This essay explores the biblical
period before the rise of kingship in Israel around 1000 BC. In the process,
some important theological and spiritual implications arise that may challenge
assumptions of many within religious communities today.
The suggestion in this essay is
that religion provides a way of looking upon religious belief that, in times of
stability, provides a way of meeting the challenges of a human life and the
challenges of community life. However, when history brings its inevitable
changes, the religion shows its strength in its ability to rise to new
challenges through changing its beliefs and institutions. This change occurs in
a way that incorporates what was into a new formulation of religious belief,
institutions, and values. What is new, far from abrogating the past, has a way
of lifting up what formerly existed into a new formulation that people find
strengthens them as they face the new historical challenge. What is significant
here is that religion, far from showing its strength in resistance to change,
shows its strength in adapting to new realities that fulfills what was
essential in the past in a new form. Of course, this does not happen by
necessity, for we know that religions die when they do not demonstrate such
flexibility. Although what follows will keep close to the actual historical
textual material, my hope is that reading the sacred text differently may help
synagogue and church to read their situation today differently.
The first step is that the story of
the Patriarchs had the primary spiritual and theological awareness of the call
of God upon their lives to migrate from place to place under the promise of
land and progeny. The primary institutions revolved around land and children,
and the primary values sought to keep family together. Think of it this way. Children were the primary way the nomad could
think of connecting with something beyond him or her. Connecting to the future
with a sense of hope is an important connection for human beings to make. The
struggle to offer the gift of children to the future was quite real. Birth was
dangerous for mother and for child. Further, to own land was equally important.
In an agrarian society, owning land was vital. Ownership made the clan a home.
The caution one needs to have in these stories of the Patriarchs is to
refuse the temptation to import too much later theology into their story. If we
see value in discerning the ways of the God of Israel into these vignettes from
family life, then we need to be modest about their theological and spiritual
implications.
Scholars differ as to the
assessment of the assessment of the traditions that we find in Genesis. I
direct your attention primarily to those stories that an oral culture might
remember. These stories would have developed around 2000 to 1700 BC. Thus, the
call and genealogy we find in Genesis 11:28-30, 12:1-9, 35:16-20, 22b-29)
become central. It was a vague promise, but a promise in which they had trust. One
can think of their stories as little vignettes of the life of a family. Think
of the struggle of Abraham to find a legitimate heir (Genesis 16, 21), the
struggle maintain his relation to his wife (Genesis 12:10-16), the struggle for
land (Genesis 21:25-26, 28-31a), the struggle to bring Isaac and Rebekah
together (Genesis 24), the struggle between Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:21-26a,
27-28, 29-34, 27:1-45, 32:3-8, 13a, 33:1-17), and finding Jacob a wife in Rachel
(Genesis 29-30, 31). As with every family, relationships were important. In order for this family to survive, it would
need forgiveness. Esau is the one who extends forgiveness. These stories remind
us that the meaning of human life is never completed, even at death. It
led to the formation of twelve tribes, each with their own characteristics.
The assumption one might have here
is that theologically, the Patriarchs had a simple belief in “El,” something as
vague as we might think of in the word “divine.” This God could guide to a new
land and ensure the preservation of the clan. One offered sacrifices to this
God.
In stable times, the belief of the
Patriarchs sustained them and their progeny. Belief systems have a way of
interpreting the world and helping those who believe face the challenges of
life. Their belief was strong enough to interpret the world as they experienced
it. The struggle over what we might think of as mundane and simple matters of
family and land were quite real for a clan.
Why would a sacred text, achieving its final formation in the exilic
period, want to remember such mundane stories?
For a sacred text, these stories remind readers of the risk God has
taken. God has entrusted to weak and frail human beings the task of faithfully
carrying out the divine purpose. These stories remind us of the patience of God
in working with imperfect creatures over long periods in order to bring a family,
a people, or a world, to the place God wants. Think of it. Abraham was anxious
and fearful. Sarah was mean-spirited. Abraham showed lack of courage in facing
his wife when she had done wrong. Jacob deceived others. Yet, these actions did
not define who they were. In fact, these actions, honestly recorded for
posterity, awaited a further fulfillment they could not imagine. In the case of
the Patriarchs, their commitment to work out the mundane, intimate, and often
dysfunctional family matters opened them to a future they never imagined. They
did not know of covenants, laws, priests, kings, temples, Sabbath,
circumcision, and the like. They did not offer the future a set of theological
ideas or systems. What they did offer was their imperfect lives. In the
process, unknown to themselves, they became the family that prepared the way
for a new people of God.
