Holy War and Genocide: A Merciful God?

The concept of a holy war is of course not foreign to our thought. Everyone is familiar with the crusades and the concept of Christians who believed God commanded them to destroy the infidel (aka Muslims). Hindsight is a wonderful thing as we look back and think, ‘how silly of them, how could they have done such awful things’. There has also been much controversy over the somewhat recent events which have taken place in Iraq (to the decimation of many archaeological sites, much to my chagrin). There are of course those people who are very much in support of the war and others who are violently opposed. There seems to be no middle ground. It is equally divided amongst Christians as well, with many of those who are for the war believing it to be a holy war with shouts of ‘God wills it!” However one must trust that the atrocities committed by those in the crusades were not repeated by the American war machine (or at least not shown on the Fox news).

This concept of God sanctioning war upon other countries is as old as the Bible itself. Yet if the President of the United States were to stand up in front of the country with a message from God saying that the American people were commanded to enter a foreign country and kill all who lived there- animals, men, women and children- and then to burn the country to the ground, even the most devout followers of the President would have to doubt that this message actually came from God. Rather the President would likely be ousted from office and deemed unfit to govern. But if we look at the Bible, particularly the book of Joshua, we see time and time again examples of God commanding this uncompromising genocide. If we as Christians are to believe that the Holy Spirit guides our sense of morality, and it is probably safe to say that 99.9% of Christians would agree that genocide is wrong, then how can we accept that our God, who never changes, commanded such things?

Let’s look at a few of the examples where this occurred in Joshua. The following refers to the battle of Jericho. Rahab alone is spared for assisting the spies, however the rest of those who dwelled in the city were not so lucky.

Joshua 6:21 21They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.

Here is another example with the city of Ai where again, all were destroyed.

Joshua 8:24 24Now when Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the field in the wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them were fallen by the edge of the sword until they were destroyed, then all Israel returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword.
25All who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000--all the people of Ai.
26For Joshua did not withdraw his hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.
27 Israel took only the cattle and the spoil of that city as plunder for themselves, according to the word of the LORD which He had commanded Joshua.
28So Joshua burned Ai and made it a heap forever, a desolation until this day.
29 He hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua gave command and they took his body down from the tree and threw it at the entrance of the city gate, and raised over it a great heap of stones that stands to this day.

Here in Joshua 11, Yahweh commands specifically that all would be destroyed. It claims in fact that Yahweh himself was responsible for hardening the hearts of those nations in order to have them do battle with Israel.

Joshua 11

18Joshua waged war a long time with all these kings.
19There was not a city which made peace with the sons of Israel except the Hivites living in Gibeon; they took them all in battle.
20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
In 1 Samuel 15 we find another example where Yahweh makes the command to commit genocide against a nation, specifically Amalek.
1 Samuel 15 - 1Then Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD.
2"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.
3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

Where is the God of mercy and love that we as Christians know? If God never changes, if he is eternal and constant in his personality, then how can the God of love condone such things? If one takes these episodes as a literal, historical account of what occurred, then it follows that some sort of theological reckoning must take place in order to justify the actions of God. The first, which I believe to be the worst option, is to completely ignore these passages and shove them under the carpet and avoid bringing them up at Outreach Services or Alpha Conferences and hope that nobody brings it up on their Christian blogs (whoops). The other, more superior option is the literal point of view which basically says that God was punishing these nations for their immorality. This stems mainly from a passage in Leviticus 18.

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
24 " 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

This however does not account for the genocide of entire peoples, killing men, women and children. It merely speaks about, ‘vomiting out its inhabitants’, which does not necessarily infer genocide. As well, people who purport this view (God punishing the nations) go into great detail about communal sin and being punished as a community. Within this framework, all who live in a society that has become sinful are all sinful. God does not look at the individual, but at the community as a whole. As such, even the innocent (children, etc.) were punished alongside those who committed the actual immoral acts. However, this line of reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny if one takes into account other episodes in the Bible where God does indeed spare the innocent individual. Take for example the incident with Sodom and Gomorrah where God has decided to destroy the city for its wickedness. Abraham then pleads with God.

Genesis 18
20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?" He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

In this case we have the opposite communal effect where the city will not be destroyed because of the innocent. Of course we know later that God spares Lot and his family specifically and destroys the rest of the city. While it is true that throughout the Bible we do see God dealing with the Israelites as a community, there are also many examples where he regards the individual as important as well. In my opinion, justifying the genocide of the people of Canaan due to their immorality as a society and killing off the innocent along with the wicked requires more theological contortions than I am personally comfortable with. Rather, I subscribe to a rather different explanation of these slaughters.

Before I proceed, it is important to note that the historicity of Joshua and the conquest of Palestine is indeed in question. There is no archeological evidence for such a conquest being made by the Israelites in such a short period of time. Rather, there is a continuity of cultures throughout the late Bronze Age when this conquest was supposedly having taken place. What I mean by that is, archaeologically speaking, the material remains of the cultures in the region of Palestine and the Levant show no signs of a major change in occupation. If the Israelites did indeed conquer and destroy these cities and reoccupy the land, we would expect to find a break in the material remains. This does not exist. As well, although many cities were destroyed at varying times, and there is archaeological evidence of this, they were not all destroyed within the time frame allotted by the book of Joshua. In all likelihood, there was more of a gradual, general removal of certain tribes from under the ruling powers of the time who separated themselves. George Mendenhall puts it this way:

“The fact is, and the present writer would regard it as a fact though not every detail can be ‘proven,’ that both the Amarna materials and the biblical events represent politically the same process: namely, the withdrawal, not physically and geographically, but politically and subjectively, of large population groups from any obligation to the existing political regimes, and therefore, the re-nunciation of any protection from those sources. In other words, there was no statistically important invasion of Palestine at the beginning of the twelve tribe system of Israel. There was no radical displacement of population, there was no genocide, there was no large scale driving out of population, only of royal administrators (of necessity!). In summary, there was no real conquest of Palestine at all; what happened instead may be termed, from the point of view of the secular historian interested only in socio-political processes, a peasant's revolt against the network of interlocking Canaanite city states.”

If we follow that the conquest of Palestine never took place as described in Joshua, then it would stand to reason that the writer of Joshua had some sort of agenda in mind in describing these battles and commands of God. We may catch a glimpse of why these atrocities committed by the Israelites at the command of God were put forth by the author by taking a look at the practices of war among other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, in particular the Assyrians.

The Assyrian war machine was well known throughout the Ancient Near East and they were known for being quite brutal. There were no such things as war crimes in the Ancient Near East and nations were guarded by only their own sense of what was acceptable practice. The Assyrians were on the rampage, starting in 911 BCE until 612 BCE. The Assyrian empire had many famous kings, some of which will be familiar to Biblical students, such as Tiglath-Pileser, Ashurbanipal, Sargon II, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The might of the Assyrian Empire and their army was famous even amongst the authors of the Bible.

2 Kings 15:20
20 Menahem exacted this money from Israel. Every wealthy man had to contribute fifty shekels of silver to be given to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria withdrew and stayed in the land no longer.

