Jeremy Thompson Catholic PhD in Biblical Languages, Programmer, Runner

Thanks to Suzanne McCarthy over at Suzanne’s Bookshelf for this POST on the gender neutral Bible controversy.  She links to a helpful article by Ann Nyland addressing the generic use of the Greek word aner.  Now, I am not one who would advocate gender inclusive language simply for the sake of being gender inclusive.  In fact, I often think gender exclusive language should be maintained, so that it can be critiqued.  However, if a word can be used generically, I want my translation to be accurate, and the generic use should be taken into consideration when the word is translated.

One case of this in my own area would be the Old Testament phrase sometimes translated the “sons of Israel.”  The fact of the matter is that this phrase is often generic and as such should be translated “the children of Israel,” “the people of Israel,” “the Israelites” or some such translation.  This is not done simply for the sake of being gender inclusive.  It is simply more accurate since the phrase is not usually referring to only male Israelites.

If you are interested in this topic, be sure to check out Nyland’s article.

Today’s lectionary reading is definitely part of one of my least favorite Old Testament passages.  If you heard the passage from the lectionary you probably would wonder why.  The reading is Ezra 9.5-9, which reads as follows:

At the time of the evening sacrifice, I, Ezra, rose in my wretchedness, and with cloak and mantle torn I fell on my knees, stretching out my hands to the LORD, my God.I said: “My God, I am too ashamed and confounded to raise my face to you, O my God, for our wicked deeds are heaped up above our heads and our guilt reaches up to heaven. From the time of our fathers even to this day great has been our guilt, and for our wicked deeds we have been delivered up, we and our kings and our priests, to the will of the kings of foreign lands, to the sword, to captivity, to pillage, and to disgrace, as is the case today.

And now, but a short time ago, mercy came to us from the LORD, our God, who left us a remnant and gave us a stake in his holy place; thus our God has brightened our eyes and given us relief in our servitude. For slaves we are, but in our servitude our God has not abandoned us; rather, he has turned the good will of the kings of Persia toward us. Thus he has given us new life to raise again the house of our God and restore its ruins, and has granted us a fence in Judah and Jerusalem (NAB).

Sounds like a humble cry of repentance doesn’t it?  Yes, until you realize what the problem is and perhaps more importantly what the men decide to do afterward.  Ezra is repenting for the Israelites marrying foreign women (9.14; 10.2, 11).  Ezra believes that this is absolutely wrong, though this is certainly not the only view during the later stages of Israelite history (think Ruth).  So, what is the solution? The men who have married foreign women must send away their wives and children.  The Book of Ezra ends with these words: “All these had married foreign women, and they sent them away with their children.”

Really?  That’s the answer?  Divorce?  Abandonment?  I think this text definitely fits into the broader definition of what Fretheim terms violence and is definitely one of those texts in which the depiction of God or at least the depiction of what people believe God wants of them must be questioned.  I am certainly not one who agrees with the whole Old Testament – New Testament dichotomy as you will find if you read the post linked to above.  And, I think that a lot of times people make problems out of passages there are not genuinely there.  But, this is one of those passages, which I somewhat fear for those who immediately jump into an apologetic.  I think it reflects a callousness toward the plight of women and children in the service defending a text.  Some critiques are unmerited, but this is a passage to me that is certainly worthy of one.

HERE is a link to a helpful article by Terence E. Fretheim in Word and World (Vo1. 24.1, 2004) on “God and Violence in the Old Testament.”  I will try to summarize Fretheim’s points the best that I can:

1. Violence is both an Old Testament and New Testament phenomenon.  I recommend checking out the footnotes for writings on violence in the New Testament.
2. Our definitions of violence should be expanded beyond just causing physical harm.  For example, Fretheim proposes adding things like discrimination on the basis of gender, age, etc. to our concept of violence.
3. There is a significant amount of material in the Old Testament condemning human violence.  Psalm 11.5 serves as a good example: “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and his soul hates the lover of violence (emphasis added).
4. Divine violence is a reaction to human violence.  Fretheim goes so far as to say “if there were no human violence, there would be no divine violence.”
5. Divine violence is used for either judgment or salvation.  On this point, Fretheim appears to be saying that all divine violence is meant to serve good purposes.
6. All this said, there are still some depictions of violence in the Old Testament that can and should be called into question.  To explain why these problematic depictions are there he offers three suggestions.  1) “God is working in and through human beings.”  2) “Human beings will never have perfect perception of how they are to serve as God’s instruments in the world.”  This is about as close as Fretheim comes to coming out and saying that the Biblical writers were simply wrong in their depiction of God.  Though I do not know if he would go that far. 3) “That God would stoop to become involved in such human cruelties as violence is, finally, not a matter for despair, but of hope.”

I agree with much of what Fretheim says in the article.  Especially, I think points 1 and 3 deserve special attention in our modern context.  People use the phrase “go Old Testament on someone,” but fail to recognize the presence of violence in the New Testament or the condemnations of violence in the Old Testament.  In addition, he makes a good analogy for points 4 and 5.  Many people are disturbed by the depictions of God’s anger in the Old Testament; however, Fretheim points out that many of the things that God gets angry over are things that make us angry as well.

I do have to say that I wish Fretheim would have fleshed out his conclusions in more detail.  I agree with him that certain depictions of divine violence in the Old Testament can and should be critiqued.  But, sometimes the boundaries for that critique are not clear cut.  As one example, Fretheim includes the freeing of the Israelites from slavery in the category of divine violence being used for the purpose of salvation.  Even still, it seems like the means for achieving that salvation are worthy of being called into question.  God achieves the salvation of Israel by killing Egyptian babies and children?  It is not the divine violence that is being called into question, but the target of that violence.  A good end may have been achieved (i.e. freedom), but at what cost (i.e. infanticide)?

These are just my initial reactions to the article and certainly I know that Fretheim’s article was not meant to be a treatise on the subject.  At the very least it is a good primer, and it has a good number of footnotes, which the reader should follow.  He interacts with a number of the major authors who have dealt with this subject in detail, such as Collins and Niditch.  I would also suggest that the work of Gottwald could be helpful here as well, when one recognizes that in many of the more difficult texts portraying violence we are likely not be dealing with literal historical facts (i.e. the conquest probably happened quite differently than depicted in the Book of Joshua).  At any rate, I would encourage my readers to check out the article if this issue has plagued you at all.

Related Posts:

Popular Culture on the Relationship between the New and Old Testaments

7 Verses on the Love of God in the Old Testament

Recommended Reading: