Violence in the Old Testament: Some notes

Violence, justice and Peace in the Old Testament

1.      We can be disturbed by the violence of God in the Bible. So we would rather set aside that image. But we cannot deny that there are many pages in the Old Testament that show a violent God. Let us face this fact—that the Old Testament, in many parts, presents a violent God. To work with this image of God we will have to accept that the books of the Bible were written by human authors who lived in their cultures and histories. Their concrete human lives influenced the writing of the books.

2.      Let us try to see the Old Testament first as books of human authors and how the human authors wove their ideas of God and violence. Later, in an other essay, we will try to unravel the underlying theology of the books. Even if human authors projected their cultural ways unto God, and thus making God appear violent, they had a profound insight—a theological insight that can be revealing about God himself.

3.      We are indebted to three Bible experts: Andre Wenin, Thomas Romer and Albert de Pury. We render here a “simplification” of their ideas.

When violence was regulated by small groups of people

4.      Conflicts, rivalry, quarrels have always been present. They are everyday reality. Now when it comes to war there is the existence of States and governments capable of organizing groups of warriors if not big armies. Peace here will mean that war is a reality and States exist.

5.      It is interesting to note that in the Bible the social world before the existence of States is described. Conflicts occurred in a more or less small scale. People lived together in a small scale too.

6.      The cultural mentality of the region, including the Hebrew nations, believed in many gods. For example, in the Jacob and Laban story, it was possible to have the God of Abraham alongside another god, the god of Nahor (see Gn 31/53). May the two gods maintain justice between Jacob and Laban. Experts in the history of religions will say that in the very early times possibly there was the notion of a more general god “El” (and experts tend to say that this “El” may have been originally Ugarithic), the Most High from which emanated other gods. To Jacob/Israel was assigned his “god-in-charge” who was the Lord God. (See Dt 32/8-9).

7.      If the cultural mentality allowed for different gods, it also allowed for conflicts of gods. Gods resolved their conflicts by giving up some of their influences on some people. A god giving up influence would then share that influence to another god. This was reflected in the sharing of properties and territories among people themselves. Groups of people fighting over a territory resolved the conflict by one group giving it up. So as the gods gave up portions of their influence, families/clans gave up portions of their territories and share them with others. So the portion would then belong now to other people; meanwhile the influence of a god will also shift accordingly.

8.      If this looks abstract, check out Judges 11/24. Here we read that the Lord God had given a portion of land to the people of Israel while another portion of land was given to the other people by another god named Chemosh. So each god had its influence as each people had its territory.

9.      One important aspect can be noted here. People arranged their conflicts by regulating their influences and possessions while their gods did the same. It was quite simple then.

Centralized society with State

10.  Historically the Hebrew people began to become a State with centralized governance. The people started to have their kings. Now the organization became more ambitious. Peace was an affair of the State, it had to be defended by the State and its King. This was the situation not only among the Hebrews but also among the other nations in that region. All the States—nations—had “royal ideologies”. They had “ideas” that justified the status of the States.

11.  In Égypte, for example, the Pharaoh was seen to be son of the high god and even the incarnation of another god. The Pharaoh had the role of guaranteeing peace, like a god guaranteeing cosmic order. According to the ideology, the Pharaoh administered peace and order inside the State. The Pharaoh had to help organize the economic life of society.  But he also had to make sure that the society was secured from outside threats. In the history of Egypt there were the regular entrance of Asian Bedouins, Libyan and Nubian invaders. Of course there were also the wild animals like lions. All that had to be kept away from the frontiers of Egypt.

12.  Other Mesopotamian nations had their ideologies too. It is worth noting that peace also meant justice. Justice implied a cosmic order created by a god and guaranteed by the King or Pharaoh. Peace and justice were considered cosmic orders.

13.  A cosmic order was surrounded by chaos. The habitable zone had, around it, the inhabitable. So outside there may be the sea, the hot desert, the regions inhabited by wild animals, regions inhabited by unknown people, etc. So inside society was “home”—it was “cosmic order”, it was “the created world”. Outside was chaos.

14.  So how was peace understood? Peace was understood as having fortresses and defenses against the chaotic world outside. Ok, this “peace” can be extended by taking over other territories. But still the idea stayed: concrete power had to define its limits.

15.  In the Old Testament we read about empires. Each empire had to make sure of its own strength and refuge. Each empire knew that outside its influence was the presence still of chaotic powers. So each empire had to build its “umbrella of power”, so to speak. Inside that “umbrella” was security…outside was chaos. Any war outside was without pity. (Remember too that wars were not done with distances, there wer no guns and helicopters. War was always a face-to-face combat so one really saw who he was fighting against. It must have been horrible, we cannot imagine enough. Again it was without pity.)

16.  The Hebrew people were not exempted from this cultural mentality. They too had their royal ideologies. They too had their notions of peace and security inside with the threat of chaos from the outside. They too had the notion of cosmic order within and chaos from without. Peace was for the benefit of the center inside. (Let us keep in mind that the threats from the outside did not just come from other nations, there were also the wild animals. The beasts also were part of the chaotic powers. The ecological destruction of the animal kingdom was not yet happening then. So it was necessary to protect the inside against the threats of the wild. This can explain Hosea 2/20.)

17.  Now to assure cosmic order against the chaotic forces, the nations needed their gods. They needed their gods for protection.

18.  The big empires like Egypt, Assyria and Babylon were able to sustain the ideology of creation and chaos and the extension of powers. Now, even the small nation of Judah, for example, held such an ideology.

19.  This cultural mentality found its way into the written texts of the Old Testament. In Ex 34/ 11-13, we read that the Lord God tells Moses about throwing away all the inhabitants of the land, and then the Lord God prohibiting any covenant with those people. The holy places of those people will be destroyed. At that time when states went to war they were led by their gods. If they won it was thanks to their gods. So the gods had to be rewarded by taking everything from the conquered people and even annihilating the conquered people. It was all for the gods.

