tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post4571497990930127801..comments2024-03-24T07:56:33.811-05:00Comments on Allan R. Bevere: Letting God Off the Hook: Adam Hamilton on Violence in the Old TestamentAllan R. Beverehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903011101108437513noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-80274788574201455582016-07-29T15:48:29.968-05:002016-07-29T15:48:29.968-05:00There are so many points I'd want to make, it&...There are so many points I'd want to make, it's hard to know where to begin.<br /><br />I think a false dichotomy is being made here: "Who decides which texts are humanly-contrived and which are inspired? And on what basis?"<br /><br />Speaking for myself rather than Hamilton (although I understand him to make a similar point in "Making Sense of the Bible.")...all texts are both humanly-contrived and inspired. A hermeneutic of suspicion should be applied to all texts that violate Jesus' articulation of the Great Commandment.<br /><br />Even before Jesus, the Rabbis questioned biblical texts that violated what they considered to be ethical principals. They did not see such a process as questioning the inspiration or authority of Scripture.<br /><br />As Methodists, we have traditionally applied tradition and reason to Scripture as a way of being guided in our Scriptural interpretation. So what about the early tradition of Christian pacifism?<br /><br />I can tell you my motivation for pushing back against reprieving the God of violence: we have too much violence in our world. Especially in this age, too many people are taking up the mantel of Phineas and claiming to have license to kill and destroy in the name of God. <br /><br />I'm curious about the motivation to reprieve the concept of God blessing the human use of violent retribution? PamBGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11324370506889227234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-50155249614441839822014-08-26T16:23:08.765-05:002014-08-26T16:23:08.765-05:00Kevin,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I to...Kevin,<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughtful comments.<br /><br />I too agree that the Old Testament should be read christologically, which is why I find Adam's treatment of these violent narratives problematic. To read christologically means God is intimately involved in the world and with his people. Yet, Adam seeks to remove God from that narrative precisely because it implicates God in the violence. But if our doctrine of incarnation tells us anything, it is that out of his love and concern for his people and the world, God is willing to involve himself in the mess of human history-- even its violence and bloodshed.Allan R. Beverehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07903011101108437513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-54666714767820492422014-08-26T12:38:57.756-05:002014-08-26T12:38:57.756-05:00Yoder is a good example of someone who has profoun...Yoder is a good example of someone who has profound misgivings about the violence in the OT yet does not duck the problems it raises. Kevin, the false dichotomy doesn't arise from Hamilton's theological/ christological reading of the OT - which I also affirm. Rather, it has to do with presenting only two options (tethered it seems to different views of scripture) and presenting them in opposition to each other: "divine, plenary inspiration" vs. a view that recognizes the human situatedness of biblical texts. While I'm not sure what he means by the former, it's clearly loaded language, as it is associated with a dictation theory of scripture (which he references obliquely) held today only by hardcore fundamentalists - few of whom I have encountered in the UM circles he and I inhabit. It's a way of caricaturing an opposing view with extreme terms - thus constructing a straw figure. Most Christians recognize both the divine inspiration and human embeddedness of scripture in some form or other. But Hamilton sets his and the other extreme as the only options. That's what I mean by a faalse dichotomy.Dan Hawknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-62055223877900281952014-08-26T10:36:36.453-05:002014-08-26T10:36:36.453-05:00I haven't read Adam's blog posts yet, but ...I haven't read Adam's blog posts yet, but just recently finished his new book: "Making Sense of the Bible," which I am assuming shares a lot of the same elements.<br /><br />In the book - though there were perhaps a few things I would state a bit differently in his approach to biblical inspiration, interpretation, and exegesis (perhaps for a new blog post of my own) - I found the bulk of it to simply be a way of taking a seminary intro course on the Old and New Testament, attempting to make it more readable and accessible to a wider, lay audience.