2 Kings 15:29
29 In the time of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. He took Gilead and Galilee, including all the land of Naphtali, and deported the people to Assyria.

2 Kings 18
13 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah's reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. 14 So Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: "I have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand of me." The king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. 15 So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace.

16 At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple of the LORD, and gave it to the king of Assyria.

As has been demonstrated, the Assyrian Empire was one of great breadth and relied heavily upon the might of their army to keep their empire intact. The Assyrians didn’t have the best reputation when it came to their war practices as well. If we take a look at the Prism of Sennacherib (pictured below), we can see how he dealt with various revolts.

Column 3 8I approached Ekron and slew the governors and nobles 9who had rebelled, and 10hung their bodies on stakes around the city. The inhabitants 11who rebelled and treated (Assyria) lightly I counted as spoil. 12The rest of them, who were not guilty of rebellion 13and contempt, for whom there was no punishment, 14I declared their pardon. Padi, their king, 15I brought out to Jerusalem, 16set him on the royal throne over them, and 17imposed upon him my royal tribute.

Column 6 (against a Babylonian revolt)
2I cut their throats, 3and I cut off their precious lives like a string. Like the many waters 4of a storm, I made their gullets and entrails 5run down upon the wide earth. My prancing 6steeds harnessed for my riding plunged 7into the streams of their blood as (into) a river. The wheels of my war chariot, 8which brings the wicked and evil low, 9were spattered with blood and filth. With the bodies of their warriors 10I filled the plain like grass. Their testicles 11I cut off and tore out their privates like the seeds 12of cucumbers of Siwan. I cut off their hands. 13The heavy rings of brightest gold which were on their wrists 14I took away. With sharp swords 15I pierced their belts and took away 16the belt-daggars of gold and silver which were on their persons. The rest of his nobles, together with Nabû-shum-ishkun, 17son of Moerodach-baladan, who was frightened at my onslaught 18and had gone over to their side, my hands 19seized in the midst of the battle. The chariots and their horses, 20whose riders had been slain at the beginning of the terrible battle, 21and who had been left to themselves, 22kept running back and forth 23for two double-hours; I stopped their headlong flight. 24That Umman-menanu, king of Elam, 25together with the king of Babylon and the princes of Chaldea, 26who had gone over to their side, the terror of my battle 27overturned their bodies like a bull. They abandoned their tents; 28and to save their lives, they trampled 29the bodies of their soldiers; they fled like young pigeons 30that are pursued. Their hearts were torn; 31they held their urine, but let their dung go into their chariots. 32In pursuit of them, 33I dispatched my chariots and horses after them. 34Those among them who had escaped, who had fled for their lives, 35wherever they [the charioteers] met them, they cut them down with the sword.

In another inscription of Sennacherib, we find a vivid account of how he destroyed Babylon in a rage.

“As a hurricane proceeds, I attacked it and, like a storm, I overthrew it… Its inhabitants, young and old, I did not spare and with their corpses I filled the streets of the city… The town itself and its houses, from their foundations to their roofs I devastated, I destroyed, by fire I overthrew… In order that in future even the soil of its temples be forgotten, by water I ravaged it, I turned it into pastures. To quiet the heart of Ashur, my lord, that peoples should bow in submission before his exalted might, I removed the dust of Babylon for presents to the most distant peoples, and in that Temple of the New Year Festival I stored up some in a covered jar.”

On a side note, of interest as well are the differing accounts regarding the submission of Hezekiah and Israel to Assyria. In the Biblical account in 2 Kings 19, Yahweh delivers Jerusalem from the Assyrians. “35 That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies! 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there.”

In the Assyrian account we find that Hezekiah did eventually submit to the yoke of Sennacherib.
18As for Hezekiah the Judahite, 19who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as 20the small towns in their area, 21which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams 22and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, 23by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 24200,150 people, great and small, male and female, 25horses, mules, asses, camels, 26cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them 27and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird 28I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. 29I threw up earthworks against him— 30the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. 31His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and 32to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, 33Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bêl, 34king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. 35I added to the former tribute, 36and I lad upon him the surrender of their land and imposts—gifts for my majesty. 37As for Hezekiah, 38the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and 39the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen 40Jerusalem, his royal city, 41deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and 42eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, 43jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, 44ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, 45ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, 46as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female 47musicians, which he had brought after me 48to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute 49and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers.

Although it was common for the Assyrians to embellish their victories, it was also not uncommon for the Israelites to do the same. We may never know what really took place.

From the previous inscriptions of Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, it can be seen that such atrocities, not unlike what the Israelites claimed to have done in the book of Joshua, were quite common place. It is also interesting that the book of Joshua was very likely written in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE and perhaps later redacted during the exilic period. This would place the authorship of this book squarely in the midst of the reign of the Assyrian Empire. As we have already established, the Assyrians’ reputation would have no doubt been very familiar to the authors of Joshua. I believe that the genocidal tendencies within the conquest of Palestine and the incident in 1 Samuel, were no doubt written by the authors as a way of ‘competing’ with the Assyrian Empire. Perhaps, in a way, the authors admired the Assyrian empire and their army and within the book of Joshua sought to legitimize the past Israelite dominance within the Palestinian region through their might of arms. But what of God’s command to commit such things? Was this also common throughout the Ancient Near East?

The city of Mari has yielded to us the “Mari Prophetic Texts” which date to approximately between 1800-1700 BCE. Although these texts are not contemporary to the writing of the book of Joshua, they do provide insight into the origins of prophecy and its uses. In this case, I would like to provide a couple of examples where the gods, through prophecy, gave commands and favour in regards to military movements.

M.9714=AEM1/1, 192

1. [To Zimri-Lim]
2. [speak:Thus says Adad:]
3. [To your……]
4. I will return you….Your…
5. I have for you in the losses.
6. My strong weapons
7. I sent before you
8. And 7 nets I sent
9. To overwhelm the Elamites
10. From the fifteenth until the…
11. You will join the battle, and
Lines 12-14 are illegible
15. To Zimri-Lim
16. Speak: Thus says Ishtar of Ninet:
17. With my strong weapons
18. I will stand by you.

Here Zimri-Lim, the king of Mari, receives word from the god Adad, and the goddess Ishtar, that they will be his strong weapons, and tell him to ‘join the battle’. In this next prophecy, a promise from the gods, via a personal or city deity named Kititum (and a specific mention of the God Anu, the king of all the gods) is given to King IBal-pi-El regarding land and rule that is very reminiscent of the promise given to Joshua in Joshua 1:1-5.

FLP 1674

1. King Ibal-pi-El
2. Thus says Kititum:
3. The secrets of the gods
4. are set before me.
5. because the mention
6. of my name is constantly in your mouth,
7. The secrets of the gods
8. I keep on opening for you.
9. By the advice
10. of the gods (and) by the judgment
11. of Anu, the land
12. Is given to you
13. to rule.
14. The tooth?/shoe? Of the upper
15. and lower land you will loosen.
16. The treasure of the upper
17. and lower land you will amass?/redeem?.
18. Your economy will not diminish.
19. Wherever in the land your hand has reached, it will enjoy
20. the food of peace.
21. The foundations of your throne
22. I, Kititum,
23. will strengthen. A protective
24. spirit I have established for you.
25. Let your ear be attentive to me.


