Note: This post is meant to be read after reading part 1 of this series, where I lay some groundwork and introduce some important concepts. I would also advise reading the other preceding parts, but this is not completely necessary.
YHWH - A Portrait
In the last post, we explored the connections between YHWH and the Canaanite deity named Baal. And part of this exploration revealed that YHWH was originally seen as a storm deity. In this post, I'd like to explore how YHWH was a brash, warlord deity, as well as exploring some of YHWH's other character flaws.
YHWH's limited Jurisdiction
But first I'd like to explore the limits of YHWH's power - before the exile, YHWH's sovereignty was thought of as limited to Israel. And we talked a bit about that in part 2 of this series when we explored how Deuteronomy 32:8-9 portrays El Elyon (the Most High God) giving Israel to YHWH as an inheritance.
But there are other examples. In 2 Kings 3, there is a strange tale where the king of Israel, the king of Judah, and the king of Edom set out to conquer Moab. And as they are marching to Moab, they run out of water. So they go to Elisha to beg him to prophesy on their behalf. At first, he refuses, but after the king of Israel presses him a bit, he does, and part of the prophecy in verses 18 and 19 goes:
[YHWH] will also hand Moab over to you. You shall conquer every fortified city and every choice city...
So they go into Moab, and the story says that they overturned cities as they went, but then they reached Kir-hareseth, and it says in verses 26 and 27:
When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through opposite the king of Edom, but they could not. Then he took his firstborn son who was to succeed him and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.
And apologists will try to tell us that the "great wrath" that came upon Israel's was YHWH's, but this doesn't make much sense. Rather, the most plausible explanation for this story is that it, embarrassingly, tells us about a time that YHWH lost a battle because he was out of his jurisdiction - the king of Moab sacrificed his son to their god Chemosh, and the wrath that came upon Israel was likely seen by the writers of this story as the wrath of Chemosh. And, interestingly, 1 Kings 11:7 indicates that at some point in Israel's history, some Israelites may have also worshiped Chemosh.
In addition to YHWH losing a battle in this story, we see another sign that there were limits to YHWH's jurisdiction - 2 Kings 5 tells a story where Naaman, the "commander of the army of the king of Aram", gets a skin disease (which some translations render as him having leprosy). And the story says that his wife had a slave who tells her that if Naaman "were with the prophet who is in Samaria... [h]e would cure him of his skin disease." So Naaman goes to see Elisha, and after Elisha has him wash in the river Jordan seven times, he is healed. And in verse 17, Naaman says:
[L]et two mule loads of earth be given to your servant, for your servant will no longer offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god except YHWH.
And why would he want to cart-loads of soil? Because YHWH's jurisdiction is limited to the soil of Israel - so how is someone like Naaman to worship this god when he's back in Syria? He takes some of the soil of Israel back with him so that he might do this.
 |
| A depiction of Naaman bathing in the Jordan River |
Now, you might argue: but this is just the perspective of someone who is not a Hebrew, so he has heretical ideas. But we see something similar in a story about king David in 1 Samual 26 when David is in the wilderness, away from Israel. He says to Saul in verses 19 and 20:
[T]hey have driven me out today from my share in the heritage of YHWH, saying, ‘Go, serve other gods.’ Now therefore, do not let my blood fall to the ground away from the presence of YHWH...
Notice how David feels the importance of not dying in a land outside of Israel, because this would mean he would be dying away from the presence of YHWH. Here we have a consistent portrayal of YHWH's jurisdiction being limited to the soil of Israel, and his jurisdiction is not extended until the exilic period of the Hebrew history.
YHWH's Character Flaws
From the first part of this series I have argued that over time, the Hebrew ideas about what they call "God" changed. And the idea that YHWH lies is one example of this. Apologists will no doubt bring up verses like Numbers 23:19, which says that "God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind." But right away, we have one problem - this verse uses the name "El" for God, and El is not YHWH. Now you may point out that if you read the whole chapter, it switches back and forth between El and YHWH - and I'd say that we might have a bit of that source mixing going on here that I talked about in the first part of this series.
But ok, let's say we accept that this verse is about YHWH. YHWH definitely changes his mind - we see that in Exodus 32, when YHWH wants to destroy the Israelites after they make the Golden Calf, and Moses talks him out of it, and verse 14 says that "YHWH changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people." And in I Samuel 15:11, YHWH says that he regrets having made Saul king - that sounds like changing his mind to me. Additionally, Genesis 6:6-7 has YHWH regretting making humanity due to their wickedness, Amos 7:1-6 has YHWH preparing to send locusts and fire upon Israel and the prophet Amos pleads with him and changes his mind, and 2 Kings 20:1-6 has YHWH granting king Hezekiah 15 more years of life after he weeps and prays.
But surely YHWH doesn't lie? I mean, not only do the apologists have Numbers 23:19, but they will also use Hebrews 6:18 and Titus 1:2 to make this case. But it certainly looks like YHWH lies, according to a few passages.
 |
| A depiction of the Garden of Eden |
For starters, in the story of the Garden of Eden, YHWH says about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that "in/on the day that you eat of it you shall die." And when Adam and Eve eat of it, they don't die until much later. And the phrasing of this does not mean "you will be condemned to die", nor is it talking about a spiritual death. And some people will try to make a case that this is like a parent making a hyperbolic threat - like if I had told my children that if they touch the stove they will die. And there are reasons to doubt this, but what if this were not the only case where YHWH uses deception?
In Jeremiah 4:5-10, the prophet Jeremiah is instructed to prophesy to Judah and Jerusalem, telling them to prepare for an invasion. And the prophesy is encouraging them to be courageous, implying that they will be victorious. But in verses 9-10 it says:
On that day, says [YHWH], courage shall fail the king and the officials; the priests shall be appalled and the prophets astounded. 10 Then I said, “Ah, [Adonay YHWH], how utterly you have deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ‘It shall be well with you,’ even while the sword is at the throat!”
And apologists usually try to make a case that it isn't YHWH directly deceiving, because YHWH simply allowed prophets to give bad prophecies. And yet the passage seems to indicate that YHWH instructed his prophet Jeremiah to give these deceiving prophecies.
We have a similar account in 1 Kings 22:19-23, where Micaiah says that he saw YHWH sitting on his throne with the host of heaven around him. And YHWH says "[w]ho will entice Ahab, so that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" And it says that a ruah (the Hebrew word for "spirit", which also means "breath" or "wind") came and said that he would do it. And when YHWH asks "how?", the spirit says: "I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." And YHWH says to go do it. And Micaiah's take on this in verse 23 is that "YHWH has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets." In other words, Micaiah doesn't think that this rhetoric of "YHWH didn't do it - he just allowed it" works. (Note: the same story appears with the same wording in 2 Chronicles 18:18-22.)
And the prophet Ezekiel seems to feel the same way - Ezekiel 14:9 says:
If a prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, YHWH, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
So we see a consistent portrayal of YHWH lying and deceiving, much like a human ruler who uses deception against his enemies.
Similar to the concept of deception, the book of Exodus portrays YHWH as a god who hardens Pharaoh's heart because he wants to show off his power. And if you read the book as if it was written by a single author, you might try to make a case that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, ignoring verses like Exodus 9:12 in favor of depictions from earlier in the story like Exodus 8:15. But a critical reader can see the signs that there are multiple portrayals of what is happening here. It might seem subtle, but examine Exodus 5, where Moses has his first encounter with the Pharaoh. You might say "see? Pharaoh hardened his own heart" - but what does Moses say to YHWH in verse 22? "O YHWH, why have you mistreated this people?" And if we turn back to the previous chapter, in Exodus 4:21 YHWH tells Moses from the very beginning that his plan is to harden Pharaoh's heart so that, even after seeing signs, he will not let the people go. This shows that, according to the storyteller, YHWH wants to show off his power to the other gods and to the people.
And if we're honest, we see repeated accounts where YHWH is shown to be a warlord deity. This god even goes so far as to command genocide - such as the command in Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy and he clears away many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you—and when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy.
This motif is repeated in Deuteronomy 20:16-17:
But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. Indeed, you shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded...
Similarly, I Samuel 15 tells a story where Saul is commanded to "attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." When Saul defeats the Amalekites, but spares the king (and some livestock), Samuel scolds him and informs him that because he didn't kill everything, he's not going to be king any more.
