Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Psychologists and anthropologists point out how the sundry biblical images of God exert an influence on all of one’s relationships. Toxic metaphors of God that are hostile and anti-life tend to produce people who are intolerant of the Other. One may worship such a Deity with fear, but one cannot develop a healthy sense of relatedness, love or respect.

Understandably, many Holocaust survivors rejected this punitive view of God, which the ancients uncritically accepted. The death of God movements of the 1960s rejected the traditional biblical notions of a capricious God who does as He pleases, much like He did in the days of the Flood, Sodomites and Egyptians. In light of the phenomena of religious terrorism that we are witnessing in the world today, one must ask: Has a punitive concept of God contributed toward the ascendency of evil and suffering we are witnessing today?

The answer ought to be obvious: Yes!

There was a time when our ancestors conceived of God as the Supreme Potentate, whose word exerted a firm grip on human history. Every event, whether great or small, served as a direct manifestation of God’s inscrutable will and reality. Such a deity was not answerable to human beings’ gripes and criticisms; God did essentially as He pleased. The image of God as tyrant is clear in the story of the Flood narrative, where the narrator describes God as going “postal” on account of stubborn human beings.

Religious leaders from numerous faiths ascribed a variety of reasons as to why Hurricane Katrina was so devastating. Some leaders blamed the licentious life-style of New Orleans[1], while others claimed it was divine retribution for the United States’ support of the removal of Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip.[2] Buddhist and Hindu scholars blamed it on karma, while Muslim across the globe imams proclaimed in unison, “The Terrorist Katrina is one of the Soldiers of Allah…”[3]

Without going into too much detail for now, the 19^th century German philosopher Georg Hegel explains how each civilization is defined by its relationship to the Divine Spirit, which awakens human consciousness. Every civilization undergoes a dialectical clash with its predecessor and serves to reshape and redefine aspects the next civilization’s values and ethos. No civilization lives in isolation.

According to Hegel, history reflects this evolutionary pathway toward self-knowledge and self-actualization. It is only in the creative enfoldment of history, does the Divine plan become clearer to the human mind. If one understands history, one can glimpse into the mind of God. Through this ceaseless dialectical tension and clash of civilizations, God’s providential plan becomes easier to discern. This knowledge ultimately leads to a clearer sense of self and one relationship toward God, self, neighbor, and the world. Hegel’s evolutionary model of faith serves in many ways as an excellent template for the interpretations we shall introduce in the chapters ahead. This new commentary will on some level attempt to bring some clarity to the questions we have raised thus far.

Various other biblical books portray a more benign deity. The images of God in the Tanakh vary from book to book. God, whom the Psalms describe as the “healer of broken hearts” in the Psalms, in Genesis 6-8 emerges as a mass murderer in the Flood narrative. Such contrasts must create some degree of cognitive dissonance even for the most sincere believer. How does one reconcile these contrasting depictions of God? If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that the Flood story in particular portrays a dark side of God that even the biblical narrators found frightening about the Divine personality.

The theological problem posed by the Flood story is not necessarily unique to this narrative per se. Several other biblical stories seem to celebrate God’s destructive power over His foes. There are other metaphors in the Tanakh that continue this particular stream of consciousness. For example, Moses praises God as a “Master of war,” who can “toss horse and rider amidst the sea” (Exod. 14:30). With respect to the Flood narrative, what did infants do to deserve being destroyed by the Flood? Surely the children should not have to die for the sins of the parents? Yet this enlightened passage is contradicted by numerous other passages (1 Sam. 15:2; 2 Sam. 24:1, passim) where God punishes whole families and communities!

At this point, we will not examine the answers to these questions. Much of my new commentary in Volume 2 will attempt to develop ways of making sense out of this frightening story. It is enough that the reader think about these troubling metaphors of God, which challenge the religious sensibilities of all people living in the present. If viewed in isolation, the passages pose a serious theological problem for the life of a believer. Let’s be honest: This is not a subject most modern or classical commentators enjoy expounding. On the other hand, if one sees the problematic verses in the terms of broader context, it is not hard to see how the faith community grew over time, and so did their perception of God.

Some people still have a long way to re-vision their primitive image of God.

==========

Notes:
[1]In Philadelphia, Michael Marcavage viewed this as a divine punishment for welcoming gay men and lesbians from across the country were set to participate in a New Orleans street festival called “Southern Decadence.” He added, “We take no joy in the death of innocent people,” said Marcavage, who was an intern in the Clinton White House in 1999 and now runs Repent America, an evangelistic organization calling for “a nation in rebellion toward God” to reclaim its senses. “But we believe that God is in control of the weather,” he said in a telephone interview. “The day Bourbon Street and the French Quarter was flooded was the day that 125,000 homosexuals were going to be celebrating sin in the streets. . . . We’re calling it an act of God” (The Advocate, Jan. 17, 2006).