Positivism, Abortion and the Destruction of the Midianites

Wakefield Tolbert presents further arguments from atheists such as Steve Kangas concerning scientific progress leading to modern, humane, democratic society, and the problem the destruction of corrupt societies by God, such as the Midianites and Sodom and Gomorrah, poses for opponents of abortion, who view the killing of those societies’ children as a way of preventing their abuse in those societies.

BR,

Thanks for bringing all this to the forefront.

I hope I have not only done Dr. Logic justice in my presentation of his main points (having had to scale down from many to just get to the core arguments), but the topic as well.

His basic premise seems to be that religion in general is unscientific, science is
the fount of all meaningful knowledge, and that what he considers the harmful
effects of faith are ameliorated by advanced secular democracy.

His take is simliar to that of the late Steve Kangas, who wrote a rather long list
of the alleged crimes of religion, including a handy list of the “war on science and religion” from Andrew Dickson white. Additionally, Kangas mentioned the notion of progress being scientific alone is, by the accounting of the enlightened secularists like himself has now merged with moral progress. Thus for example only in modern times have we defeated what Kangas claims are almost the sole provence of religion: war, famine, pestilence, appeal to authoritarian styled authority over democracy, deprivation, fascism, patriarchal rule, rape, incest, pograms and other whole scourges of minorities, racism, genocide, feudalism, serfdom, class distinctions, etc. Then of course the charge that the Bible itself is filled with atrocity commanded by God, and that only science has found a way around this, and thus in the modern age we now know much better.

Well, you see the picture:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleatrocities.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-socialbreakdown.htm

then we have something many mention, where Kangas manages, amazingly as his tactic is wont, to merge two issues into one.

Abortion and the Bible, and the difference between “viability” and “dependency”, and why the Bible and “prolifers”, unlike science, cannot offer clear dividing lines or reasoned arguments about when life begins for humans, along with an alleged contradiction in God’s character.

To wit, God had the Midianites destroyed utterly, except for girls and women to be placed into what some see as sexual slavery. Now if this is the case not only is this atrocious in and of itself, BUT ALSO, we have the problem of the pro-lifers claiming that all unborn life is precious. With the destruction of the Midianites, and no doubt with the leveling of Sodom and Gomorrah and reclacitrant cities like Jericho, the unborn were killed also. This leaves a problem for Christians. Or so I’d think. Kangas has a point here: If your argument was like Pat Robertson’s, where we see God might have SPARED the unborn a needless suffering the in captivity of sin and dysfunction, the PRO-CHOICERS would pipe up to say this is JUST how that make THEIR argument. By eliminating unwanted pregnancy, they are doing what God did with the Midianites and Sodom, etc.

Thanks for the appreciation, Wakefield. I’m glad you enjoyed my comments, and I’m sure you did Dr. Logic justice in your description of his views. Let’s critique the underlying assumptions of both him and Steve Kangas.

Firstly, they’re both Positivists, essentially following the 19th century views of the founder of sociology, Auguste Comte, who believed that human society evolved from religion, through philosophy, to science, which was the highest stage of human development and would eventually provide the solutions to humanity’s problems. Unlike modern atheists and humanists, he attempted to create a religion based around science and humanity, with an elaborate ritual and hierarchy. This didn’t work, but nevertheless it has influenced much of contemporary atheist and humanist ideas, such as the supposed connection between scientific progress and moral progress. You can find these same ideas expressed in some of the optimistic science fiction, like Star Trek.

In fact, there are major problems with it from the outset. Firstly, many historians, philosophers and anthropologists are particularly critical of the notion of progress. The British Christian historian, Herbert Butterfield, called this kind of view ‘the Whig view of history’ – the idea that history is a story of continuous progress, culminating in freedom, democracy, and the British Empire. As you can see, he was criticising the British version of this view, which viewed the British Empire as bringing freedom, progress and prosperity to its colonies around the world, rather than conquering them and oppressing their peoples in the more contemporary view of the Empire. Part of the argument against progress is the view that the present view of history is very much determined by the development of history itself, but if that history had been different, then our view of history would have been very different. For example, if democracy had not emerged, and society remained strongly hierarchical, then presumably the notion of historical progress would have been one of the development of proper notions of hierarchy and authority, rather than egalitarianism and democracy.