The second step we need to take is
to recognize that a new challenge rose as the clan made a home in Egypt. Historically,
we are now advancing to around 1500-1300 BC. What we will see here is
significant changes in belief (from El to Yahweh), institutions (charismatic
spiritual and military leader), and values (covenant that bound people to
Yahweh to and to each other with ethical demands). The clan became resident
aliens. This development began with friendly relations with Egypt. As they
grew, political realities shifted. Pharaoh no longer trusted them, leading to
slave labor. The experience of the world of these clans changed. It seemed as
if the God of the Patriarchs was no longer sufficient to help them face their
new world of experience. A quite real question arose.
It took the
leadership of Moses to bring the twelve tribes together and form a people
(Exodus 1:2-7, Psalm 105:23-25, Deuteronomy 26:5-7, Exodus 2:15). Israelite religion breathes the spirit of its
founder. He became the mediator of the presence of Yahweh for this new people
of God. He shared the law of God so that the life of the people would conform
to the mind of God and serve the personal will of God. The will of God became
normative in all human relationships. The word of Yahweh expressed the will of
Yahweh.
Moses experienced the call of “the Lord God,” or “Yahweh
Elohim.” (See Exodus 3:1, 9-15, Ezekiel 20:5-6, Isaiah 42:8, Exodus 6:14-27,
Deuteronomy 26:6-9).
Deliverance from bondage became the theme. The
Lord is a warrior acting in history to bring “signs and wonders” on behalf of
this new people for their liberation. Moses becomes the pattern of the one on
whom the Spirit of the Lord falls to bring liberation from oppression for the
period of around 1500 to 1300 BC. (See Exodus 6:14-27, Deuteronomy 26:6-9,
Exodus 15:4-13, 21, Psalm 78:9-13, Joshua 24:7). The struggles of the
wilderness period (Numbers 21:10-22:1, 23:4-24:25) seemed to bind them to
Yahweh and to each other. In the
deliverance from Egypt Israel saw the guarantee for all the future, the
absolute surety for the will of Yahweh to liberate, something like a warrior to
which faith could appeal in times of trial. This remembrance of a deed of
Yahweh in war is the primary and oldest datum in the confession concerning the
deliverance from Egypt. Yet, the direct intervention of God is pictured by
natural events, such as the east wind, etc.
Thus, we should not separate the historical natural events from the
theology supernatural events. What occurred was not just a military event. This
is the time when God truly brings a people into being.
In essence, Moses came proclaiming
a new revelation, and with it, a new covenant and calling to form a people
bound to Yahweh in covenant and bound to each other in ethical relation. Yahweh
demanded a sense of the unity of what people knew as the divine in one God,
Yahweh.
We can best understand the covenant established at this time as patterned
after the suzerain treaty. The purpose
of such a treaty was to distinguish between a group that must be dealt with by
force and a group that could be dealt with according to what we consider as
normal, orderly, peaceful procedures.
This may well account for the emphasis on the anger of God in the Old
Testament, a feature that becomes a barrier to many people who read the Bible
today. Those who do not enter into
covenant with the Lord are outside the possibility of peaceful relations and
subject to the anger of God. In the same
way, the breaking of the covenant by Israel means it will be subject to that
same anger, since to break it is to make it of no effect. This became a point of reference beyond mere
individual or social interests. It was
the awareness of covenant that led to the formation of the Hebrew community.
Covenant is what held the community together as well, which became a radical
conception of community.
