A respectful debate about the Exodus story.
I believe it is not inappropriate to have a respectful debate about what the church teaches about the Exodus story. This paper includes what I have heard in church services over the years, what the emphases have been in what I have heard in theological discussions, and even what certain scholars have written about it.
From my reading, I discern that it is not the style of scholars to quote other scholars and then state a differing opinion, pointing out the error in what they have quoted. There have been some rare occasions where a book has been written by two scholars, each of whom have very different approaches to, and conclusions about the subject being written about. A great example of this is the book ‘The Meaning of Jesus’, authored by Marcus Borg and Tom Wright. To my memory, even there, there is no dismissal by one author of the ideas of the other, but instead, there is a positive statement by both authors of what they believe on a particular issue, and it is left at that. From the end of their introduction of that book, I quote,
Though we have not, of course, reached agreement, we are satisfied that we have eliminated misunderstandings, that is, neither of us has misrepresented the other.
And a little earlier,
If…both of us grow, through this process, in our understanding of the subject matter, and enable others to do so as well, we shall have succeeded in our deepest underlying aim.
So, even though I quote other people and then say why I disagree with them, not following Marcus’s and Tom’s leading (I do not regard myself as a scholar!), I do hope I am not misquoting other people or quoting them out of context. I hope I have not misrepresented any authors I have quoted. I hope, my disagreement will be understood as respectful and not dismissive, even though I wish to totally dis-associate myself from certain statements. Although sometimes my disagreement will be vehement, it will be born out of my passion regarding this story, and not out of disregard of the right for others to disagree with me.
I hope I have remained faithful to my aim of respectful debate, but I have questioned, very seriously, many comments about this Exodus story, and done it as an ordinary, regular churchgoer, whom I claim to be. As one of these, I use the Bible text itself as the basis of my opinions, knowing full-well that I understand these biblical passages through my own interpretation. I have done more reading and theological study than most other ordinary, regular churchgoers, having done theological training and becoming a member of the clergy. Many years ago, I resigned from that position.
In my approach, I try to reply on the actual text of the Bible, using the text of the RSV, trying to reply on what it states, and on little else. This, I believe, is where the ordinary, regular churchgoer begins.
So, to the debate.
I have been taught in my past church experience that this story is all about freeing the Hebrew slaves from oppression. I think that is what most ordinary, regular churchgoers think. That’s what it’s all about. Liberation is the word I have been given that is most closely associated with the story. This being the case, I need to look at theologies built on this word, to see if this Exodus story is used in any way, and if so, how?
Liberation Theology
In the 1960’s and 70’s, a theology of liberation was developed. Although initially having to do with the liberation of poor, black women, liberating them from both economic and political oppression, there were a number of different strains of Liberation Theology that emerged. The exploitation of the poor by the rich, black people by whites, women by men, etc., are but a few areas of human interaction in which many liberation theologians have been and are still active.
Regarding the story of the Exodus, it is nearly impossible to read any liberation theologian without being introduced to their use of the word, liberation, when they mention the Exodus story. This story is seen by many as the defining story about oppression and liberation. The Exodus became a central, ‘privileged text’ of Scripture for liberation theology. Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian philosopher, theologian, and Dominican priest, regarded as one of the founders of liberation theology, underlines its centrality when he points out, that
"the heart of the Old Testament is the Exodus from the servitude of Egypt and the journey towards the promised land."
However, despite the centrality of the event that liberation theologians narrate, the biblical texts that record the Exodus, are seldom given any extensive examination by Gutierrez or by other liberation theologians in general. This is what I have experienced in my reading. Attention is given essentially to the theme, rather them to details of the texts that, I think, are there for close scrutiny, commentary and discussion.
This process of liberation is stated as the taking of power within society, from the privileged minorities and giving it to the poor majorities. Rohr states,
Liberation theology focuses on freeing people from religious, political, social, and economic oppression (what Pope John Paul 11 called ‘structural sin’ and ‘institutional evil’). It goes beyond just trying to free individuals from their own particular ‘naughty behaviors’ which is what sin now seems to mean to most people in our individualistic culture….. Liberation theology, instead of legitimating the self-serving status quo, tries to read reality, history, and the Bible not from the side of the powerful, but from the side of the pain. [1]
Gustavo Gutierrez states, when speaking about the Exodus in his book, A Theology of Liberation,
The God of Exodus is the God of history and of political liberation …[2]
and
In Egypt, work is alienated and, far from building a just society, contributes rather to increasing injustice and to widening the gap between exploiters and exploited.” [3]
and
The poor are a by-product of the system in which we live and for which we are responsible. They are marginalized by our social and cultural world. They are the oppressed, exploited proletariat, robbed of the fruit of their labour and despoiled of their humanity. Hence the poverty of the poor is not a call to generous relief action, but a demand that we go and build a different social order. [4]
From my reading, I have discerned that one of the fundamental elements of liberation theology is, that it must start with, and be totally grounded in, human experience. If one is confronted by oppression, then one has to start by joining the oppressed and within that experience build one’s theology. One’s understanding and interpretation of the Bible must be conditioned by one’s own present experience.
While I believe this approach is an essential part of any Bible story, it can lead directly into ‘Reader-Response Interpretation’ of the Bible and its stories. “Start where you are and then read the Bible in that context.” If we don’t do this, then at least to some extent, the Bible can become an irrelevant historical account of the religion of a foreign nation long ago.
I believe, however, it can be dangerous to allow our personal experiences to be the dominating, the over-riding factor in our reading and understanding of the Bible. ‘Reader Response Interpretation’ can take over to such an extent, that the creation of a very different text is the outcome. It can, in extreme cases, allow a distortion in interpretation, and even a misguided teaching, regarding what the Bible really says. This may not always be a bad thing however; I think it needs to be identified when it is perceived to be happening. This is particularly important when dealing with a sacred book like the Bible, as it is given so much unquestioned authority and reverence.
Having said this, it is an essential ingredient in our Bible study that we must always ask, “What does this passage say to me, in my situation here and now?” We need to bring our own present experience of life to our study.
Nevertheless, for me, some liberation theologians seem to be so overwhelmed by their own experience of discrimination, disempowerment, and oppression, and so passionate about liberation and what it can deliver to the oppressed, that they sometimes allow this to become the only basis of their interpretations of Bible stories and passages.
It is extremely difficult to criticize a person’s skill in one area of their life when, at the same time, have a deep admiration and respect for that same person’s values, and the way they live their life. When I question this emphasis in biblical interpretation, I am not questioning the authenticity of the commentator’s experience. I would not dare do that! When I do question their interpretation, I am doing it from a position of looking closely at the text itself, and not looking at the life of the interpreter.
Such is the case for me, when reading a Spanish liberation theologian, Jose Luis Caravias , in his book, Living in Fellowship, where he deals with the Exodus story. [5]
I have not come across any other liberation theologian who has indulged in Reader Response interpretation to such an extent as Caravias, but I have great concern about the way the story is used by this author. I have the utmost admiration and respect for his commitment to the poor of his community, and his passion to do and say whatever he can about it, to bring about positive change for those who are oppressed.
However, his use of the Exodus biblical story, I believe, must be questioned. He suggests that many things are based on the biblical text, but, I believe, they are not. I think he has indulged in extreme ‘Reader-Response Interpretation’ and then used his interpretation, implying that this is what the biblical story states. I do not think this is a legitimate use of the Bible. I use a number of quotations from his book in my questioning about his use of the Exodus story.
1. Thus step by step, they start organizing themselves more closely and will go about achieving their new status. [6]
I find it difficult to find, in the text, any ‘organizing’. I have searched the text, but there is just a list of names and genealogies, identifying where Moses and Aaron fit in; see Ex. 6:26-27.
2. We have to take care that we don’t become confused by this lengthy series of public calamities. [7]
The story as told in the Bible breeds no confusion for me. There are a number of plagues, and each are explained quite clearly and concisely. It is all quite clear to me. I do not think regular churchgoers would find it a confusing story or even lengthy. The ‘public calamities’, according to the text, are the direct result of God’s ‘signs and wonders.’
3. We should not fix our attention too much on the material aspect of the plagues of Egypt? [8]
Why does the author ask this question? It may be because it is all so violent and we would thus be confronted by the ultra-violent nature of the Lord’s activities. I’m not quite sure what the author means by ‘material aspect’, but the outcomes of the plagues are important, and the reasons for God performing all the ‘sings and wonders’ are also important, for me.
4. The first nine “plagues” of Egypt may be considered as a gauge of strength which is non-violent. [9]
In my reading of the text, the first nine “plagues” result in death and destruction of all the land of Egypt, the death of fish, frogs, all plants, all fruit, all trees, all animals of the Egyptians, all flies and all locusts. As such, most of these nine plagues result in catastrophic outcomes and thus must ‘be considered as a gauge of strength’ of violence. The author seems to be saying that the first nine “plagues” are non-violent? If so, I think he is wrong.
5. The Israelites had attempted their liberation through every means. [10]
In my reading of the text the Israelites had cried out because of their suffering; see Ex. 2:23, had observed all the Moses had told them; see Ex. 12:28, 35, 50, had asked for jewelry from the Egyptians; see Ex.12:35-36, and at the Red Sea had complained to Moses about being brought out into the wilderness to die; see Ex. 14:10-12. I do not read in the text where they are attempting ‘their liberation through every means’. I do not regard their actions described in the text, as ‘every means’ and I cannot see how it can be regarded as such. Caravias is persuasive but, I believe, he is not using the biblical text.
However, it is stated that ‘the people of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt equipped for battle’; see Ex. 13:18. This seems quite strange when compared with all the rest of the story. It is not hinted anywhere else in the story, that the Hebrew slaves were organized or intending to fight or were ‘equipped for battle’. This statement in the text, comes before the complaint by the people of Israel to Moses mentioned above; see Ex. 14:10-12. They are fearful and complaining; not getting ready for battle. A bit confusing for the reader.
As an aside, I find it significant that this statement about being ‘equipped for battle’, is embedded in a small section of the text, see Ex. 13:17-19, where the word ‘God’, in Hebrew ‘Elohim’ is used four times, but it not used in any other part of the story. ‘Yahweh’ is used in all the rest of the story but not used in this small section; only ‘Elohim’ is used. This could point to a different theological tradition being incorporated in the story.
6. That is why, as a last resource, they resort to violence. [11]
In my reading of the text, the slaves do not ‘resort to violence’. They are the passive benefactors of the Lord’s violence. In my reading of the text, nowhere are the Israelites stated as acting violently, so I don’t agree that this is their ‘last resource’. I think this is a serious misrepresentation of the text.
7. The institutionalized violence of Pharaoh is responsible for the violence of the Israelites. [12]
As I read the story in the Bible, I find no violence of the Israelites? The Israelites are not mentioned in the text regarding any use of the violence. Violence by the Lord is apparently seen as necessary, but the Lord is responsible and not Pharaoh. The Lord is responsible for the Lord’s own actions. I believe both presuppositions in this statement have no biblical basis.
8. And God did not hide behind the scenes when he had to apply extreme measures like these ones. [13]
Although not stated by the author, I presume this last sentence is a comment about the plagues. It seems to me that there has been somewhat of a reluctance by the author to involve God but in the end he does with, ‘when he had to apply extreme measures’.
I find it significant that none of the quotes above from Caravias’s book have any biblical reference. This is so because, I believe, there are none, except maybe for the last quote, No. 9.
However, from these same pages are the following quotations, so there is much here that, for me, aligns with the story as told in the Bible and how we should approach it.