20.  In Dt 20/10-14, Moses tells his people how to treat cities. There are the far away cities, the cities that do not belong to the land that the Hebrews will occupy. The people of the far away cities that will accept the Hebrews will be taken as slaves. If a far away city rejects the Hebrews, then the city will be besieged, men will be killed while women and children will be taken. Now look at verses Dt.20/15-20. Here we read about the cities inside the land that will be occupied. The population of these inner cities will be exterminated, killed , destroyed…all annihilated!

21.  We can go on to read the conquest of the land in Jos 11/16-20. Look at verse 20. The Lord God YHWH participates in the attack and annihilation. The Lord God YHWH has a role in the extermination of the people.

22.  Note then that there is a main point of view. There is the “inside” and the “outside”. There is the created order inside and the chaos outside. Inside (the society) there must be unity and people are together and fraternal with each other. People are linked with God, they communicate with God. Outside—in the exterior—there is rejection, the death and extermination of all who do not belong to the inside.

23.  Now it may surprise us, but the events of attacking and exterminating people never happened. There was no such thing as an “ethnic cleansing”. The Ammorites, for example, were never exterminated! There was no such thing as annihilation of cities. Archaeology has disproved the story! What we read as texts are theological texts, they are not accurate histories. In fact contemporary archaeology would even say that a big part of the Hebrew people never conquered the land. They were already locals of the land! They inhabited the highlands from the beginning so they never really conquered it. What we read in the Scriptures is theological-ideological and not historical!

24.  So why did the Biblical authors of the State period write that way? What was the point in writing it? What was the theology-ideology underneath it?

25.  Well, first of all keep in mind that the story of conquest of Canaan was not written during the time of Joshua. They were written during the height of the Assyrian empire! The Assyrian empire kept irritating the small nations like Israel and Judah. Assyria was in conflict with the Egyptian empire and the small nations were caught in between. The small nations had to face the threats of Assyria.

26.  The Assyrians felt that their King was a vicar of the divine god named Assur. The Assyrians wanted to subjugate people and make them subjects of the god Assur. The whole region had to submit to the reign of Assur.

27.  Now the Biblical authors had to write down their theology-ideology. What did they do? They put in Assyrian mentality into their own ideology. It was a literary strategy. The Biblical authors started to think like the Assyrians. To oppose the aggression of the Assyrians, Biblical authors transformed their tradition with the same aggression. (It is a little bit like what we see in our own history now. Nations oppose the arrogance of China taking over island territories. To oppose that the nations start thinking of themselves as aggressive and arrogant and militarily equipped too.)

28.  This literary style extended even to the times of the prophets. The anti-Assyrian form of writing and thinking became so prevalent. If the Assyrians imposed the vassal status to Israel and Judah it meant that these small nations had to be in covenant with the Assyrian god Assur. Biblical authors opposed this and emphasized that the covenant of the people was with the Lord YHWH and not Assur. So they had to elaborate the covenant between people and YHWH and make it look as big as the covenant with Assur. To reject the Assyrian imposition the people of Israel and Judah had to enlarge the power of the covenant between YHWH and people. If people were to put their lives in the hands of YHWH then the authors had to make that link powerful enough to resist the Assyrians.

29.  The Biblical authors evaluated the power of Assyria and they started writing about the origins of Israel—including the liberation from Egypt, the exodus, the Sinai covenant, the conquest of Canaan, etc. A credible “big” picture of the Hebrew nation had to be made. It had to be credible enough to face the threat of the big Assyrian empire. The authors wrote about the conquest of the land of Canaan; it was a conquest in the style of the Assyrians. If the Assyrians can conquer so brutally, so too can the people of Israel—at least in literature.

30.  The Biblical authors applied to the Hebrews what they saw coming from the Assyrians. In other words, as literature would allow, the Hebrews were equally powerful as the Assyrians. So we read about violence and we think it was historical. Was it really historical? It was more of literature. It was theology and ideology. Joshua, for example, was leading the massacre of people but Joshua was really a literary figure representing the King of Judah. Power was given to the King and he looked like Joshua—but it was power through literature.

31.  Now how do we explain the parts in the Old Testament where even the people of Israel and Judah were crushed and conquered? Biblical authors interpreted their historical experiences. They looked at the Assyrian invasion—and later the Babylonian invasion. In both instances the Hebrew people were destroyed and annihilated, exiled and thrown away. No, it was not that they were weak. It was not because their God, YHWH, was weak. Rather it was because both Israel and Judah were unfaithful to YHWH. They were crushed and underwent extreme violence because they were not faithful to their covenant with the Lord God; they lived with injustice and slavery. They allowed chaos inside their society. So it was but normal that they be crushed. It was what the Biblical authors wrote. Their literature showed that the Lord God YHWH had to use the empires to punish his own people. Note that this was theological-ideological. Biblical authors projected unto God the violence that they knew and experienced.

32.  Ok, so we get a picture of a violent God. But note the conditions that led authors to say that. Somewhere along the way this mentality itself evolved. Insights about God changed.

Peace and the realistic God

33.  The Assyrian and Babylonian periods were horrible and painful. But then came the Persians. The Persians did not conquer. They inherited the lands taken by the Babylonians. So the experience about them was less violent and less aggressive. Also the Persians more or less respected the Hebrews. The Persians were more tolerant of other religions. Unlike the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Persians did not impose a religion. They allowed people of other religions to practice their own faiths. The Jewish people cold then again follow their Torah and they could see how their own religious practices can match the religions of the other empires.

34.  A new vision of God emerged. Now God ceased to appear warlike. God became more peaceful—a pacifist. Biblical authors were the “P” or “priestly” authors (if you recall your introduction to the Old Testament class). They wrote at that time of the post-Babylonian exile. Their written texts did not have the tone of violence. The death of Moses, in Dt 34, is considered a post-Babylon exile text. It was written without any trace of war in it. We do not read about how the people of Israel entered the land. In fact we are given the impression that the land was empty upon the arrival of the Hebrews. Their entry also did not have any mark of war. The “P” tradition was marked by peaceful texts.

35.  Some sections of Genesis were written also at around this time of after-the-Babylon-exile. The emphasis was on the ancestry of humanity in Noah (Gen 9-10) and the ancestry of the Jews (Gen 17). With these two God concluded a covenant. Israel shared with all descendants of Abraham the land of Canaan. The Jews were pictured then as “priests” for all humanity. There is not picture of war in these passages. The world is “good”, and even “very good” (Gn 1/31). All inhabitants, the human and the animals, shared the earth and they were not involved in war and violence. Humans were to eat grains and fruits while the animals were to eat the other greens. Humans and animals did not have to fight over food. Notice too that both the humans and the animals were vegetarians!

36.  Peace and not violence was in the order of creation. The human in Genesis 1, a “P” document, did not “fall”. The “P” tradition did not mention any “first sin”. It simply stated, “in the eyes of God the earth was corrupted and full of lawlessness” (Gn 6/11). In other words there was violence. Why was there lawlessness? Well, the “P” tradition tells us that “all mortals led depraved lives on earth” (Gen.6/12). All mortals meant all humans and even animals (for animals are mortal too).

37.  The “P” authors did not have an idea of a specific person or group doing something wrong and thus “falling”. Fault was never applied to any particular person or group. The “P” authors saw the problem as “structural”. There was something in the structure of society and in the structure of the way people lived that created lawlessness and violence. For the “P” it was not a matter of finding faults. It was just a realistic evaluation of human existence: that violence is really present. How can that be resolved?

38.  Maybe a big flood can resolve it. Maybe a big catastrophe can resolve it so that everything can start all over again. This is what we read in the Noah story. But the “P” authors saw that even a big catastrophe like a flood cannot be a solution! The flood did not fix the problem. God realized it so God declared that he will never send flood again. Why did the flood solve nothing? “The desires of man’s heart are evil from the start” (Gen8/21). God, at the start, send the flood because the desire of man’s heart was evil (6/5) and until now, after the flood, the desires continued to be evil. The flood was quite useless. God realized that the human heart bent on evil was the same before and after the flood. The “pedagogy” contained in the flood proved useless. So in the story who learned a lesson? It was God who learned a lesson. He saw what did not work in the treatment of the human. A catastrophe like a flood was useless. The human heart just wanted to go for evil.

39.  So eventually God concluded a covenant with Noah. (See Gn 9/1-17). Notice that now God allows the eating of meat. “Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat” (9/3). God now recognizes that, indeed, there is violence. So the human can start killing the animal. Still God gave a limit. God had to pronounce a limit to the violence. Do not eat the flesh “with its lifeblood still in it” (9/4). Now when it comes to violence between humans an accounting has to be made too. God knows there is violence. God knows that the human heart is bent on violence. That is the reality. But God will demand an accounting. (See 9/6).

40.  So here we see a realistic God—a God who knows that violence cannot be ignored nor can it be deleted. It is there to stay. Thus God has to set limits to the violence to avoid the absolute annihilation of one another.

41.  This very realistic God now has presented the limits to violence and now talks about fertility and multiplication. Limits have been set on violence and those limits will allow for fertility and multiplication (see 9/7). The original command was given in 9/1 and repeated in 9/7. So the limits to violence is “sandwiched”. A “chiasm” or “inclusion” is set by the “P” authors. (Recall your course in the introduction to the Old Testament).

42.  Let us think. What might the “P” authors be saying here? Injustice is a social reality. Empires crushing nations is an international reality. Will flooding Israel and Judah help? No. People will remain unjust. Will flooding the empires help? No. Empires rise and crush their neighbors. A major catastrophe will never be a solution. The human heart is bent on violence. God knows this, he admits its reality. God then tells Noah that he is shelving this strategy of extermination and annihilation. God will no longer participate in violence.

43.  The rainbow is shaped like a bow—an arm for war. God calls it a bow (see 9/16). God is now shelving the bow. Each time the rainbow appears God and people will be reminded that they are linked by a Covenant.

44.  The human is always threatened by violence. A “doing-nothing” is not a solution, nor is automatic violent reflex. Violence must be recognized and be dealt with responsibly. “Tame” that violence. Do something so that violence does not dominate and makes the least destruction and harm possible. Be realistic, violence is a reality. Manage it well.

Conclusion

45.  Let us summarize what we have just discussed. The ancient model showed the situation of many gods co-existing and sharing their areas of influences. As people negotiate their terms with each other, the gods do the same. Surviving violence is a matter of being cunning and resourceful, knowing how to negotiate terms.

46.  The second model is violence on the level of States. Societies are big and are governed with a centralized government—king or Pharaoh. This centralized system is like a cosmic order. Outside it is chaos, and hence violence. The State must maintain the order—the cosmic order—and thus bring peace. The State must protect this social group from the threat of external chaos. Outside the cosmic order there is no “salvation”. Stay within. Empires might extend their cosmic orders. Nations like Judah and Israel duplicate the same attitude of the empires. The Lord God, therefore, plays his violent role.

47.  The third model is peace loving, it shows no sign of opting for violence. But it is realistic. It knows that violence is a reality. God ceases to be participant in violence. Instead he gives “guidelines” to hold back the powers of violence.

The Resurrection Part 1

 To talk about the resurrection we can start with our very own selves. Our hopes can help us appreciate the resurrection.

Who are we? We are humans and we are flesh. We are embodied persons. We are not air. We are not gas. We are not angels. We are not pure spirits. We are persons of flesh and blood. Our experience of our body is quite ambivalent. On one hand we experience our body as something we have, like a tool or a shirt. We feel a distance from our body. Yet at the same time we also experience an identity with our body: “I am my body”. If someone holds my hand that person is holding my hand. That person is holding a piece of myself. But at the same time that person is also holding me.

So there is this experience of distance and identity with our body. When a person dies the body turns into a cadaver. It continues to be a human body but it has stopped all web of relationships with others and the world. It is dead. We have memories of the dead…but the dead is dead and the body is a cadaver.

Still, we make the effort to bury the dead. We do ceremonies and rituals. There is a sense of importance we give even to that dead person—even to that cadaver. But there is probably something more in what we do when we respectfully treat the dead.

We treat with respect the dead. Let us look at the dynamism inside of us when we do this. We just do not want to keep memories of the dead. We assert that somehow….somewhere along the way…we can hope that death is not the end of that person.

