deeper meaning in God's saving plan be understood and then communicated to others. Their creative re-reading of their own tradition provided them with a means to convey their profound belief that the death of Jesus was no accident, on either God's part or by Jesus himself. As Gal 2:20 expresses it "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." 

17) Original Sin seen from a Jewish perspective

While Christians speak of the doctrine of original sin as though it is a biblical concept it is important to know that the idea of original sin was first treated as such by Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons in the 2nd century, and that it was later further developed in the 4th century by Augustine.

Michaelangelo - Sistine Chapel

Many Christians would be surprised to learn that the concept of original sin is one that is unfamiliar to Judaism. This does not mean that there is no sense of the reality of sin in Judaism,  far from it. The first eleven chapters of Genesis address the subject of human frailty and the reality of sin, but a Jewish reading of these chapters does not focus so much on an original sin of the first couple that set off an avalanche of sin that continues to this day, leaving the human family irretrievably fractured and broken, so much as the reality that there are competing inclinations nestled in the human heart.  There is an original blessing that is endangered by what is found within the individual. Judaism is right to stress the original blessing of all created things and the freedom of every person. In order for there to be true freedom, there must be the capacity to choose. Strictly speaking sin is first mentioned in Gen 4:7 where Cain is warned that sin is lurking at the door and that he must master it - how true that is! By Gen 8:21 God reflects on why humanity is not to be destroyed because of the inclination of the human heart towards evil. This is not to say that humanity will always sin, so much as to highlight an inclination that has to be mastered. It also provides a glimpse of God's appreciation of our inherent frailty and the Jewish understanding that while all creation is blessed only God is perfect.

Original sin to be best understood as shorthand for realities we all know well. Life  places before us choices every day. We can choose life or death, selfishness or generosity, love or hate, good or evil. Original sin is better understood that capacity in us to choose what is not for our good or the good of others. At the same time we carry in ourselves, our family history, and our human history the consequences of the wounds of those who have gone before us. 

The first 11 chapters of Genesis creatively and imaginatively reflect on our human story, and preserve some of Israel's reflection on the ups and downs of their own experience as a nation from their humble beginnings, to settlement in the land, the establishment and dissolution of the united kingdom of Judah and Israel, and the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians in 722 BCE, and the deportation to Babylon in 587 BCE. They had come to appreciate human frailty, but also God's blessing as their history had unfolded over the centuries. The difference between their perspective on original sin and some later Christian perspectives is one of emphasis. Rather than seeing a person as a sheet of paper already marked by original sin the emphasis is on the freedom of the person to choose good or evil. Our lives are a blank sheet of paper -  what we write on it depends on us since we are free to choose. As Moses reminds the people in Deut 30:19 " I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live".

A Jewish View of Original Sin

Why Jews reject the idea of original sin   

16) What are Christians to do with the Old Testament view of the nations?

One of the surprises that lies in store for Christian readers is the focus on the people of Israel on the one hand, and the negative portrayal of the nations on the other. It is disconcerting to encounter texts that call on God to punish the nations.The Psalms speak of the living God who punished the nations and displaced them so that the people of Israel could inherit the land.

Psa. 135:10  He struck down many nations

and killed mighty kings— 

Psa. 135:11  Sihon, king of the Amorites,

and Og, king of Bashan,

and all the kingdoms of Canaan—

 Psa. 135:12  and gave their land as a heritage,

a heritage to his people Israel.

Deut. 3:3 So the LORD our God also handed over to us King Og of Bashan and all his people. We struck him down until not a single survivor was left. 

We find ourselves wondering about the nations we hear about in the Old Testament and whether God has any care for them at all. If God is the God of all creation how come it is only the covenant people that seems to have any claim on God's mercy and love?

These are confronting texts and it is no surprise that many Christians are uneasy with such sentiments in the Old Testament and wonder how we can use them, if at all, in a constructive way.

These uncomfortable texts forcefully remind us that when we read the Old Testament we are reading the sacred literature of the people of Israel, and it is written unashamedly from their perspective, and they preserved these traditions and we should expect them to reflect their sentiments and view of the world. Like so many themes in the Old Testament one question leads to more questions,  and all this highlights the need for a more subtle and nuanced perspective from which these texts can be interpreted and used by another readership, namely, ourselves!