There are other problems in that the view that science automatically leads to moral progress has been rejected by many of the horrors that took place and were committed by advanced, technological societies. For example, one of the major criticisms made of the development of nuclear weapons was that in creating them, humanity’s technological and scientific skill had gone far beyond humanity’s ability to act morally. One can also add the examples of scientific experimentation on unwitting or unwilling subjects, even in democratic western societies, such as nuclear experiments on civilians, and covert experimentation on civilians. Science, it has been claimed, is morally neutral, and that’s more or less the case. It’s application for good or evil depends on the individuals and governments involved, not on the scientific method itself, so science does not necessarily lead to greater morality or freedom.

There is also the problem in that he views scientific progress as leading to what is basically modern secular humanism, but this assumes that only secular humanism is scientific, and that science is necessarily the basis for equality and democracy. However, Communism also claimed to be scientific and to be the only true Humanism, so scientific development can be interpreted as leading away from bourgeois democracy to highly authoritarian systems of government.

There’s also the point made by Christian philosophers like Roger Trigg in his book Religion in Public Life: Must Faith be Privatized? that the notions of equality on which modern democracy is founded are derived from the Christian conception of equality before God as contained in and articulated by the philosophy of John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government, which provides the basis for modern democracy. Trigg makes the point in the book that contemporary atheist philosophy generally simply assumes that democracy and equality are the best forms of government and society, without being able to defend or support this view. Trigg therefore considers that only through religious faith can democracy be properly supported. Indeed, the whole conception of modern individualism may be considered to derive from the Puritan idea that each person is responsible for their own salvation and so should diligently investigate scripture for themselves. It was this individualist view of the responsibility of every person to seek salvation that led many Puritans to support the British Revolution against Charles I. In the case of the view that science necessarily leads to equality and democracy, this appears to have developed from people reading Locke’s metaphysic into modern science without recognising its basis in Christianity.

Many Roman Catholic philosophers reject Locke’s philosophy, but nevertheless also consider that it is only through Christianity that notions of human dignity and equality at the heart of modern democracy can be supported. Roman Catholic philosophers such as Jacques Maritain, in his detailed appreciation and analysis of democracy in America, have argued from St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotelean philosophy that it is only through Christian theology, rather than reason, that politics can be adequately supported and defended.

Regarding issues such as famine and deprivation, while Christianity accepted that poverty would always exist, it was also committed to its alleviation long before the emergence of contemporary science. Joseph, when he was vizier of Egypt, for example, opened the storehouses to alleviate the famine. Furthermore, the French historian, Jean Gimpel, in his book, The Medieval Machine, noted that people in the Middle Ages had a very modern attitude to estate management and farming, citing the English 13th century agricultural writer, Walter of Henley, the philosopher and theologian, Robert Grosseteste, and the two treatises Seneschaucy and Husbandry. One can similarly find agricultural handbooks advising landlords and farmers how they could improve yields in the 16th century. The early Church regularly preached the virtue of charity and of providing for the physical needs of the poor, and medieval ecclesiastic writers also insisted on the duty of the Church to provide for the poor. In fact the Church was often unable to do so through poor organisation, human corruption and poverty amongst some of its own members itself. For example, while some parts of the church were extremely wealthy and corrupt indeed, other parts of the church, such as many Benedictine monasteries in the 14th century, were so poor that they were themselves in need of poor relief. Furthermore, the acquisition of ecclesiastical funds by the state did not necessarily lead to better provision for the poor. Alfred Cobban in his book, The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution has noted that the provision of funds to alleviate the famine that occurred at the time of the French Revolution actually became much less, and the famine much more severe, after the ecclesiastical money reserved by the French Roman Catholic church for famine relief was confiscated by the Revolutionaries.

