One of the major stumbling blocks of a "peaceful reading" of Scripture is "what do you do with the conquest narratives" in the Hebrew Scriptures. Joshua was told to take the land - and the Israelites violently took control over the land promised to them. How can we make sense of this?
I begin by admitting that this is not an easy topic. But first, we must realize that much of the Western tradition of Christianity has used the Hebrew Scriptures as the theoretical backdrop for a Christian nation. The concept of "just war" is conceptually tied the Scriptures where "God's people" are to fight in order to establish a righteous nation. These injunctions in the Hebrew Scriptures are then believed to carry over to the necessity of fighting evil and establishing God's rule.
The pacifist seems hemmed in at this point. One can deny that God really told the Israelites to fight, but this seems to violate what Scripture tells us. Or one can give in and agree that God used violence to establish the kingdom of Israel ....but are these the only options?
Let me suggest a different way of reading these Scriptures, a nuanced way that makes all the difference in the world. One hermeneutical turn can change the way the conquest narratives are read. And it is a simple suggestion, but makes a huge difference.
Here it is - one major reading strategy that may change your view. READ THE BIBLE AS A NARRATIVE STORY. Read the Bible as the story of God's redemption unfolding first through Abraham, Moses, and the people of Israel, but then moving forward to Christ. The story changes, God reveals himself more and more, and the plot is advanced toward the centerpiece of Christ. Read the Bible christologically, with Christ as the center, the fullest expression of God's will. When you read this way - you can see that God may have used violence in the conquest of Canaan in order to establish his people, but the story develops more fully in the incarnation of Christ.
We do this all the time in other areas. Why don't we as Gentiles eat kosher? Because we believe that Christ advanced the story to include Gentiles without them having to eat like Israel. Why don't we practice circumcision as a sacrament in the church? Because we believe Christ advanced the story so that Gentiles do not have to practice circumcision as a mark of their belief. If we read this way in most other areas - why do we insist that the Hebrew Scriptures are the last word that God speaks about violence. Why don't we take seriously Jesus own words about "loving our enemies". And when Jesus could have "called ten-thousand angels" to rescue him from the powers of the world, he instead refused to come down from the cross.
I believe Jesus now sets the example of interaction with the world. Instead of violently taking control of the world, Jesus shows what suffering looks like. Again, not passivity - he suffered because he stood up to the powers of the world - knowing that the cross is the world's answer for those that dare unmask the hidden structures of the world.
There it is - that is my answer so far. It may not satisfy everyone, but I believe that it is a sensible answer that makes a big difference. I believe taking Jesus seriously will change the way that we read the conquests of Canaan.
I begin by admitting that this is not an easy topic. But first, we must realize that much of the Western tradition of Christianity has used the Hebrew Scriptures as the theoretical backdrop for a Christian nation. The concept of "just war" is conceptually tied the Scriptures where "God's people" are to fight in order to establish a righteous nation. These injunctions in the Hebrew Scriptures are then believed to carry over to the necessity of fighting evil and establishing God's rule.
The pacifist seems hemmed in at this point. One can deny that God really told the Israelites to fight, but this seems to violate what Scripture tells us. Or one can give in and agree that God used violence to establish the kingdom of Israel ....but are these the only options?
Let me suggest a different way of reading these Scriptures, a nuanced way that makes all the difference in the world. One hermeneutical turn can change the way the conquest narratives are read. And it is a simple suggestion, but makes a huge difference.
Here it is - one major reading strategy that may change your view. READ THE BIBLE AS A NARRATIVE STORY. Read the Bible as the story of God's redemption unfolding first through Abraham, Moses, and the people of Israel, but then moving forward to Christ. The story changes, God reveals himself more and more, and the plot is advanced toward the centerpiece of Christ. Read the Bible christologically, with Christ as the center, the fullest expression of God's will. When you read this way - you can see that God may have used violence in the conquest of Canaan in order to establish his people, but the story develops more fully in the incarnation of Christ.
We do this all the time in other areas. Why don't we as Gentiles eat kosher? Because we believe that Christ advanced the story to include Gentiles without them having to eat like Israel. Why don't we practice circumcision as a sacrament in the church? Because we believe Christ advanced the story so that Gentiles do not have to practice circumcision as a mark of their belief. If we read this way in most other areas - why do we insist that the Hebrew Scriptures are the last word that God speaks about violence. Why don't we take seriously Jesus own words about "loving our enemies". And when Jesus could have "called ten-thousand angels" to rescue him from the powers of the world, he instead refused to come down from the cross.
I believe Jesus now sets the example of interaction with the world. Instead of violently taking control of the world, Jesus shows what suffering looks like. Again, not passivity - he suffered because he stood up to the powers of the world - knowing that the cross is the world's answer for those that dare unmask the hidden structures of the world.
There it is - that is my answer so far. It may not satisfy everyone, but I believe that it is a sensible answer that makes a big difference. I believe taking Jesus seriously will change the way that we read the conquests of Canaan.
1 comment:
thanks for that, it's quite timely since that's exactly what i'm reading now in my reading the bible through in a year schedule. i will definetly read with a different perspective now.
Post a Comment