The Israelites were totally oppressed and dominated by fear. Let us not take them (the plagues) literally….God wants his people to get out of the oppression in which they live…..The oppressive authorities are opposed to the plan of God…..God’s will is irresistible…..But one thing sure is that blood flowed. A good number of young Egyptians died…..God is the liberating force of the oppressed….[14]
I have made all my comments in reaction to a translation of Caravias’s book, originally written in Spanish. Kenneth Bailey in his intensive studies in his book on Jesus’ parables in the gospel of Luke, ‘Poet and Peasant’, warns us that ‘translation always comes with interpretation’. No matter how objective a translation may be, I suppose that is inevitably true, to an extent. So, in reacting to something that has been translated, I hope I have reacted to the authentic ideas and emphases of Caravias.
This example I have quoted above, is an extreme case of ‘Reader-Response Interpretation’, but, I believe, it is there. I believe it must be questioned.
In dealing with the issue of God’s violence in relation to the teaching of Jesus about enemy love, Gutierrez does address this. John Frame, Professor of systematic theology and philosophy emeritus at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, in an essay on liberation theology states,
Gutierrez considers the objection that such militancy is inconsistent with the Bible’s teaching that we should love our enemies. He replies that combat with one’s enemies does not necessarily involve hatred. It may be for the enemy’s good. In any case, one cannot love his enemies until he has identified them as enemies. Cheap conciliation helps no one. [15]
In this context, combat, for me, implies some kind of violence, even though hatred of a person may not be the motivating force behind the violence. There is a difference between hatred of a person and hatred of a system.
I can imagine that Bonhoeffer may not have hated Hitler. I can also imagine that Bonhoeffer may have prayed for Hitler. But because of what he was continuing to do, and the system that he led, Bonhoeffer felt it necessary to join an assassination plot to kill Hitler. I don’t think killing him, however, was for his own good, but it certainly was good of many millions of other human beings; particularly Jews.
Also, I’m not sure what is meant by ‘cheap conciliation’. I’m not even sure that any sort of conciliation between enemies can be ‘cheap’. If conciliation is ‘cheap and helps no-one’ then, for me, there is no conciliation worthy of the name. Frame continues,
So Gutierrez insists that all theology must take its bearings from the “axis” of oppression and liberation. In the Bible, such an emphasis will focus on the Exodus, God delivering his people from slavery, and on the laws and prophets that call Israel to have compassion for the poor. Jesus’ redemption is a second Exodus in which God again brings down the proud and exalts the humble.[16]
And,
Gutierrez says that Marxism presents the best analysis of the oppression/liberation conflict in terms of class struggle. So the liberation theologian must be committed to Marxism at least as an “analytical tool” at most to socialist revolution as such. [17]
Karl Marx was not a pacifist and taking recourse to his teachings, led to severe criticism from the Vatican, especially from Cardinal Ratzinger.
Some liberation theologians, as well as many political philosophers believe that transition of power cannot be envisioned as taking place naturally or peacefully, because of the violent resistance of the minorities who have the power. Some of the theologians say that revolution is not only permitted, but it is obligatory for those Christians who see it as fulfilling the love of one’s neighbour.
The way the Exodus story is presented in the Bible, it would appear that the only effective way the Hebrew slaves can be liberated, was by the violent intention of God.
Not having ever lived in a situation of such systemic violence and oppression, I can only but try to imagine the joy of the oppressed when they were liberated. So, as Brueggemann puts it,
In a situation of victimization, one is not so worried about violence in the power of one’s rescuer. [18]
I have little understanding as to how to respond to the claims of liberation theologians when they challenge with such words as, ‘Revolution is not only permitted, but it is obligatory for those Christians who see it as of fulfilling love to one’s neighbour.’ Is my life as a disciple of Jesus somewhat worthless, unless I am personally involved in revolution, non-violent or even violent? This challenge is very significant for me, because there are numerous situations in the world today where protest and even revolt seems to be necessary.
My response to what I know of liberation theologians.
My overall response to what liberation theologians teach me, is that the Exodus story is a paradigm for a response to systemic oppression and, as such, violence is not only permitted but sometimes necessary. The fact that many of them do not mention the violence of the God in the story, suggests to me that liberation is all important and the means by which it can be achieved is far less important, but necessary, whatever it is. Their recourse to Karl Marx is very telling for me, because, maybe having looked to Jesus for some teaching on the matter and finding little if any that they think is helpful, they have looked at class struggle in society being the way to liberation.
My study of liberation theology has not been extensive however, the one possible exception to my overall response, is that of Carol Dempsey already quoted. She states in her paper,
The book of Exodus, then, speaks of liberation from oppression. The way the liberation is accomplished, however, is prime material for ongoing critical theological reflection. First, liberation for the Israelites happens in a manner that does harm not only to the perpetrators of injustice but also to the community, as well as to the rest of creation that plays no role in the oppression caused by humans in power who wield their power unjustly. Second, the one causing such devastation is said to be Israel's God, the creator of all, who had once established an everlasting covenant with all creation (cf. Gen 9:8-17). Third, the image of God as warrior in the context of the Exodus event communicates to readers then and now that the divine work of liberation is accomplished through violence, which the text, if read and received uncritically, both sanctions and legitimates.
Thus the story of Israel's liberation as recorded in the book of Exodus creates tension within the communities that continue to hear the text today. Biblical scholars have long recognized that the stories of the plagues reflect the grand imagination of the ancient biblical writers who wrote the stories from a certain perspective, for particular communities, and for particular theological purposes, namely, to assert that Israel's God is sovereign and Lord over history and creation. Much of the Exodus story reflects the culture and religious thinking of its day and that of its authors and later editors. [19]
This quotation spells out for me, an objective interpretation about the story of the Exodus. I believe it presents a more balanced interpretation which, to an extent, is not the same as what I have read in some other liberation theologians.
Having said all this, it’s all very well for me to sit aloof from it all, and trust in necessary but sometimes sublime moral principles. In the actual encountering of such oppression, I wonder if there is any alternative to taking drastic and even violent action against power crazy, evil leaders of nations and their subjects, who are not willing to change their violent, oppressive ways. I feel I cannot sit in judgement on those who decide that their last and only option is to be violent in their protest and opposition.
My continuing problem with the Exodus story is that the God, who executes all the violence, does so to unnecessary extremes, and does it, at least in part, as mentioned in the story so often, ‘to gain glory’. This, of course, is inseparably linked to the ancient theological concepts of the tribal nature of the Gods. I don’t find this ancient theological context mentioned by hardly any of the liberation theologians. Pity!
Non-violent protest.
I take some refuge in the idea that liberation can be gained in ways other than violently. For me, an extremely memorable event of the non-violent way of resistance to oppression was the ‘Salt March’ in India during the early part of 1930.
Satyagraha, or holding onto truth, or truth force, is a particular form of nonviolent resistance or civil resistance. The term Satyagraha was coined and developed by Mahatma Gandhi in India.
The Salt March was an act of Satyagraha, nonviolent civil disobedience in colonial India led by Gandhi. This 24-day march lasted from 12 March to 6 April 1930 and was a direct action campaign of tax resistance and nonviolent protest against the British salt monopoly. Another reason for this march was that the Civil Disobedience Movement needed a strong inauguration that would inspire more people to follow Gandhi's example. Gandhi started this march with 78 of his trusted volunteers. Walking ten miles a day for 24 days, the march spanned over 240 miles (384 km), from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi. Growing numbers of Indians joined them along the way. When Gandhi broke the salt laws at 6:30 am on 6 April 1930, by the simple act of rubbing sea water in his hands and then eating the salt, it sparked large scale acts of civil disobedience against the British Raj salt laws by millions of Indians. Although over 60,000 Indians were jailed as a result of the Salt March, the British did not make immediate, major concessions. Independence was not gained until 1947, 17 years after the Salt March.
Although complex, with many different forces at play and for many different currently impacting reasons, as is the case with most major shifts in world history, I believe, the gaining of India’s independence from colonial rule was significantly influenced by the non-violent revolution over many years, mainly lead by Gandhi.
It has been asserted that this Salt March, and the subsequent beating and killing, by British police, of hundreds of nonviolent protesters, which received worldwide news coverage, demonstrated the effective use of civil disobedience as a technique for fighting social and political injustice
It was certainly not motivated or inspired by the Exodus story and the activities of the God therein.
It has also been stated that the Satyagraha teachings of Gandhi and the Salt March had a significant influence on American activists Martin Luther King Jr., and others during the Civil Rights Movement for the rights for African Americans and other minority groups in the 1960s; not always peaceful but at least non-violent protests against oppression and injustice.
This non-violent approach to powerlessness, disposition, discrimination and injustice, I believe, is still evident in the ‘Me too’ movement and most recent marches across the world, announcing that ‘Black Lives Matter’.
Again, not motivated or inspired by the activities of the God in the Exodus story; maybe by this God’s intentions but certainly not this God’s actions
What seems to be problems with non-violent protests to bring about regime change, is that it usually takes a huge number of ordinary people to be motivated and involved. And even if successful, it often takes a long time to come into effect; e.g. gaining independence of India from British rule, by Gandhi’s methods. Yet, if enough violence is used, then regime change can often come about quite swiftly and with the involvement of possibly few people. Whether or not regime change, brought about through the use violence, is ultimately beneficial, is a matter of debate.
The intentions and the accompanying actions of the Exodus God, I believe, is very much the ‘modus operandi’ of the modern movie industry which has only about 2 to 3 hours, the length of the movie, to bring about drastic change in policy or even regime change; at least the defeat of the ‘badies’ and the victory of the ‘goodies’. In this movie environment, violence by the ‘goodies’ is seen as not only effective but also totally appropriate in bringing about the desired end result. I am manipulated into being very pleased that the villain and his cohorts are killed at the end of the film, thus often saving the world from disaster.
My response to the Exodus God.
I realize I am making a 21st Century response, but in this story the Lord deliberately targets innocent men, women, young people and children for death. Today, this God would be convicted as a terrorist, committing crimes against humanity, or even worse, and when found guilty in an International Court of Criminal Justice would be given multiple life sentences. (I’m not quite sure what a ‘life sentence’ for God looks like.)
Maybe I am looking too much for things in the story I wish to reject. I deny I am deliberately doing this even though I do highlight the nasty parts. I just keep looking at the text itself. I am not inventing the negatives within it. They are there for all of us to read. I find it quite disturbing that such an image of God is presented in our Christian sacred book as a paradigm of how to bring about liberation and thus used as such by many liberation theologians.
What I am being taught today, about this story.
In my earlier church education, the Exodus story was never identified as probably the most violent story in the whole of the Bible. In my reasonably recent past, I had this story described to me by a member of the clergy, from whom I learnt a great deal, as one of the most wonderful stories of liberation. When I heard this comment of praise, I had to voice my disquiet.
Walter Brueggeman.
I commence with Walter Brueggemann, an eminent biblical scholar and theologian of world repute. I have already quoted from his commentary on the story. I will begin now with his general comments about violence in the Bible, from his book Old Testament Theology. In this book, Brueggemann uses more than 1000 quotes from the Old Testament and about 50 from the New Testament, giving a detailed explanation of what the text of the Bible says, and the theological emphases it is making. He makes numerous comments on many contemporary implications of the teachings in the text. I found his book very instructive and helpful.
Having written more than 58 books, hundreds of articles, and several commentaries on books of the Bible, I feel ill-equipped to question him, let alone challenge him. His incredibly extensive knowledge of the whole canon of the Bible completely dwarfs mine.
However, on the overall subject of violence, he makes some comments in his above-mentioned book.