A French philosopher, Gabriel Marcel, once wrote, “If I love you then you will not die”. In other words my love for you hopes that death is not the end. My love for you does not end, so I continue to expect that my love will continue even after death. Love aims at the eternal.

So many cultures hold on to this respect for the dead, this love and this hope. It is a hope we find little words to explain. It is deep within us.

Let us call this a “transcendental hope”. It is the hope that really life can be fuller and so eternal. It is the hope that the “bad things” that happen to us in life will never win…and that death will never win completely. It is this hope that can make us appreciate the resurrection of Christ.

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical…and it is historical. It is not historical because history (as science) cannot verify that someone who died lived again after. History does not have the competence to say that there is life after death. History is limited to its study of place and time. Life after death is already outside place and time. So we cannot have a claim on the historicity of the resurrection.

Yet the resurrection is historical. It happened to a specific man, Jesus, in a place and time. How do we know that? There are historical traces. What are they? There are the attestations of the Apostles. They said that they saw the risen Lord. They said that they saw him alive again. This affirmation cannot be denied historically. It is historically true that Apostles said that. We can also add that there were many people, especially the early Christians, who have accepted that witnessing of the Apostles. The impact of the experience extended far and wide beyond the circle of the Apostles.

Although we cannot scientifically verify that Jesus indeed had risen from the dead, we can in faith accept it. We can in faith accept the witnessing of the Apostles.

For the Apostles the resurrection was God’s way of raising his son from the dead. It was the eschatological act of God done within history. Jesus was the same man in history, the same man who lived in Palestine in the first century. The risen Lord is the same man of Nazareth. There is a continuity. Yet there is a discontinuity because the risen Lord is not glorified. Yes, he is the same man, the same body, but in a radically new condition.

This can explain why, at first, the Apostles could not immediately identify the risen Jesus. They needed faith to recognize the risen Lord.

There is one theme that is so often mentioned when discussing the resurrection. This is “the empty tomb”. The fact that the tomb was empty does not prove the resurrection. Who knows, maybe someone stole the body.

Yet the empty tomb can generate faith. It can be sign of the resurrection. It can signify that Jesus was not abandoned to the corruption of the body. The empty tomb announces the accomplishment of the eschatology when corruption ceases to win. It is not the definite destiny of the human being.

Finally, there is also the point about Jesus sitting at the right hand of God. That Jesus sitting there is a human Jesus too in full human embodiment. This tells us that “one of us”—a human—is in full communion with the divine. The Apostles saw that thanks to Jesus, as fully human, was elevated to the throne of God, we too can have a share in that communion. That communion is made possible thanks to the risen Lord.

Some Points on Faith

Things to be careful about

Our Christian faith is very deep and wide. But we have the temptation to narrow it down. Here are a few points to be careful with.

Be careful not to get stuck in fideism. Fideism is the refusal to get to know better the faith. Here we just say yes and yes without trying to understand what it is we are believing in. We are humans and we are capable to deepening our faith. Let us study more.

Be careful not to get stuck in intellectualism. In intellectualism faith is only classroom stuff. It is only an academic affair. Of course we need to study the faith but we also have to recognize that faith is more than classroom thinking. It touches on life.

Be careful not to get stuck in sentimentalism. Many people like emotional activities and they look at faith as an opportunity to get very emotional. Yes, faith can include feelings and affections but faith is more than these.

Be careful not to get stuck in quietism. In quietism we say that faith is purely inside the church it has nothing to do with the concrete moral and social questions of life. Of course faith is also in the church but it touches on all aspects of life and faith can question our moral and social positions.

Be careful not to get caught in moralism. In moralism we always look for where people make mistakes. We look for where people are bad. We might use faith to judge too much others and impose on them rules and norms that will only make them unhappy. Faith is liberating and should make us happy, not miserable.

Be careful not to gat caught in angelism. In angelism we think that God does everything we have no more participation. We just wait for God to do things for us. Yes, we rely on God but we have our roles to play too.

Faith of the Community

Our faith is the faith of the community, the Church. Yes, we must accept that our faith is personal. Each of us is responsible for the faith. But faith is not private, it is not mine alone. Sometimes we have the temptation to think that faith is a private affair. But no. Faith is the faith of the Church, it is a shared faith, a community faith.

When we pray “I believe” we must remember it is also a “we believe”. If we say, “I have faith” we also mean “we have faith”.

Remember that God communicated himself to a people—the Hebrew nation in the Old Testament. He communicated himself in Christ to the Apostles and disciples. When St. Paul received the revelation of Christ he still had to verify it with the Apostles. He never took that revelation privately.

Human authors put in writing that self-communication of God to his people. And when the human authors wrote they were also thinking of the faith of their communities. Even Scriptures are community based. They were written from the context of the community and they were written for the community.

God continues to communicate this time through the Scriptures and the Church. Of course we do not rule out the possibility of God speaking directly to individual persons. But even there the revelation will still have to be confirmed in the Church. In Lourdes when the Mother Mary revealed to Bernadette, Mother Mary still made sure that Bernadette went to the priest to make the revelation “official” for the Church.

Faith maturity

Let us talk about our faith as adult faith. We understand that for children the faith is transmitted without critical thinking. Children are formed by catechism and family tradition, they accept and accept whatever is transmitted to them. But then the day comes when we all become adult. Faith therefore also becomes faith of adults.

For the adult faith becomes more personal. (Again, we repeat, it is personal but not private.) Each of us, as adult, lives the faith personally. Each is responsible for the faith. Each takes charge of the faith and makes the effort to grow in the faith. It is a commitment of each and every one of us. This is why we say that there is a personal side to adult faith.

For the adult faith consists of a growing trust and confidence in God. The adult knows how he/she is related to God and how much God cares. Adult faith readily recognizes this care of God. The adult then is more trustful and confident that God never abandons his people.

This trust and confidence in God is done in the company of the whole Church. Adult faith is concerned about the faith of the whole Church. The adult is more willing to participate in the needs of the Church—in a small scale or large scale. The adult does not give up on the Church, knowing that in the Church we need the support of one another. Faith is lived with God in the Church.

