God In The Old Testament

[Mudcat]

At the OP, I understand your friends difficulty. I have my own difficulties with many of these posed injunctions of God's divine wrath in the OT. In general, I see the OT as a collection of stories that address creation, the fall and God's interaction with the people of Israel.

However, it is the NT seems to be the charter, so to speak, of the Christ's Church. It most directly reflects his life and ministry and is the Gospel that leads one to saving faith. It is there that we are charged to believe in Christ and follow him. I don't see anything that requires a man have belief in a global deluge, the slaughter of children at God's command and so forth for salvation.

I don't think there is anything wrong with reading the OT with NT set of eyes, for the sake of consistency. The OT says a lot of pretty tough things, but you don't see these things being applied in the daily living of Christians.

I can't picture the Savior being a willing soldier in Joshua's army as they put children to the sword. It seems inconsistent with this nature.

I think it more easily understood that there were men who vindicated such slaughter by attributing it to God and then wrote about it.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mudcat

[wenglund]

I think it more easily understood that there were men who vindicated such slaughter by attributing it to God and then wrote about it.

I can see how this type of reconciliation may make a lot of sense in the minds of some people. I just wonder, though, whether or how, in their minds (particularly Evangelicals), this reconciliation may impact their notion of the Bible, or the Old Testament, being "God-breathed" and the "Word of God," and what it may suggest about the claim of some of those Old Testament men to being prophets. To me, this reconciliation seems to draw into question the sense of including the Old Testament in the canon of scripture. Am I wrong about this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

To me, this reconciliation seems to draw into question the sense of including the Old Testament in the canon of scripture. Am I wrong about this?

Marcion just threw out the Old Testament (and much of the New, as well).

As I said above, those who object to the complete revelation of God are modern incarnations of the heretical Marcionites: "for all practical purposes, we see Marcion in our midst even today".

Lehi

Edited February 17, 2012 by LeSellers

[Mudcat]

I can see how this type of reconciliation may make a lot of sense in the minds of some people. I just wonder, though, whether or how, in their minds (particularly Evangelicals), this reconciliation may impact their notion of the Bible, or the Old Testament, being "God-breathed" and the "Word of God," and what it may suggest about the claim of some of those Old Testament men to being prophets. To me, this reconciliation seems to draw into question the sense of including the Old Testament in the canon of scripture. Am I wrong about this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree, it creates a sticky wicket in some sense as it's a more liberal view of the OT writings for certain. Christ himself cited from the OT on a regular basis, so I don't think we can discount the text by any means.

I am simply suggesting that a literal verbatim reading of it seems to point to areas that appear to be inconsistent with the very character of Christ. If there is an unseen consistency that falls beyond our ability to reason, then I don't think they should be revised, omitted or some such.. but holding them at arms length seems to be sensible to me.

edit add... I fall with CS Lewis on the notion and think he says it well enough in a letter to John Beversluis.

Dear Mr. Beversluis

Yes. On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to, say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him 'good' and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.

To this some will reply 'ah, but we are fallen and don't recognize good when we see it.' But God Himself does not say that we are as fallen at all that. He constantly, in Scripture, appeals to our conscience: 'Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?' -- 'What fault hath my people found in me?' And so on. Socrates' answer to Euthyphro is used in Christian form by Hooker. Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.) The opposite view (Ockham's, Paley's) leads to an absurdity. If 'good' means 'what God wills' then to say 'God is good' can mean only 'God wills what he wills.' Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.

But of course having said all this, we must apply it with fear and trembling. Some things which seem to us bad may be good. But we must not consult our consciences by trying to feel a thing good when it seems to us totally evil. We can only pray that if there is an invisible goodness hidden in such things, God, in His own good time will enable us to see it. If we need to. For perhaps sometimes God's answer might be What is that to thee?' The passage may not be 'addressed to our (your or my) condition' at all.

I think we are v. much in agreement, aren't we?

Yours sincerely, C. S. Lewis

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mudcat

[wenglund]

I agree, it creates a sticky wicket in some sense as it's a more liberal view of the OT writings for certain. Christ himself cited from the OT on a regular basis, so I don't think we can discount the text by any means.