One thing to be aware of is that the people of Israel were often not the ones in power as one superpower in the Ancient Near East replaced another. There was always a battle for power across the Fertile Crescent between Egypt or Mesopotamia. As one or the other extended their influence the trade routes that traversed biblical Israel were often battle grounds in these power plays.  Armageddon (Har-Meggido, the hill of Megiddo) was deemed to be the place where the final battle would take between good and evil. It was strategically located, and controlling it was critical in order to gain access to the land. It was on that plain that King Josiah would die in battle (2 Chr 35:22).

Meggido  (sourced from http://www.dstaylor.me/?p=318)

Given that the people of Israel were often powerless, or subjects of more powerful nations, their literature and stance towards the nations reflects this negative experience.  One of the key elements behind their lack of respect for the nations was their idolatry and worship of false gods.

Deut. 12:3 Break down their altars, smash their pillars, burn their sacred poles with fire, and hew down the idols of their gods, and thus blot out their name from their places. 

Such a text as this clearly expresses Israel's point of view of the nations that surrounded them, and their worship. At the same time we need to be aware of other Old Testament texts  where the nations are not excluded from God's saving plan. In Gen 12:3 Abram is told that " in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."  In the book of Tobit 14:6 the hope is expressed that all the nations will come to believe in the living God "Then the nations in the whole world will all be converted and worship God in truth."  One of the most surprising texts comes from the prophet Isaiah when Cyrus of Persia is spoken of as an instrument of God, and as God's anointed one (messiah).

Is. 44:28 who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd,

and he shall carry out all my purpose”;
and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,”
and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”
  

Is. 45:1   Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus 

These texts provide a counterpoint to the passages where the nations are evaluated negatively within Israel's sacred literature. Of course these passages are exceptions to the general rule, and they are all the more surprising given the generally negative view of the nations.

Where does that leave us as Christian readers? The first thing is not to be confused into thinking that the attitude of the biblical Israel towards the nations has to be ours. As Christian readers there are texts that demonstrate how difficult it was even for the first Christians to develop a wider perspective. Matt 15:24 testifies that some Christian communities preserved traditions indicating Jesus' own sense of mission was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, before directing the disciples to go to the nations in Matt 28:19.

The text of Eph 2:14 is certainly one to bear in mind as we reflect on these matters, speaking as it does of the dividing wall that has been broken down between Jews and Gentiles by means of the death of Jesus: " For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us."

Such texts as these remind us that we need to be mindful of the development of ideas within the formation of the Bible and not to take a particular text without being conscious that often within the Scriptures, as in our lives, there is growth and development. Thank goodness for that!

15) The relationship of Old Testament Books to each other

This might seem an odd topic to introduce here but it often happens that general readers of the Old Testament are not aware of the ways in which the various works and streams of tradition that make up the Old Testament are related to one another.

For a start the order of the books as we have it in the Old Testament is not necessarily the order in which they were written. This already introduces a level of complexity that can be perplexing when we begin the process of interpreting a passage or book. We are so used to being able to carry around countless documents electronically in our phones, iPads and laptops that it becomes hard to imagine what it was like in the Ancient Near East where materials were preserved by being written on parchment scrolls, or on papyrus. To carry about the information held in any modern edition of the Bible would have required many scrolls, and that was expensive and such collections would have been the normally held in synagogues or in scriptoria such as the Essenes had in Qumran.

In an earlier post we have already made mention of the ways in which the developing scriptural traditions were gradually formed into larger collections: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. We have also indicated that even within a single book like Genesis a number of streams of tradition have been combined. To my mind this is a reminder that the Old Testament is the end result of complex and dynamic processes - the result of many hands, voices and hearts over centuries.

An example that may help when thinking of the Old Testament is to look up at the stars. When you look at the night sky light is coming from many different stars and galaxies. The light might be hitting our eyes at the one time, but some of those stars are no longer in existence, while other light comes to us from our own Sun and is reflected off the Moon. Some of the beams of light have travelled for a thousand years, others but a few minutes. In a similar way when we pick up the Old Testament we look at it as a whole when in reality it preserves traditions, voices and experiences from many different times and places.

We are not used to reading the book of Deuteronomy, and thinking of looking at the prophet Jeremiah, or dipping into the Psalms, mainly because we tend to look at them as unrelated. The reality is that many of the voices can be coming from the same time in Biblical Israel's life. For this reason it is very helpful to  consult reference works that can assist us by providing timelines and indicating how books we think of as separate were written at the same time - sometimes expressing different points of view, at other times with more uniformity and agreement. I appreciate this makes things sound more complex than you may have imagined. On the other hand, it serves as a powerful reminder that the Bible is an immensely rich tapestry, and much more intricately woven than we might have otherwise imagined.