Regarding Fascism, although this horrifically did have the support of sections of the Christian Church, it had its origins – at least in Italy and Germany – in militant nationalism that could include a rejection of Christian morality. The Italian Fascists in particular stated that Fascism was based on moral relativism, rather than the traditional Christian view that morality is objective and transcendental in origin.

Now let’s examine the critique of the Pro-Life attitude towards abortion, and whether this is indeed contradicted by the destruction of corrupt societies such as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Midianites. Firstly, it must be recognised that the capture of the Midianite women and girls by the Israelites as wives was not considered to be a form of slavery. The Mosaic Law stated that women captured in war and married by the captors were not to be treated as slaves. They were given an amount of time to mourn the death of their families, and were to be properly treated and provided for. If a man wanted to divorce one of them, he was to give his former wife her freedom and not sell her as a slave. As for the complete destruction of societies like the Midianites, ancient warfare generally could be extremely brutal. Under Roman law, a besieged town was granted humane treatment if it surrendered. However, this was granted only if it surrendered before the battering ram had struck the town gates for the third time. If it had not surrendered before then, then the entire population of the town was massacred if it was taken.

Now the corrupt societies of Sodom and Gomorrah and Midian were destroyed because it was felt that they were completely corrupt, and every member of that society shared in its corruption. Hence the complete destruction of those societies. Clearly there is a difference here between the destruction of these societies and abortion. The children of these cultures were not destroyed to prevent their abuse by their elders, but because it was considered that they shared in their societies’ corruption and that these societies should therefore be completely destroyed, which included the massacre of their children. The sacrifice of infants by these societies was one reason for their destruction. The killing of these societies’ children by the Israelites was not to prevent their being used in such sacrifices, to but to destroy completely the society that practised that and other corrupt acts. So, there is indeed a good point that the Pro-Life position is not supported, and is indeed contradicted by claims that the Israelites killed the children of these societies to prevent their being used in human sacrifice. However, the reason for these societies’ complete destruction was still because, amongst other horrific acts, they practised child sacrifice.

Halley’s Cometary Flood Theory Returns

Usually I don’t pay much attention to the various theories that surface from time to time about the Great Flood. Most just seem sensationalist and lacking a foundation in informed science. I don’t think it’s really that important whether the Great Flood really did cover the whole Earth, or if it was merely a local flood confined to Mesopotamia that appeared to the people there to cover the whole of the Earth. What matters is the theological message behind this action: that God is determined to wipe out evil, but that no matter how corrupt humanity and the world is, He will not destroy it again. God’s mercy far outweighs His justice.

However, this piece in Discover magazine is interesting. According to the article at http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C= a group of scientists, the Holocene Impact Working Group, consisting of Bruce Masse, an environmental archaeologist, Ted Bryant, a geomorphologist and Dallas Abbott, and assistant professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, have suggested that there really was a global flood as described in Genesis. This was caused by a three-mile wide comet striking the Indian Ocean off Madagascar, producing tsunamis, superheated steam, torrential rains and darkening the sky for months on end. 80 per cent of all life on Earth may have been destroyed. The trauma of this impact was preserved in myths and oral history, while physical evidence exists in the form of chevrons – special rock formations produced by the resulting tsunamis containing deep-sea microfossils on the coastline of Madagascar and other places. The group suggests the collision took place in 2800 BC.

The theory is highly controversial, however, with Jay Melosh, an expert on cometary impacts at Arizona University strongly disputing it. According to Melosh, such an impact should have also produced fused rock and glass, which so far have not been found.

It’s an interesting theory, particularly as it’s a modern version of a very old one. Way back in the 17^th century, the British Astronomer Royal, Edmond Halley, the discoverer of the comet that bears his name, presented several papers to the Royal Society outlining and refining his view that Noah’s Flood had been caused by the impact of a comet.

