"And what of God? What if these accounts are handed down to us not so much as a divinely sanctioned bellicosity, but rather to show us—over the longue durée of the salvific story—how far God desires to bring Israel. From skull-stabbing “heroines” to martyrs who forgive their persecutors—and beyond. And to show us that God deigned to dwell with Israel, even then, as sad and disgusting and vicious as the circumstances sometimes proved."
I like this. I've heard it said that we have be careful in discerning what is merely descriptive (simply recording something that happened) vs. what is prescriptive (setting out some kind of divine decree or rule).
That's a helpful distinction. It kind of gets at the treating the bible like a history book argument/issue some people have. personally (as a history major), I've never had a problem with it. It makes sense actually in light of this distinction
While Deborah's song of praise is an affirmation of Jael's actions, some of the most "WTF" moments in the Bible are much more ambiguous, in that the Bible offers neither clear condemnation nor approval of them. Take for example the aftermath of the rape of Dinah. Her brothers tell Shechem that they'll give him Dinah if all the males in the town are circumcised. Then when they're recovering from their circumcisions, Simon and Levi come into town, slaughter all the men, plunder the city, and take the women and children captive. Jacob is angry at them—but for making trouble with the locals, not because he sees their actions as wrong. Simon and Levi respond "Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” (Genesis 34:31) And that's how the story ends—with their question unanswered. WTF indeed.
I was just doing Matins (the long one, with the Canon of St Andrew and thr Life of St Mary of Egypt). At the Beatitudes, among a number of other Old Testament figures, there was Jael!
"O my soul, thou knowest the manly courage of Jael, who of old pierced Sisera through his temples and brought salvation to Israel with the nail of her tent. In this thou mayest see a prefiguring of the Cross."
So Jael's tent nail is a prefiguration of the Cross. Who knew?
I am shook, lol. No, I can see that. Her act was definitely lauded. Sisera was a "bad guy" and retreated from battle like a coward--a battle that Israel already had the moral upper hand in anyway, being God's people and all. So in some ways it was fitting that he was not only killed, but killed when he was most defenseless and unaware--and by a TENT-DWELLING WOMAN no less. If I squint I can see the prefiguring of the Cross, but it still doesn't sit well with me. You know?
It just so happens I'm reading a book right now called God is a God of War: The Problem of Violence in the Old Testament by Fr Stephen de Young. I'm not quite convinced he tackles the heart of the question (though I still have a chapter to go), but he contextualize the violence with broader conceptions of sin and death, the sacrificial system, restrictions on warfare, spiritual warfare, etc. I think however we understand violence in the OT it has to be through the lens of Christ who willingly undergoes violence but never perpetrates it.
how does reading patristic or other commentary figure into this post/series? or are you not reading any on purpose to try to make sense of it on your own (or from some other angle)?
That's a good question. The short answer is: it depends and/or I'm not sure.
I guess my intention with this series is to give myself space to articulate or identify certain aspects that trouble me about specific Bible passages, or allow myself to wrestle with the Bible. Not for the sake of denigrating the Bible, nor for advocating a kind of "personal" interpretation of the Bible, but for my own spiritual health and formation. I"ve spent a lot of my life ignoring or not giving myself permission to actually wrestle with God or His Word. And I think it can be a useful exercise to figure out, even on a gut level, what a Scripture passage brings up for me before or in addition to going to the Fathers or other more authoritative sources. Because ultimately we have to find a way to be ourselves in and with the Bible and the Fathers, not ignore or spiritually bypass ourselves. I share some of my thoughts in these more informal posts in case it's useful for others.
I'm not NOT trying to read or include Patristic views. But I've also read lot of Orthodox reflections on Scriptures where Patristic sources are inadvertently used to bypass or gloss over some of the trickier elements of tough Scripture passages. (ETA: I also think I'm guilty of this sometimes, as a writer.) (That's not a criticism of Patritsic interpretation globally, but rather how it can be used sometimes.)
For this post, I didn't want bring them in because they in large part echo Deborah's praise of Jael, and/or see in her actions a prefigurement of the Cross. Which--I get it. And also, it's hard to disagree since Deborah essentially sets the narrative straight from the beginning about Jael's actions being laudable. But that also gives me more I need to wrestle with. In other words, it sort of intensifies rather than allays the ?! factor for me.
Now, I'm not saying the wrestling posture I'm talking about is somehow holier or better that the Fathers, or that this is the end goal of Scripture study. But it is where I'm at sometimes. Does that make sense?
yes, completely. that's kind of what I thought - that this is another exercise to wrestle with the material. and it makes sense to me as something you'd have to go through if you often read passages that give you pause. thanks for taking the time to answer.
