Remember Gibeah!

The Book of Hosea refers to stories that made their way into the Hebrew Bible, probably with more frequency than any other prophetic book. In Hosea 12, it mentions the patriarch Jacob as well as an unidentified prophet who brought the Israelites out of Egypt (presumably Moses). But Hosea also cites another tradition, the story of Gibeah. In Hosea 9:9, God says regarding Northern Israel, "They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of Gibeah; he will remember their iniquity, he will punish their sins" (NRSV). And Hosea 10:9 states, "Since the days of Gibeah you have sinned, O Israel; there they have continued. Shall not war overtake them in Gibeah?"

Most likely, the story that Hosea has in mind is the one in Judges 19-21. In those chapters, a Levite goes with his concubine to Gibeah, a city that belongs to the Israelite tribe of Benjamin. While he is feasting in someone's house, some thugs gather outside the door and express a desire to gang rape him. In their words and behavior, they resemble the men of Sodom in Genesis 19, people whom God had famously destroyed. In Judges 19, the Levite gives them his concubine, and they proceed to rape her all night before they leave her dead body at the threshold. The Levite then carves up her body into twelve pieces and sends them to the twelve tribes of Israel. The tribes gather against Gibeah of Benjamin in battle, for they are outraged that such a heinous act had occurred in their own country. They defeat Benjamin, but they eventually decide to preserve that tribe from ultimate annihilation.

Hosea's reference to the Gibeah story puzzles me. Hosea is speaking to Northern Israel, telling its inhabitants that they have corrupted themselves as in the days of Gibeah. But, in Genesis 19-21, the Northern Israelites did not rape and murder the Levite's concubine. That was done in Benjamin, a tribe that later joined the Southern Kingdom of Judah (I Kings 12:21). The Northern Israelites were part of the company that gathered against Benjamin, for they were outraged at the deed that had occurred in her midst. Why is God blaming the Northern Kingdom for something that occurred in the south?

Maybe Hosea is simply saying that the Northern Israelites are behaving like the people of Gibeah at the time of his prophecy, not that they were participants in Gibeah's sin at its initial occurrence. But Hosea 9:9 appears to say that the Northern Israelites corrupted themselves the same way that they (the Northern Israelites) did in the days of Gibeah. That seems to imply that the people of Northern Israel did something wrong in the Judges 19-21 period.

A Christian sister of mine suggested another explanation. For her, the Northern Israelites in Judges 19-21 went out against Gibeah thinking that their own sins were not that bad. God was using them to execute his justice against Gibeah, but that gave them a smug sense of superiority. And their punishment of Gibeah did not move them to cease from their own sins. The judged another, but they did not judge themselves.

I will add another detail. Hosea 9:9 is directed against Ephraim, which was the most powerful tribe in Northern Israel. And the Levite of Judges 19 is from Ephraim. In a sense, he was complicit in the sins of Gibeah, since he gave his concubine to the thugs in an attempt to save his own skin. Sure, he was in a really difficult situation, and I'm not sure that I would've done the right thing if I were in his shoes. But did he have a right to be so self-righteous, when he himself was partially responsible for his concubine's death? Perhaps the sin of Ephraim that Hosea cites is self-righteousness: a zealous eagerness to punish evildoers, while failing to acknowledge the sin in its own ranks.

However one sees the situation in Judges 19-21 and Hosea 9-10, there are plenty of passages in the New Testament that criticize judging. The New Testament is not against viewing certain actions as wrong, since (ironically) it is doing precisely that when it says "Judge not." What it is saying is that we should not look down on others when we are doing the same sins that they are. Or we should not be smug in our approach to another because we ourselves are sinners, period. After all, we are all under the same divine standard. Jesus says so much in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye" (Matthew 7:1-5).

And Paul states in Romans 2:1, "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

History is full of people who have carried out moralistic crusades against others, when their own lives were not exactly in order (to say the least). And the same thing exists in the present, often with disastrous results. People should oppose moral evil, but they should do so with humility, as they work to conform their own lives to God's righteous standard. We should remember that we are under God, not above others.

