Dear Theophilus, 

The reason why I did not touch on the Old Testament in my last letter was due to the fact that I thought the letter was long enough. In this letter I would like to look at your assessment of what is written and reported in the Old Testament.

Your letter was quite lengthy and you brought up many examples which basically have been raised by others saying that the God depicted in the Old Testament is a monster. Let's just summarize some of your statements.

In the settlement of Canaan by the Israelites, the Hebrews are commanded by God to slaughter the population living on these lands. David is instructed by God to carry out a census of the Israelite population and then is chastised for doing this. Abraham is instructed to kill his son and, at the last minute, is stopped from this. God seems to play favorites, giving little concern for other peoples.

At the very outset, let me make something very clear. Some people claim that the Old Testament is simply a collection of fairy tales and myths with no, or at most very little, historical basis. Then, these very people turn around and use these tales to talk about God and what He is like and chastise Him for behaving the way He does. We can't have it both ways - either we accept the Old Testament seriously and proceed from there or we relegate the Old Testament to simply stories of a nomadic tribe. We will work with the first position.

There is a story of a heretic being brought to the stake to be burned on the charge that he denied the existence of God. Look right here, he says, there is no God. This is in the Bible. But, he is answered, turn the page and it continues there: says the fool. We must also be careful as to how we read to make sure that we read the complete version and not take snippets here and there to uphold a certain position. Yes, there is a call to kill and slaughter one group of people by another in the Old Testament and this call is said to come from God. We could rationalise this on the grounds that a war was going on, or there was fear of religious contamination or other excuses could be generated but these do not address the central concern that we have - did God order those killings or did He not? To answer the question as to whether or not God called on the Israelites to kill off various other tribes, we must look at the Bible as a whole. Do we see there a consistent picture of a God who condones murder? I hardly think so. Then how do we understand what we read in passages that seem offensive to us? Do not forget that we are all affected by the age that we live in and our views are colored by the spirit of our times. Thus when we read about "an eye for an eye" it seems very barbaric to us but only so because of where we stand presently. At the time of the Biblical account the norm was to wipe out a whole tribe for any slight or crime. What the admonition "an eye for an eye" does is limit the vengeance to one person and thereby, it is already a step in the right direction; it limits the amount of killing. But, what is even more crucial is to remember that the Bible is said to be an inspired book but this does not mean literal inspiration, as some claim. God's message has to get through human prejudice, human stubbornness. God's message is filtered through people and we may not be getting the whole story. That is why community is important - so that we can check on each other to make sure that we have got it right. That is why the whole story is important and we do not use certain passages out of context. From what I read of God in the Bible, the message comes through and through of someone who loves man and pursues man so as save him, that is, make man whole and healthy. Therefore, I would read the passages that explicitly call for killing and are said to be a directive from God, as a message colored with human intentions. Allow me to support my position with two examples involving the two most illustrious personages in the Old Testament. Moses brought the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt and led them to the very borders of the promised land, but, he himself, was not permitted to enter. Isn't it strange that someone with the stature of Moses was not allowed to complete the journey, but, he wasn't. He was deemed as having disobeyed God and for this reason he was not allowed to enter the land promised to his people. I need not remind you that one of the sins of Moses was the killing of an Egyptian. The other famous person is David who wanted to build the Temple to honor God. But he was denied this privilege, which was accomplished by his son Solomon, because David had blood on his hands. Thus, although we see killing being done we also see killing being punished, even in persons as famous as Moses and David. To me, what this says is that the killings which are described in the Old Testament are not ordered by God - these are seen as necessary by men living in a time when these kinds of acts were common (not that our age is any better) and simply accepted and maybe justified by reference to God.

Remember what I said in the last letter about revelation. A lot of our information about what God is like comes from God informing us outside the natural processes in nature. Nature is fallen and therefore cannot give a complete or accurate picture of what God is like. What the Old Testament tells us is that someone will come who is called the Messiah and from him we will see a more accurate picture of God. Thus, the Old Testament foretells about Jesus and in this, it is an important document because no other religious leader has been prefigured to the extent that Jesus was. Do you remember the time you were grumbling in church about the boring part in Matthew's Gospel where the genealogy of Jesus is read out? You said that this was boring and had no relevance to you. On the contrary, it does have relevance and allow me to point out some areas in which this reading of the genealogy plays an important part. First of all, it points out that history is important. It is useful and important to record events, people, places. Secondly, it has a theological lesson. In the genealogy mention is made of Manasseh, who was the son of Hezekiah. In 2 Chronicles, in chapter 33, we read about what a nasty fellow this Manasseh was. Yet, this Manasseh is an important link in the chain that leads to Jesus. Take Manasseh out and the chain is broken. So we see God using even evil people to fulfil His task and we are not to judge people too quickly until we see the wider panorama of history. What Jesus' coming does is clarify and make clear the message which is sometimes garbled in human transmission in the Old Testament and the picture that we get in the New Testament is the more accurate snapshot of God, if I may so put it.

You criticise the Old Testament for being "unscientific" and cite the example of Genesis' account of the coming into existence of the world. Of course it isn't scientific because it wasn't being written to only you in the twentieth century but it was written so as to be understood by people of many and varied ages, but principally for people of that age. However, archeological research and discoveries have shown a stunning support for the veracity of the events reported in the Old Testament. Maybe one example will illustrate what I am referring to. There is an account of the Israelite attack on the city of Jericho and it is said that trumpets were blown and the walls came down. Recent excavations at the cite of the city of Jericho show evidence that indeed Jericho, as many towns of that time, did have a wall surrounding it and this wall was destroyed by an attack. But, the position of the stones of the wall testifies to an interesting situation. Normally, when an attacking force moves in, the stones of the wall are knocked to the interior as the invading force pushes its way in. The wall of Jericho fell outwards showing something strange happened there. This is but one example and there are many that could be cited.

The other point that seems to be offensive to you is the title of Chosen People for the Israelites. You say this is demeaning and does not value people other than the Israelites. Here we see a principle operating and that is when actions are carried out, they are carried out by specific agents. One group is chosen and they happen to be the Jews. This does not mean that they are better than other peoples or that they are more spiritual. If you read the Old Testament you will see it said over and over again. You, the Israelites have been chosen not because of your inherent merit but simply because God has decided to chose you. Moreover, if you consider the history of the Jewish people, I think there would not be too many who would envy what they have experienced. I therefore find arguments that the Old Testament is simply written to glorify a small group of people not convincing at all and I think you should put your concerns behind you and proceed to more important matters.

There is one last point that I want to make. If you read the early part of the Old Testament, there is little there to suggest that human beings survive death as personal individuals. People die and go to Sheol where they cannot praise God, but there is no eternal reward, no promise of heaven. And yet, under these conditions, the Israelites wanted to remain faithful to God and this I think is an important point. God was not invented as some rewarder but He was loved for His love and faithfulness. The Jews had no theory of God, no abstract philosophical perception of God but they had what may be best described as an understanding of God. For them God was so real that their very existence was totally dependent on His presence. The world is seen as a manifestation of God's activity and here I think we touch on what differentiates the Old Testament idea of God from that of the rationalistic philosophers. For the philosophers God is a noun; for the Hebrews He is a verb known through world events and events within your own life. Knowledge of God is attained through fellowship with Him and with your fellow man and not through analysis, and argument and fine turns of words. There is an important lesson here for all of us, Theophilus; we must complement our discussions by visiting the sick, helping the poor - in one word, by also becoming verbs and not mere nouns.

With this, I end my letter. Hoping to hear from you soon, I remain,

Bar-Abbas

Return to Index