Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures

One of the questions raised this week in class was generated by a blog submission regarding the “holy wars” of the Old Testament. These passages indicted the power of God, the blessings of God, the faithfulness of God and the response of His people but they also bring into question the justification for killing thousands. Is this a just God? A loving God? At what point in history did the people of God stop hearing instruction to attack, take over, kill and ………. In biblical times the lifestyle and the expected behavior of nation verses nation was war and alienation – servitude and domination, but is it the action of the creator?
Thinking specifically about the Crusades, as today’s believers we can say that this was a misadventure with brutal and unacceptable outcomes but to those who felt the need to do something to secure the faith the call was to do God’s bidding, what was seen as His will. We can see political and human implications but there were those among the warriors who were acting exclusively on their desire to do what was “right”. Can we clearly understand the mind of God as He gives these instructions to the Old Testament “heroes” while we condemn the actions of zealous men after the time of these narratives? Would we, had we lived in biblical times, have seen the hand of God in these instructions or would we have questioned the human behavior. If God really did speak to us today and give instructions that our society saw as cruel and unacceptable how would we respond?

Leviticus deals with many things that seem to be taboo for sermons and even for Sunday School classes.  Dealing with moral and ethical issues, sexual sin, and holy sacrifices that our modern sensibilities consider cruel and unacceptable, seems to be less appealing than telling the heroic stories in Hebrew history.   One of the uncomfortable things that both Leviticus and Numbers deal with is the fact that  the sins or errors committed unintentionally, unwittingly, or in ignorance (depending on your translation) carry with them guilt and the need for forgiveness just as  sins committed overtly.  Individuals and congregations are held responsible for errors they commit out of ignorance of the truth.  This is part of the reality of a just God that most of us would rather not include in our image of a loving God.   So if the Hebrew people were held responsible for sins they did not know they had committed and for committing sins that they did not know were sins what was the solution to this dilemma for those anxious to please God?

Our conversation in class about election added terminology that was new to me.   “Growing” or “moving” into election explains more concisely what I believe and what the simple term “election” misses.  The term “election” by itself presents a semantic problem that doctrinal teachings and theological ideals exaggerate in some traditions and that other traditions attempt to explain away.  Viewing the Hebrew people as growing into the place as God’s chosen is much more in keeping with the New Testament (Baptist) traditions of free will choice balanced with election.   It also provides a picture of the grace and mercy of God and His dealings with a willful, stubborn people.  The nation – the people as a whole were not all among the chosen – not all of them chose to be chosen.  Some who chose to be chosen were not racially connected or connected through familial bonds to the Hebrew race – but for those who did choose there were blessings and honored promises within conditional covenant with God.

When thinking in terms of the various passions that theologians have for their specific ideals in study it is odd to me that any one arena of thought could so involve a man or woman to the exclusion of the others.  Source criticism, form criticism or tradition or any other single hinge between the text and truths of the text is not logical to me.        It seems that all of these processes have a certain amount of merit and all have the potential of misguiding the reader -  Like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that stepped away from the sola Scriptura and included tradition, reason, and personal experience there seems to be profit in a balance in these methods.  Knowing the source to the best of our knowledge, understanding the literary style, seeing the likelihood of the author’s intent through context and historical placement must all be part of the study to understand Scripture and no single one of these should dominate.

It is so easy to identify with the Moses of Exodus chapters 3 and 4.  We can experience things that are clearly God’s hand – our own burning bushes that draw us near to God and prove His presence in our lives and before we have come down from that mountain top we are creating excuses to prove to God that we cannot do what He has asked us to do;  we don’t know all the answers, we would not be able to persuade others, we aren’t gifted with the right gifts for the job.   What we should be learning from Moses is not how best to make excuses but we should learn that God provides for our shortcomings and His power is what does the job regardless of what we are called to.   Unfortunately we don’t always learn the best lessons Scripture has for us and we can be Moses over and over again.