There is no doubt that the imagery of divine warrior is problematic for biblical faith, as we have become increasingly aware that the Bible is permeated with violence in which YHWH (God) is deeply enmeshed. ….we are of course much more aware of the ways in which such imagery is a huge liability for it serves willy-nilly to authorize and legitimate all sorts of military adventurism in the name of God….
There are, of course, interpretative strategies that can lessen the toxin of these traditions. Biblical theologians, however, must take care not to ‘explain away’ what is so definitional for the textual tradition. The imaginary is something we must live with, albeit with awkwardness and embarrassment. We might wish for another, better theological tradition. This, however, is the one we have. The presentation of this God is not marginal to the Bible nor can it be justified simply as human projection among the disinherited, nor can it be easily resolved by a ‘developmental hypothesis’ the preferred strategy of Old Testament scholarship. It is there; self-critical reflection requires of course critique of the very God the Jews and Christians confess. While we make our awkward self-aware confession, we cannot fail to notice, even among us, the ways in which this theological tradition continues to fund that which we rightly abhor. [20]
For me, Brueggemann has named the problem.
The imagery is something we must live with… We might wish for another, better theological tradition. This, however, is the one we have….. It is there.
I think he is correct. I cannot alter this ‘imagery’ even though I wish to. However, if it ‘funds that which we rightly abhor’ then my reaction to it is that I must faithfully reject it. Having ‘to live with it’ because ‘it is there’, does not mean for me, that I have to give it any credence even if it is the Bible where it is found. I can reject the imagery and I can refute it every time I do encounter it, wherever and whenever. If I give it authority or influence or even take any notice of it in my beliefs in or about God, then I believe I am leaving myself open to spiritual abuse. I think it could be said that it is similar to saying to a woman whose partner is violent, “We know he is violent, but he is the only one you have. You are his partner, so you have to live with him and make the best of it.”.
I realize the authors of many of the biblical stories depicting God as violent, were writing within their own theological framework but that does not make their teachings authoritative or even helpful for me today. I may have things wrong regarding my opinions and my theological stance, but I believe the biblically violent image of God is wrong, horribly wrong. My journey with Jesus is seriously jeopardized if I give any credence to this image of God. I faithfully reject some Bible passages vehemently and I speak out against them
With this introduction to Brueggemann’s thoughts, I somewhat apprehensively turn to his commentary about the Exodus story under consideration.
In an effort to respond to his thoughts in a responsible way, I make comments about his ‘Reflections’ on the Songs of Moses and Miriam at the end of his commentary of the story in the New Interpreters Bible.
I do realize that responding in such detail is open to misunderstandings, even mistakes. When Brueggemann or other commentators use specific words or phrases, they may have a meaning for them which is different, maybe sometimes in only a minor way, to the meaning they have for me. Also, I may have misunderstood their ideas and concepts. Given these dangers, I have found much of his commentary both helpful and instructive.
I proceed with his ‘Reflections’ on the Song of Moses in Exodus 15.
1. God is portrayed here in embarrassingly anthropomorphic categories (I.e. God has qualities of emotion and body that may offend our ‘metaphysical propensities’.). Our Western inclination to portray God as removed from the human drama of our experience, however, is a highly dubious gain. Such anthropomorphic portrayals as we have in the text belong to the core of biblical faith and are not incidental footnotes. Moreover, such earthiness brings the questions and resources of faith very close to how we experience and live reality. Such speech in this poem opens up the most elemental struggles and hopes that are part of the human enterprise. No other mode of theological speech so well touches the human concreteness of faith. [21]
I disagree with Brueggemann on two counts regarding anthropomorphic speech. First, for me, he seems to imply that if we abandon the anthropomorphic mode of theological speech, then God becomes
..removed from the human drama of our experience.
I do not believe this to be so. As a panentheist, I believe that God is in everything, and everything is in God. I do not believe in a Being called God who is separate and distinct, spoken of anthropomorphically. Yet I find my experience of God is deeply rooted in my personal experience of life and reality, and to use his words,
..an earthiness which brings with it questions and resources of faith very close to how I experience and live reality.
This is my experience, but without any anthropomorphic image of God.
Secondly, I disagree that such a move brings with it ‘a highly dubious gain’. The gain for me is tremendous. For me, the gain is not questionable or ‘highly dubious’. God, for me, is no longer too small. God is no longer just a superhuman being. God is no longer tethered to my Sunday School teaching’s, to irrelevant, out-of-date biblical concepts or to a 1st Century world view.
I also disagree with his statement;
No other mode of theological speech so well touches the human concreteness of faith.
No other ‘mode of theological speech’ is as familiar at present, but that may be because other ‘modes’ have not been given enough chance to make their impact. They may have been prevented gaining any traction by so much reliance on outdated biblical ‘modes’ of speech and concepts, such as the anthropomorphic mode. I hear some theologians speak of God as ‘energy’. That makes a lot of sense to me, and in this modern day can be very concrete.
Also if ‘Such anthropomorphic portrayals as we have in the text belong to the core of biblical faith and are not incidental footnotes.’ as I believe it possibly is, then I do not have a biblical faith.
From Brueggemann again.
2. More specifically, the military metaphors for God raise problems. Yahweh is a ‘man of war’, a description that seems to evoke and authorize violence in the world. Our primary way of dealing with this problem is to transpose the political-historical violence into ontological violence; i.e. God’s struggle with death. No doubt there is something positive in such an interpretative move (made even in the Bible itself). Such a maneuver, however, may on occasion be a bourgeois device. It is evident that theological rhetoric about God’s use of force against the power of oppression is not experienced as violent by those who are, in fact, oppressed. In a situation of victimization, one is not so worried about violence in the power of one’s rescuer. Metaphors of violence are problematic, but we must take care not to escape them by ideological dismissal. There is in the gospel a model of conflict and a deep struggle for power and authority. To miss this element is to distort biblical faith into a benign innocent affair. We are (as the Bible recognizes) caught in a deep battle for humanness, a battle far larger than we ourselves can manage. This, finally, is what faith asserts in its claim, “God is for us.” [22]
Because this touches the core of my questioning, I deal with some of the comments separately.
More specifically the military metaphor for God raises problems. Yahweh is ‘a man of war’, a description that seems to evoke and authorize violence in the world.
Brueggemann does acknowledge, as he has many times in his writings, that the ‘military metaphor’ is problematic, but, for me, he downplays it here, by the use of the word ‘seems’. The continuing use of violence by God right throughout the Bible, does in fact ‘evoke and authorize violence in the world’, in numerous people’s minds, some very powerful people’s minds, and that’s a big problem. I think history confirms this. I think he agrees because in a quote from him previously, he states, ‘It serves willy-nilly to authorize and legitimate all sorts of military adventurism in the name of God….’
Even regular churchgoers may say, “If God does it, it must be OK. I’ll follow suit.” That, I believe, is the attitude taken by some leaders of society, for thousands of years in human history. I believe this Exodus story continues to be read as a definite authorization for violence.
It is evident that theological rhetoric about God’s use of force against the power of oppression is not experienced as violent by those who are, in fact, oppressed. In a situation of victimization one is not so worried about violence in the power of one’s rescuer.
For sure. But that doesn’t make the use of violence acceptable. Also, I think it may be possible that there can be ambivalence in the attitude of some victors and victims alike, regarding excessive use of violence by a rescuer. I think many people could regard that the Atomic Bomb strikes against Japan as necessary to end the Second World War, but they are in fact, ‘worried about’ that sort of excessive violence. If violence is excessive (and who decides what is excessive?), I think rescuers could regard that as a source of ‘worry’. Such excessive force and violence is abundantly evident to me in the Exodus story.
Metaphors of violence are problematic, but we must take care not to escape them by ideological dismissal. There is in the gospel a model of conflict and a deep struggle for power and authority. To miss this is to distort biblical faith into a benign innocent affair. We are (as the Bible recognizes) caught in a deep struggle for humanness, a battle larger then we ourselves can imagine.
Absolutely! But in the gospel, ’the deep struggle for power and authority’ is dealt with by Jesus in the opposite way when compared with the way of the God of the Exodus. Jesus struggles non-violently. Most of the New Testament continues in this vein of teaching. The ‘model of conflict’, in the gospels is very significant, not only because it is obviously there, but more importantly because of the way Jesus deals with it; with love, strength of integrity and forgiveness. Jesus never mentions the Exodus story in his ministry and, I think, for very good reason. One can reject the story of the Exodus utterly without missing this element of conflict and struggle in the gospels. To miss this in the gospels is to ignore a major thrust of Jesus’ teachings, his life, and particularly his death. I don’t believe we need the Exodus story to prompt us to think about this issue.
For me, Brueggemann nearly seems to ignore Jesus’ non-violence, when mentioning the gospels in his Reflections. He seems to avoid making any moral judgements about the violence of God in the story. By making few, if any moral judgements on this matter, I think he nearly gives tacit approval for it. Is it OK because God does it? Should we never question such actions?
Brueggemann’s 4th Reflection contains,
The good news of the poem is that God’s power for life is arrayed against, and victorious over, every enemy of human well-being in every present power arrangement. [23]
The ‘good news of the poem’ is not good news for me. God’s power, all through the story, is exercised in God’s power of death, and not, I believe, ‘God’s power for life’. In the story, one of the main aims of Yahweh is to free the Hebrew slaves. Sure, but the Lord does this through the power of death. Gods’ power of death is what is praised in the song, as a glorious triumph. This is what the text says to me. I cannot agree.
Living the Questions - DVD Part 1.
In a Living the Questions DVD, Walter Brueggemann is featured in Countering Pharaoh’s Production-Consumption Society Today, a series of five lectures on the story of the Hebrew journey from Slavery in Egypt to Covenant at Mt. Sinai; from oppression to commitment. This is an excellent series that can and should, I think, be used as a resource for small group study in your church.
This series is presented with power and great insight. Brueggemann in the first session, The Way Out, deals with the tremendous, seductive power of Pharaoh to drag us back to the slavery of the Production-Consumption system. He speaks of the core of biblical faith as being about ‘moving out of the box of conforming oppression that is made possible by the intervention of holy power’. He speaks of the Exodus story as one of regime change. He speaks of the situation of the Hebrew slaves under the oppression of Pharaoh and the intervention of God through God’s ‘signs and wonders’, and this being accomplished through ‘human agency’, namely, Moses and Aaron.
God is mentioned as one of the three ‘actors’ in the story; the first being Pharaoh, second, the oppressed Hebrew slaves and last, Yahweh. Of Yahweh, Brueggemann says a number of things in the DVD.
1. God is ‘a magnet’ to cries of ‘voiced human pain’.
2. God ‘enters the venue of rapacious economics’. God breaks the system open with the ‘wonder of the plagues’ to destabilize the system.
3. God is the great ‘equalizer’
4. God’s power is ‘irresistible’.
The violence of the ‘signs and wonders’, the plagues, is not mentioned. Regime change is all that is important. I do not see how the violence of God can go un-mentioned.
1. If ‘all cries go up to Yahweh’, and if God is ‘a magnet to voiced cries of human pain’, what about,
…and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where one was not dead. (Exodus 12:30.)
2. The system of Pharaoh was certainly ‘rapacious’, but God breaks it open by killing, destroying, killing!
3. I don’t believe God is an ‘equalizer‘ in this story. God is on about ‘regime change’ and that change does not bring about equality for all the players. In his commentary on the story, Brueggemann states,
The term makes clear that power has now fully shifted to Israel, and Israel may take whatever it wants. [24]
Also,
In this story, the Israelites are the powerless multitude, abruptly transformed into a community of power and significance, “on their way rejoicing”…. This encounter faithfully reflects how it is that this completely powerless people is filled with power to transform. [25]
I do not believe there is any equality here.