Religion and the Rain Dance

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, there is an emphasis on agriculture. Obey God, and he will send you rain and crops; disobey, and you will experience drought and famine. Several Jewish holidays (e.g., Rosh Hoshanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, etc.) center around agriculture, specifically the Israelites' desire for God to send rain, which is so necessary for the production of food. In the Elijah story, the main question revolves around who could bless the Israelites with rain: the storm god Baal (boo!) or the LORD God of Israel (horray!).

I detect that there are many in modern times who look down on this sort of religion. I don't have any quotes to back my claim up, but it's just a feeling that I have, based upon the various books, articles, and lectures I've encountered over the years. For such moderns, the Israelites were a rag-tag gang of primitive tribespeople who feared the unpredictable natural world. They worshipped their god to give themselves a sense of security, predictability, and control in a world that made sense. They needed rain to survive, so they appealed to their tribal god to control the weather for their benefit. Whenever drought came, they didn't feel hopeless, for they concluded that God was withholding rain because of their sin. And there was a solution: If they repented, then God would send the rain. The Israelites were not alone in holding to this kind of religion, for pagans were also concerned about the agricultural cycle, as were Native Americans, who had special rain dances to bring about a bountiful harvest.

For a lot of moderns, such a religion sounds superstitious and un-scientific. It is grounded in fear of the unknown, plus modern science has supposedly shown that prayers and rain dances have no effect on the weather, which is random (except for global warming, which many scientists now blame on humans). Some of the people who make such points are atheists, while others are Christians or Jews who treat the Israelite preoccupation with rain as a primitive and immature stage of the Jewish religion, in contrast with the ethical sensitivity that developed later.

Such moderns take for granted the abundance of food in the Western world. They act as if all the food they eat originated in their local supermarket, when actually there was an entire agricultural process that went into its production. We depend on rain just as much as our "primitive" ancestors.

At the same time, I can see the point that religion should be about more than satisfying our physical needs. Deuteronomy 8:3 says that man does not live on bread alone. We shouldn't just be good so that God will give us food instead of drought. We should also have an appreciation of righteousness, one that recognizes its inherent beauty.

But people are concerned about life's necessities, which is why they are included in most religions. What puzzles me, however, is that they don't seem to be a major feature of eastern religions. I'll admit that I'm not an expert on Buddhism and Taoism, but their emphasis seems to be on psychological outlook, not the provision of basic needs. The Buddhists encourage detachment from the world so that people won't suffer so much, and Taoists focus on going through life with a relaxed attitude. I don't remember reading or hearing anything about them appealing to a deity for rain or other necessities. Theravada Buddhists don't even believe in a deity!

Maybe they do touch on this issue in some way and I've missed it. Or perhaps they don't and there is a reason. They may be elites who are detached from agricultural production. Possibly their adherents gravitate towards isolated communities that take for granted the food that they eat. These are just guesses. A religion that focuses on something other than day-to-day survival may seem sophisticated and mature, but is it out of touch with the lives of most people?

Hosea vs. Dtr

This has been a long day, so please excuse any incoherence or roughness in this post. Potential job interviewers who are looking at my blog: please read one of my earlier posts.

For my daily quiet time, I am currently reading the Book of Hosea. Here is what strikes me: Hosea seems to view the priesthood of Northern Israel as legitimate. At least that's the impression I'm getting. Hosea criticizes the priesthood of Northern Israel because it is not doing its job of spiritually feeding the people. Hosea also predicts a time when Northern Israel will lack a priesthood, almost as if exile will be a time when Israel lacks divine guidance. Doesn't that presume that the priesthood of Northern Israel is in the business of mediating the divine presence?

Hosea appears to differ from the Deuteronomist (the author of Joshua-II Kings). According to the Deuteronomist, the problem with the Northern priesthood is that it exists. For him, the only legitimate priesthood that God recognizes is the one in Jerusalem, which consists of the Levites, whom God handpicked for the role. The Northern priesthood, by contrast, includes the lowest of the people who were selected by the apostate King Jeroboam (I Kings 12:31).