What we can
learn here is that Moses appeared at a time of instability and uncertainty. He
brought a significant change in beliefs and in institutions to order to meet
new challenges. In the formative
period, the concern is to break with tradition. Thus, Moses came with a
new vision of God as Yahweh. This view suggests that as helpful psychology and
sociology of religion might be one ought not to reduce religion to these
dynamics. Religion has its own strength to offer a people. In particular, it
offers a belief system that views the world a certain way and helps a people
rise to challenges of new times. In this case, the experience of these loosely
bound clans shifted, and Moses realized that what was needed was a new faith in
a God who acted in history for the deliverance of the people. What is
significant here is that this vision did not abrogate the faith of Patriarchs,
for the promise of land was still present. The El, the divine, the God, of the
Patriarchs, continues in this new revelation of El as Yahweh. Now, these people
became the possession of Yahweh, and Yahweh became their God. This suggests
that the historical moment of instability and uncertainty is a period when a religion
must rise to the challenge of the new time and experience, or it must die. History
has many examples. Within biblical texts, gods like Marduk and Baal, and the
belief systems that grew up around them, were not able meet the inevitable tests
history would bring. The belief system died. In a sense, the god died as well. In
fact, one could suggest that the ability to change in the midst of new
challenges is a sign of the strength of the belief. If so, this observation
challenges the notion that a religion must simply remain faithful to the past.
Rather, a religion must have the creativity to meet new challenges. Such
creativity reveals its strength.
As an aside, denominational
religion today has much to learn from this distant past of its sacred text. The
challenge is to find creative ways to meet new challenges, or die.
What we find, then, is that Moses did not finally define the will of
Yahweh, for the rest of the Old Testament shows continuing development and
openness to the new things God wanted to do when confronted by the inevitable
newness history would bring.
The third
step is that any history of the origins
of Israel must start with the sudden appearance of a large community in
Palestine and Transjordan only a generation after the small group escaped from
Egypt under the leadership of Moses. The historical period would be from
around 1300 BC to around 1000 BC. This period will, of course, be a
continuation of the dramatic changes in belief, institution, and values that
Moses introduced. It is quite likely that during this period the kingship of the Lord was the vision that held
the Israelites together as a distinct group.
It was this faith of early Israel that meant they could transcend the
traditional boundaries of tribalism. This means that kinship is not the
explanation of the expansion of Israelite authority in Palestine. Most scholars
will also admit that military superiority was not the source of this growth. Every
indication is that Israel's military might was less advanced than that of
Canaanite city-states. Even further,
politics, so valued today, was not the reason for this growth, even if we can
say that Egypt and the city-state system in Palestine were both weak at this
time.
Thus, a reasonable explanation of the growth of Israel was that it was
a religious community based upon a covenant. The twelve tribes were
comprised of those members of the population of Palestine and Transjordan who
had accepted the reign of God. The
ethical power of this new movement explains its phenomenal growth. The enormous growth of the Israelite people so
quickly is best accounted for by the essential conversion and incorporation
into the covenant of many Canaanites. The Lord was the king, the leader in war
and the judge and lawgiver. Clearly, the
Israelites took the approach of proselyting the nonbelievers in their midst,
rather than seeking military or political supremacy.
Part of what happened was that this
“people” came into an area that had developed an organization of city-states
that were quite independent of each other. In essence, the vision of Moses
sustained the tribal federation quite well, from around 1300-1200 BC to around
1000 BC. The Hebrews, now Israelites, moved into this land and steadily won
over or defeated former residents. During this period, a focus on the covenant
was common, but the tribes still had their distinctive qualities (Joshua
3:1-4:18, 5:10-12, Exodus 12:2-23, 27, 29-34, 37-39, Shechemite covenant in
Joshua 8:30-35, 24:2-13, 25-28, Deuteronomy 27:27:15-26, Ten Commandments in
Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:7-21, and Book of Covenant in Exodus 20:22-23:19).