For the adult faith marks daily life. Daily life makes sense and meaning thanks to faith. The events, choices and decisions are influenced by a perspective on faith. The daily life struggles are not empty struggles. They are understood in the light of faith.

Adult faith includes the effort to understand better the basis of faith. The adult wants to grow in understanding. The adult is not stagnant. The adult updates himself/herself with Scriptures and Church teachings. Adult faith is not lazy faith.

Adult faith consults faith when making hard choices and decisions. For example when confronted with a tough situation an adult will ask what Jesus would do in that situation. What will be the stand of the Church with that situation. Hard decisions are made with the help of the faith.

Adult faith is prayerful. The adult spends time in personal—and communal (like the Mass)—prayer. In prayer there is a face-to-face communication with God. In prayer we address God as a “you”, we talk to God. Adult faith is willing to spend quality time on this. Daily life can be busy but the adult knows the importance of breaking that busy-ness for prayer.

Adult faith is happy faith. It is celebrating. It is thankful for the faith. It holds no grudges. Although life can be hard, the adult in faith has the thankful attitude of having received faith transmitted by the Scriptures and the Church. The adult in faith is thankful for not having missed the grace of having heard the Word of God, the grace of being in the Church and the grace of having the Lord God in Jesus as God.

Sin, Darkness, Death?

1.     There are obstacles lying between God and us. These comprise what we can call, in a lump sum, “Sin, Darkness, and Death”. God created all things. Human beings are created in God’s own image. God found his creation to be “very good” (Gen 1/31).

2.     The human person is image of God. This has been distorted as a result of sin. But this has never been deleted.

3.     We are called to improve levels the conditions of human life. We are to work for the happiness of persons, promote justice and peace, foster a love that is inclusive of all. This is how we are as image of God.

4.     But we can see the human condition of wretchedness. There is evil and suffering which are a universal experience. All humanity experiences evil and suffering. Our faith demands that we make a coherent and honest assessment of the human condition.

5.     Our faith assesses  that evil appears as being always present. Evil has always been with us and it precedes our responsibilities. It looks as if there are “powers” present before we do anything. These powers of evil show to be external to any of our personal awareness, choice and action.

6.     But we also experience evil and suffering that have their source in our human heart. We humans are also responsible. We have our selfish reflexes. We have cravings for inordinate pleasure and power. In many ways we participate in evil. In mass we pray, “that I have sinned in what I have done and in what I have failed to do”. Often we participate in evil by intentionally failing to do good.

7.     We human beings are alienated from God because of sin. Yes we are creatures and not the Creator. God moves in love towards us, sinful humans, and this is presupposed in our belief in salvation.

8.     We experience break up of relationships, inadequacies and frustrations in our lives. We cannot deny how we also are responsible. Still we must note as objectively as possible those aspects of our lives that destroy us and we are not directly responsible for them. Those aspects are beyond our control and the also speak of our need for salvation. Just think of the natural catastrophes, illness, physical and mental suffering. These tell us that evil is about what we are responsible for and what we are not responsible for.

9.     Traditional teaching says that death itself, and all the “bad things” around us, has been understood as a result of sin, “the mystery of iniquity”. (see 2 Thes 2/7).

10. In a more personal level we can talk of difficulties in balancing our own personalities. At time each of us can be…well….an “a.h.” We have difficulties in living well and harmoniously with others. We know of the presence of violence around us and perhaps seeds of violence are sprouting within us.

11. And then we need to recognize how we have been harming and destroying our environment. Some scientists say that we are in a point of really falling apart ecologically.

12. We can understand why there are people who are skeptical about life and they think that, really, life is absurd and without sense.

13. Picture the Apostles with their very deep anguishes in life. Then they see Jesus alive again! Imagine how that presence of Christ would resolve all the questions of sin and evil. 

Amos 2/6-16 Workshop

The study of the text itself: 2/6-16

1.       If we read closely we can see that this text has three units. Verses 6-8 then verses9-12 and finally verses13-16. Before you even start work verse-by-verse, look at these three units. Identify the general theme of each unit.

VV6-8

Verse 6:

2.       In v.6 we see the expression “three crimes of Israel, and now four”. The New American Bible explains the meaning of this expression. The Lord God is in a “bad mood”. The nations around Israel have been violating external and international relationships. But when it comes to Israel (and Judah) The Lord God is angry against internal relationships—relationships inside the society. The people of Israel have been violating the Covenant. The Covenant is about the people being people of The Lord God and The Lord God being the Lord God of the people. Inside the Covenant are laws that are meant to avoid returning to the conditions in Egypt and the life of slavery. People inside society should life fraternally with justice and respect. That is the mark of a people of the Lord God.

3.       The “just person” is described in Dt 7/11. But now, in verse 6, we see that the just falls into debt. The poor also falls into debt. Look at how the poor, is valued—as “a pair of sandals”. See the verses proposed by the NAB: Am 8:6; Sir 46:19. How do these verses help explain verse 6?

4.       What is the problem with falling in debt? Let us see. Debt leads to slavery. The inability to pay forces a person to accept becoming a slave to the debtor. Inside Israel is still the presence of slavery. What is wrong in this situation presented by verse 6?

Verse 7:

5.       In v.7 we read about trampling the head of the weak and destitute. In another part of Amos a similar phrase is mentioned, see Am 8/4.

·         Do you see anything more wrong (note: more) with trampling the head of the weak and poor?

·         Ok, if there is something done to the destitute, poor and weak, what does the verse say about those who do the trampling? Note then that there is a social relationship between those who step on the weak and the “trampled”.

·         Look at this: “into the dust of the earth”. Think Biblically. Remember what “dust” could mean in the Bible. (Try if this hint can help: The human is from earth but also…see Gen. 2/7). So what do you think could it mean to trample someone “into the dust of the earth”?

6.       Then, still in verse 7, we read about the father and the son. They sleep with the same girl. Look at what the NAB says about it.

·         If the father and the son sleep with the same girl, this act makes The Lord God’s name dirty. Why? Think Biblically. Let us do a kind of “theology” of name. Think of “name of The Lord God”. See, for example, Ex.3/8; Ex 3/14-15; Jer 1/19. The “name of The Lord God” tells us, therefore, about who The Lord God is. Who is this The Lord God according to the name he has given?