The difference is this: Hosea believes that the Northern priesthood has a divinely appointed function that it is not following. The Deuteronomist doesn't really think that, since he denies that the Northern priesthood should even exist, let alone follow a divinely ordained function. For Dtr, the only legitimate priesthood is the one in Judah.

Yet, Hosea and Dtr also seem to differ on the issue of the monarchy, only, in this case, Hosea is more Jerusalem-oriented than the Deuteronomist. Hosea predicts that the Davidic line will rule all of Israel (north and south) after her restoration. The Deuteronomist, however, seems to recognize the kings of Northern Israel as legitimate, since God appointed Jeroboam and Jehu.

I've never read Moshe Weinfeld's book on the Deuteronomist, but I've heard that he places Dtr's origin in the north. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since Dtr seems to be pro-South, at least as far as the priesthood is concerned. But maybe he addresses my qualm.

Love and Justice Merged in Hosea

In evangelical circles, I've often heard the following explanation for why Jesus had to die: God loves all people, and yet God is also just, so he cannot leave sin unpunished. Therefore, God punished Jesus on the cross for our sins. Because Jesus endured our punishment, we don't have to worry about God's wrath, provided that we believe in Jesus. God considers believers to be righteous even though they actually are not, since they are covered with the righteousness of Christ (in Luther's words, they are "snow covered dung"). At the cross, God was just in that he poured out his wrath on sin, but he was also loving because he let us off the hook.

I suppose I have to believe this to avoid going to hell. And, actually, I do agree with this doctrine on a certain level. I have spoken in favor of it in "But That's Not Fair!" and A Clean Altar, and I acknowledge that blood atonement is a significant motif in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

But I have questions about it. On the justice side, how does God demonstrate his hatred of sin by punishing an innocent person for the sins of others? And, once a person becomes a Christian, does God not hate his sins anymore, since Jesus has already endured the penalty? Does justification mean that God "kids himself" into thinking that the Christian is righteous, when actually the opposite is the case?

For the last two questions, a lot of evangelicals would answer "Absolutely not!" Some say that God disciplines sinful believers but will still save them after their death (though they will probably not get any rewards). Others contend that believers who habitually sin are on the verge of losing their salvation. And another view states that sinful "Christians" are not real believers in the first place but only think that they are.

But the latter two options only raise other questions. Where is God's love for the sinful believers? Are we saved by receiving God's free grace and getting our act together? If Christ paid the debt for sinners, then why would sinful believers get their debt back?

I started my daily quiet time on Hosea a few nights ago, and I can see the tension between God's justice and God's love. On the one hand, God passionately loves his people and desires the best for them. On the other hand, he absolutely loathes their sin and doesn't want to leave it unpunished. Evangelicals are correct to note such a tension throughout Scripture, but, in Hosea, God approaches the issue in a way that differs from the substitutionary atonement. What does God do? He punishes Israel and afterwards restores them. They pay the penalty for their own sins (God's justice), and God takes them back and blesses them when they learn their lesson (God's love).

In this model, I can actually see God displaying his anger against sin. I have a harder time finding that when I look at the substitutionary atonement model, since there God is punishing an innocent person to let off the guilty. It's almost as if God is saying, "Well, I love these people and want them to be saved, but, technically, I cannot just forgive them because there needs to be a penalty. I'll send Jesus to pay their debt." Does God really show any righteous indignation in that model? Not really. It's like he's trying to find a legal loophole so he can forgive and bless us. In Hosea's model, however, God says, "I hate sin. I loathe it! I don't want to see it in my holy land. I will punish the sinners, the objects of my anger. That will teach them a lesson and cleanse the land. But I still love the Israelites because they are my people, so I will restore them after my wrath is over."

Again, I cannot dismiss the substitutionary atonement, since forgiveness through a bloody sacrifice occurs throughout the Bible. But I wish that its proponents would do a better job explaining how it demonstrates God's righteous anger against sin. Instead, they often act as if Jesus' death was something God had to do to uphold order and justice, as if his hands were tied. But the Bible does not speak of God trying to maintain an abstract just order, though he does indeed try to do that. It speaks of "the wrath of God."