Because the Bible is ancient literature, one of the pleasures (for me) in reading it is tracing the evolution of ideas. Sometimes, ideas from the Bible can point out ways contemporary culture has gone off the rails. Sometimes ideas from the Bible make me appreciate how far we’ve come.
I think of it kind of like having an opportunity to sit down and have a conversation with someone who lived 2500 years ago. What would I want to ask them? What might I learn from them? And how did we get from there to here?
As I read the Bible, the human-divine partnership involves growth/evolution on both sides. This leads to some uncomfortable ideas about God (for us contemporary folk) but also opens something up about spiritual growth and evolution that tends not to be part of the contemporary conversation.
I love this. I’ve been reading the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament for the first time and was shocked by the many examples of an angry/reactionary God. (I went into my reading assuming God is just and perfect.)
But, for some reason, this imperfect, emotional God feels more genuine than a perfect one. He/God feels more real. I loved your take on this.
Before I write anything, I want you to know thatI have left my faith of origin, Catholicism and no longer view the Bible as authoritative. If I look at this as a literary work, then the only way I can relate to God who is subject to emotions, is to imagine that God is like me or is me. If God is ever-changing, then how can he be truth and love which never change? Can he be both changing and unchanging?
I think for us humans to “relate” to others, be that other humans, animals, or other parts of nature, we need to have some sense of both “this being is like me” that allows us to connect and also “this being is not like me” which allows us to see their distinctiveness and to enjoy and learn from the differences. Without both “alike” and “not alike” I’m not sure “relating” is possible.
I think this post goes a long way toward making sense of the divine anger in the Old Testament. The character of God is not perfect yet; instead, the key point is relationship with the people. This passage with Moses also seems to address the unspoken question: If people are so flawed, why doesn't the Creator just disown us? There in Exodus, the Creator considers it. And then it's a tiny turn of language ("your people") that orients the Creator back toward the people. Thank you, Moses-the-poet, for caring about getting the words right! How often does a single word deflate anger or turn an intention? There is much potency in that passage.
I found this very interesting because I do notice that many people depict God as perfect and just in everything he does and I couldn’t see it that way. I saw his anger and how rash God could be, but for many faith holders this is overlooked or easily summed up into something far too simple to be a proper explanation on the causes and effects within the Bible, so I appreciated this unbiased take on God and his many sides.
I’m a pick and choose reader—of the Bible and everything else too. A different approach is to assume the Bible’s authority and mimic attitudes and beliefs from 2500 years ago. In the Bible, women were the property of men and slavery was okay. If I couldn’t pick and choose, I would avoid the Bible.
Shimon Bar Yochai is one of those Talmudic characters who is a model of virtue. One of his brags is that in his lifetime there was never a rainbow seen. Meaning that G-d did not have to remind himself that he promised not to destroy all humanity.
It's like we ruined rainbows for ourselves by making them a symbol of wrath.
The Hebrew is "kol-chai." Kol translates well into English as "all." "Chai" means life, or in this case due to context, "living things." "I will never again strike all life" is a more literal translation but it doesn't necessarily reflect the meaning better. I think plants and animals are included in the word "chai." Not really room to manipulate the word so as to exclude plants and animals.
I think there is room to interpret this as saying "Striking out at SOME life might be acceptable, but I won't strike out at "ALL life" again. My sense is it means "I won't destroy all creation again as I did just before." That leaves the gate open to more partial destruction being "acceptable."
Because the Bible is ancient literature, one of the pleasures (for me) in reading it is tracing the evolution of ideas. Sometimes, ideas from the Bible can point out ways contemporary culture has gone off the rails. Sometimes ideas from the Bible make me appreciate how far we’ve come.
I think of it kind of like having an opportunity to sit down and have a conversation with someone who lived 2500 years ago. What would I want to ask them? What might I learn from them? And how did we get from there to here?
As I read the Bible, the human-divine partnership involves growth/evolution on both sides. This leads to some uncomfortable ideas about God (for us contemporary folk) but also opens something up about spiritual growth and evolution that tends not to be part of the contemporary conversation.
This was great Dan! Not only illuminating, but also fun. I appreciate your wisdom and humour!
I love this. I’ve been reading the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament for the first time and was shocked by the many examples of an angry/reactionary God. (I went into my reading assuming God is just and perfect.)
But, for some reason, this imperfect, emotional God feels more genuine than a perfect one. He/God feels more real. I loved your take on this.
Before I write anything, I want you to know thatI have left my faith of origin, Catholicism and no longer view the Bible as authoritative. If I look at this as a literary work, then the only way I can relate to God who is subject to emotions, is to imagine that God is like me or is me. If God is ever-changing, then how can he be truth and love which never change? Can he be both changing and unchanging?
I think for us humans to “relate” to others, be that other humans, animals, or other parts of nature, we need to have some sense of both “this being is like me” that allows us to connect and also “this being is not like me” which allows us to see their distinctiveness and to enjoy and learn from the differences. Without both “alike” and “not alike” I’m not sure “relating” is possible.
Do truth and love really never change?
I think this post goes a long way toward making sense of the divine anger in the Old Testament. The character of God is not perfect yet; instead, the key point is relationship with the people. This passage with Moses also seems to address the unspoken question: If people are so flawed, why doesn't the Creator just disown us? There in Exodus, the Creator considers it. And then it's a tiny turn of language ("your people") that orients the Creator back toward the people. Thank you, Moses-the-poet, for caring about getting the words right! How often does a single word deflate anger or turn an intention? There is much potency in that passage.
I found this very interesting because I do notice that many people depict God as perfect and just in everything he does and I couldn’t see it that way. I saw his anger and how rash God could be, but for many faith holders this is overlooked or easily summed up into something far too simple to be a proper explanation on the causes and effects within the Bible, so I appreciated this unbiased take on God and his many sides.
Dan,
It might just be possible people interpret the bible as it was taught to them. Moving forward from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood.
It can also become a pick and choose type of bible reader?
I’m a pick and choose reader—of the Bible and everything else too. A different approach is to assume the Bible’s authority and mimic attitudes and beliefs from 2500 years ago. In the Bible, women were the property of men and slavery was okay. If I couldn’t pick and choose, I would avoid the Bible.
Shimon Bar Yochai is one of those Talmudic characters who is a model of virtue. One of his brags is that in his lifetime there was never a rainbow seen. Meaning that G-d did not have to remind himself that he promised not to destroy all humanity.
It's like we ruined rainbows for ourselves by making them a symbol of wrath.
The Hebrew is "kol-chai." Kol translates well into English as "all." "Chai" means life, or in this case due to context, "living things." "I will never again strike all life" is a more literal translation but it doesn't necessarily reflect the meaning better. I think plants and animals are included in the word "chai." Not really room to manipulate the word so as to exclude plants and animals.
I think there is room to interpret this as saying "Striking out at SOME life might be acceptable, but I won't strike out at "ALL life" again. My sense is it means "I won't destroy all creation again as I did just before." That leaves the gate open to more partial destruction being "acceptable."