Kititum promises to be his protective spirit and gives him a promise of land in the same manner as Yahweh promises Joshua before his entrance into the land of Canaan. Although it is unclear as to what medium Yahweh used to communicate with Joshua (aside from the unusual incident with the commander of the army of Yahweh in Joshua 5:13-15, but that’s another topic altogether) these prophecies give us a comparable example of how a nation’s or a city’s deity would give commands and promises in regard to military expeditions. In fact, it was very common that the deity had to be first consulted through various means before any militant action was taken.

There are examples of the gods of Assyria giving their approval and aiding in battles which are contemporary with the writing of the book of Joshua. If we take a look at an example from an inscription of Sennacherib that was previously discussed above we can see this.

Prism of Sennacherib, column 1
10The god Assur, the great mountain, an unrivaled kinship 11has entrusted to me, and above all those 12who dwell in palaces, has made my weapons powerful. 13From the upper sea of the setting sun 14to the lower sea of the rising sun, 15he has brought the black-headed people in submission at my feet. 16And mighty kings feared my warfare, 17leaving their homes and 18flying alone, like the sidinnu, the bird of the cave, 19to some inaccessible place.

The account of Sargon’s 8th campaign in 718 BCE is replete with examples of how Assur, the deity of the Assyrian Empire, as well as other gods, gave their approval and power for Sargon to be able to accomplish his great victories.

“With the sublime strength of Assur my lord, with the power and might of Marduk and Nabu, my divine allies, with the firm assent of Shamash, the supreme judge of the gods, [Shamash being the god consulted via various forms of divination before a military expedition would occur. Here the firm assent of Shamash means that Sargon consulted Shamash before the expedition began and obtained favourable omens] who opened the way and provided protection for my army, with the greatness of Nergal, mightiest of the gods, who marched beside me and guarded my camp, I came through the land of Sumbi, a district between Mounts Nikippa and Upa, difficult mountains, having made a noble march that no one could resist through the lands of Urartu, Sikirte, the Mannaeans, Nairi-lands, and Musasir, like a terrifying, marauding lion!”

It is clear from these examples- the Mari prophetic texts, the Prism of Sennacherib, and the account of Sargon’s 8th campaign- that it was common place for the deity of a specific nation to become involved in military campaigns of the nation, giving their approval, protection, and even commands. Approval of the deity gave the king the political clout needed to carry on these military expeditions. In many cases, there may have even been somewhat of a power struggle between the temple (prophets, priests, etc) and the ruling powers. It is thought by many scholars that prophets would exert their divine influence over the king in order to achieve their own desired results, but this again is venturing off into a bigger topic.

It is my belief that under the premise that the conquest of Canaan never actually took place as written in the book of Joshua, that the author(s) of the book of Joshua had a particular agenda in mind while composing that particular book. It was written during a time when the sovereignty of Israel would have been threatened by the might of the Assyrian Empire so much so that they risked losing the very land in which they lived. The book of Joshua is a literary response to such a threat. It asserts that God gave this land to the Israelites and aided them in conquering it. The writers placed the garb of the Assyrian Army upon the Israelite Army in regard to their fame, the terror they invoked, and the atrocities they committed. These atrocities were not seen in the same light as we see them. They were viewed as an example of might and power, which is what the Israelites needed to feel they had in a time when their own power was being threatened. Thus, the problem of God commanding genocide and the killing of innocent people becomes a non-issue in this light, as most likely, these stories were a human invention, not God’s. Although some may be uncomfortable with this way of dealing with this issue as it puts a more human aspect upon the authorship of the Bible, it is, in my opinion, more realistic, and requires less theological dancing and back-pedaling than the alternative, ‘community punishment’ view.

Sources

Hezekiah's Reforms and the Revolt against Assyria Author(s): Oded Borowski Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 148-155 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research

Religion and Power: Edited by Nicole Brisch, The Oriental Institue of the University of Chicago,Chicago Illanois, 2008


The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine Author(s): George E. Mendenhall Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Sep., 1962), pp. 66-87 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research

Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel, Beth Alpert Nakhai, American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston MA, 2001

Megiddo Strata I-V, John Albert Wilson and Thomas George Allan, University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL, 1939

Before The Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Texts, Benjamin R. Foster, CDL Press, Bethesda Maryland, 2005.

The Bible and the Ancient Near East, J.J.M. Roberts, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake Indiana, 2002.

The Making of a Legend

Perhaps one of the most inspiring and enigmatic figures known in the Old Testament is Moses. His story, and that of the Exodus from Egypt, has been told in many varying mediums of communication including at least two Hollywood movies that I can think of. In this post I will be taking a closer look at the origins of this famous figure in the Bible. First, I would like to say that this post is based heavily upon primary sources which I have put directly into the body of the post. I realize that sometimes this can be some heavy reading, unfortunately for those of you who usually skip over these passages, I think it is important to slug your way through so that you can see for yourselves what they say and not simply take my word for it (and for those of you who continue to refuse, I will summarize).

The birth story of Moses is so well known that it is of little use repeating it here, yet for the sake of clarity, here it is.

Exodus 2
1 Now a man of the house of Levi married a Levite woman, 2 and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months. 3 But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. 4 His sister stood at a distance to see what would happen to him.
5 Then Pharaoh's daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the river bank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her slave girl to get it. 6 She opened it and saw the baby. He was crying, and she felt sorry for him. "This is one of the Hebrew babies," she said.
7 Then his sister asked Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and get one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?"
8 "Yes, go," she answered. And the girl went and got the baby's mother. 9 Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this baby and nurse him for me, and I will pay you." So the woman took the baby and nursed him. 10 When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh's daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, "I drew him out of the water."

The image of Moses being placed into the basket and sent careening down the Nile is an image familiar to most people in this generation. Yet, was this story true? A closer look at some of the other literature of the Ancient Near East sheds some interesting light upon this legend.

The first story I would like to look at is the birth of Cyrus (576-530 BCE), the founder of the Persian Empire. He, like many others in the Ancient Near East, has an interesting tale of his birth and upbringing. Herodotus (a Greek historian c. 490-420 BCE) wrote regarding Cyrus origins in his classical work dubbed, ‘The Histories’.

Astyages, the king of Persia, had a daughter named Mandane who was married to Cambyes. One day, Astyages had a dream regarding his daughter. “This time it was that a vine grew from his daughter’s private parts and spread over Asia. As before, he told the interpreters about this dream, and then sent for his daughter, who was now pregnant. When she arrived, he kept her under strict watch, intending to make away with her child; for the fact was that the Magi had interpreted the dream to mean that his daughter’s son would usurp his throne. (Book 1, 108)”

Astyages then ordered his steward, Harpagus to keep an eye on Mandane, and when the child was born, he was to take it home and kill it. When the child was born, Harpagus took the child home but could not bring himself to kill it. So, he sent for one of the king’s herdsman, Mitradates, and ordered him to expose the child in the wild. “The king’s orders are that you must expose this infant in the wildest spot you know of amongst the hills, where it may soonest die. I am to tell you, moreover, that if you disobey and find some means of saving the child, the king will have you put to death in a way not pleasant to think of. I am commanded to see for myself that the child has been exposed. (Book 1, 110)”

Mitrades as well found it difficult to do away with the child and brought the baby home to his shack and spoke with his wife regarding the affair. His wife suggested an alternative. “‘My own child,’ she said, ‘was born today-and it was born dead. Take the body and expose it, and let us bring up Mandane’s son as our own. If we do this, no one will find out that you have disobeyed your masters. Moreover, we shall have managed pretty well for ourselves too: our dead baby will have a royal burial, and this live one will not be killed.’ (Book 1, 112)”

Thus it occurred that Cyrus was saved and brought up by the herdsmen until his true identity was later revealed and through a series of events which will not be discussed here, came to power.

This example of Cyrus reveals a common thread in the development of a hero, king, or leader in a community within the Ancient Near East. In this case, Cyrus, who was to be king, was saved as an infant through some rather extreme circumstances from being killed by the ruler of the time who believed him to be a threat. The boy was then raised in a home other than his own, until he discovered his true identity. He grew up to be the powerful ruler of the Persian Empire known as Cyrus the Great. Although the parallels to Moses are not exactly the same, the general situation is remarkably similar.

Next we will examine the famous legend of Romulus, the traditional founder of the Roman Empire. His birth story, as related by Plutarch (a roman historian, 46-100 AD) is very similar to that of Cyrus. Amulius was the king of Alba and had taken the kingship from his brother. He feared that his brother’s daughter would have a son and this son would take his kingdom away. As such, he made her a priestess of Vesta, which bound her to a life of celibacy. However, she did indeed become pregnant. The punishment for this was death, but the king’s daughter, Antho, interceded on her behalf and she was spared. However she was kept under constant vigil so that the boy would be destroyed upon birth.

“Delivered she was of two boys, and their size and beauty were more than human. 4 Wherefore Amulius was all the more afraid, and ordered a servant to take the boys and cast them away. This servant's name was Faustulus, according to some, but others give this name to the man who took the boys up. Obeying the king's orders, the servant put the babes into a trough and went down towards the river, purposing to cast them in; but when he saw that the stream was much swollen and violent, he was afraid to go close up to it, and setting his burden now near the bank, went his way. 5 Then the overflow of the swollen river took and bore up the trough, floating it gently along, and carried it down to a fairly smooth spot which is now called Kermalus, but formerly Germanus, perhaps because brothers are called "germani."
4 Now there was a wild fig-tree hard by, which they called Ruminalis, either from Romulus, as is generally thought, or because cud-chewing, or ruminating, animals spent the noon-tide there for the sake of the shade, or best of all, from the suckling of the babes there; for the ancient Romans called the teat "ruma," and a certain goddess, who is thought to preside over the rearing of young children, is still called Rumilia, in sacrificing to whom no wine is used, and libations of milk are poured over her victims. 2 Here, then, the babes lay, and the she-wolf of story here gave them suck, and a woodpecker came to help in feeding them and to watch over them.”
………….
6 As for the babes, they were taken up and reared by Faustulus, a swineherd of Amulius, and no man knew of it; or, as some say with a closer approach to probability, Numitor did know of it, and secretly aided the foster-parents in their task.

In this case it is twin boys who are exposed to the wild and left to die for the same reason Cyrus was; the king feared that they would take over his kingdom. Again the future ruler is saved, in this case miraculously by some she-wolves who then took and nursed the babies. Plutarch himself acknowledges that likely this is a fantastical embellishment of the truth and that probably they were saved by other less magnificent means. It is apparent from this example of Romulus as well, which is very close to that of Cyrus, stories of miraculous rescues of babies from a nervous and somewhat paranoid ruler were not uncommon.

Our last ‘hero’ we will be looking at is Sargon the Great. Sargon was the first Semitic King to conquer the Sumerian city states and to create what could be called the first Empire of Mesopotamia from roughly 2270-2215 BCE, long before Moses was even a twinkle in his father's eye. There are two texts which I will present here. The first is in Sumerian and was written somewhere between 1800 and 2000 BCE. It is a portrayal of how Sargon gained control over the city ruled by Ur-Zababa, presumably Kish. The tablet is a difficult read and is fragmented as well. I have provided the translation below, but I will summarize it in order to aid in the reading.

In this text, Sargon is the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa. During his time in this position, Ur-Zababa has a dream which he assumes means that Sargon will take his kingdom. Sargon as well has a dream confirming Ur-Zababa’s suspicions. Ur-Zababa then decides to have Sargon killed by sending him with a letter to Belish-tikal ordering Belish-tikal, upon receiving the letter, to kill Sargon by means of ‘throwing him into the mould like statues’. Inana intervenes and warns Sargon not to enter the house. Thus Sargon lives. Ur-Zababa tries to have Sargon killed a second time, but is unsuccessful (we do not know exactly what happened due to fragmentation of the tablet). The last part of the tablet is extremely fragmented and broken off but it is apparently describing some type of conflict between Sargon and Ur-Zababa. The Sumerian King list tells us that Sargon did eventually take control of Kish (although he took it not from Ur-Zababa, but from Unug).

Segment B
1-7. One day, after the evening had arrived and Sargon had brought the regular deliveries to the palace, Ur-Zababa was sleeping (and dreaming) in the holy bed-chamber, his holy residence. He realised what the dream was about, but did not put into words, did not discuss it with anyone. After Sargon had received the regular deliveries for the palace, Ur-Zababa appointed him cupbearer, putting him in charge of the drinks cupboard. Holy Inana did not cease to stand by him.
8-11. After five or 10 days had passed, King Ur-Zababa …… and became frightened in his residence. Like a lion he urinated, sprinkling his legs, and the urine contained blood and pus. He was troubled, he was disturbed like a fish living in brackish water.
12-24. It was then that the cupbearer of Ezina's wine-house, Sargon, lay down not to sleep, but lay down to dream. In the dream, holy Inana drowned Ur-Zababa in a river of blood. The sleeping Sargon groaned and gnawed the ground. When King Ur-Zababa heard about this groaning, he was brought into the king's holy presence, Sargon was brought into the presence of Ur-Zababa (who said:) "Cupbearer, was a dream revealed to you in the night?" Sargon answered his king: "My king, this is my dream, which I will tell you about: There was a young woman who was as high as the heavens and as broad as the earth. She was firmly set as the base of a wall. For me, she drowned you in a great river, a river of blood."
25-34. Ur-Zababa chewed his lips, he became seriously afraid. He spoke to ……, his chancellor: "My royal sister, holy Inana, is going to change (?) my finger into a …… of blood; she will drown Sargon, the cupbearer, in the great river. Beliš-tikal, chief smith, man of my choosing, who can write tablets, I will give you orders, let my orders be carried out! Let my advice be followed! Now then, when the cupbearer has delivered my bronze hand-mirror (?) to you, in the E-sikil, the fated house, throw them (the mirror and Sargon) into the mould like statues."
35-45. Beliš-tikal heeded his king's words and prepared the moulds in the E-sikil, the fated house. The king spoke to Sargon: "Go and deliver my bronze hand-mirror (?) to the chief smith!" Sargon left the palace of Ur-Zababa. Holy Inana, however, did not cease to stand at his right hand side, and before he had come within five or 10 nindan of the E-sikil, the fated house, holy Inana turned around toward him and blocked his way, (saying:) "The E-sikil is a holy house! No one polluted with blood should enter it!" Thus he met the chief smith of the king only at the gate of the fated house. After he delivered the king's bronze hand-mirror (?) to the chief smith, Beliš-tikal, the chief smith, …… and threw it into the mould like statues.
46-52. After five or 10 days had passed, Sargon came into the presence of Ur-Zababa, his king; he came into the palace, firmly founded like a great mountain. King Ur-Zababa …… and became frightened in his residence. He realised what was it about, but did not put into words, did not discuss it with anyone. Ur-Zababa became frightened in the bed-chamber, his holy residence. He realised what was it about, but did not put into words, did not discuss it with anyone.
53-56. In those days, although writing words on tablets existed, putting tablets into envelopes did not yet exist. King Ur-Zababa despatched Sargon, the creature of the gods, to Lugal-zage-si in Unug with a message written on clay, which was about murdering Sargon. unknown no. of lines missing
Segment C
1-7. With the wife of Lugal-zage-si ……. She (?) …… her feminity as a shelter. Lugal-zage-si did not …… the envoy. "Come! He directed his steps to brick-built E-ana!" Lugal-zage-si did not grasp it, he did not talk to the envoy. But as soon as he did talk to the envoy ……. The lord said "Alas!" and sat in the dust.
8-12. Lugal-zage-si replied to the envoy: "Envoy, Sargon does not yield."After he has submitted,Sargon …… Lugal-zage-si ……. Sargon …… Lugal-zage-si ……. Why …… Sargon ……?

In this story we see briefly how Sargon, from relatively humble beginnings, was able to establish the first Semitic Empire. Likely there are some embellishments to this story which helped to show Sargon in a more heroic light. In the Sumerian King list, it is emphasized that Sargon was the son of a gardener, which is somewhat out of place from the rest of the document which is very rigid in format.

266-296. In Agade, Sargon, whose father was a gardener, the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa, became king, the king of Agade,

It is obvious again that Sargon, being a very important figure in the Mesopotamian culture, was given the typical rags to riches story (perhaps truthfully, or perhaps not).

Our last legend that we will take a look at is perhaps the most striking of the ones we have looked at, especially when compared to the birth story of Moses. It is the birth story of Sargon. This tablet was written somewhere between 700-1000 BCE.

I am Sargon the great king, king of Agade.
My mother was a high priestess, I did not know my father.
My father’s brother dwells in the uplands.
My city is Azupiranu, which lies on Euphrates bank.
My mother, the priestess, conceived me,
She bore me in secret.
She placed me in a reed basket,
She sealed my hatch with pitch.
She left me to the river, whence I could not come up.
The river carried me off, it brought me to Aqqi,
Drawer of water.
Aqqi, drawer of water, brought me up as he dipped his bucket.
Aqqi, drawer of water, raised me as his adopted son.
Aqqi, drawer of water, set (me) to his orchard work.
During my orchard work, Ishtar loved me.
Fifty-four years I ruled as king,
I became lord over and ruled the people of this land,
………….

It is within this legend we find the strongest parallel to that of Moses. Sargon’s mother was a high priestess, and thus, like the mother of Romulus, was forbidden to have children due to her vocation. This is the reason why when she bore Sargon, she did so in secret and then proceeded to place him in a reed basket and sealed it with hatch and pitch (which is almost the identical construction of the basket which bore Moses on his rocky trip down the Nile) and set him in the Euphrates River. The oldest copy of this legend of Sargon we have was written approximately 1500 years after his death, thus, it is generally thought among Assyriologists that this is not an historical account of Sargon’s birth, but was likely composed by Sargon I or Sargon II during their reigns as a way of making their ancestor more glorious and thus legitimizing their reign and increasing their power in the eyes of their subjects and enemies.

As for the composition of Exodus, there are basically two camps. The first is that Exodus was written by Moses himself which would date its writing to around 1400 BCE. The second opinion, which is the one I tend to side with, was that the book of Exodus was likely written by several authors and then put together later by a separate redactor. The final composition was then put together somewhere during the exilic or post-exilic period (approx. 500-300 BCE). One of the reasons I tend to lean towards the later dating has to do with the information we explored above. Like their Mesopotamian neighbours, the birth of Moses and his upbringing was likely written long after his death and changed and bolstered to turn him into a greater hero. Giving him a miraculous birth and rescue was almost a way of legitimizing his leadership and his anointing by God.

The historicity of the Bible is one that is often discussed and I have made my opinions known regarding the reliability of Genesis and particularly the first few chapters. As is already obvious, I believe that stories such as the creation, the flood, and the nephilim were myths that were designed to teach us something about God. As we examine the birth of Moses, the term myth does not really apply. I believe that Moses did exist, which discounts any use of the term myth. Rather, I prefer to apply the term legend, or folk-history as Robert Drews has done in his article, “Sargon, Cyrus, and Mesopotamian Folk History”. The legend of Sargon that we read above was written long after he lived and is not believed to be historically accurate. Yet, we as human beings have a tendency to elevate those people in the past who did great things (in Sargon’s case, he created the first Semitic Empire). In order to do that, there are certain ideas and motifs that often apply within a culture that help to elevate a person to the status of legend. In the cases of Sargon, Cyrus, Romulus, and Moses, the theme of ‘rags to riches,’ a motif which was used incredibly often to create a hero, was used. Although the births of Sargon and Moses offer a very clear example of syncretism between the two cultures, the rags to riches theme in general is found throughout the Bible (Joseph, Moses, David, just to name a few).

Of course we enter the slippery slope so often talked about among evangelicals. If the birth of Moses isn’t historically accurate, then how can we know if any of the Bible is accurate? Did the Exodus happen? If none of that stuff happened, how can I possibly have a Christian faith? It is true that we can likely never know for sure exactly how historically accurate the Bible is. There are many Christians who make it their mission to try and prove the historicity of the Bible in a vain effort to preserve a faith based on a perception that the Bible must be perfect in historical and scientific accuracy. It is my personal opinion that there are many aspects of the Bible which reflect the history of Israel in a way that can be trusted. However, I also believe that there are some embellishments, and perhaps some of their great leaders over many centuries became not just people, but legends. Therefore, to have a legend, there must be certain aspects which must be applied to that person. In Moses' case, the common Ancient Near Eastern motif of rags to riches was applied.