"And what of God? What if these accounts are handed down to us not so much as a divinely sanctioned bellicosity, but rather to show us—over the longue durée of the salvific story—how far God desires to bring Israel. From skull-stabbing “heroines” to martyrs who forgive their persecutors—and beyond. And to show us that God deigned to dwell with Israel, even then, as sad and disgusting and vicious as the circumstances sometimes proved."
I like this. I've heard it said that we have be careful in discerning what is merely descriptive (simply recording something that happened) vs. what is prescriptive (setting out some kind of divine decree or rule).
That's a helpful distinction. It kind of gets at the treating the bible like a history book argument/issue some people have. personally (as a history major), I've never had a problem with it. It makes sense actually in light of this distinction
While Deborah's song of praise is an affirmation of Jael's actions, some of the most "WTF" moments in the Bible are much more ambiguous, in that the Bible offers neither clear condemnation nor approval of them. Take for example the aftermath of the rape of Dinah. Her brothers tell Shechem that they'll give him Dinah if all the males in the town are circumcised. Then when they're recovering from their circumcisions, Simon and Levi come into town, slaughter all the men, plunder the city, and take the women and children captive. Jacob is angry at them—but for making trouble with the locals, not because he sees their actions as wrong. Simon and Levi respond "Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” (Genesis 34:31) And that's how the story ends—with their question unanswered. WTF indeed.
Well said!
I was just doing Matins (the long one, with the Canon of St Andrew and thr Life of St Mary of Egypt). At the Beatitudes, among a number of other Old Testament figures, there was Jael!
"O my soul, thou knowest the manly courage of Jael, who of old pierced Sisera through his temples and brought salvation to Israel with the nail of her tent. In this thou mayest see a prefiguring of the Cross."
So Jael's tent nail is a prefiguration of the Cross. Who knew?
I am shook, lol. No, I can see that. Her act was definitely lauded. Sisera was a "bad guy" and retreated from battle like a coward--a battle that Israel already had the moral upper hand in anyway, being God's people and all. So in some ways it was fitting that he was not only killed, but killed when he was most defenseless and unaware--and by a TENT-DWELLING WOMAN no less. If I squint I can see the prefiguring of the Cross, but it still doesn't sit well with me. You know?
It just so happens I'm reading a book right now called God is a God of War: The Problem of Violence in the Old Testament by Fr Stephen de Young. I'm not quite convinced he tackles the heart of the question (though I still have a chapter to go), but he contextualize the violence with broader conceptions of sin and death, the sacrificial system, restrictions on warfare, spiritual warfare, etc. I think however we understand violence in the OT it has to be through the lens of Christ who willingly undergoes violence but never perpetrates it.
how does reading patristic or other commentary figure into this post/series? or are you not reading any on purpose to try to make sense of it on your own (or from some other angle)?
That's a good question. The short answer is: it depends and/or I'm not sure.
I guess my intention with this series is to give myself space to articulate or identify certain aspects that trouble me about specific Bible passages, or allow myself to wrestle with the Bible. Not for the sake of denigrating the Bible, nor for advocating a kind of "personal" interpretation of the Bible, but for my own spiritual health and formation. I"ve spent a lot of my life ignoring or not giving myself permission to actually wrestle with God or His Word. And I think it can be a useful exercise to figure out, even on a gut level, what a Scripture passage brings up for me before or in addition to going to the Fathers or other more authoritative sources. Because ultimately we have to find a way to be ourselves in and with the Bible and the Fathers, not ignore or spiritually bypass ourselves. I share some of my thoughts in these more informal posts in case it's useful for others.
I'm not NOT trying to read or include Patristic views. But I've also read lot of Orthodox reflections on Scriptures where Patristic sources are inadvertently used to bypass or gloss over some of the trickier elements of tough Scripture passages. (ETA: I also think I'm guilty of this sometimes, as a writer.) (That's not a criticism of Patritsic interpretation globally, but rather how it can be used sometimes.)
For this post, I didn't want bring them in because they in large part echo Deborah's praise of Jael, and/or see in her actions a prefigurement of the Cross. Which--I get it. And also, it's hard to disagree since Deborah essentially sets the narrative straight from the beginning about Jael's actions being laudable. But that also gives me more I need to wrestle with. In other words, it sort of intensifies rather than allays the ?! factor for me.
Now, I'm not saying the wrestling posture I'm talking about is somehow holier or better that the Fathers, or that this is the end goal of Scripture study. But it is where I'm at sometimes. Does that make sense?
yes, completely. that's kind of what I thought - that this is another exercise to wrestle with the material. and it makes sense to me as something you'd have to go through if you often read passages that give you pause. thanks for taking the time to answer.
Thanks for asking! it's something I had to think about this morning and it was good to reflect.