‘But the Almighty generally making use of Natural Means to bring about his Will, I thought it not amiss to give this Honourable Society an Account of some Thoughts that occurr’d to me on this Subject’, explained Halley in his ‘Some Considerations about the Cause of the universal Deluge, laid before the Royal Society, on the 12^th December 1694. By Dr. Edmond Halley, R.S.S.’ 1

Halley believed that a comet had struck the Earth, changing the inclination of the poles and the Earth’s rotation, causing the sea to recede from the new position of the poles, and increase in their previous site. It also caused a ‘vast agitation’ in the sea, heaping vast quantities of Earth and high cliffs upon beds of shells, which once were at the bottom of the sea: and raising up mountains where none were before, mixing the elements into such a heap as the poets describe the old chaos.’ 2 Halley considered that the evidence for such a Flood and impact included the fossil remains of animals, great depressions like the Caspian Sea and other great lakes, and the intense cold in the American North, such as Hudson’s Bay. This latter may have been due, according to Halley, to that part of the world originally lying much further north than it is presently, and so preserving vast amounts of unthawed ice, which lowered the temperature in that region today. ‘that some such thing has happened’, stated Halley, ‘may be guessed, for that the Earth seems as if it were new made out of the ruins of an old world’. 3

Halley’s ideas about the possible extent of the damage caused by such a cometary impact seem naïve today. Certainly I can’t imagine many physical geographers giving much credence to his speculation about the cause of the intense cold of the American north being due to the existence of unthawed ice predating such an impact. Nevertheless, his approach wasn’t mistaken: he was looking at the evidence from fossils and the physical effects on the Earth’s geomorphology. Moreover, he compared the evidence of the Bible with ancient Greek mythology and its description of a primal chaos. Halley did realise, however, that such a violent impact itself posed problems for the Genesis account. If such an impact had occurred, then there was the problem of how Noah and his family in their ark escaped the general destruction around them: ‘In this case it will be much more difficult to show how Noah and the animals should be preserved, than that all things in which was the breath of life, should be destroyed.’ 4

A similar approach was taken nearly over a century later by Joseph Townsend, the rector of Pewsey in Wiltshire in England. In his The Character of Moses Established for Veracity as an Historian recording events from the Creation to the Deluge of 1813, Townsend, like Masse today, cited the evidence from the world’s mythologies, noting the existence of a global flood in Chinese, Japanese, North American Indian and Greenland myth and legend, particularly amongst the Iroquois and Mexicans peoples. He also considered accounts from ancient European and Middle Eastern historians, such as Josephus, Nicholas of Damascus, the Babylonian historian Berosus, and the unknown Egyptian author of the Phoenician Antiquities, as well as Plato, and the ancient Greek myth of Deucalion and Pyrrha. 5 Townsend then went on to consider the evidence from geology and geomorphology for corroborating the Mosaic account of the creation, citing the geologists of his day and their analysis of geological and physical geographical features, and concluding ‘The description of Moses, short as it is, corresponds exactly with the phenomena produced by this grand convulsion’. 6

Apart from contemporary Creationists, I doubt many geologists would give credence to Townsend’s arguments today. They were controversial when he published them. Townsend himself discusses the arguments from the geologists of his time against physical geographical evidence for a global flood, stating

‘Some vain pretenders to science, have been ambitious to display their knowledge and sagacity, by an appeal to natural evidence for the antiquity of the present system, in opposition to the Chronology of Moses’ and attacking in particular Canon Recupero, the great French scientist Buffon and others. 7 Nevertheless, even if they were wrong about the particulars, if Masse, Bryant and Abbott are correct, then Halley, Townsend and their successors were on the right lines and considering the right types of evidence.

Even if they’re wrong about a global Flood, Masse has himself contributed important evidence supporting the veracity of ancient, mythological accounts of events by demonstrating how Hawaiian legends about Pele accurately preserved memories of the volcano’s eruptions, and that Chinese mythology included accurate descriptions of comets and celestial events. Indeed, the British astronomer, Dr. Alan Chapman, presented a series on Channel 4 in Britain, Gods from the Sky, in which he suggested that the events of Egyptian mythology in particular referred to the movement of the planets and constellations as part of a religions based on the movements of these bodies. Chapman himself is no religious sceptic, but stated during the series that he was a Christian, and while believing in evolution made it very clear that he was not sympathetic to those who loudly announce that it disproves the existence of God.