I am simply suggesting that a literal verbatim reading of it seems to point to areas that appear to be inconsistent with the very character of Christ. If there is an unseen consistency that falls beyond our ability to reason, then I don't think they should be revised, omitted or some such.. but holding them at arms length seems to be sensible to me.

edit add... I fall with CS Lewis on the notion and think he says it well enough in a letter to John Beversluis.

Dear Mr. Beversluis

Yes. On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to, say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him 'good' and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.

To this some will reply 'ah, but we are fallen and don't recognize good when we see it.' But God Himself does not say that we are as fallen at all that. He constantly, in Scripture, appeals to our conscience: 'Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?' -- 'What fault hath my people found in me?' And so on. Socrates' answer to Euthyphro is used in Christian form by Hooker. Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.) The opposite view (Ockham's, Paley's) leads to an absurdity. If 'good' means 'what God wills' then to say 'God is good' can mean only 'God wills what he wills.' Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.

But of course having said all this, we must apply it with fear and trembling. Some things which seem to us bad may be good. But we must not consult our consciences by trying to feel a thing good when it seems to us totally evil. We can only pray that if there is an invisible goodness hidden in such things, God, in His own good time will enable us to see it. If we need to. For perhaps sometimes God's answer might be What is that to thee?' The passage may not be 'addressed to our (your or my) condition' at all.

I think we are v. much in agreement, aren't we?

Yours sincerely, C. S. Lewis

I appreciate you sharing this with us. It is not all that different from how many LDS view the Old Testament, and it rings somewhat true to me as well--especially the part about applying it with fear and trembling and looking to God to reveal to us what is good or bad.

I say "somewhat" because I am inclined to think that it is not necessary for us to judge certain actions of the Old Testament prophets, particularly since we have so little information upon which to base our judgments and we are also so removed, on a number of levels, from them. It is sufficient for me to prayerfully, and under the guidance of the Spirit, garner whatever edifying message may have been intended in the accounts.

I wonder if Rob Bowman agrees with you and C.S. Lewis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Cushan,

Thanks for your very kind remarks about me.

You wrote:

One could never be “the Most high God” unless there existed other less exalted gods. Honestly, I don’t see how these expressions could be read in any other way.

Does the same apply to the expression “Yahweh Most High,” which occurs twice in the Hebrew OT (Ps. 7:17; 47:2)? Can this expression only mean that there existed other, less exalted yahwehs?

I had written:

“‘Most High’ might be a descriptor that simply expresses the fact that God occupies the highest position in all existence. In fact, something like 40 times in the Bible, ‘the Most High’ stands by itself as a title for God (compare 15 times where he is called ‘God Most High’ or ‘the Most High God’).”

You wrote:

Sticking to the text, your argument focuses upon the Book of Mormon, and it’s alleged radical monotheism. Importantly, the expression I referenced always appears as “the Most High God.”

In the Book of Mormon, expressions using “Most High” occur only five times, so statistical arguments are hazardous with regard to its usage there. In fact, though, in one instance the expression “the Most High” occurs on its own as a title for God (2 Nephi 24:14), as part of the very lengthy excerpt from Isaiah.

You wrote:

To be precise, in the King James Version, the phrase “most high” appears a total of 49 times (only five times in the New Testament). A text such as Hebrews 7:1 refers to Israel’s deity as literally the hupsistou, i.e. “highest” God (note the comparable expression in Luke 1:32 which translates the term as “Highest”). Most of the OT expressions are in fact “most high God.”

I have done a more careful analysis and although it may not be perfect it should be pretty close. On closer examination I am dropping Psalm 92:8 and Hosea 11:7, neither of which uses the standard Hebrew ELYON (in both other words are used that simply mean “on high”). This reduces the number of relevant occurrences from 55 to 53. Here is a breakdown of all of the occurrences of the expression “Most High” as descriptive of or in reference to deity in the Bible (using simplified transliteration):

Old Testament (44):

EL ELYON, “God Most High,” 5 times (Gen 14:18, 19, 20, 22; Ps. 78:35)

ELOHIM ELYON, “God Most High,” 2 times (Ps. 57:2; 78:56)

YAHWEH ELYON, “Yahweh Most High,” 2 times (Ps. 7:17; 47:2)

