天主的嚴厲和慈悲

這是在教區上舊約概論要繳的作業。引用的方式和範圍都有限定。貼出來是因為我蠻驚訝天主教官方的課程可以如此自由派。從文中所引用教課書片段就可以看出來。這本書我蠻喜歡的，值得推薦。

Reconcile the Description of God's Vengeance with the Reality of God's Reality

Rex Chuan

First of all, being perfectly adequate within christian circle as it is intended, the topic does have a preconception, where God's Vengeance is deemed mere “description” whereas God's mercy a “reality”. If I read Bible with no exposure of any christian teaching, do I really come to the conclusion that God is merciful? It seems that many people refuse to accept Christianity simply because the scriptural description of God's violent and even unforgiving vengeance prevails as a “reality” to them. Therefore, for the sake of the slightly possible non-christian readership, maybe a topic reads like “Is God Vengeful or Merciful?” is more inclusive.

Another reflection about the topic: granted that the biblical descriptions of God's vengeance and mercy both exist, do we need to reconcile them? Depending on what kind of book we perceive Bible to be, there might be some possible views of Bible where such reconciliation is not needed. For example, sometimes I like police officers but sometimes I hate them depending on situations, do I really have to reconcile this “internal conflict”? Therefore, it might be a good starting point to approach the issue by asking: What kind of book Bible really is?

Those who believe in Bible inerrancy and understand it as if God speaks through it in literal sense would definitely feel uneasy about the brutal side of God in it, and waste no time trying to reconcile the inconsistency. The solutions they come up with would be quite different from those who take Bible from different perspectives. Among various alternative views of Bible, I try to describe one which might be suggested by Lawrence Boadt in his book “ Reading the Old Testament”. Rather than looking at Scripture as words which God spoke to human being, or even the story about God's intervention in human affair, the alternative view suggests that bible is a record of human being (Jewish people in case of Hebrew Scripture) seeking, experiencing and worshiping and walking in the path of the divine revelations. As such, it is “more about anthropology than theology” (O'Connor, in 9/14 lecture ), and the main actor is human being rather than God. “ Scripture testifies to their response to God's Word, which cannot be confined to literal facts and events in a book” (Fundamentalism Handout, P1).

Such view of Scripture actually allows for various avenues to approach the issue:

1. Since “literal facts and events” in the Scripture does not necessarily confine the testimony which it intends to convey, what seems literally inconsistent might not matter to the core truth. The descriptions of God's vengeance, when understood as symbolism in a literature which is called Scripture ( Boadt 2^nd Ed., P56), is no longer meant to be vengeance. For example, in Book of Deuteronomy, a life and death decision is laid out for Israelite to choose:

See, I place before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments......But if your hearts turns away and you do not listen, but follow after other gods and serve them, then I declare to you this day that you shall perish; you will not live in the land which you are crossing the Jordan to possess. (Deut 30:15-18)

At surface, God sets out to punish those who turn away from Him, but “Deuteronomy is not really saying that God will always act in one way or another in every situations in life. No, Deuteronomy is looking back at a very special situation that has already happened and knows that God asked for obedience and Israel many times disobeyed and turned away. So the argument is more of an explanation for Israel's problems-- It's state of subjection of foreign powers, its many corrupt kings over the years, its injustices, and its failures.” (Boadt 2^nd Ed, P309)

2. Documentary Theory suggests that there are different characteristics among the sources. Yahwist  stresses blessing of God whereas Elohist stresses fear of the Lord. If the traditions differ among them, and the editor who put the traditions together in Scripture does not try to consolidate them and make God's character more consistent, there must be reasons. One reason might be practical or political. For example, the writer (then under the rule of Judah Kingdom) does not want the northern people feel that their traditions (Elohist) are wiped out. There might also be theological reason, which means that the writers do not think such inconsistent stories about God's nature affect the underlying meaning the stories are meant to convey.
3. As the stories in the Scripture are mostly passed down in the form of oral tradition, and was collected and written down at much later time from David's time at the earliest to Post-exile ages. The description of God saying he will punish for some behavior and description of God actually punishing people are all written in an retrospective manner. When authors think back and write about what happened in the past, he might mean to explain why the way things are in their ages. This etiological writing is very common. For example, the fall of the first couple results in consequences on the earth, men, women, snake etc. The narrative reads like God punishes for the couple's disobedience, but more likely they are meant for explaining current conditions (Boadt 2^ed Ed, P97). After all, Geneses 1-11 is more a myth than factual history, and many motifs in the stories are borrowed from Israel's ancient neighbors. Did God actually punish in an vengeful manner, or is this just the author's way of pointing out the imperfect human conditions are consequence of their own behavior? There are more supports for the latter.
4. The expression of vengeance or mercy is on the premise that God is like a “person” who has will, mind and likes or dislikes. Although it is dangerous to venture too far down this line without challenging the fundamental teaching of Church, it is intellectually a legitimate question to ask: If we remove all the anthropomorphic description in the Scripture knowing that they might be just an literature style, and prone to be exaggerative, do we still have a personal God? If Boadt can assert that the miraculous performance of Elijah and Elisha are exaggerated folklore when he compares them with the books of the “writing prophets” (Boadt 2^nd Ed, P260), can he not suspect that ALL the descriptions of God's intervention, either anthropomorphically or in epiphany, are nothing more than enthusiastic exaggeration? The myth nature of the oral traditions further such suspicion. If God is not a “person”, he does not either avenge or have mercy. Do we lose our faith if God is not a “person” and does not actually intervene human being as described in the scripture? I personally don't think so, but this is a much bigger question beyond this paper.

As a conclusion on application in ministry, I would be more comfortable in face of the difficult theological questions from either Church members or non-believers in light of the complicated nature of the Scriptural writings, which can never be reduced to what the fundamentalist claimed as “literal inerrancy”. With deeper understanding, I would be less incline to enter into unnecessary or premature argument trying to explain or prove what I hold as truth. A humble mind, a loving heart, and faith in the work of Holy Spirit will set us in the right path during sensitive discussions.