Back to this story in Discover magazine, it’s likely that this will die down in a few days and the theory will be quietly shelved, depending on whether further evidence can be found to support it and convince sceptics like Dr. Melosh. Nevertheless, it’s one to keep an eye on, and shows that there are still secular scientists prepared to give a global flood, as experienced by Noah and described in mythology and legend around the world, some credence.

Notes

1. ‘Edmond Halley (1656-1742): ‘Some Consideration about the Cause of the Universal Deluge’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 33 (1724-1725), 118-123’ in D.C. Goodman, ed., Science and Religious Belief 1600-1900: A Selection of Primary Sources (John Wright and Sons/The Open University 1973), p. 248.
2. Halley, ‘Universal Deluge’, in Goodman, Science and Religious Belief, pp. 248-9.
3. Halley, ‘Universal Deluge’, in Goodman, Science and Religious Belief, pp. 249.
4. Halley, ‘Universal Deluge’, in Goodman, Science and Religious Belief, pp. 249.
5. ‘Joseph Townsend, The Character of Moses Established for Veracity as an Historian recording events from the Creation to the Deluge’ in D.C. Goodman, ed., Science and Religious Belief, pp. 334-6.
6. Townsend, Moses as Historian, in Goodman, Science and Religious Belief, p. 343.
7. Townsend, Moses as Historian, in Goodman, Science and Religious Belief, pp. 343-5.

Yahweh – Tribal War God or Only God?

Vigilante, one of the great guys who posts his comments and observations over at Frank Walton’s awesome blog Atheism Sucks, has remarked on the need for a resource to counteract some of the claims regularly made against God and Christianity by atheists. One of these claims, which he recommends should be specifically addressed, is the statement that the God of the Bible, Yahweh, is really only a tribal war god. Now I’ve also come across this type of comment before, and absolutely agree. It’s one of those statements, which is blandly made as if it were obviously true. However, like many such statements, it is only partially correct and needs to be carefully critiqued.

Now there is clearly some truth in that statement. The Bible clearly describes Yahweh as the God of Israel. The other nations surrounding Israel also had their own national gods – Qos was the god of Edom, Asshur of the Assyrians, and Chemosh of Moab. These gods were believed to reside in their temples and shrines, and bring victory in battle to their worshippers. The Babylonian Weidner Chronicle, supposedly correspondence between from king Damiq-ilisu of Isin to Apil-Sin of Babylon or Rim-Sin of Larsa, stresses the power of Marduk in giving sovereignty and victory to his worshippers: ‘Naram-Sin ravaged the populace of Babylon, and twice he (Marduk) called up the Gutian armies against him [He/They put to flight (?)] his people as with a donkey-goad [and] he (Marduk) gave his royal sovereignty to the Gutian armies.’ (from ‘Late Bronze Age Inscriptions from Babylon, Assyria, and Syro-Palestine’, Frans van Koppen, Kyle Greenwood, Christopher Morgan, Brent a Strawn, Jeff Cooley, bill T. Arnold, Eva von Dassow, and Yoram Cohen, Historical Sources in Translation: The Ancient Near East, Mark W. Chavalas, (ed.) (Oxford, Blackwell 2006), p. 167.

Similarly, the Bible often describes the Lord in very martial language, as expressed in 2 Samuel 7:26 ‘And let thy name be magnified for ever, saying, The Lord of hosts is the God over Israel; and let the house of thy servant David be established forever’. This very martial conception of God is also expressed in Psalm 18: 34-50, which has the lines ‘He teacheth my hands in war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms. Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation; and thy right hand hath holden me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great’. Psalm 68 also describes the Lord’s warlike prowess in delivering His people and raising them to a position of international honour and rule: ‘The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels’, (v. 17); ‘But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses.’(v.21); ‘because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents unto thee’ (v. 29), and ‘Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God. Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth; O sing praises unto the Lord; Selah; To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out a voice, and that a mighty voice. Ascribe ye strength unto God: his excellency is over Israel, and his strength is in the clouds. O God, thou are terrible out of thy holy place; the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Blessed be God.’ (vv. 31-5).