4. God’s power is irresistible because God kills off all opposition, and more.
This activity of a tribal God, all fits perfectly into the context of the attitudes and theological thinking embraced by the storytellers in their time, but if the story is to be used to make comment about present day issues and situations, then I believe it is necessary to address the violence in the actions of this God. I do not believe it should be ignored or be thought to be of minor significance and thus no comment made. If Pharaoh and the release of the slaves have relevance for today then surely the activity of how the Lord brings about this freedom, also has significance. If this God is violent, is it OK for us today to be violent in bringing about regime change? I believe that Jesus didn’t act this way or teach it.
The last point that Brueggemann makes in his overview of the story is that
The story ends well.
I find that conclusion totally unacceptable. For the Hebrew slaves, Yes, but how can a story, which has as part of its end result,
There was a great cry in Egypt for there was not one house where one was not dead. (Exodus 12:30b.)
the killing of every first born, all done by the Lord, how can such a story 'end well'? I do not agree that it can be understood that such a story ‘ends well’?
Brueggemann does confront the issue of God’s violence when he says in his commentary that the last plague was,
This final plague narrative, the most intensive and extreme action by Yahweh against Pharaoh, is brief. [26]
using
…brutal power…, [27]
and that it led to a situation
…that the retention of Israel in its midst would only guarantee death’… [28]
So, I don’t think, by any means, that he has ignored the violence of God’s action. Even though he says these things in his commentaries, I think he falls short of condemning God’s behavior as being excessively violent.
He courageously confronts the issue of the telling of this story to children in his Reflections, No 3, on the Song of Moses. He states,
The lesson taught the children in Ex.13:14-15, requires enormous interpretive agility. The child is told that God must kill all the first-born in order to bring about their freedom. Such a voicing of violence, especially by the hand of God, may be unsettling to a child. [29]
I certainly do not have such interpretive agility! I think he is somewhat downplaying the difficulty, by his use of the words ‘may be unsettling to a child’. I don’t think there is any ‘may’ about it. I am very pleased that I do not have the responsibility of telling this story to any children. I’m not sure how to tell it even to adults! Brueggemann states that,
The child learns in this telling that the God who killed the first-born is also the God who has risked everything for the beloved first-born. [30]
I think I have missed something important. I’m not quite sure what ‘risks’ God took. Anyway, this, I believe, is a very dangerous path to follow. Even if this God did take risks, that, for me, in no way justifies God’s killing or the other violence God uses in the story.
I know I am sometimes involved in this sort of thinking, trying to explain or even justify my violent response or even my impatience, but it demonstrates to me just how subtle and seductive the appeal of retaliating violence is when we are confronted with the opportunity to respond to violence against ourselves.
Brueggemann is helpful but he has not convinced me to retain the story as I journey with Jesus. He does articulate the problems but, for me, he doesn’t really give me satisfactory answers to my main questions.
So, what does the rejection of this story do for the rest of the Bible, and its possible guidance for me? If I faithfully reject and clear out the violent image of God, I am rejecting a major theme of the Old Testament. As Brueggemann says,
…that the Bible is permeated with violence in which Yahweh is deeply enmeshed, [31]
So I am rejecting a major emphasis of the Bible. I cannot do this lightly. Regarding the way we approach the Bible, I find Derek Flood is both helpful and challenging with his suggestion to ‘faithfully embrace’ or ‘faithfully reject’ what we read. This takes a lot of serious thinking and study. I refer to this, in detail, a little later.
Terence Fretheim.
I now move to the commentary of Terence Fretheim, another eminent biblical scholar.
In his book on Exodus, in the series, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and. Preaching, I found his commentary instructive, but I also found much of it difficult to accept. Like Brueggemann, Fretheim gives a scholarly, detailed and extensive comment on the story, about 120 pages.
He does so, building his commentary on the thesis that the Lord’s conflict with Pharaoh is an allegory of the conflict between life and death, the conflict of the order of creation against anti-creation, order versus chaos. For Fretheim, the story has cosmic ramifications. Maybe Fretheim has uncovered the main intentional idea of the original storytellers. Who knows?
The most basic perspective within which the plagues is to be understood is a theology of creation. [32]
and
We have seen that God’s liberation of Israel is the primary but not the ultimate focus of the divine activity. The deliverance of Israel is ultimately for the sake of the entire creation. [33]
In Fretheim’s setting of the Exodus story as an allegory of creation, life versus death, he states,
There is thus a symbolic relationship of ethical order and cosmic order. Seen against this background, Pharaoh’s oppressive, anti-life measures against Israel are anti-creational… Egypt is an embodiment of the forces of chaos, threatening a return of the entire cosmos to its precreation state. The plagues may be viewed as the effect of Pharaoh’s anti-creational sins upon the cosmos writ large. [34]
For me, the Lord’s action in the Lord’s ‘signs and wonders’ are not pro-life or driven by the forces of creation and order. For me, the execution of God’s ‘signs and wonders’ unleash chaos and anti-life results far beyond the results of Pharaoh’s oppressive rule and his anti-life behavior; far beyond ‘Pharaoh’s anti-creational sins’. Fretheim states,
The considerable range of correspondence that exists between Pharaoh’s sins of oppression and the plagues shows that the latter are destined for Egypt according to an act-consequence schema. [35]
My question is, “Why is this ‘act-consequence schema’ not entertained regarding the acts of God in the plagues and then their consequences?”
1. We are told nothing in the text that the blood of the Nile River was changed back to water; only that ‘the Nile became foul’, see Ex. 7:21, and the Egyptians had to ‘dig around the Nile for water’; see Ex. 7:24. How long did the blood last? How serious was the consequence? We don’t know from the text.
2. The frogs were ‘gathered together in heaps, and the land stank’; see Ex. 8:14. What were the consequences? Did the frogs just decay, probably taking weeks or maybe months, with possible exposure to disease?
3. The ‘swarm of flies’ was just ‘removed’; see Ex. 8:31, so we don’t know what consequences occurred, if any.
4. ‘All the cattle of the Egyptians died.’; see Ex. 9:6. The consequences could have lasted for decades.
5. ‘The hail struck down every plant of the field and shattered every tree of the field.’; see Ex. 9:25, And after the locusts ‘not a green thing remained, neither tree nor plant of the field through all the land of Egypt.’; see Ex. 10:15. The consequences of this could have lasted for more than decades. How could any of the vegetation revive?
6. ‘At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt.’; see Ex. 12:29. The consequences of this could have thrown the burial section of the community into absolute chaos with so many human bodies needing to be embalmed and buried. Not to mention the grief and following mental state of all the Egyptians.
7. ‘The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained.’; see Ex. 14:28. Together with all the first-born of the Egyptians being dead, this would have pushed the community to the brink, with such universal grief and loss, as well as such a depleted number of males to father the next generation.
‘As with the other plagues, the emphasis on “all” is intended to portray an aspect of creation gone berserk.’ The constant use of extravagant images, that the water in all Egypt turned to blood; that there was not one green thing was left after the locusts; that all cattle died; that all the first-born of Egyptian families were killed by God; that all Pharaoh’s warriors were drowned, so that not one remained, lends weight to my contention that the consequences of all this death and destruction could have nearly destroyed the whole Egyptian civilization.
I suppose all these consequences are appropriate in, and consistent with Fretheim’s basic thesis; ‘Egypt is an embodiment of the forces of chaos, threatening a return of the entire cosmos to its precreation state. ’
For Fretheim, questions of the morality of God’s actions seem somewhat less important. For me, he doesn’t address those questions.
Fretheim’s commentary on the last plague.
As with Brueggemann, I wish to deal in detail, with some of Fretheim’s commentary, particularly his comments about the killing of all the first-born of the Egyptian families; the last ‘plague’. Many of you will not have his commentary so I place it before you. It is rather long, but I wish to give you the opportunity to make your own judgements about my disagreements with him. He states in his commentary on Ex. 12:29-36,
As noted, the placement of this plague in the midst of ritual considerations takes it out of the normal flow of the story, out of ordinary time and space. This gives it an impressionistic character in relation to actual events. Its somewhat episodic flow may be due to the composite nature of the text, but it also enables the narrator quickly to view death and new life from different angles of vision. The story is told in spare, straightforward language; there is no literary embellishments, no stopping to savor what happened to the Egyptians. Even with the joy associated with newfound freedom, Israel, like its God, voices no pleasure in the deaths of these persons. This gives the entire scene a certain solemnity.
Attention is here given to two major aspects of the narrative; it is a story of both death and new life.
It happened in the middle of the night, when all of that world was dark. The darkness of the night matched the darkness of the deed. No household was spared, not one. Indeed no barnyard escaped. It was a deed done when all were asleep; it was not a public execution, though the effects were public indeed. As hard as it is to say, the victims were primarily children; both boys and girls – whoever happened to be the first-born in the family. It helps little to say that there was no suffering; to use a modern image, it was sudden (infant) death syndrome throughout Egypt that night. One can appreciate the great cry that went up, from parents in particular, including Pharaoh himself. However much it is appropriate to speak of judgement, and Pharaoh’s genocidal decision to kill all Hebrew baby boys was made long ago, (see Ex. 1:16, 22.), no reader can rejoice at the deaths of children. Their lives were snuffed out because of what adults had done. It might be helpful to draw on historical parallels, not finally as a justification for killing, but as a reminder of other forms of history’s violence. Perhaps carefully drawn analogies between Pharaoh and Hitler might be helpful, including the fact that American bombs killed many German children while asleep and wide awake, and in strange unpredictable patterns of location.
It is one thing to speak of American bombs, but it seems almost blasphemous that God is the one ‘who drops the bomb’. The text does not back away from identifying the subject of the judgement: God smote all the first-born in Egypt from the least (this time prisoners are mentioned) to the greatest, both animals and human beings. This does not mean that God killed each of the first-born directly, one by one (see Psalm 78:49). The text uses various words in speaking of a non-divine agent: 11:1 speaks of nega (“plague”), a word often used for diseases; 12:13 speaks of negep (“plague”) a word commonly used for pestilence or blow; in 9:15 deber (“pestilence”) is used, as in 9:3 for the cattle epidemic; mashit (“destroyer” NRSV) occurs in 12:23, a word associated with destruction and pestilence (cf 11 Sam. 24:15-16; Isaiah 37:36). It is best to think of a pestilence epidemic that kills quickly. This killing of the first-born only ought not to be interpreted literally (its possible historical basis is that of no household remained untouched.). As with the other plagues, the emphasis on “all” is intended to portray an aspect of creation gone berserk. The moral order had “boomeranged” in such a way that the order of nature (which includes epidemics) has become something it ought not to be.
The language of 4:23 should be recalled. There the killing of the Egyptian first-born is understood as a measure for measure, making the punishment fit the crime. Pharaoh had sought to kill all male children of Israel (1:22), a genocidal measure that would in time have killed off the people of Israel. So the first-born of Egypt suffer a fate comparable – it is not genocidal – to what Pharaoh had planned and begun to carry out.
This helps answer the question, Why not just any person from every Egyptian family? It is because of the widely known understanding regarding the first-born. This could be a public statement as to God’s claim over Egypt, God’s authority over the people rather than Pharaoh’s. The first-born are dedicated to Yahweh rather than to Egypt’s Gods. (see 12:12) Given Pharaoh’s attempt to claim Israel’s children, this constitutes God’s counterclaim at a comparable, if less severe, level. Because it was directly responsive to the type of claim Pharaoh was making, it would perhaps have been a measure that would finally be convincing to him. [36]
My comments.
1. I found it helpful that Fretheim identifies that the story is embedded in liturgy and vice-versa and thus it is, to an extent, taken ‘out of ordinary time and space’. He also speaks of the ‘composite nature of the text’, which helps me cope with the apparent inconsistencies within the story that the Bible presents it. It is not told as accurate actual history, and it could well have multiple sources.
2. Fretheim states that the story has two major aspects – it is a story about death and new life. That’s for sure. Lots of death and at the end, new life for the Hebrew slaves.
3. He certainly does not shy away from the fact that it was a dark deed, ‘It happened in the middle of the night, when all of that world was dark. The darkness of the night matched the darkness of the deed.’, but he also says ‘when all were asleep’. For me, this is Fretheim’s effort to lessen the toxicity of the deed and the effect it had on those involved. People were asleep so they died in their sleep. Maybe not too bad and not painful. I think ‘all were asleep’ cannot be assumed. Probably true for most but not everyone, ‘all’.
4. Certainly not a public execution with all its shame and humiliation. I think this is important, and Fretheim alerts me to this.
5. ‘The victims were primarily boys and girls’, and ‘As hard as it is to say, the victims were primarily children; both boys and girls – whoever happened to be the first-born in the family.’ I think Fretheim’s emphasis on little children, even infants, is inappropriate. I have looked at my present family. Seven of those presently alive would have been killed that night. My wife, Wendy, 83 years old; one of my sons-in-law, Alberto, aged 65; my eldest daughter, Cathy, aged 58; and four of my grandchildren, Rahni,19; Jasmine, 19; Harrison, 15, and Alannah, 2. All would have been killed that night in Egypt. Just because you are a father or mother does not preclude you from being the first-born in your family. Just because you are over 80 does not change your position of being the first-born of your family. I contend it would have been possible for seven people in one household in Egypt to have been killed that night: four grandparents, two parents and only one child. Certainly improbable but not impossible. They could all have been the first-born in their respective families. Thus, I further contend that this slaughter by God could have been actually worse than the child slaughter done by Pharaoh, because a father, mother and a child could have been killed by God that night, grandparents as well. Not that I like to make comparisons of such tragic events. Such comparisons are to be avoided because each event is horrendous. I too, should avoid this line of approach more conscientiously.
In the film, The Ten Commandments, an adult man falls dead on the porch of Pharaoh’s palace, as a result of this last 10th plague. One of Pharaoh’s older advisors states that he was his first-born son. This suggested that such a death could be quite sudden and maybe painless. I wonder.
So why does Fretheim mention ‘sudden (infant) death syndrome’? ALL the first-born were killed. In fact, for the story, there may have been far more adults killed than children and most likely, very few infants. The first-born and not the last-born were targeted that night. Many infants would have been the last-born and not the first-born. I believe that for the story, as told in the Bible, there may have been very few infants involved. Yet Fretheim states that, ‘it was sudden (infant) death syndrome throughout Egypt that night.’ How can he say that? There is no biblical basis for this. It is nowhere in the text. In fact, the text suggests something other.
6. ‘It helps to say that there was no suffering.’ For sure, but I think it is a bit of a jump for Fretheim to even mildly suggest there was no suffering? There was a great cry from the Egyptians, but I don’t think we can presume that that was only the cry of those grieving. It may well have been mixed with the cries of those suffering a painful death.
7. ‘It was sudden.’ In the film; Yes, but in the Bible? Who knows? Where is the validation for this in the text? Maybe yet one of Fretheim’s presuppositions coming to the fore, to try to lessen the toxicity of the situation. This Exodus tribal God has shown no mercy so far in the story, so why should mercy be shown now?
8. ‘It is one thing to speak of American bombs, but it seems almost blasphemous that God is the one who drops the bomb.’ For me, it is not a case of ‘seems almost’. It is a case of actually being obscenely blasphemous, at least from my Christian perspective. In ancient times this was thought of as the way that tribal Gods behaved. Had they had bombs, I have little doubt they would have enjoyed using as many as were available. The strategies by which they ‘gained glory’ were irrelevant. Gaining glory was what was all important. The tribal God of the Israelites was no different.
9. ‘…that American bombs killed many children, while asleep and wide awake.’ So, were the Americans worse than God? By presuming that all the Egyptians were asleep, a quite subtle comparison is made, for which, I believe there is no biblical justification.
10. It is good that Fretheim does not avoid the matter when the text does identify the one who is ‘the subject of this judgement’. However, by using the word ‘judgement’, which is biblical, he again, for me, avoids the ultra-violent nature of the action of God.
11.‘This does not mean that God killed each one first-born directly, one by one (see Psalm 78:49)’. (This is not my favorite Psalm and I think the verse quoted gives an expansive interpretation, for which, I believe, Fretheim is not entitled to make; ‘a company of destroying angels’.)
The Lord had to look at every house, ‘one by one’, to see if there was any blood on the lintels of the door posts. From the text, ‘For the Lord will pass through to slay the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel of the two door posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to slay you.’ (Exodus 12:23.)
This was all an individually, deliberate and considered operation by the Lord. Nothing must or will go wrong! I think it is a case of God killing each Egyptian ‘one by one’ and not killing each Hebrew ‘one by one’. There would have been a large number of Hebrew dwellings with blood on the lintels of their doorposts, so a ‘distinction’ was made in every single case. ‘When he sees…’ is a specific individual identification. If blood was seen by the Lord, then no killing was undertaken. When the Lord ‘did not see’, killing was appropriate. This is ‘one by one’. I realize that the Hebrews lived in the land of Goshen and thus were separated from the Egyptians, but we are not told that every Hebrew lived there. I suppose that could be inferred but the text still states that it was necessary for God ‘to see the blood’. This points me to an individual ‘seeing’ and thus a ‘one by one’ killing.
12. Fretheim uses the phrase ‘non-divine agent’, and identifies four different Hebrew words used in the story. This phrase conjures up in my mind an agent which was not God’s. It nearly suggests to me, that the ‘agent’ was not working under God’s instructions. This, for me, has the seeds of misunderstanding.
13. ‘It is best to think of a pestilence epidemic that kills quickly.’ For sure, and, as mentioned before, the film certainly suggests that. But again, is this not trying to lessen the toxicity of the action by God? Who knows whether the death was quick or not? Fretheim wants us to think so. Again I say, “The God of the Exodus has shown no mercy so far, so why should mercy be shown now?”
14. ‘…all is intended to portray an aspect of creation gone berserk.’ I suggest that it is the Exodus tribal God who has gone berserk. This is what this tribal God does to ‘gain glory’.
15. ‘The moral order has ‘boomeranged’ in such a way that the order of nature (which includes epidemics) has become something it ought not to be.’ It didn’t just happen. In the story, the Lord makes it ‘boomerang’ with the Lord’s ‘signs and wonders’. God uses anti-nature, anti-life, death and destruction to accomplish God’s purpose. It is God who is doing something that God should not do. God is ‘becoming something’ God ‘ought not to be’. But that’s what tribal Gods do! I think that is what the text points to.
16. When Fretheim rightly states that God will act in a tit-for-tat way; see Ex. 4:23, is he suggesting that God is in some way justified, even though God uses one of the lowest human motives for action; retaliation or revenge? When he compares God’s killing of the first-born with Pharaoh’s killing of every male child, Fretheim, for me, is virtually saying that what God did was not as bad ‘it is not genocidal’, as that which Pharaoh intended to do to the Hebrew race and had, in fact, commenced. What the Lord was doing was not genocidal. I think Fretheim is asking for understanding that God’s claim is ‘less severe’, because God kills only the first-born and not all male children. Is Fretheim saying, “We know God is bad, but he is not nearly as bad as Pharaoh.”? When one compares evil with something that is worse, it doesn’t look so evil. I think this a slippery-slope’ way of comparison. For me, they are both evil.
17. ‘The first-born are dedicated to Yahweh rather than to Egypt’s Gods.’ In its historical context, I think Fretheim has given a helpful explanation as to why it was that the first-born was killed. This was surely a way of indicating to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, that Israelites’ God was way above the status of all the Egyptian Gods.
For this part of his commentary, I think Fretheim wants us to think that God gives a swift, painless death, occurring in sleep to all the first-born Egyptians. At the age of 84, this is what I wish for. However, I do not think that Fretheim can get this understanding from an objective look at the text in the Bible. There is no biblical validation for a slow, drawn out, painful experienced death while awake, but I believe there is also no solid validation in the text, for a quick, sudden, painless death while asleep. It is my contention that Fretheim wishes to divorce God from doing things that are really nasty. With the Exodus story I do not believe that is possible. For me, Fretheim presents God as doing what is deemed necessary to demonstrate that God is Lord of all creation, no matter what it takes. For me, he seems to try, in some ways, to nearly exonerate the Lord, regarding the extreme violence that the Lord employs.
I find his commentary, dealing with the last plague, unacceptable, and, to an extent, pointing in the wrong direction. I would not recommend it as a resource for preaching or teaching.
I know I have come to Fretheim’s commentary with the teachings of Jesus about ‘enemy love’ in my mind, but I think this is the way most regular churchgoers would take. That’s why the violence of God in the Bible is such a huge difficulty for most regular churchgoers, that is, if they think about it. I do not think they are encouraged by church leadership to do so.
Fretheim obviously has a great deal of knowledge of the Old Testament and a wide understanding of the Hebrew language, so I suppose I have little right to question such a scholarly presentation, regarding his conclusions. But as with all of us, I believe Fretheim, imposes some of his predispositions on the text and as such, indulges in Reader Response interpretation to such an extent that he creates his own text and does not address many of the questions that ordinary churchgoers like myself, ask about this Exodus story. I believe they are not the wrong questions.
We may call the actions of the Exodus God ‘signs and wonders’, ‘judgements’, ‘consequences’, what God needed to do to achieve liberation, necessary actions to ‘gain glory’ and be known ‘throughout the whole earth’ as Lord of all creation, essential actions to make all peoples recognize that ‘I am the Lord’, but with any or all of this, I believe we cannot escape the fact that the actions of this God are nearly always killing. The actions ruined the whole land until there was no green thing left alive, killed all animals, killed all locusts so that not a single one was left and also killed numerous human beings some of whom were children and maybe even infants.
We must rid ourselves of this tribal God who acted precisely the way tribal Gods do. We must reject this image of God because, I believe, with all our sophisticated theological understandings, we cannot hold this Exodus image of God and the Jesus image of God together at the same time. I choose the Jesus image and utterly reject the Exodus image. This means, I think, that I must reject the whole story.
Marcus Borg.
Marcus Borg is the author of many books in the field of Progressive Christianity and an eminent biblical scholar and commentator, whose books I have enjoyed and from which I have learnt a tremendous amount. In his book, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, he has a very short statement, telling in his own words, the story of the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. He talks about
Then begins a dramatic episode in which God sends plague after plague against the empire. [37]
He lists nine of the plagues and then states a bit later,
And so the most devastating plague strikes: the death of the first-born of all Egyptians, Including Pharaoh’s son. [38]
Although Borg makes his own observations, he does not reject (not that I can remember) the violent nature of God’s actions and the death effects of most of the plagues. Of the Song of Moses, he states,
The deliverance of Israel at the sea is celebrated spiritually in a magnificent hymn of praise to God. [39]
I believe Borg is saying here that a song praising violence, is ‘magnificent’. If this is what he is doing, I cannot agree. I am very pleased that Onwards Christian Soldiers has been deleted from our official Australian hymnbooks. That happened back in 1977. The fundamental struggle/conflict between good and evil, between God and the devil, if you will, is profound and a central theme of discipleship of Jesus, but military metaphors are all unacceptable for me.