ELYON, “(the) Most High,” 21 times (Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 9:2; 18:13; 21:7; 46:4; 50:14; 73:11; 77:10; 78:17; 82:6; 83:18; 87:5; 89:27 [Messiah]; 91:1, 9; 92:1; 97:9; 107:11; Is. 14:14; Lam. 3:35, 38)

ELAHA ILLAYA, Aramaic “God Most High,” 4 times (Dan. 3:26; 4:2; 5:18, 21)

ILLAYA, Aramaic “(the) Most High,” 6 times (Dan. 4:17, 24, 25, 32, 34; 7:25a)

ELYONIN, Aramaic “(the) Most High,” 4 times (Dan. 7:18, 22, 25b, 27)

New Testament (9):

ho hupsistos, “the Most High,” 5 times (Luke 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35; Acts 7:48)

tou theou tou hupsistou, “of God Most High,” 4 times (Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; Acts 16:17; Heb. 7:1)

Totals (53):

“God Most High”: 15 times total

“Yahweh Most High”: 2 times total

“(the) Most High”: 36 times

I would say that this analysis shows that it is not the case that most of the OT occurrences are of the form “Most High God.” Note that the Greek hupsistos is the word regularly used in the Greek OT (the Septuagint) to translate ELYON.

You wrote:

KJ references to Israel’s deity as “the most High” in the OT are simply a translation of the Hebrew divine title, Elyon. As explained by Bible scholars E.E. Elnes and P. D Miller, Elyon derives “from the Hebrew verb ala, meaning ‘to ascend,’” and in the OT, it “may be used either as an adjective, describing something that is spatially higher than something else (‘upper,’ ‘highest), or as a substantive, used primarily in reference to the “most high” deity;" in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill), 560.

So the expression appears biblically as a reference to the highest or most high of all the gods.

I do not dispute that the word ELYON has as its background the idea of a chief deity in a pantheon of deities. However, in the Hebrew Bible this usage has faded largely into the background, though it surfaces in a polemical condemnation of the “gods” in Psalm 82:6. My position is not that the Bible never uses such language but that the Old Testament insists that any “gods” other than Yahweh are not merely “less exalted,” as you put it, but that they are not exalted beings at all. They are heavenly or supernatural beings that the pagan nations superstitiously worship but that Yahweh’s people Israel are to regard as nothing more than Yahweh’s inferiors. The title “Most High” in biblical usage customarily functions rather similarly to our “Supreme Being” and is quite consistent with monotheism. It expresses his superiority and sovereignty over all creation, as in statements referring to him as “the Most High over all the earth” (Ps. 47:2; 83:18; cf. 89:27 of the divine Messiah). In Psalm 97:9 Yahweh is called “the Most High over all the earth, exalted far above all gods.” Again, the Old Testament uses the term gods in reference to supernatural entities because this was the common usage in that culture, but the only God that Israel was to recognize, honor, and serve was Yahweh because he alone was the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. In none of these texts—not even in Psalm 82:6—is the title “the Most High” used to distinguish Yahweh from other “high” yet lesser gods. Rather, the title “Most High” simply expresses that Yahweh occupies the extreme highest position over everyone and everything else that exists, including any other so-called “gods.” Again, this sense of the term is seen, for example, in the compound name “Yahweh Most High.”

It is also important to note, as I have already mentioned a few times, that it is Yahweh who is identified as “the Most High.” There is textual dispute (rather famously) about “Yahweh” in Genesis 14:22. Even setting this text aside there are 21 places where it is specifically Yahweh who is called ELYON (2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 7:17; 9:2; 18:13; 21:7; 46:4, cf. vv. 5-11; 47:2; 50:14, cf. vv. 1, 7; 77:10, cf. v. 11; 78:17, 35, 56, cf. vv. 4, 21; 83:18; 87:5, cf. vv. 4, 6; 91:1, 9; 92:1; 97:9; 107:11, cf. vv. 6, 13; Lam. 3:35, 38, cf. v. 40). These texts clearly do not fit the theological construct that identifies Yahweh as a secondary deity under a Most High Father.

Getting back to the Book of Mormon, the term “Most High God” is never used there to differentiate God from lesser gods, since the Book of Mormon never mentions such lesser gods. The title is best understood, as I proposed, as a holdover from the influence of biblical descriptions and titles for God on the composition of the Book of Mormon.