VV.8-12

Verse 8

7.       In v.8 we read about garments of the poor “taken in pledge”. The NAB gives a footnote to this and also suggests that we look at Dt 24/12–13. (If you read the verses you will notice that the NAB also proposes other verses for Dt.24/13.) Check them out. Note that in the tradition of the people is a law about pledges. It is part of the Covenant! The rule about garment in pledge is violated. But there is something else, a further problem.

·         Those who hold the garments lie on them and “recline beside any altar”. What does this tell you—this “any altar”? The injustice is connected with what?

8.       Next is the mention of wine. It is wine “at treasury expense”. This wine is drank “in their temples”.

·         Wine is associated with “temples”. So this is about what? (It is not just about ordinary drinking). See if the following can help:

Ø  Wine, in this verse, is confiscated wine. It belongs to its real owner…the “treasury”. Wine is associated with many things…like with love: “I drink my wine with my milk. Eat, friends; drink! Drink deeply, lovers!” (Song of Sg 5/1). It can symbolize life (see Pr. 32/6). It is also associated with the blessings of The Lord God (see Gn 27/28); symbolizing the Covenant between The Lord God and people. During sacrifices, wine is offered to the Lord The Lord God on the altar (see Ex 29/40). To have wine is therefore to have something of great value. To lose it—and have it confiscated—is a sad thing to happen. Now those who take the confiscated wine do not recognize the value.

9.       So we see that the poor and the just and the weak are crushed miserably. The treatment towards them are proofs of violation of the Covenant with the Lord God.

10.    Now we shift gears. Let us look at verses 9-12.

Verses 9 to 11:

11.    The Lord the Lord God will remind the people about the good things done to them. There is, here, is history of the Lord God with the people. The NAB proposes verses to supplement verse 9.

·         Now, why mention the Amorites? Think Biblically. The NAB suggests some other passages to look at. The Amorites have been occupying Palestine before the arrival of the Hebrews. At one point when the Hebrews, under Moses, tried to enter Palestine, they were blocked by Amorites. Well, the story tells us that the Hebrews overthrew the Amorites (see Nm.21/21-31). Then in the Joshua story there was a battle against the coalition of Amorites, in Joshua 10 and 11. Thanks to the battle the Amorites were exterminated and the Hebrews were able to start occupation of Canaan. So in this verse of Amos we see how God prepared the land for the Hebrews.  

·         In verse 9, the Lord God “destroyed” them by getting rid of fruits and roots. How do you understand this?

12.    In verse 10 The Lord God says he has brought the people out of Egypt. He had them pass through the desert to later occupy the land of the Amorites. Notice that The Lord God is emphasizing that it is him who liberated the people from Egypt.

13.    Inverse 11 there is the presence of “prophets” and “nazirites”. Check the footnotes of the NAB.

·         What is so important with the presence of “prophets” and “nazirites”?

14.    Notice that at the end of verse 11 The Lord God is even asking: “Is this not so”. In other words the Lord God is saying “You, Israel, you know this”. This is “divine speech”—an “oracle”—as the NAB explains in the footnote.

Verse 12

15.    Verses 9-11 is a kind of “prelude” to verse 12. Notice how verses 9-11 are inter-connected. Notice: “destroy” (or prepare) in v.9, “occupy” in verse 10 and “presence of prophets and nazirites” in v.11. Something is wrong with the way the prophets and nazirites are treated. With the treatment…what is the deep social problem?

VV 13-16

Verse 13

16.    We have seen verses 6-8, verses 9-12. Now we read that the Lord The Lord God is “fed up”. Verse 13 tells us about the mood of the Lord God and his plan to do something. Verse 13 will prepare for verses 14-16. What exactly does the Lord God want to do, as verse 13 indicates?

Verse 14

17.    This verse is about the swift, the strong and the warrior. What happens to each of them? They cannot flee and escape from what The Lord God will do to them.

Verse 15:

18.    This is about the archer, the swift of foot and the horseman. What happens to each of them? There is no escape!

  

Verse 16

19.    Here we see that even the most courageous (“stouthearted”) will be completely empty and naked. No clothes and no weapons! Ok, maybe here the feeling is possible. But is it successful? In the Bible nakedness is not strictly sexual. It is associated more with poverty, limit, weakness, shame. In Hosea we read: “Now I will lay bare her shame in full view of her lovers….” (Hos.2/11). In Isaiah we read that “the king of Assyria lead away captives from Egypt, and exiles from Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, the shame of Egypt” (Is 20/4). Note that in nakedness there is shame. Can you connect this with the Adam and Eve story?

20.    Let us conclude. Verses 13-16 talks of fleeing, of trying to escape a penalty. Amos is indicating the Assyrian occupation and destruction of the Northern Kingdom.

21.    Israel will be penalized. Israel will do many things to escape this penalty but to no success. Can you summarize in a few words the core penalty that the Lord God wants to apply?

Conclusion:

22.    A final work: After having looked at the verses—all from 6 to 16—do you see a general flow? Look back: vv 6-8, then vv 9-12, then vv 13-16. See if a “sandwich” (or “chasm”) is possible: vv6-8 and vv13-16 enclose vv9-12. In other words vv9-12 is “sandwiched”.

23.    Is there any theme or topic disturbing you as you work through Amos 2/6-16? Share it with others.

The Biblical Notion of Redemption

1.      Let us take a look at the document published by the International Theological Commission entitled “SELECT QUESTIONS  ON THE THEOLOGY OF GOD THE REDEEMER (1995)”. Let us select from this select some passages that are relevant to our discussion on Christology. We will focus on the Biblical reflections of the document (Part II, 1-20).

2.      First of all, it is worth noting that the document admits that there is “the internal Christian debate on redemption, and especially to the question of how the suffering and death of Christ is related to the winning of the world's redemption” (Part I, 40). Within Christianity there are people who question the “compensation or punishment” involved in redemption. God is very angry and wants to punish us; God wants to be compensated from the hurt that we have done to him. And so redemption occurred, in Christ, to appease God and to stop God from punishing us.

3.      The document also admits that life is very hard and harsh, even more so today. The pains and sufferings intensify. How relevant is this notion of redemption in our world today? (See (Part I, 40).

4.      A renewed reflection on redemption is thus felt imperative. So let us go into the biblical reflections of the document.

5.      Revelation, for the people of Israel, was given in the Torah. For the Christian it was given in Jesus Christ. This revelation, however, is engaged with a human world where we still “moan”. We are still in the “crying” mode and life is not that easy. Our human efforts to be free from the conditions that enslave us fail. We are finite creatures and yet we are called to be in communion with the Infinite. We cannot do that move with our own efforts, i.e., from the finite to the infinite. Our hearts are continuously restless. The document then asks: how do we find “redemption”?

6.      The document gives us a list of Old Testament practices all of which indicate the insight into redemption as a work for freedom. The go’el institution were designed for the liberty of an alienated family (or community). The rituals of expiation were meant to liberate the people and allow them to re-connect with God. The prophetic tradition showed the role of intercession again for the liberty of the nation. Biblically, and for the Old Testament in particular, redemption is a matter of making freedom possible for a people stuck in slavery, in injustice, in sin. (See Part II, 1-6).

7.      These practices which we read in the Old Testament “are brought to a sharper focus in Jesus Christ”. In fact a transformation happens with Jesus Christ. Let us dwell more on this because it is relevant for our study of Christology.

8.      Jesus showed the path of liberation (#7). His message of the Kingdom “at hand” included the call for everyone to get involved with it. The acts and words of Jesus manifested the Kingdom; hence they were words and acts of liberty. His parables shook ideas and thus liberated. They put down defenses and showed the importance of “vulnerability” to God. In other words, Jesus conveyed the importance of trust and confidence in God.

9.      Jesus himself was the living parable. He has such trust and confidence in God—Abba. Jesus was willing to face the negative conditions of his mission; he showed in trust and in confidence that God, and not the “bad things”, will have the last word. Jesus of Nazareth "had no desire to control his future, as his radical trust in his Abba-Father freed him from all such concerns” (#8).

10.  The freedom of Jesus allowed him, for example, to share the table with sinners and publicans. It allowed him communion with sinners (and this communion served as a sign of the Kingdom). Yes the teachings of Jesus created tensions and there was the threat of the cross. Jesus was willing to face even that. He was so free thanks to his confidence in his Father. Note the central place of confidence and  trust in the Father. This is liberating. Jesus showed that he was a man of trust and confidence—he laid his life in his Father’s hands. This allowed for the giving of oneself.

11.  Jesus, being so confident in his Father, gave his life to his friends. If we use contemporary words we can say that Jesus was “a-man-for-others”, he was “available” to others, he gave himself to others, he was “in solidarity” with them. The giving of self is glorifying, both for God and for us. “The way of Jesus of Nazareth indicates that the free gift of oneself to the ways of God, cost what it may, brings glory to ourselves and also to God” (#10). Note then that there is no talk here of punishment and compensation. There is nothing here about appeasing an angry God. The document states it well:

“The death of Jesus is not the act of a merciless God exacting the supreme sacrifice; it is not a ‘buying back’ from some alienating power which has enslaved. It is the time and the place where a God who is love and who loves us is made visible. Jesus crucified tells how much God loves us, and affirms that in this gesture of love a human being has given unconditional assent to God's ways” (#10).

12.  Jesus knew that love of God and he was in full confidence. He was willing to face consequences in his preaching his message; in full confidence Jesus said “yes” to God’s ways. Jesus showed who God was: it was a loving God all the time. No, it was not a God of vengeance asking for sacrifice and pain from us. By living that trust and confidence in God Jesus showed that God is love. This was made visible in Jesus himself. Even with the threat of the cross Jesus did not withdraw the loving identity of God. Jesus went all the way to show that God is loving.

13.  Let us pause for a while and look back at the institution of the go’el. In Jesus the go’el has taken a new sense. Recall from your first semester that the go’el is someone who “redeems” the family if, for example, the family falls in debt. The go’el pays the debt and sets the family free. Someone in the family has to play this role; vigilant that the family is always secure and free. It is in the Jewish culture. Hence the go’el is member of the family. Jesus is member of the family. He considers us his family and he is our go’el (or “ransom”). He sustains our being-family with God the Father. Our rejection of God has broken our family with God. Our go’el, Jesus, returns that unity—that community—with the Father. How does Jesus pay? In our alienation from the Father we go as far as crucify Jesus. (Remember that humans, and not God, killed Jesus.) We reject Jesus. Jesus continues his mission to unify us with the Father; he is willing to go up the cross. He risks his life. This is how he pays. He pays with his life; his life is the price he pays with to redeem us. He can do this thanks to his full confidence in the Father. He knows that “the Father loves him too much to forsake him in the hour of peril” (St. Therese of Lisieux).

14.  Part of giving one’s life is through solidarity. Jesus, trusting the Father, entered into solidarity with the suffering humanity. Note that the word used is “solidarity” and not “substitution”. In substitution God wants that we pay him—we compensate him for the hurt we have done to him. But we are so small and God is so big. Whatever we offer God, it is not satisfying, it does not compensate. So Jesus came to substitute for us. This is not Biblical. Biblically Jesus came to be in solidarity with us. God does not want our suffering. God is not taxing us for his compensation. We are a family with God and so God joins us in solidarity through Jesus Christ. Jesus came with the message of fraternity with God and with each other—we are a family. Please note how very different this is from the “substitution” type of redemption.

15.  God, in Jesus, was revealed as God of life and not a God of vengeance. God did  not want our death and suffering. God did not want these to be our destiny. In the teaching of Jesus “God is a God of the living, not of the dead” (#11).In the solidarity of Christ with humanity Jesus went “all the way”. The resurrection confirmed this.