The covenant united them. Here are some
uniting elements of that covenant. One was not make an idol, misuse the name of
the Lord, disrespect the Sabbath, dishonor parents, steal property, tell lies
in court, mislead the blind, treat unjustly the alien, orphan, or widow, commit
adultery, have sex with one’s mother, an animal, sister, mother-in-law,
murder, or be involved in sorcery. The
law offered restrictions on lending money in order to protect the poor, wanted
to make sure that justice was evenly given to all, developed laws of
restitution regarding stealing, and put limits on the treatment of slaves. In
essence, as the people of God are to be faithful to God, they are also to be
faithful to each other. The Levites in particular were to protect this
covenant. They were the ones who received the annual festivals, covenant
renewal, and kept alive the stories of the faith. Yet, we find in Judges 19-21
a terrible story of a Levite who acted in a corrupt and violent way.
Before, religion was little more than rituals designed to influence the
supernatural world to do humanity's will.
Under the covenant system, religion became a matter of submitting to the
will of God, which in turn was largely defined by ethical standards.
The personal experience of the Lord
was that of awe or fear. Cosmic powers could reflect the intervention of the
Lord. Yet, the Lord now guided by the Word and by the Spirit of the Lord.
Seers were people who see more than ordinary mortals who see the future
and anything hidden. They possess the gift of clairvoyance. Physical phenomena
may accompany such clairvoyant gifts. Ecstatic disturbance of consciousness may
also accompany it. One could exercise it fully awake or in dreams. Such
manifestations appeared in other religions of the area. The unique element for
Israel was that the seer had the added responsibility of transmitting the
energy and devotion of the period of Moses. The Israelite seer derived oracles
from Yahweh as revealed through Moses. People viewed such insights as
continuation of the divine dialogue begun through Moses, the purpose of which
was to acknowledge the honor due to Yahweh. Their oracles mediated the divine
presence. Their powers served the purpose of implementing its religious
heritage. This meant resisting foreign influences. They had awareness of God
and enthusiasm for Yahweh, who directs actions toward moral ends. The seer
inherits a great and sacred task. Deborah, for example, held political, legal,
and religious influence. Just as Moses had political, military, legal, and
religious functions, the seer inherited responsibility in these areas. Although
the texts focus upon the work of the seer as political and military leader in
times of crisis, the quiet and continuous work of the seer in times of peace
was also of decisive importance for showing the superiority of Yahweh over
nature religions. Samuel became one of the outstanding persons of Israelite
history for this reason.
The ancient Nazirite had streaming locks, the symbol of complete dedication
of his life to God. The way in which he served Yahweh was by warring against
the nation’s enemies as the champion whose daring feats of military strength
should inspire his compatriots to heroism in battle. They had their widest
influence during this time. With the monarchy, they disappear or continue to
exist in a drastically modified form. They contributed to strengthening the
sense of a people and of the religious basis of that connection. They helped in
keeping the religion of Israel from drifting into a compromise with the
religion of Canaan, and in urging it to assert itself and to develop to the
full its unique character. They animated and sustained the religious conception
of war. In this way, they afforded significant support to the judges.
The Spirit of the Lord fell upon
leaders (many of the stories of the judges in Judges, such as Deborah and
Barak, Gideon, Abimelech, Samson, Ehud, Othniel, Shamgar, Tola and Jair,
Jephthah, Ibzan, Gibeah and Benjamin, demonstrate the blessings and curses of
this period. In such ways, the Lord showed the divine intention in the
formation of this people. The Lord wanted a people bound to the Lord in
covenant and a people bound to each other in ethical relation. The Lord was
their “king” and their leader in military battles in Joshua (victory over
eastern kings in Genesis 14, Jericho in Judges 2, 6:21-27, Ai in 7:2-9, 8:1-29,
Gibeonites in 9, kings in 9:1-2, 10:1-10, 15-27, Makkedah in 10:28, Libnah in
10:29-30, Lachish and Gezer in 10:31-33, Eglon in 10:34-35, Hebron in 10:36-37,
Debir in 10:38-39, Hazor and the northern alliance in 11:1-14). In essence, the
tribes possessed the new land (Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 33, and Joshua 15:1-12,
16:1-17:13, 17:14-18, 18:11-19:48, 20:1-9).
Such leaders were among the new things this tribal confederation
experienced with Yahweh in contrast with that of the Patriarchs. Moses was the
pattern. It was the form in which Yahweh protected them in times of war. The
means employed was the charismatic gift that God bestowed upon one of the
leaders of the people. Yahweh went into battle and defeated the enemy through
divine terror sent to the enemy. The stories of the judges present us with
Israelite leaders of varied types, who exercised a greater or less degree of
authority over the nation or merely over sections of it. They were chieftains
or petty princes, who achieved a distinguished political position by their
prowess in war, but whose influence nevertheless seldom extended beyond the
bounds of their tribe. These old stories commemorate political acts of
deliverance effected by Yahweh through charismatic leaders as well as a
numinous panic that Yahweh caused to break out among the enemy. Yahweh rose up
to protect the people in these holy wars, and the action that was decisive belonged
to Yahweh.
Some question whether they exercised a religious function. We should
not underestimate the religious effects of the emergence of political leaders
in this period. The call is followed immediately by the public proof of the
charisma effected by means of a victory over the enemy. Then the line curves
steeply downwards. The one who was a special instrument of the will of Yahweh
in history falls into sin, degradation, or some other disaster. Thus, these
little narrative complexes already have as their background a definite,
pessimistic conception of the charismatic leader. Behind these narratives lies,
it would seem, the unspoken question, where is the one who serves his people as
deliverer not merely on one occasion alone? For a time, Israel follows a judge.
After death, the people fell away from Yahweh, and an interval ensued, during which
Yahweh handed the people over to their enemies for punishment. Then, when they
cried to him in their distress, he once again sent them a deliverer, and the
cycle began all over again.
They could not carry out their projects without adopting the slogan,
“Yahweh and Israel.” They were forced into this policy for several reasons. One
was by the close connection between national and religious freedom, between the
concepts of Yahweh and of the nation. In
addition, the obligation to take part in wars against their common enemies
could only be brought home to any considerable proportion of the Israelite
clans and tribes, it was invested with religious authority and subjected them
to the sovereignty of the divine will. The greatness and glory of the nation
depended on the worship of this God. The coups effected by these tribal heroes
not only gave the Israelite minority room to develop freely, but at the same
time strengthened their spiritual powers of resistance by awakening and
reinforcing their determination to assert their unique religious character.
Even in those figures that are purely secular is the miraculous power of the
spirit that is the real force behind those acts of redemption that preserve the
life of the nation.
In the unexpected success of their enterprises, the Israelite
recognized the activity of a higher power. By designating this power as spirit,
Israelites made their political leaders the direct servants of God and the
instruments by which God exercised sovereignty. The close association of
political and military activity with the power of the divine Lord served to
make clear to people the emphatic way in which the whole of life was related to
the one Yahweh, and decisively excluded the idea that political life might be
isolated as a purely human preserve.
This partnership of seer and judge is probably not to be regarded
simply as an isolated phenomenon. It indicates a new way in which the frequent
and volcanic outbreaks of nationalist fervor were made to serve God. These
warrior heroes, who often exercised their power within very restricted limits,
are able to furnish the colors for the portrait of the one great Redeemer who
is to bring order out of life’s chaos and set up Yahweh’s rule over the sorely
pressed land. They regarded these people as instruments of the dominion of
Yahweh. Thus, despite the limited significance of their actual historical role,
they became genuine mediators of the covenant with Yahweh.
They had a strong sense of
“solidarity,” to the point that the action of one person could represent others
(Achan in Joshua 7:16-26). Such a view could mean that the sins of one person
could mean judgment would fall upon others. Such a view also tied those who
lived with the past and with the future, for solidarity included those
remembered in tribal history and those who would come into the clan in the
future. They had only a vague sense of “sheol” as a place where the dead
resided.
Yet, as Israel would understand it,
with good reason, this entire period would be a record of breaking the
covenant. An example of a positive in the period is in Joshua 22:10-34, where
the tribes avert a civil war by talking with each other. The story of Ruth is
an example of covenant faithfulness. Yet, we see some of the difficulties of
the period in Judges 17-18, Judges 19-21, Genesis 19:30-38, Genesis 38, and I
Samuel 2:12-17, 22-25, 4:12-22, 4:1b-5:12, 6:1-7:1). Although the memorable
phrase “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25) might
have been an originally positive statement, it became a sign of the primary sin
of this period. People came to disregard the Lord and the covenant. They did
what they wanted.
For us who read this sacred text
today, I would like to suggest some theological and spiritual challenges.
One is the way covenant embraces
all of life. It suggests that basic religious commands will dictate every facet
of life. This view needs re-reading in light of the success of the
Enlightenment view of the acceptance of separation of church and state. In this
view, political, economic, and religious life influence each other, but one
does not dictate to the other. Such a view offers a certain degree of freedom
and independence to the various spheres of communal life. Of course, the danger
is treating the spheres of life as segments or silos, as if they have no
influence upon each other. In any case, Christians today outside “reconstructionism”
have no desire to bring back theocracy. Most Christians today, whether
intentionally or not, value the gift the Enlightenment has offered citizens in
Western civilization. The American constitution enshrines this value. The cause
of this separation was largely due to the horror of the religious wars in
Europe. While the churches of Europe have had centuries to adjust this new
reality, other religious groups have not. The Orthodox Jew still refuses to
accept this reality. The Muslim still largely rejects it by holding that
someday Sharia Law will reign over nations. Here is an aspect of ancient
religious communities that served a valid purpose at the time, but also that
those who read the sacred text today need to set behind.
Two is the way God is active in
history. Granted, one is grateful for the notion of God acting in history to
liberate people from bondage. It may be quite realistic to suggest that God is
fighting for the oppressed, and that their liberation will mean the death of
the oppressor. Yet, Psalm 58:10 says that “The righteous will rejoice when they
see vengeance done; they will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”
Exodus 15:1 says that "I will sing
to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown
into the sea.” The notion of the righteous celebrating the death of the wicked
is not in the hearts of Christians, so far as I know. One might say that in such sentiments we find
the worst of religion.
Three is the notion of development
and education in this history. True, some elements of the past need to be left
behind. Yet, the past also finds new life and interpretation in a new vision, a
new promise. Of course, one should not expect it to be an even and steady
increase wisdom and practice.
Four, this presentation challenges
the notion in the Quran that one need Jews and Christians have to get back to
belief we find in Abraham, who is the first Muslim in their view. In fact, my
suggestion is that had the faith of the head of the clan remained central, we
would not be discussing Jew, Christian, or Muslim today. The pressure of
inevitable historical events would either bring new beliefs, institutions, and
values into reality, or the religion would die.
Five, standing the test of time is
an important aspect of truth in this area of human life. Of course, such a test
is not final until we reach the end of history. In time between now and the
end, however, we can have some assurance that belief systems, institutions, and
values, that have died, and often with them their gods, were not “true” in
important respects. They may have served a group of people for a significant
length of time and may have felt “self-evident” to them. Yet, history has shown
that the trust was misplaced. The trust placed in Marduk, the confidence many
placed in the political system of Rome, the confidence many had in the feudal
system, and so on, have simply not stood the test of time. While lasting is not
the only test of a belief, it remains an important one. The Hebrew word, emeth, is that which lasts, that which
is reliable. What I am suggesting, then, is that the faith we find represented
in Abraham and in Moses continues to inspirit and strength people today. It has
lasted, whether in synagogue, church, or mosque. Of course, this raises the
question of whether the belief system is more than that. Behind their belief
may well be the one and true God of this universe. That, however, is another
essay.
To conclude in a way that opens the reader to
the next “stage” of biblical history, the vision of Moses that sustained the
tribal federation period will not last forever. New challenges arise. True, the
vision of Moses lasted for several centuries. It interpreted the world as then
understood, and it stood the tests presented. Yet, it had its weaknesses, which
a new historical situation brought to the attention of all. Something new
needed to come. As helpful as the belief in Yahweh had been in forming a people
and binding them together, the military strength of surrounding nations
presented a new challenge. The quite real question arose as to whether the belief
in Yahweh and acceptance of the seer, Nazirite, and judge, could stand the new
tests. The vitality of this belief in Yahweh and the messengers of Yahweh would
need to meet this new situation and find a creative way to deal with the new
historical situation.