Scholars of the Old Testament, such as Helmer Ringgren have also pointed out how God’s spirit in the Book of Judges gives Gideon, Jephtha and Samson the power to defeat the Israelite’s enemies. (see H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (London, SPCK 1966), pp. 46-7). In these passages God ‘is the war god who leads the holy wars of his people’. (Ringgren, p. 46). However, scholars stress that these passages should be read within the context of the situation they describe, and that these martial traits are only one aspect of God’s character. ‘This does not simply mean that Yahweh was only or even primarily a warlike national god with atmospheric traits. It is the situation that leads to emphasis on these characteristics.’ (Ringgren, p. 46).

It should be noted that some of the warlike language describing Yahweh is ambiguous, and that contrasting images of God may appear in the same passage. The passage from Psalm 18 quoted above, verse 35 moves from God as the martial defender of the singer to stressing God’s gentleness: ‘Thou has also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy right hand hath holden me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great.’ This is part of the strong motif of God’s righteous mercy declared in verse 25: ‘With the merciful though wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright.’

This ambiguity even extends into some of the epithets describing God in the Old Testament. One of the common phrases for God, which has traditionally been taken as indicating His warrior aspect, is ‘Lord of Hosts’, in Hebrew, Yahweh Sabaoth. These hosts are often considered to be the Israelite armies, based on the role of the Ark as a war shrine, such as in Samuel 6:2

‘And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.’

In this connection, it’s noted that ‘Lord of Host’s is explicitly linked with Yahweh as God of the armies of Israel in Samuel 17:45

‘Then said David to the Philistine, thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou has defied.’

However, in contrast to this, scholars like Ringgren have also pointed out that ‘the ark, as we have seen, is also connected with the conception of Yahweh as an enthroned king; and the vast majority of occurrences of “Yahweh Sabaoth” as a divine name are found in the prophets, where emphasis upon the warlike aspects of Yahweh is not suggested by the context.’ (Ringgren, p. 68). The hosts therefore described may also refer to the stars, as in Isaiah 40: 26

‘Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hat created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he called them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.’

The hosts may also be the Lords’ angels in heaven, as described in Psalm 103:19-22:

‘The Lord hath prepared His throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. Bless the Lord, ye His angels, that excel in strength, that do His commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the Lord, all ye His hosts; ye ministers of His, that do His pleasure. Bless the Lord, all His works in all places of His dominion: bless the Lord, O my soul.’

Thus, the epithet is used not simply to describe God as warlike, but to emphasise His immense power and majesty. ‘In any case, “Sabaoth” is used particularly in those contexts that speak of Yahweh as the almighty Lord and king. The Septuagint accordingly often translates it as pantokrator, “all-powerful”.

Even within these passages extolling the warlike qualities of the Lord are verses indicating that Yahweh is far more than simply a god of war solely guarding Israel. For example, verse 30 of Psalm 68 asks God to ‘rebuke the company of spearmen, the multitude of the bulls, with the calves of the people, till every one submit himself with pieces of silver: scatter thou the people that delight in war’. The ‘people that delight in war’ are Israel’s enemies, here seen very much as militaristic aggressors in contrast to Israel. Furthermore, although Yahweh is God of Israel, He is far more than that. He is the God of all the Earth, whose kingdoms will come to praise Him. Indeed, Scripture makes it clear that God is sovereign over all the Earth who will eventually establish a reign of peace and justice amongst the nations as the Earth’s peoples worship Him. Isaiah 2:2-4 prophesises that

‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

And many people shall go and say, Com ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.’ The same revelation is given, in almost identical words, by the prophet Micah, in chapter 4: 1-3 of his book. This promise of universal salvation granted to gentiles as well as Jews is at the heart of the prophet Jonah’s ministry. God commanded Jonah to preach to Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire, powerful and hostile towards Israel. The book contrasts God’s mercy on Nineveh, whose king and people repent so that God does not destroy them, with Jonah himself, who runs from the Lord to avoid giving the prophetic message, and thus the opportunity to avoid God’s punishment, to the people of Nineveh, preferring that God’s salvation should be kept only to Israel. This universalism is present from the very beginning of the Bible. The covenant God makes with Noah not to destroy the world again is described as between God and ‘every living creature of all flesh that is on the Earth’, (Genesis 9: 16). As for war, Genesis states that God destroyed the world with the Flood because it ‘was filled with violence’. (Genesis 7: 11). This is very far from the idea of a God who delights in violence and warfare.

So, although Yahweh is the God of Israel, He is also the Lord of all the earth, and even within the Old Testament God is seen to call gentiles to communion with Him along with His chosen people. Jewish scholars such as Louis Jacobs and I. Heinemann have pointed to the universalistic framework in which the Jewish people were chosen by God to show the profound differences between God as the God of Israel and the idea of a tribal god. For these scholars the crucial difference is choice: Yahweh, the Lord of the universe, made a deliberate choice of Israel to be His people. This doesn’t occur in the relationship between a tribal people and their god.

‘The Biblical conception of the election of Israel has nothing in common with the idea of a tribal god protecting his people, responding to their attempts to buy his favour and capable of suffering defeat at the hands of some more powerful deity. The relation of a tribal god to his people is a ‘natural one’. He does not ‘choose’ his people any more than they are members of the tribe by choice. In the Bible it is the universal God who ‘chooses’. (Louis Jacobs, ‘The Chosen People’, in Whitfield Foy, ed., The Religious Quest:A Reader (London, Routledge/ The Open University Press 1978), pp. 410-11.

The profound difference between the conception of Yahweh as the only God and the national gods of Mesopotamia is shown in the different attitudes towards national defeat and subjugation in Israel and Babylon. For ancient Israel, defeat and oppression by nations such as the Babylonians, Assyrians or Greeks could only be part of God’s unfolding plan, occurring through the Almighty’s will. No other gods existed, and so the foreign forces that conquered, enslaved and deported them could only be acting through the will of God. For the other nations in the Ancient Near East, such as the Sumerian city states, defeat by an enemy was the result of their national or city god being stronger. Israel’s entire conception of itself was informed by the knowledge that the Lord wasn’t just the God of the Jewish people, but the God of all the world who chose them as part of a wider plan for the world’s salvation. For scholars such as Jacobs and Heinemann, this has been made particularly clear in Isaiah 42: 5-7: ‘Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.’ Talmudic legend also stresses God as the God of all the Earth’s peoples. In one legend, the status of the Jews as God’s chosen people is explained as a result of the rest of the Earth’s nations rejecting God’s offer of communion except Israel.

The universal mission within Judaism to call gentiles as well as Jews to knowledge and love of God was taken over and developed in Christianity, so that as St. Paul said, ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (Galatians 3:28).

As the only God, Yahweh is clearly more than just a war god as the Bible also makes abundantly clear. The violent imagery used of God reflects not only the turbulent history of the ancient Near East, but also the fundamental nature of human political life. For many political theorists, states have their origin in warfare and the need for military protection against enemies, and until very recently kings were war-leaders, expected to lead their nation’s armies into battle to defend their people. The violent depictions of God as a warrior scattering Israel’s enemies are part of a general picture of what kings have traditionally been expected to do: use their military prowess and resources to safeguard their realm and establish justice. Rather than being simply the activities of a war god, a specialised member of a wider pantheon of gods, the martial imagery and descriptions of the Lord in the Bible do so to illustrate the Lord as the monarch of the universe, scattering and destroying the wicked to establish peace and justice, in which God as the ‘Lord of Hosts’ is a compelling symbol of God as the true, almighty sovereign of the Universe, the pantokrator of the Septuagint.