It is much easier to build a Christian faith with your mind open to the fact that the Bible is not historically accurate and was edited and composed with the agenda of the author than it is to try and build a faith on the historical accuracy of the Bible. Those who try to prove its historicity will ultimately fail. Those who accept the Bible with its flaws, although their faith may look differently than the fundamentalist, will, in the end, have a version of Christianity no less valid, and no less strong, than those who base their faith on accuracy.

Can God be Trusted?

A fundamental question within any religion that must be asked is, “Can you trust your god?” Of course if one believes in a benevolent, merciful, and essentially good god, then it follows that that god can be trusted. If, however, one has doubts as to whether your god is good, then the issue of trust of the deity comes into question. In this post, I will look at the religions of Mesopotamia and Israel to find out if their respective gods could be trusted and whether their followers felt they could trust them. I will be looking at various aspects of their religion such as prayer, divination, piety and others.

We have many examples of prayers within the Mesopotamian religion (Mesopotamia being a broad stroke covering the religion of the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. Although these were very different cultures, the majority of components of their religion were the same including the sharing of deities, although the hierarchy very often changed depending on who was in power at the time). These prayers give us an insight into the emotions and feelings of the authors regarding their deities. The Assyrian King Asshurbanipal (668-627 BCE) wrote this prayer on a tablet.

“Thus I’ve done good for the gods and for men, for the living and for the dead. But then, why do illness and sadness, difficulties and prejudice continue to plague me? Discord in the land, complaining in my Palace, troubles and failures of all sorts, are constantly against me! Illness of the body and the heart have completely shrivelled me up. I spend my time sighing and complaining. Even the day of the Great Feast I remain in despair. . . O my god, reserve such a fate for the impious, and allow me to find happiness once again! How long are you going to abuse me so, and to treat me as one who respects neither gods or goddesses?”

Here we can see Asshurbanipal touching upon the subject of suffering. It seems that he is of the opinion that since he has lived a pious life (a requirement of the gods) he should be living a life of happiness. Yet, his life seems to be plagued with various tragedies. The one line, “reserve such a fate for the impious”, seems to imply a blessing and curse theology where righteousness is rewarded, and disobedience and unrighteousness bring curses and tragedies. This is of course one way in which the Mesopotamians explained unanswered prayers or certain sufferings in their lives. If the gods were allowing suffering in their lives, it was most certainly because of some source of unrighteousness or sin in the victim’s life. Yet, as we see here in this prayer, Asshurbanipal fails to find anything within his life that would warrant such a response from the gods. He questions the gods and thus, his trust is broken. What follows is a piece of Babylonian Wisdom Literature which displays this blessing and curse theology within Mesopotamian religion which is alluded to in Asshurbanipal’s prayer above.

“Every day worship your god.
Sacrifice and benediction are the proper accompaniment of incense.
Present your free-will offering to your god,
For this is proper toward the gods.
Prayer, supplication and prostration.
Offer him daily, and you will get your reward.
Then you will have full communion with your god.
Reverence begets favor,
Sacrifice prolongs life,
And prayer atones for guilt.”

According to this piece of wisdom literature, there are two main ingredients for obtaining blessings from the gods (in this case in the form of long life): Sacrifice and prayer. The author maintains that sacrifice will prolong life, and prayer atones for guilt. Sacrifice and the free-will offering, in Mesopotamia, were generally thought of as a way to sustain the gods. The gods, like humans, required food, clothing, etc. in order to have a worry free existence. Humans were required by the gods to provide these things for them. As well, the gods demanded a level of morality from humankind as well. We see here that prayer was the atonement for guilt. There was also punishment for immorality as well. In the previous prayer we saw how to obtain blessing. In this next prayer to Marduk, we can see how sin can cause divine affliction and how it was necessary to pray for atonement.

O warrior Marduk, whose anger is the deluge,
Whose relenting is that of a merciful father,
I am left anxious by speech unheeded,
My hopes are deceived by outcry unanswered,
Such as has sapped my courage,
And hunched me over like an aged man.
O great lord Marduk, merciful lord!
Men, by whatever name,
What can they understand of their own sin?
Who has not been negligent,
Which one has committed no sin?
Who can understand a god’s behavior?
I would fain be obedient and incur no sin,
Yes, I would frequent the haunts of health!
Men are commanded by the gods to act under curse,
Divine affliction is for mankind to bear.
I am surely responsible for some neglect of you,
I have surely trespassed the limits set by the god.
Forget what I did in my youth,
Absolve my guilt, remit my punishment,
Clear me of confusion, free me of uncertainty,
Let no guilt of my father, my grandfather, my mother,
My grandmother, my brother, my sister,
My family, kith, or kin
Approach my own self, but let it be gone!
If my god has commanded (it) for me,
Purify me as with medicaments.
Commend me into the hands of my (personal) god
And my (personal) goddess for well-being and life,
Let me stand before you always in prayer, supplication, and entreaty,
Let the fruitful peoples of a well-ordered land praise you.
Absolve my guilt, remit my guilt!
O warrior Marduk, absolve my guilt, remit my guilt!
O great lady Erua-Sarpanitu, absolve my guilt,
O Nabu of the good name, absolve my guilt,
O great lady, Tashmetu, absolve my guilt,
O warrior Nergal, absolve my guilt,
O gods who dwell (in) Anu’s (heaven),
Absolve my guilt!
The monstrous guilt that I have built up from my youth,
Scatter it hence, absolve it sevenfold.
Let my real father and my real mother,
Let your heart be reconciled to me.
O warrior Marduk, let me sound your praises!

The writer of this prayer has had some issue with his health as he describes himself as a hunched over old man, and he longs to frequent the haunts of health. It is also obvious that he feels that his illness is the result of sin or the neglect of some religious rite on his part. He appeals to Marduk’s mercy and proceeds to ask for atonement for his guilt. As in Israelite religion (and modern Christian tradition) the sin and guilt of one’s ancestor’s and relatives can also give reason for the gods to inflict curses and hardship upon an individual. The author of the previous prayer entreats Marduk to absolve the guilt of his mother, grandmother, kith, kin and any of his relatives believing that their sin could also be the cause of his problems. And just in case it isn’t Marduk who’s angry with him, the author also appeals to lady Erua-Sarpanitu, Nabu, Tashmetu, Nergal, and to the gods who dwell in Anu’s heaven (which are the rest of the gods, just in case it wasn’t any of those four).

In the poem of the righteous sufferer, a man (like Job) is plunged into suffering for some unseen reason. He, like Job, then begins to question the gods.

Like one who has not made libations to his god,
Nor invoked his goddess at table,
Does not engage in prostration, nor takes cognizance of bowing down;
From whose mouth supplication and prayer is lacking,
Who has done nothing on holy days, and despised Sabbaths,
Who in his negligence has despised the gods’ rites,
Has not taught his people reverence and worship,
But has eaten his food without invoking his god,
And abandoned his goddess by not bringing a flour offering,
Like one who has grown torpid and forgotten his lord,
Has frivolously sworn a solemn oath by his god, (like such a one) do I appear.
For myself, I gave attention to supplication and prayer:
To me prayer was discretion, sacrifice my rule,
The day for reverencing the god was a joy to my heart;
The day of the goddess’s procession was profit and gain to me.