One of the features of Hebrew poetry is the universal use of couplets; two consecutive lines which communicate the same idea but in different words. The Psalms are full of these couplets. Borg mentions that the first couplet in the Song of Moses is,
Sing to the Lord, for God has triumphed gloriously;
Horse and rider God has thrown into the sea.
He thus equates the glorious triumph of God with violently drowning all Pharaoh’s warriors. This poem in chapter 15, goes on to speak about the Lord, and the results of this God’s actions.
‘Man of War’, being ‘glorious in power’, who ’shatters the enemy’. ‘The peoples have heard, they tremble; pangs have seized on the inhabitants of Philistia. Now the chiefs of Edom are dismayed; the leaders of Moab, trembling seizes them; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the greatness of thy arm, they are as still as stone’. (Exodus 15:6, 14-16.)
These are parts of the song which I would not call ‘magnificent’. This is not the action of a God I would praise.
In his most helpful book, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, when commenting on the Exodus story, he states,
What is the story about? Most basically, it is a story of bondage, liberation, a journey and a destination. [40]
From the Hebrew slaves’ point of view, that is so, but I think his statement about the basics of the story is inadequate. Because it is so short, I suppose Borg could be excused, but, for me, he does not adequately announce all the basics. There is no word about the violence of God and God wanting to gain glory, both of which saturate the story?
In his short retelling of this story, Borg makes no mention of violence in the actions of God. Violence doesn’t come into his picture here. I think this is an unfortunate omission. In his nearly three pages on the Exodus Story, Borg finishes this section with,
Though we find ourselves in bondage to Pharaoh, it proclaims, there is a way out. Through signs and wonders, through the great and mighty hand of God, God can liberate us, indeed wills our liberation and yearns for our liberation, from a life in bondage to culture, to life as a journeying with God. [41]
In the above quote Borg makes a more personal reflection about our liberation from Pharaoh. I do not believe God liberates us through acts of violence. Using the Exodus story in this context is, for me, very dangerous. ‘Through signs and wonders, through the great and mighty hand of God.’ Yes! But with such violence? Borg does not address my questions. Maybe in some other of his writings he does, and if this is so, then I cannot remember it, or I have not read it. I’m sorry if this is the case.
Tom Wright.
I turn to Tom Wright, another modern eminent theologian, scholar and biblical commentator. In his co-authored book with Marcus Borg, The Meaning of Jesus, he states,
But if you start with the God of the Exodus, of Isaiah, of creation and covenant, and of the Psalms, and ask what that God might look like were he to become human, you will find that he might look very much like Jesus of Nazareth, and perhaps never more so than when he dies on a Roman cross. [42]
I can never imagine the God of the Exodus choosing to die on a cross. I can never imagine the God of the Exodus doing the things that Jesus did, loving and forgiving his enemies. I can never imagine the God of the Exodus washing dirty feet. I realize that Wright is probably referring to God’s intention in the Exodus story to liberate downtrodden slaves, which intention, I think Jesus would have absolutely endorsed, but again I say that the God of the Exodus and Jesus do things in totally opposite ways to bring about liberation. These two ways are, for me, incompatible. Why does Wright suggest that if the God of the Exodus were to become human, he might look like Jesus? I do not understand. As I have said previously, I find that the image of the God in the Exodus story is the antithesis of all that Jesus taught and lived as his image of God. I believe other regular churchgoers would think the same.
Wright is quoted as saying on Twitter on the 17th of May 2018,
Just as the Exodus was launched by the coming of Israel’s God in person to rescue his people, so the new Exodus has been launched by the long awaited return of this same God in and as Jesus himself. [43]
I would suggest that Israel’s God in the Exodus is not ‘the same God in and as Jesus himself’. These Gods are opposites and nothing like ‘the same’. Israel’s God in rescuing God’s people in the Exodus Old Testament story, is ultra-violent, killing and destroying everything to achieve this God’s goals, and to show how great and powerful God is. The ‘God in and as Jesus himself’ acts in the opposite way, with integrity, compassion and forgiveness. Jesus’ God teaches and demonstrates ‘enemy love’. This is completely absent in the behavior of the God of the Exodus. I do not understand.
Derek Flood.
I turn to Derek Flood, an author I have quoted before. In his excellent book, Disarming Scripture, in which he deals with violence in the Bible, he states,
Jesus embraces the story of the Exodus, but applies it in a way that is different, unexpected and transforming. [44]
How can he say that ‘Jesus embraces the story of the Exodus’, when Jesus never mentions it in his teaching or preaching; not in any of his ministry? Again, I don’t understand.
Is there a scotoma, a blind spot, existing here? Are some commentators looking critically at the extent of the violence of the God in this story, or have they become as immune to violence and its catastrophic effects, just like the Israelite tribal God who inflicts it all? Am I on the wrong track altogether? I begin to think I am. Maybe my questions need no answers. Maybe they are just the wrong questions.
I am questioning, challenging Brueggemann, Fretheim, Wright, Borg and Flood! I’m sorry, but I cannot stop. The text in front of me forces me to continue. So, I continue, trying to look at the text objectively.
Karen Armstrong.
I continue my research. Karen Armstrong in her book, The History of God, when commenting on the story of Abraham being directed by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, states,
Yet to modern ears, this is a horrible story. It depicts god as a despotic and capricious sadist, and it is not surprising that many people today who have heard this tale as children, reject such a deity. [45]
Commenting on the Exodus story, she states,
The myth of the Exodus from Egypt, when God led Moses and the children of Israel to freedom, is equally offensive to modern sensibilities. …. This is a brutal, partial, and murderous God, a god of war who would be known as Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Armies. He is passionately partisan, has little compassion for anyone but his own favorites, and is simply a tribal deity. If Yahweh had remained such a savage god, the sooner he vanished, the better it would have been for everybody. [46]
I believe Karen Armstrong is correct. Sadly though for me, the story with its gross image of God has not vanished but is still used in some Christian liturgies and teachings today. I believe this story is a source of great difficulty to most regular churchgoers if they think about it and its content.
John Shelby Spong.
I turn to Spong to see if he has anything to say about the story. He does not address this issue in his book, The Sins of Scripture, as I thought he might. However, I looked further and in a lecture reported in the Chautauguan Daily on June 27th 2012, in answer to question as to whether God changes, he answered,
“Does God change? Can God change?”, retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong asked Tuesday at the start of his afternoon lecture in the Hall of Philosophy.
“In certain religions and passages from sacred texts, God is defined as the ultimate embodiment of perfection, so the idea of a changing and transforming God is possible.”, Spong said. “However, an analysis of humankind’s historical perceptions of the divine, evidences not only have humanity’s ideas of God morphed through the millennia, but even within the pages of the Bible the nature of God has evolved.”
“The fact is, the concept of God changes very dramatically even in the pages of Holy Scripture, which makes it really difficult for fundamentalists”, Spong said, “because if you literalize the Scriptures and find that even the concept of God changes, somehow you’ve got to change along with it.”
In the second lecture of his weeklong series entitled ‘Re-claiming the Bible in a non-religious world’, Spong evidenced the changing Judeo-Christian concept of God through an examination of biblical text and the stories of the four minor prophets; Hosea, Amos, Jonah and Malachi.
“The Bible begins with a world marked by tribal religion.”, Spong said.
“There are two things that are always true about a tribal deity. First, the tribal deity always has a chosen people. And secondly, the tribal deity always hates everybody that the chosen people hate.”, he said.
“That early understanding of God as a tribal deity is evident in the Book of Exodus.” Spong said. “In Exodus, God hates the Egyptians because the Egyptians enslaved God’s chosen people, the Jews.”
“This God decides to attack the Egyptians with vengeance and with power. We call that the story of the plagues.” he said. “God hits the Egyptians up one side and down the other.”
“This understanding of God as a vengeful, violent deity that would murder the first-born son of every family, and thoughtlessly drown Egyptians in the depths of the Red Sea, is not a friendly identification.” Spong said.
“The understanding of God as a tribal deity appears in Exodus, the Book of Joshua, and again in the Book of Samuel, when the prophet Samuel orders King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites.”, he said.
“Tribal religion is part of human development, it’s part of our history, it’s part of the Bible, and yet if you read that entire book, you will discover that this God changes dramatically.”, Spong said. “The same God who sends plagues on the Egyptians, and stops the sun in the sky to kill more Amorites, and calls for genocide of the Amalekites is also quoted as having said, ’You are to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ ” [47]
Sadly this tribal God is far from dead. God is always on our side. During the two world wars, listen to both the opposing armies singing in the trenches and praying to their tribal Gods for victory. How sad! Will it ever end?
John Dominic Crossan.
There is also John Dominic Crossan’s book, Jesus and the Violence of Scripture. In his long review on the book, Rev. Neil Richardson, at one point early in his review, askes,
Is it possible to excise from our picture of the biblical God the many instances where he is violent and encourages violence in others?….Could we manage to drop these bits out of the Bible altogether, and just keep the material about loving our neighbours and remembering the plight of the poor? And were we to do this, would we be what Crossan defines as “still… a Christian”? [48]
He then comments,
Crossan’s answer is, Yes. That is because his Bible is a supermarket where you have to read the labels of the wares on the shelves to avoid being hoodwinked into thinking you are getting the authentic stuff. [49]
This is not a comment I would make of Crossan’s book. The author certainly does not back away from the fact that the Bible presents,
…on the one hand, a God of non-violent distributive justice and, on the other hand, a God of violent retributive justice. [50]
and a decision has to be made as to which biblical God is the God we can believe in, and which was the God to whom Jesus gave his allegiance.
Crossan repeatedly says that the Bible has both, in the New Testament as well as the Old. He does not deal with the Exodus story in the book, but I personally see it as an example of God’s ‘violent retributive justice’ in punishing Pharaoh and all Egypt for their treatment of the Hebrew slaves for not letting them go, and God’s ‘non-violent distributive justice’ intending to bring the slaves to freedom.
Crossan states twice in his book, quite graphically, no doubt to give prominence and strong emphasis,
The norm and criterion of the Christian Bible is the biblical Christ
and
The norm and criterion of the biblical Christ is the historical Jesus. [51]
This of course, raises the issue, ‘How do we discover and identify the ‘historical Jesus’?’, and when we identify him, ‘Is he violent or non-violent?’ Having answered this, according to Crossan, we can then apply that to the biblical Christ and thus to the Christian Bible.
It seems to me that one of the important reasons why Crossan believes the ‘historical Jesus’ was non-violent is,
Pilate judged Jesus to be a revolutionary, and therefore he required an official, legal, and public execution of Jesus. But Jesus was nonviolent rather than violent, and therefore there was no need to round up any of his followers. Pilate got it exactly correct. [52]
Had Jesus been violent, Pilate would have rounded up all Jesus’ followers and would have had them all crucified. That was the Roman strategy to keep ‘the peace’; kill all the rebels.
Crossan states a little later,
What about divine violence? Jesus non-violent resistance, and that of his followers, was explicitly based on the character of God, and our call to be members of God’s Kingdom was seen as God’s family.
‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends the rain… Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ (Matthew 5:44-45, 48.)