From the beginning of this series, I have been clear that everything I am presenting challenges the idea of inerrancy. And I think this is the most important challenge to that idea. Because if you believe the Bible is inerrant, your beliefs about God are like defending the idea that the Jor El in the new Superman movie is the same Jor El we see in the Christopher Reeves movies and the same Jor El we see in the Brandon Routh Superman movie and in the Henry Cavil movie. Because you have to defend the idea that these genocide passages I've brought up accurately reflect this God, but then you turn to the New Testament, which tells us that Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15) and the exact imprint of God's very being (Heb. 1:3), and who commanded us to love enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Mt. 5:44), who said to do good to those who hate you and bless those who curse you (Lk. 6:27-28), who said "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" of the people who nailed him to a cross (Lk. 23:34), and who inspired Paul to say that we should overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21) and the writer of I Peter to say that we should repay evil with blessing (I Pet. 3:9).
The Prophetic Critique of Sacrifice
Before I move on from a portrait of YHWH, I feel it is useful to consider the prophetic critique against sacrifice alongside the idea I am presenting that the understanding of YHWH changed over time. Because not only do you find commandments for animal sacrifice (which I don't even feel I need to argue at this time), but Biblical scholars widely accept that child sacrifice is an accepted practice that you can find the Bible condoning as well. At the very least, we need to understand that when Deuteronomy 7:1-2 and Deuteronomy 20:16-17 command complete annihilation of enemies, this is actually a form of human sacrifice called a "ban" or a herem.
But we have other evidence of human sacrifice in the Bible. In Leviticus 27, a custom is described where a man can devote a field, a house, an animal, or even a person to God. And in verses 28-29 it says:
Nothing that a person owns that has been devoted to destruction for [YHWH], be it human or animal or inherited landholding, may be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord. No human beings who have been devoted to destruction can be ransomed; they shall be put to death.
This is human sacrifice. In this context, we can understand why scholars hold that when Exodus 22:29 commands that "the firstborn of your sons you shall give to me", this is also a commandment for child sacrifice. Likewise, scholars understand that the story of Jepthah and his daughter in Judges 11 is a story of human sacrifice. Further evidence of human sacrifice is given in this free book (starting on page 52), but the point of all this is that: to argue that Israel's genocide was justified on the grounds that these other cultures were "so evil because they practiced human sacrifice" ignores the fact that Israel also practiced human sacrifice. Until they decided not to any more and wrote that God had never wanted that in the first place.
But we see this perspective challenged in prophetic texts, such as Jeremiah 19:5, which has the prophet accusing his audience near Jerusalem (in the valley of Hinnom - which is also referred to as "Gehenna", and is a word that has been mis-translated as "hell") of "building the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal", and then has the prophet telling his audience that YHWH says that he "did not command or decree [this child sacrifice], nor did it enter my mind."
But there are also prophetic critiques against sacrifice in general. Hosea 6:6 says that YHWH desires mercy (or love, in some translations) "and not sacrifice". Isaiah 1:11 has YHWH saying "what to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?" And the verse goes on to say "I have had enough of burnt offerings" and "I do not delight in the blood of bulls or of lambs or of goats." Micah 6:6-8 says:
With what shall I come before [YHWH]
and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
Will [YHWH] be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”
He has told you, O mortal, what is good,
and what does [YHWH] require of you
but to do justice and to love kindness
and to walk humbly with your God?
There are even Psalms that join in to this critique - Psalm 40:6 says "sacrifice and offering you do not desire" and "burnt offering and sin offering you have not required." And Psalm 51:16 says that God (this Psalm alternates between elohim and adonay, which is a later substitution for YHWH) has "no delight in sacrifice", and adds that "if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased."
And then if we turn to the New Testament, Hebrews 10:4 says that "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."
And while some of these references can be somewhat convincingly argued away by apologists who tell us things like "God doesn't like sacrifices, but requires them as a temporary solution" or something along these lines, isn't it more likely that along with all these other changing perspectives I have demonstrated, this critique against sacrifice is another developing line of thought that functions as a revision?
We're going to stop here, and in the next post we will discuss how the authors in the Bible began to use more abstract terminology when discussing God.