For the Mesopotamian, suffering seemed to be explained through sin against the gods, or some sort of neglect in the maintenance of the religious liturgy (sacrifice, offerings, etc). Any failure in this could bring suffering upon the people. As well, the consistent maintenance of the gods as well as a moral life brings blessing from the gods. Yet, as everybody undoubtedly discovered in their own life, these rules don’t really seem to stand up to scrutiny. The Mesopotamian as well could see this as we saw demonstrated in the previous excerpt. Here is another example of a rather sarcastic attitude towards the gods from what is called the Babylonian Theodicy.

Those who neglect the god go the way of prosperity,
While those who pray to the goddess are impoverished and dispossessed.
In my youth I sought the will of my god;
With prostration and prayer I followed my goddess.
But I was bearing a profitless corvee as a yoke.
My god decreed instead of wealth destitution.
A cripple is my superior, a lunatic outstrips me.
…………………..
I have looked around society, but the evidence is contrary.
The god does not impede the way of a devil.

The people knew the rules that the gods set out for them, yet it seemed that even if they followed the rules, the gods were not keeping up their end of the bargain. Could the gods be trusted to hold up their end of the blessing and curse covenant? To the Mesopotamian who has suffered for no apparent reason, they would answer ‘no’. The gods could not be trusted. Yet the gods were the supreme forces in the universe and regardless whether or not they held up their end of the bargain, humans by all means had to uphold their end, if for no other reason but to try and deter further affliction.

Israelite religion was very similar in blessing and curse theology. If the Israelites would follow Yahweh, obey his commandments and maintain his liturgy through sacrifice, he would protect them as a nation and provide for them. One can see this theology laid out fairly explicitly in Leviticus 26.

3 If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out,
4 then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.
5 Indeed, your threshing will last for you until grape gathering, and grape gathering will last until sowing time You will thus eat your food to the full and live securely in your land.
6' I shall also grant peace in the land, so that you may lie down with no one making you tremble I shall also eliminate harmful beasts from the land, and no sword will pass through your land.
14' But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments,
15 if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant,
16 I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up.

The author of Psalm 18 certainly believed that his righteous acts would be rewarded by God, another example of the blessing and curse theology.

20The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me. 21 For I have kept the ways of the LORD, And have not wickedly departed from my God. 22 For all His ordinances were before me, And I did not put away His statutes from me. 23 I was also blameless with Him, And I kept myself from my iniquity.24Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes.

Verses 26 and 27 of the same Psalm reveal both sides of the spectrum. Righteousness is rewarded and wickedness is punished.

26With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the crooked You show Yourself astute. 27For You save an afflicted people, But haughty eyes You abase.


Throughout the book of Judges we see time after time this blessing and curse theology played out on a national level.

Judges 2
10 After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither Yahweh nor what he had done for Israel. 11 Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of Yahweh and served the Baals. 12 They forsook Yahweh, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of Egypt. They followed and worshiped various gods of the peoples around them. They provoked Yahweh to anger 13 because they forsook him and served Baal and the Ashtoreths. 14 In his anger against Israel Yahweh handed them over to raiders who plundered them. He sold them to their enemies all around, whom they were no longer able to resist. 15 Whenever Israel went out to fight, the hand of Yahweh was against them to defeat them, just as he had sworn to them. They were in great distress.

We also see that when the Israelites returned to their God, he then blessed them and redeemed them from their suffering.

Judges 3
9 But when they cried out to Yahweh, he raised up for them a deliverer, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, who saved them. 10 The Spirit of Yahweh came upon him, so that he became Israel's judge and went to war. Yahweh gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him. 11 So the land had peace for forty years, until Othniel son of Kenaz died.

In Exodus 19, we see again an example of the blessing promised by God and the requirements of that blessing.

5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'

However, like the Mesopotamians, the Israelites as well had their doubts about whether or not God was holding up his end of the bargain. This sentiment is displayed best in the book of Job. Most are familiar with this book and the results. At the beginning, we are given a sneak peak into heaven where we see that God allows Job to be tested. Even though he is righteous, God allows Satan to cause affliction in Job’s life. Job then goes on to question God and his decisions. Job knows that he has lived a righteous life and by rights, according to the promises of God, does not deserve this punishment. We, the readers, of course have the inside knowledge that God is allowing him to be tested. When God finally does reply to Job’s words, he doesn’t let Job in on the secret of him being tested, but rather simply (or rather long windedly) says that He is God, and Job is human. God cannot be questioned simply because he is God, and that should be good enough for Job. Surprisingly, Job seems to accept this and repents of his attitude resulting in the replenishment of the blessings upon Job.

Both the story of Job and the Righteous Sufferer take aim at their respective gods in regard to suffering, despite being righteous and doing what their god demanded. The Babylonian version, however, gives no explanation as to why the person was made to suffer. The ending, slightly fragmented, gives us the allusion that Marduk did restore him and alleviate his suffering but without any reference as to the original reason as to why he was allowed to suffer. The book of Job, however, does offer an explanation to the reader, yet not to Job. The reader is led to believe that Job is being tested by God. However, Job himself does not receive any explanation but is rather told simply to trust God because he is God. The book of Job also leaves one with the impression that it is unwise and possibly wrong (or a sin) to question God and his wisdom. It would seem that the true righteous follower will never question God.

From these examples of prayers/dialogues with God, it is apparent that in both Mesopotamian and Israelite tradition, it was not always possible for the follower of the gods to trust wholly in the system/promises that were laid out by the deities. Both religions follow a general blessing/curse theology of the gods, and yet we find examples in both religions where this covenant is not followed by the deity.

So can one trust God in his covenant of blessings for the righteous and curses for the wicked? The answer we find in the Biblical and Mesopotamian sources would be ‘no’. Of course, a short reflection upon our own modern lives would also yield the answer ‘no’. So why would such a blessing/curse theology evolve in the first place? What reason might there have been behind this type of thinking? Why is it a common idea throughout the Ancient Near East?

My answer to this question is that, in all likelihood, this straight and narrow theology of blessing and curse was a human creation that is an attempt to control our own destinies. We as humans have a natural tendency to want to control our own lives. We don’t like the idea that God controls what happens to us. Yet, if we believe in God, and if we believe he is all powerful, then it follows that we must believe that he also has the ability to control what happens to us for good or bad. I believe that the blessing/curse theology of the Ancient Near East was an attempt to tame the deity, to control the gods. If they acted in a certain manner, if one performed certain libations, this all-powerful being had to (in the sense of being controlled by our actions) bless the righteous person. On the flip side, if something bad happened to us, it was not God doing it to us, but rather a result of our own actions or inactions. I believe that this type of thinking that God will bless the righteous and curse the wicked is a human system designed to control God and put God’s power back into human hands. Not to say that God doesn’t bless us or curse us. I believe that God’s blessings and curses are not so easily controlled by our actions. Suffering falls upon the righteous and the wicked alike. A quick look around our modern society and it seems one must be evil in order to obtain blessings (in the worldly sense). Do I think God can be trusted? Yes. Do I think God can be controlled by our righteous acts or prayers? No. Do I enjoy asking yes or no questions of myself and then answering them in the next sentence? Yes.