For Jesus, seeing humans as God’s children derives from his fundamental vision of God as householder of the universal family in the world home…. For Jesus, therefore, non-violent resistance to evil is divine before it is human and should be human because it is divine. [53]
Crossan was a leader in The Jesus Seminar, a group of about 50 critical biblical scholars and 100 laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk. This seminar was very active through the 1980s and 1990s, and into the early 21st century, who, by consensus voting, separated out what they believed were the actual sayings, and thus teachings of Jesus, from those that were considered to be statements and beliefs within the tradition of the early church. Thus, they were involved in an intense and very scholarly search for the ‘historical Jesus’. My perception is, that the Fellows of this Seminar, as a whole, regarded the ‘historical Jesus’ as decidedly non-violent and that sayings attributed to him which pointed towards him being violent, or God being violent, were constructions/beliefs of the early church, early traditions about Jesus, and then put into the mouth of Jesus by the gospel writers.
For Crossan, the ‘historical Jesus’ acted non-violently, because of his firm conviction that God was non-violent.
A point that Crossan makes is that violence escalates in chapter 4 of Genesis,
If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventyfold. (Genesis 4:24.)
Crossan states this escalation is applied by Jesus in the opposite way,
…for forgiveness rather than for vengeance. [54]
Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times? Jesus said unto him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven“. (Matthew 18:21-22.)
This is another example of the way Jesus taught and lived non-violently.
However, a big problem! The Jesus Seminar states that this direction by Jesus is not one of his own statements; see Robert Funk’s and The Seminar’s book, The Five Gospels, page 217. Maybe this is one of the Seminar’s decisions with which Crossan disagrees. (No wonder I get confused and don’t really know what to think sometimes, when studying the Bible in detail. I suppose it is unrealistic to think that all teachers, all scholars, would agree on everything!)
Jione Havea.
More recently, I have been introduced to a collection of essays from various scholars, collected together and editted by William W Emilsen and John T Squires, entitled 'Validating Violence – Violating Faith?' In it, the first essay is written by Jione Havea, a Lecturer in Biblical Studies at United Theological College and Academic Associate in the School of Theology at Charles Sturt University, and is entitled 'Pleasure and Grief, in Violence'. In this essay, he asserts that the texts of violence are simply there in the Bible. He neither approves nor avoids them. He asserts that they are to be understood, and part of that understanding is exploring the curious interrelation between violence, pleasure and grief. Havea argues that our general blindness to the violence in scripture is tantamount to ignoring the cries of the suffering. However, in his essay, when writing abut the Exodus story, he states,
'Whenever I read the account of the plagues in Egypt, I often ask myself: When will the violence stop? When will Yahweh stop hardening Pharaoh’s heart so that he may allow Israel to go? It feels as if Yahweh is just fooling around, pulling the strings and enjoying it also, at the expense of Egypt. The outcome is that, so to speak, the screws tighten harder and harder on Israel. According to this view, the violence that fell on Egypt and Israel were pleasurable to Yahweh and Pharaoh; this is the kind of pleasure that draws people to wrestling and boxing matches. Yahweh and Pharaoh were aware of the violence involved, but they were also pleased with the experience!'
For me, this statment encapsulates what I always think when confronted by the story.
Exodus and the Cross/Resurrection of Jesus.
I have been told a number of times that I should liken the story of the Exodus to the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus; the death of slavery to the Cross and the new life found in freedom, to the Resurrection. I personally find this dangerous but also stretching my imagination beyond the realms of sensibility. For me, it totally ignores the contexts and details of the two separate events.
I suppose any situation which leads from desperation and suffering to a life of hope and better possibilities could be linked in some way to the Cross/Resurrection paradigm. But I think what happened to Jesus and the growing understandings of the Cross/Resurrection paradigm, have much more to do with how it happened and what the actions were of the main ‘players’ involved in the stories.
Jesus’ death came about because he lived and loved the way he did. Jesus chose to be on the side of the exploited, the outcast, the poor, the slaves; he chose to teach and live love and forgiveness, enemy love; he chose to rebel against the status quo, the unethical system of exploitation, but he did it in a non-violent way. He knew this would lead him to his Cross. The Hebrews did not choose slavery. God in the Exodus story was certainly on the side of the slaves and did rebel against the unethical system of exploitation, but this God did it with violence.
I believe Jesus’ Resurrection came about because of the power and ultimate worthiness of the human values of love and forgiveness, because of the power of what Jesus taught and lived, because of the power of what his God-saturated dream for the world was. The newfound life for the Hebrews was brought about by the violent ‘signs and wonders’ of their tribal God. Jesus’ Resurrection came about in a non-violent way.
Slavery, exploitation, immoral systems win for a period, but generosity, equality, hospitality, forgiveness and love are radically, sublimely and decisively unstoppable. They ultimately always win the day; every day. The struggle is continuous and profoundly dangerous, complex, and herculean, but victory is assured through love, not violence. This is the Christian truth as I understand it from Jesus.
The Exodus story has violence as the winner. For me, there is no place for the ultra-violent God of the Exodus story in any comparison with the Cross/Resurrection story of Jesus. That God doesn’t fit!
Living the Questions – DVD Part 2.
Walter Brueggemann, at the beginning of the series of lectures on a DVD, Countering Pharaoh’s Production-Consumption Society Today, on which I have commended previously, states,
The Bible is an act of imagination. It is not a package of certitudes. It is an act of imagination that invites our faithful imagination which makes it possible for us to live faithfully. [55]
For me, these are the most important things Brueggemann says in all five sessions in the DVD. They are certainly not the only important things he says.
I understand him to be saying that the Bible does not say things that are all correct and unchangeable. I think he is saying that the Bible is full of stories and statements about God, humans and reality that cannot be taken as actually true for all time. They are moulded by the imaginations of the authors and storytellers.
We must make our own faithful imaginative response and thus changes in understanding the text may occur. The Bible has statements and stories created by its authors working within the limitations of the information and knowledge they had. What they said, was said within the framework of their limited, sometimes very limited, information and knowledge. Their imaginations were linked inseparably to their own time. It could be no other way.
To know something about the historical context of the biblical literature in which stories and statements are imbedded, we need to take on board some historical research done by biblical scholars. The Exodus story is in the Pentateuch, so we need to look at the historical context in which the Pentateuch, often called The Torah, was told and written down.
The Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, has a long and complex history of evolution. It is obvious from a study of the material contained, that there are inconsistencies, contradictions, different theological emphases, distinctly different styles of writing and most significantly, very different images of God developed.
A generally held theory, undisputed amongst most reputable Old Testament biblical scholars, is that the Torah took hundreds of years to evolve. It began with laws and stories handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth from father to son; oral traditions.
This theory states that there were originally at least four separate traditions commonly known now as ‘J’, ‘E’, ‘D’ and ‘P’. These were gradually combined into what we now have in the Bible. There are variations of this theory. Some have slightly different writing sequences and different combinations of the various traditions, but there is wide consensus on the basics.
The ‘J’, ‘E’, ‘D’ and ‘P’ theory.
The ‘J’ tradition is considered to be older than the other three, written down about 950 BCE (Before the Common Era) and now called ‘J’ because of the word it uses for God, ‘Jahweh’, an alternative spelling for ‘Yahweh’, translated as ‘Lord God’ or ‘Lord’. This ‘J’ tradition includes the older, second story of creation in Genesis chapter 2, the Garden of Eden story, the Cain and Abel story, the older story of Noah and many stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Its content then stretches through the time of the invasion and conquering of the Promised Land under Joshua, and maybe even further to the time of King David.
The ‘E’ tradition, considered to be older than the last two traditions, ‘D’ and ‘P’, was written down about 850 BCE and now called ‘E’ because it uses the Hebrew word ‘Elohim’ translated as ‘God’. It has a shorter historical span than the ‘J’ tradition, from Abraham to Moses and not much more. It has a priestly emphasis and goes well with the last tradition, ‘P’, when, in the evolution of the Torah, they were combined.
The ‘D’ tradition derives its name from the book of Deuteronomy. This ‘D’ document, written down at about 650 BCE, has little reference to stories about times prior to Moses. The ‘D’ document was probably a single unit and not as much a collection, like the ‘J’ and ‘E’ traditions. For a few scholars, Deuteronomy is understood to be Moses’ farewell address to the Hebrew people. It is intensely nationalistic. ‘D’s’ theological emphases were quite influential throughout the writing of the Old Testament. The ‘D’ tradition’s emphasis on justice and responsibility played a significant role in the development of the Israelite religion.
‘P’, the last tradition of the four, is so called because of its emphasis on a Priestly Code; priestly or religious laws. Gathered together, edited and subsequently written down at about 500 – 450 BCE, it is very legalistic and systematic. Its authors had about 500 years of theologically interpreted Hebrew history, ecclesiastical, sociological, cultural and religious thought and reflection, above and beyond that which the earliest stories and traditions had. It has the first story of creation in Genesis chapter 1, the second story of Noah, embedded in the older story, stories about Abraham and Jacob. It also has most of the contents of the books of Leviticus and Numbers.
This theory is built on the proposition that these four traditions were at some earlier time, written down but these original documents have been lost. All we have now is the final combination of the four in the Torah/Pentateuch as it is in the Bible. One suggested possibility, I have heard, is that the priest Ezra may have had a hand in the Torah’s final compilation and editing.
Most regular churchgoers know nothing of these origins of the Torah. They have never been told. They may not be very interested either but having such information can assists me in my approach to the Exodus story.
Tradition of the Story is ‘J’.
Realizing that one of the major ways of separating out the different traditions was by identifying where ‘Yahweh – the Lord’, and ‘Elohim – God’ were used, it becomes obvious that the Exodus story belongs to the oldest ‘J’ tradition. In chapters 3 to 15 of Exodus, where the story is told, ‘Yahweh – the Lord’ is used well over 150 times, whereas ‘Elohim – God’ is used less than ten times.
This points to the story dating back to the earliest times in the Hebrew religion when, as I have stated previously.
If I am correct and the Exodus story is part of the ‘J’ tradition, dating back about 3000 years, it is no wonder we find it impossible to align this Exodus God with the God we see in Jesus, about a thousand years later. The huge problem for regular churchgoers is that they have never been told these things.
I did my own research regarding the book of Joshua. That book uses the term ‘Yahweh – Lord’ over 150 times, ’the God of Israel’ about 18 times, ‘the Lord your God’ about 38 times and ‘Elohim – God’, only seven times. I think it is no wonder that this book is also thought of as being part of the ‘J’ narrative, not only because of how it addresses God/Lord but also because its tribal God is so violent, as is the main emphasis in the rest of ’J’.
Doing a little more of my own research, the ‘worst story’ about King Saul, referred to a lot earlier, the word for God in 1 Samuel 15, Yahweh/Jahweh is translated as ‘the Lord’ 26 times; translated as ‘the Lord of Hosts’ once, translated as ‘the Lord your God’ once and the Hebrew word Elohim is not used at all. This would put this story into the most ancient ‘J’ tradition as well.
With this Exodus story being assigned to an ancient period of Hebrew religious history, I suppose then, I might be able to accept it for what I think it is, a story driven by a hopelessly out-of-date theology regarding its image of God. But it is dangerous if we use this image of God to instruct us about how we should think about God today. I can also accept it as a story pointing in the opposite direction to which Jesus points.
As an alternative, I can reject the story as being unhelpful for me, concerning my journey with Jesus. I can also urge others to reject it as well.
I believe the church generally, has left ordinary churchgoers in the situation like a doctor, who has medicine that can cure an ailment but does not administer it, or even prescribe its use. That’s very strong language but it states how I feel.
Different translations.
I now turn to another significant difficulty; that of different translations and the different meanings of particular words and phrases. Sometimes different meanings given to a particular word or whether a particular word is used or not, can make a world of difference to the main thrust and message of a text or story.
