While the character of God certainly sheds light on our understanding of the story thus far I wonder just how far we can trust our own ability to “weigh” this or that, throwing out that which we don’t like in favor of something that suits us. The Dawkins point is a perfect illustration: We all come to a conclusion that suits the baggage and/or agenda we come to Scripture with. We do not have the God we want but the God we got – as revealed to us in our story and more particularly in Jesus Christ.

The pitting of the OT God vs. the NT God is troublesome to me. It harks back to Marcion and IMO rarely bears good fruit. Much of the problems with some of the OT imagery, I think, stems from an assumption that ethics are universal. We are reading the OT through Kant’s eyes. We assume that there what is right for one people in one context is right for all people in all contexts and all times. Ethics is far more complicated than this and I would argue far more contextual and particular – especially as it comes to the people of God. As such, there are other ways for us to view war and violence in the OT without making Marcion’s (or Dawkins) move. For those interested, here is a short list of mitigating factors as it pertains to war and the OT:

1. Warfare grows out of Israel’s deep respect for life and death. Because they confessed a single God, death as well as life, peace as well as war, ALL came from God. (Deut. 32:9) God “I will kill, and I heal, and none that can deliver out of my hand.” 1 Sam 2:6 “The Lord kills and brings to life.” IOW, God is involved in death in the OT because life was considered so sacred. God was involved in ALL reality – the alternative was unthinkable – that there was some sort of existence that is secular and apart from God. Israel’s question is not “how COULD God be involved in warfare?” but rather, “how could God NOT be involved in something?” So the issue with Israel is not whether God is involved but HOW God is involved. Peter Enns, in his great book Incarnation and Inspiration, argues that this is yet another way God is present with the people just as they “are.” In the culture of that day they are warlike, and yet God moves them to peace. God meets us where we are and works with what God has.

2. Even with the above, Israel did worry about the compatibility of God and war. Much of the battle had a mediator, like wind, hail, fire or water. God “fights” by withdrawing God’s hand, withdrawing from the created order and allowing chaos to run for awhile. God’s activity is seen as the undoing of creation.

Portrait of a blood thirsty God does exist, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule (Deut 32:41, 42 and Isaiah 63). Notice though that even in these, there has already been a move towards metaphor and imagery. God’s destruction of Edom is linked with a wine press, for example.

3. Israel distanced God from warfare through idealistic rules (Deut 20). There are all sorts of rules that put Israel’s troops at a significant disadvantage. Those who have just been married, built a house, are afraid, etc., then they are to be let go from war. Protect the trees in the town attacked is another rule.

Herem – “ban” All captured soldiers and booty are to be utterly destroyed. The point in the context here is to prevent war from becoming merely a means of gain. Soldiers normally would have been given loot. This keeps Israel’s warriors committed to the cause over profit. Yet another example of the progressive nature Israel had towards war.

4. Historical question about whether battles actually happened. Josh. 6 – Jericho. Some accounts should be read as retrospective ideas of Israel’s faith that have found expression in a historicized form.
The phrase “holy war” never appears in the Bible. The idea that there was a particular type of battle that made it “holy” is not likely. Doesn’t seem to be such a tradition.

5. The idea of warfare had to be held together with those that speak against warfare and speak of peace. Even if only as a future hope. Warfare is a temporary concession.

6. As a general hermeneutical rule, it is a mistake to assume the battle accounts are approved just because OT narrative describes it. IOW, biblical narrative doesn’t always provide a moral judge of actions. The way we decide if something is “bad” is based on our overall view of Scripture and also on how the event turns out in the end.
a. Thus, the conquest of the land has various traditions.

7. The conquest presented by the DH (Deuteronmic History) is limited to the one time event, and is non-repeatable. IOW, God allowed the conquest of the land at a very specific time in history. The need to preserve the people by providing them a land of their own.

The above 7 factors are part of some notes from my OT class at Duke under Stephen Chapman.

Just my two cents

grace and peace,
Chad

I agree fully that reading Lazarus as metaphor for the Jews is freeing, because the alternative is hellfire for most, especially the affluent! And taking a deeper look at Basinaios (or what ever that word is) to see that torment is part of the process of salvation, not a meaningless non redemptive or as you say restorative punishment, also freed me a lot.

I really appreciate your input…

For me this chapter is getting into the heart of the topic. It is the nature and character of God that causes me question doctrine and orthodoxy traditionally accepted. As I seek to grasp an understanding of the divine and apply these characteristics to my daily life I find it impossible to attain the levels of forgiveness, compassion, holiness, justice, creativity, mercy, hospitality, generosity and love.

But Jesus put it perfectly in Matthew 19v26:

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Mission Impossible!! But this is for me were grace kicks in. The Father loves his children like a good father. The Creator is not nearly finished his work “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” Colossians 1v20

I quote the final line of this chapter….

My hope is God’s Promise.