16.  In the Old Testament we read about “expiation”. Ritually blood had to be shed, sprinkled on the altar, in order to please God and make God forgive sins. This was the “expiation” then. In Jesus it took a new form. In Jesus it meant the confirmation of our being “of the same blood”—expiation meant the confirmation of our being a family. Jesus was willing to shed blood—on the cross—so as not to lose our fraternal and family links. The early Church already saw it this way, that “the bloody event of Calvary demanded that the early Church explain, both for itself and for its mission, the atoning efficacy of a sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross” (#11).

17.  Biblically blood marked life. The Old Testament saw it in terms of sacrifices, atonement and expiation. In Jesus a transformation took place in meaning, language and theology. So what was new in Jesus? (See #12).

•         i.            In the Old Testament it was necessary to repeat sacrifices over and over again. The sacrifice of Jesus however was definite and final. There was no more need for another sacrifice and shedding of the blood.
•       ii.            Death was not the work of salvation. Blood meant more than just death. To shed blood did not have to mean death. It also meant life. The document, in footnote 48, proposed these verses: Cf. Rom 6:5-11; Heb 9:11-12; 10:10. For St. Paul the blood of Christ went beyond the Leviticus tradition of sprinkling on the altar. Blood was not just to compensate (as in the rituals), in Jesus blood was his offering.
•     iii.            Jesus died and it was a result of his obedience to the Father. Note that this obedience did not mean appeasing God. In other words God did not command Jesus to die on the cross. The obedience of Jesus was not about this. It was “not the placating of an angry God” (#12,iii). The obedience of Jesus meant that he accepted his mission to tell us about the Kingdom (God’s love) to the point of offering himself in solidarity with us and even facing the consequences of our rejection. It was an offering that made a new covenant possible. It is now possible to live in community—in family—with God. It is also possible for us to also follow Christ in obedience and patience (see Philem, esp. vv. 15-17). Note that the obedience of Jesus was not about appeasing God—“placating God”. The obedience of Jesus was a work of patience and justice. For us, in his footsteps, it will mean living in a way that we sustain justice, that we live fraternally with each other in communion with God. Later in Church tradition this will mean in communion with the Trinity. This is what God wants. No, God does not want our pains and suffering and punishment. He wants us to live well.
•      iv.            There is a pneumatological dimension in the offering of Jesus. He offered himself through the Holy Spirit. The cross, paradoxically, was a way of witnessing to God. It was a way of showing how God is Father; this was done through the Holy Spirit. Jesus had full confidence in his Father even to the point of going up the cross. This was his acknowledgement of the Father. The Holy Spirit bore witness to this; that we really see how Jesus was so confident with the Father. Consequently even up the cross Jesus was already able to put up the Church. The Holy Spirit was commended to the Church; in his sacrifice Jesus also introduced the Holy Spirit.
•        v.            The death of Jesus on the cross manifested, again paradoxically perhaps, the glory of God. It was praising of God. Jesus remained faithful all the way even to the cross. Jesus obeyed the Father that even the cross did not serve as obstacle to his obedience. The cross therefore meant that obedience of Jesus; the confidence that God was never absent. For us this obedience of Jesus is our principle of obedience. The death of Jesus was not just a passio it was also an act, an action. It was the act of obedience. “The sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross was not only passio, but also actio” (#12,v).
•      vi.            The document emphasizes that this giving of self to the Father in the Holy Spirit is considered as the most important dimension of the death of Jesus. “…the voluntary self-offering to the Father, with its pneumatic content, is the most important aspect of his death. The drama is not a conflict between fate and the individual. On the contrary, the Cross is a liturgy of obedience manifesting the unity between the Father and the Son in the eternal Spirit” (#12,v). The cross was not an unfortunate destiny.

18.  Note how this perspective is so far from the usual “punishment and compensation” notion of redemption.

19.  Now, Jesus said “yes” to the Father. So the Father said “yes” to Jesus. The Father said “yes” to all that his Son did. In confirming this the Father raised the Son from the dead. The Church affirms this. Let us cite the whole paragraph:

“Jesus risen affirms God’s gracious response to such self-giving love. In the end, Christianity gazes upon an empty Cross. Jesus of Nazareth’s unconditional acceptance of all that was asked of him by his Father has led to the Father’s unconditional “yes” to all that Jesus has said and done. It is the resurrection which proclaims that the way of Jesus is the way that overcomes sin and death into a life which has no limits” (#13).

20.  The Church is called to proclaim the liberation from whatever dehumanizes us. The proclamation involves the revelation of God in Jesus who lived, died and rose from the dead. This proclamation reminds all of who they are—of who we are—as already inscribed in creation. “The revelation of God in and through Jesus of Nazareth, crucified but risen, calls us to be all that we were created to be: image of God. “The person who participates in the love of God revealed in and through Jesus Christ becomes what he or she was created to be: the image of God, as Jesus is the icon of God” (#14). Note the importance of this statement.

21.  The coming of Jesus was not exclusively to redeem us! He came to confirm who we are: image of God. We were created as God’s image and we are meant to live in communion with God. This is who we are with or without our sinning. It so happens, however, that we have sinned. Hence the coming of Jesus took the character of redemption. His redemptive work became his way of confirming our created order.

22.  We can still make a mess out of our lives. This is not to be denied. Adam’s history is still our history. The obedience of Christ, however, offers hope. We can live a redeemed life—that is, among us we work for fraternity were there are no slves, no Greek, no Jew, etc. We are called to be truly human in a divided world.

23.  St. Paul can help us. Redemption, according to his letters to the Ephesians and Colossians, is marked by peace. (See #17). Peace means being at peace with God, with others and even with our own interior selves. This peace includes our relationship with the whole cosmic world.

24.  In the Letter to the Hebrews redemption has taken the character of our being brothers and sisters to one another. We are a family. (It may interest you to note that historically, during the very early years of the Church, Christians called their communities as “fraternities”).

25.  Bear in mind that Jesus showed the place of trust and confidence in the Father. Christian living, also, is to be marked by this confidence. No more tears, so to speak, no more harming each other. We are free, liberated, with the Holy Spirit given to us. We move in confidence to the end of time. “Already gifted with the Spirit, the freedom and the guarantee57 which flows from the death and resurrection of Jesus, we move confidently towards the end of time crying: ‘Come, Lord Jesus!’ (Rev 22:20)” (#20).