You wrote:

So despite the fact that you are in my mind, the best Evangelical critic of Mormonism, like arguments raised by those of a lesser status, I still think your reading on this issue is problematic.

No offense.

None taken; quite the contrary. I don’t mind at all having my views challenged.

[Mudcat]

I appreciate you sharing this with us. It is not all that different from how many LDS view the Old Testament, and it rings somewhat true to me as well--especially the part about applying it with fear and trembling and looking to God to reveal to us what is good or bad.

Sure, your welcome Wade.

I say "somewhat" because I am inclined to think that it is not necessary for us to judge certain actions of the Old Testament prophets, particularly since we have so little information upon which to base our judgments and we are also so removed, on a number of levels, from them. It is sufficient for me to prayerfully, and under the guidance of the Spirit, garner whatever edifying message may have been intended in the accounts.

Yes, I follow you. In some respects I agree with what you are saying about being judgmental. There is great deal of distance from OT times to ours so certainly there is likely more to those scenarios than what has been written. But I don't imagine human nature has changed much at all and I don't see anything wrong with drawing possible conclusions from the information we do have.

I didn't mean to sound judgmental, I am not trying to offer assertions or certainties on OT interpretation of these harder sayings. It is natural to reach for some sort of peace on such matters and I would agree that prayer and the council of the Holy Spirit in study are best. I am just posing what seem to be plausible possible conclusions that seem understandable to me.

I wonder if Rob Bowman agrees with you and C.S. Lewis.

IIRC, Rob is more of a literalistic fellow so I am doubtful he does, but I don't know really. There are differing thoughts on the matter amongst evangelicals for sure. If I were to venture a guess, I would imagine he would think pitting inerrancy against omnibenevolence is a faulty "straw" proposition.

Perhaps he will answer that question himself as I don't feel comfortable speaking for him on the subject.

[wenglund]

I didn't mean to sound judgmental, I am not trying to offer assertions or certainties on OT interpretation of these harder sayings. It is natural to reach for some sort of peace on such matters and I would agree that prayer and the council of the Holy Spirit in study are best. I am just posing what seem to be plausible possible conclusions that seem understandable to me.

I get that.

I suppose that what I am essentially suggesting is that we believers may reasonably divest ourselves of the weight of certain OT-related philosophical dilemmas (as they may be supposed) on the grounds of not being in an adequate position to judge, if not also based on their likely irrelevance to the intent and purpose of the Old Testament. Many of us may question and be led astray and even lose faith over matters we may lack enough insight to rightly figure whether they are actually dilemmas or not, let alone whether or how they may be resolved.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 17, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

Since the question has been asked what I think of the comments in C. S. Lewis's letter, I will offer a brief comment.

You are correct in supposing that I don't see any need to pit the trustworthiness of Scripture against the goodness of God. I would pit the goodness of God against some people's interpretations of Scripture, but then, that is done in my view by simply using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Lewis was a fairly traditional Anglican but not an evangelical Protestant (there are those who do fit both categories). He is on my "top ten" list of thinkers who have most influenced my own thinking, but I don't always agree with him. I don't think he would be at all offended. That having been said, he makes a number of good points in that letter.

I would argue for a complex view of the issue that Lewis was addressing: we have usually not read Joshua correctly and so some of the reactions we feel are based on misunderstandings, but at the same time the pacifistic idea that God would never condone let alone command killing of other human beings is a distortion of the doctrine of God's goodness. Somewhere between the extremes of viewing Joshua as divine sanction for genocide and viewing Joshua as barbaric propaganda is the truth, in my opinion. (Wade will appreciate that last bit.)

I've already mentioned Copan's article and book, and I do recommend the book for those who want to think more deeply about what's going on in Joshua and other parts of the Old Testament.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

Since the question has been asked what I think of the comments in C. S. Lewis's letter, I will offer a brief comment.

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the reply.

You are correct in supposing that I don't see any need to pit the trustworthiness of Scripture against the goodness of God. I would pit the goodness of God against some people's interpretations of Scripture, but then, that is done in my view by simply using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

I am glad I had the right read on that.

I've already mentioned Copan's article and book, and I do recommend the book for those who want to think more deeply about what's going on in Joshua and other parts of the Old Testament.

I may check it out and thanks for the reference.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited February 18, 2012 by Mudcat