<br /><br />As for a false dichotomy in approach to OT texts on violence, perhaps he overstated things a bit, but I felt that his larger point, in the book at least, (one I would be more careful to state clearly and repeatedly) ... was that Christians must read both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament Christologically. Christians believe that Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection, is nothing less than the fullest revelation of God. This theological reading of Scripture is essential, especially when reading the texts in question. <br /><br />I am not sure about the blog posts, which I hope to read soon, but I find this theological/christological approach to be far from a straw figure (but if oversimplified, perhaps it can seem so).Kevin Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743238941493309148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-29891391624943966992014-08-26T10:21:24.279-05:002014-08-26T10:21:24.279-05:00Yoder writes:
When modern Christians approach th...Yoder writes: <br /><br />When modern Christians approach the Old Testament with the question of war in mind, their attitude is a legalistic one and the questions they ask generalize. We ask, 'Can a Christian who rejects all wear reconcile his position with the Old Testament story?' If the generalization that 'war is always contrary to the will of God' can be juxtaposed with the wars in the OT, which are reported as having been according to the will of God, the generalization is destroyed. <br /><br />This approach hides from us the realization that for the believing Israelite the Scriptures would not have been read with this kind of question in mind, whether it confirms certain moral generalizations or not, the Israelite read it as his story, as the account of his own past. A story may include a moral implication, or presuppose moral judgements, but it does not necessarily begin at that point. <br /><br />One of the traits of the OT story, some times linked with bloody battles but also sometimes notably free of violence, is the identification of Yahweh as the God who saves his people with their needing to act. When we seek to test a modern moral statement, we are struck by the parts of the story that do not fit our modern pattern; but the Israelite reading the story was more likely struck by the other cases, where Israel was saved by the mighty deeds of God on her behalf. <br /><br />Whether the taking of human life is morally permissible or forbidden under all circumstances was not a culturally conceivable question in the age of Joshua. It is therefore illegitimate to read the story of the Joshuanic wars as documents on the issue of the morality of killing. Although the narrative of the conquest of Canaan is full of bloodshed, what the pious reader will have been most struck by in later centuries was the general promise according to which, if Israel would believe and obey, the occupants of the land would be driven out little by little by the angel or the terror or the hornets of God, or the most striking victories of of Joshua over Jericho or Gideon's defeat of the Midianites after most of the volunteers had been sent home and remaining few armed with torches in order not to let Israel think military strength or numbers had brought the victory; to 'believe' meant, most specifically and concretely in the cultural context of Israel's birth as a nation to trust God for their survival as a people.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Jonathan's summary: The OT war stories actually undermine the militaristic view of history. Whenever Israel trusted in its military might, it lost. Whenever it trusted in God's power (explicitly against the power of the horse and the rider[empire]) Israel won. Israel never won any battles because they had superior military might. Thus the overall message in the OT concerning warfare is that it is wrong to trust in weapons. Instead put your trust in God's power to redeem in what seems like impossible situations.Jonathan Marlowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452143249853364704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-67422451511087428082014-08-26T09:30:53.681-05:002014-08-26T09:30:53.681-05:00I appreciate this discussion very much and am look...I appreciate this discussion very much and am looking forward to part 2!J. M. Hochstetler1https://www.blogger.com/profile/00681163398104124250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-51034045351380385692014-08-26T09:10:36.763-05:002014-08-26T09:10:36.763-05:00yes, please elaborate. I'm on tenterhooks.yes, please elaborate. I'm on tenterhooks.Sandra VandenBrinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18338393846175507627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-23497024171947230212014-08-26T07:37:03.569-05:002014-08-26T07:37:03.569-05:00I find chapter 4 of John Howard Yoder's The Po...I find chapter 4 of John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus, entitled "God will fight for us" to be the most helpful approach to understanding the Old Testament war stories. I haved learned a lot from Adam Hamilton over the years, but I wish he had read Yoder.Jonathan Marlowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452143249853364704noreply@blogger.com