I have used mainly the text of the Revised Standard Version in my discussion of the Exodus story. Other translations have different wordings and I think some are reasonably significant. For some verses, I have compared the three translations; the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised standard Version (NRSV) and the Good News Bible (GNB).
Exodus 4:21-23.
RSV ‘And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.”, if you refuse to let him go I will slay your first- born son.’
NRSV ‘And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: Israel is my first-born son. I said to you, “Let my son go that he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; now I will kill your first-born son.’
GNB ‘Again the Lord said to Moses, “Now that you are going back to Egypt, be sure to perform before the king all the miracles which I have given you the power to do. But I will make the king stubborn, and he will not let the people go. Then you must tell him that I, the Lord, say, “Israel is my first-born son. I told you to let my son go, so that he might worship me, but you refused. Now I am going to kill your first-born son.”
1. The difference of the use of ’Now that you are going’ by the GNB instead of ‘When you go’, in the other two, gives a definiteness to Moses’ going back. Maybe an insignificant difference.
2. The difference of ‘miracles’ used in both the RSV and the GNB instead of ‘wonders’, used in the RSV and throughout the story, gives a slightly different slant of the events, which could have been the original intent of the storyteller.
3. The difference in the GNB in using ‘I will make the king stubborn’ instead of ‘I will harden his heart’ in the other two translations is a minor difference but I think however, ‘I will make the king stubborn’ gives a modern flavour to the text, but ‘I will harden his heart’, is the more poetic.
4. In verse 21, the tiny word ‘so’ is used in both the RSV and the NRSV; ‘so that he will not let the people go’. This makes the result of God ‘hardening Pharaoh’s heart’ quite clear and it is that Pharaoh will not let the people go. The GNB and only one other translation of the 40 odd I have researched, uses the word ‘and’ instead of ‘so’, thus giving no substantial link to, nor definitive result of the ‘hardening of Pharaoh’s heart’.
5. In verse 23, the RSV and the King James Translation are the only translations of the six I have that use the word ‘if’. Both the NRSV and the GNB use ‘but you refused’. No ‘if’ is used. Fretheim makes mention of this little word, and he seems to think it is important. I think he is incorrect in stating that the verse is ‘usually translated’ as in the RSV, using the word ‘if’. Of over 50 translations I researched, only 15 use the word ‘if’, and none of the most commonly used translations use the word, except the RSV and the King James translation. Because of this word ‘if’, Fretheim states that there is a degree of uncertainty as to what the final outcome of God’s conflict with Pharaoh will be. He states; ‘There is therefore in the final analysis an openness to the future in 4:21-23.’ [56]
The NRSV and the GNB, as well as other translations I have, state in their texts that Pharaoh ‘refused’ to let the people go whereas the RSV leaves the matter up in the air a little. I believe the NRSV and the GNB and other translations make it clear that Pharaoh’s decision would be ‘hardened by the Lord’ to the extent that he would definitely not let the slaves go. I think Fretheim wishes to give Pharaoh’s free will more weight in this matter and less responsibility to God’s ‘hardening of his heart’, so that it is Pharaoh who will decide in a certain way. This, I believe, is consistent with the general tenor of Fretheim’s whole commentary.
These two last comments above (4 and 5) are examples of how important a single word can be in making a particular emphasis for a text. I think the use or non-use of the words ‘so’ and ‘if’ make a world of difference.
Exodus 8:1.
RSV ‘Thus says the Lord, “Let my people go that they may serve me.” ‘
NRSV ‘Thus says the Lord, “Let my people go that they may worship me.” ‘
GNB ‘Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the king and tell him that the Lord says, ’Let my people go so that they can worship me.’ ‘
Maybe the NRSV and the GNB use of ‘worship’ captures the idea of God wanting to ‘gain glory’, and having God to be recognized. I think ‘worship’ conveys, at least for modern readers, a meaning closer than ‘serve’ used in the RSV, to what the God of the Exodus would want. Reasonably important, I think.
Exodus 9:15-16.
RSV ‘For by now I could have put forth my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth; but for this purpose have I let you live; to show you my power, so that my name may be declared through the earth.’
NRSV ‘For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth; but for this purpose have I let you live; to show you my power, to make my name resound through all the earth.’
GNB ‘If I had raised my hand to strike you and your people with disease, you would have been completely destroyed. But to show my power I have let you live so that my fame might spread over the whole world.
1. I find it interesting that Fretheim refers to the text in this way. The question here is not what God ‘could’ have done, as if God’s power were in doubt, but what God ‘should’ have been done had God not had a more comprehensive purpose that his life could serve. … If it were not for larger purposes that God could achieve, Pharaoh should have met his end. [57]
For me, the word ‘could’ does not infer, the doubting of God’s power. It is about when that power will be used by God. God ‘could’ have done it whenever God wished to.
2. ‘my mane’ used in both RSV and NRSV would have meant more to the Hebrews but for modern readers I think ‘my fame’ used in GNB says it well.
Exodus 10:2.
RSV ‘and that you may tell it in the hearing of your son and your son’s son how I have made sport of the Egyptians.’
NRSV ‘and that you may tell your children and your grandchildren how I made fools of the Egyptians.’
GNB ’and in order that you may be able to tell your children and your grandchildren how I made fools of the Egyptians.’
For me, the different translations give a different feeling to this verse. Making ‘sport’ used in RSV, is far worse, I think, than making ‘fools of’, used in NRSV and GNB, I think, making ‘sport’ is more sadistic, which I think, probably fits better the behavior of this tribal God. Maybe my prejudices at play again.
Exodus 14:17-18.
RSV ”And I will hardened the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots and his horsemen. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen.”
NRSV “Then I will hardened the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them, and I will gain glory over Pharaoh and all his army, his chariots and his chariot drivers. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gained glory for myself over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his chariots drivers.”
GNB “I will make the Egyptians so stubborn that they will go I after them, and I will gain honor by my victory over the king, his army, his chariots and his drivers. When I defeat them, the Egyptians will now that I am the Lord.”
This last example shows how unlike, in detail, different translations can be.
1. The GNB is much shorter than the other two, partly because it deletes some of the repetitions of the other two.
2. The GNB changes ‘get glory’ of RSV and ‘gain glory’ NRSV into ‘gain honor’. For me, the GNB, in making these changes, is changing the meaning of the text quite significantly. I think it conveys a different message. ‘get glory’ or ‘gain glory’ seems to me to be more in line with the whole story than ‘gain honor’. God is on about ’gaining glory’. ‘Gaining glory’ is different to ‘gaining honor’. Glory is more extreme and that is what God wants.
3. ‘gotten glory’ in RSV or gained glory’ in NRSV is quite different to ‘defeat’ in GNB. The words ‘gain’ or ‘get glory’ speaks about what happens for God whereas ‘defeat’ speaks only of the outcome of the conflict. God is interested in the former.
These above are but a small sample of the differences in translations and the difference they can make in the meanings and emphases within the story. Individually they may not amount to much, but their cumulative impact can be quite significant, when taken together with numerous other different translations of other texts in this particular story. This, of course, permits quite different interpretations by commentators as is obvious from all the above comments. It is also a basis of confusion and uncertainty as to the meaning of the story for regular churchgoers.
The Bible is never an easy book to understand!
My conclusions.
I have tried to give a comprehensive set of arguments and reasons why I question the Exodus story as being, in any way, helpful for my journey with Jesus. It points me in the wrong directions when compared with the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. As such, I do not believe it should be given any voice in liturgies of the church, as presently is the case. I believe it is best left unmentioned, as it is with Jesus. For me, it does not belong within the pages of ‘Holy Scripture’.
This Exodus story, as do the stories of God’s violence in the conquest for the Promised Land, belongs to the age in which it was written; maybe about 3000 years ago. Even though we should not criticize nor ridicule the authors and storytellers, and even though we might lose some positive and important insights from the stories, I can do without them, and I believe we all can. Although not given total vindication for my stance, I think I have a very strong, significant precedent in Jesus and the gospels, regarding the Exodus story.
So my analysis gives me three strong reasons for rejecting the story. These three are different but inseparably entwined.
1. I reject the story because the image of God in it is so violent and seeks to guide me in the opposite direction to the way Jesus lived and taught.
2. I reject the story because the image of God in it comes from a totally outdated theology, from 3000 years ago when people actually believed there were many Gods and these Gods, being tribal deities, were often in conflict, to gain glory over each other.
3. I reject the story because it is a story which Jesus omitted to use in his ministry and his teachings. The gospel writers never mention it. Jesus doesn’t mention it and for good reason. I believe it is because of its ultra-violent image of God. He achieves his goals of liberation by totally different means to those used by the God of the Exodus story.
My analysis of the Exodus story could be regarded as a very negative exercise and I suppose it is, in that I have highlighted its negatives, as I see them to be. But in doing so, I think I have done something very positive, at least for me. When one gets rid of something negative, one does something positive. I have been told in Mathematics that two negatives can give rise to a positive. Like “It’s not bad”. That can mean it is good. From two negatives comes a positive!
By rejecting the Exodus story, I no longer have to accept it as being part of my journey with Jesus and that’s good.
For you to decide.
Grace and Peace George
[1] Richard Rohr Internet Theology Center for Action and Contemplation Liberation Theology 20/3/16.
[2] Internet Quotes from Gustavo Gutierrez.
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Jose Caravias Living in Fellowship, 10-21.
[6] Ibid, 16.
[7] Ibid, 17.
[8] Ibid, 18.
[9] Ibid, 18.
[10] Ibid, 19.
[11] Ibid, 19.
[12] Ibid, 19.
[13] Ibid, 19.
[14] Ibid, 10-21.
[15] John Frame Internet Liberation Theology in a History of Western Philosophy and Theology.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Walter Brueggemann New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 1, 803
[19] Carol Dempsey Internet Cambridge Papers The Exodus motif of Liberation Its Grace and Controversy.
[20] Walter Brueggemann Old Testament Theology, 93-94.
[21] Walter Brueggemann New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 1, 803.
[22] Ibid, 803.
[23] Ibid, 804
[24] Ibid, 781.
[25] Ibid, 782.
[26] Ibid, 769.
[27] Ibid, 771.
[28] Ibid, 781.
[29].Ibid, 787.
[30] Ibid, 787.
[31] Walter Bruegemann Old Testament Theology, 93.
[32] Terence Fretheim Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Exodus, 106.
[33] Ibid, 108.
[34] Ibid, 106-107.
[35] Ibid, 101.
[36] Ibid, 140-141.
[37] Marcus Borg Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, 96.
[38] Ibid, 97.
[39] Ibid, 98.
[40].Marcus Borg Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, 123.
[41] Ibid, 125.
[42] Marcus Borg and Tom Wright The Meaning of Jesus, 167.
[43] Tom Wright Internet Twitter at N.T Wight says 17th May 2018.
[44] Derek Flood Disarming Scripture, 42.
[45] Karen Armstrong The History of God, 18.
[46] Ibid, 19.
[47] John Shelby Spong..Internet..Chaufauguan Daily 27th June 2012.
[48] Internet Rev. Neil Richardson’s review of Crossman’s Book Jesus and the Violence of Scripture.
[49] Ibid.
[50] John Dominic Crossan Jesus and the Violence in Scripture, 18.
[51] Ibid, 36 & 240.
[52] Ibid, 167.
[53] Ibid, 168.
[54] Ibid, 65.
[55] Living the Questions DVD Countering Pharaoh’s Production-Consumption Society Today, The Way Out.
[56] Terence Fretheim Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Exodus, 77
[57] Ibid, 124.