There is another aspect of this trust of God which I would like to look at, and that is through the form of prophecy or divination. First we will look at divination and prophecy within the Mesopotamian tradition, then move on to the Israelite religion.

In Mesopotamia, there were essentially two ways to divine the will of the gods and in particular to foresee the future. These were through prophecy and divination. Prophecy for the Mesopotamian was mainly done through the ‘ecstatic’ or ‘inspired divination’. The god would pass on a message to his people through a receiver (apilu) who could be a man or woman. They were very often people of lower or marginal standing and showed a tendency toward ‘delirium’. The message that the god wanted to transfer would be shown in either a vision or an inspiration. Here is an example from a letter to Zimri-Lim, the king of Mari.

(A certain) prophet came to find me, some time ago, concerning the restoration of the Great Door. He was all upset, and he said to me: “Undertake this work!” At present, the very day when I am sending My Lord the present tablet, he came back to tell me, forcefully: “If you do not restore this door, there will be piles of bodies, and you will never escape the consequences!” This is what he said to me.

Here is an example of a prophecy that apparently came true concerning the king’s daughter.

A prophet had had an ‘ecstasy’ concerning the girl whom the Queen brought into this world: this daughter of My Lord did not live: she died today. . . . The same day, a certain Irra-gamil also had had an ‘ecstasy’ and had declared: “She will not live!” Before the king arrives in Mari, tell him that his little girl is dead, so that he will be informed! We fear that he will be profoundly upset by this news.

This form of prophecy seemed to only exist in the Western Semitic areas of Mesopotamia such as Mari and later in the Assyrian kingdom. Due to its somewhat subject nature (the prophet in any given situation could be using their ‘prophetic ability’ to manipulate the situation, in particular, the sovereign) the Babylonians preferred a more deductive approach to discovering the will of the gods, and that was through divination. Two examples of this are extispicy (the study of anomalies within animal entrails in order to divine the future) and hepatoscopy (using the liver of the animal to divine the future). This was a very specialized profession utilized by the rich and powerful (for only they could afford the service). However, as is expected, the predictions made through these means were not always correct and could not necessarily be trusted. When things did go awry, there was a long list of reasons as to why the divination didn’t work. Here is an example of a prayer to Shamash (the god of divination) asking him to ignore any of these ‘reasons’ why the divination might fail in order to achieve a positive result.

Shamash, great lord, give me a firm positive answer to what I am asking you!
Niqia, mother of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, who is now ill, and on whom the ‘hand’ of god Iqbi-damiq was placed in estispicy—will it pass by unto sacrificial sheep and oxen?
If she is ill with this disease, is it decreed and confirmed in a favourable case, by the command of your great divinity, Shamash, great lord?
Will he who can see, see it? Will he who can hear, hear it?
Disregard that a clean or an unclean person has touched the sacrificial sheep, or blocked the way of the sacrificial sheep.
Disregard that an unclean man or woman has come near the place of the extispicy and made it unclean.
Disregard that an unclean person has performed extispicy in this place.
Disregard that the ram offered to your divinity for the performance of the extispicy is deficient or faulty.
Disregard that he who touches the forehead of the sheep is dressed in his ordinary soiled garments, or has eaten, drunk, or anointed himself with anything unclean.
Disregard that I, the haruspex your servant, have eaten, drunk, or anointed myself with anything unclean, changed or altered the proceedings, or jumbled the oracle query in my mouth.
Let them be taken out and put aside!
I ask you, Shamash, great lord: Be present in this ram, place in it a firm positive answer, favourable designs, favourable, propitious omens by the oracular command of your great divinity, and may I see them.
May this query go to your great divinity, O Shamash, great lord, and may an oracle be given as an answer.

As is evident from this prayer, even divination, the less subjective form of discerning the will of the gods, was not free from error. As such, many reasons were created as to why the divination could have been wrong. This is not so much an issue of trust of the gods, but it does make discovering their will very difficult. Also an issue is whether or not the gods will always tell the truth, whether it be through divination or prophecy. Is it possible for the beneficent gods to lie? Is divine deceit possible?

If we look at the Myth of Adapa and the Food of Life, we do find that it is possible, at least in the minds of the authors of this myth, for the gods to lie. Adapa is told by the god Ea, that when he is brought into the council of Anu, the great god of heaven, he will be offered the food and water of death and that he should not drink. However, when Adapa is in the council of Anu, he is offered the food and drink of life, which would grant him immortality. Adapa, thinking it is the food and water of death as was told to him by Ea, refuses the food and drink. It is unclear as to why Ea deceived Adapa, but what is clear from this myth, is that the gods are capable of deceit and lying.

As we turn to the Israelite God and ask the same question - Does God lie? - what answer can we find within the Biblical texts? The result is somewhat surprising. Prophecy within the Israelite religion is particularly problematic on this point. If the prophets are inspired by God, and if it is impossible for God to lie, then what the prophets say must be true. However, we find numerous examples where the prophet intentionally lies. For example, there is the story in 1 Kings 13 where the old prophet from Bethel lied to the young prophet from Judah causing his death. However, in this case it may be that the old prophet was acting of his own accord and was not inspired by God (as the text seems to suggest).

There are, however, examples of prophecy in which God himself is the instigator of the deceit. The most well known is probably that of 1 Kings 22. King Ahab of Israel is thinking of attacking the Arameans in order to retrieve the city of Ramoth-Gilead and consults the prophets of God before doing so. This is the response he is given.

6 So the king of Israel brought together the prophets—about four hundred men—and asked them, "Shall I go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?" "Go," they answered, "for the Lord will give it into the king's hand."

Ahab then decides to consult Micaiah the son of Imlah as well in order to be sure.

13 The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, "Look, as one man the other prophets are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably."
14 But Micaiah said, "As surely as the LORD lives, I can tell him only what the LORD tells me."
15 When he arrived, the king asked him, "Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?" "Attack and be victorious," he answered, "for the LORD will give it into the king's hand."
16 The king said to him, "How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD ?"
17 Then Micaiah answered, "I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, 'These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.' "
18 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "Didn't I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?"
19 Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' "One suggested this, and another that.
21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked. " 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

In this situation, Micaiah, who is portrayed as the true prophet, reveals that God had put a lying spirit within the prophets and instructed Micaiah to lie as well, the purpose of which was to kill off Ahab. This is perhaps the most blatant example of divine deceit and a God that lies within the Biblical text. It would be difficult to trust a God such as this, one that is capable of lying for the purpose of murder.

The prophet Jeremiah also seemed to believe that Yahweh was capable of lying and deceit. In Jeremiah 4:10 he says, “Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, You will have peace, when the sword is at our throats." Again in Jeremiah 20:7 the prophet laments, “O Yahweh, you have deceived me and I was deceived. You were stronger than I, and you have prevailed.” Jeremiah also says to Yahweh in Jeremiah 15:18, “Why has my pain been perpetual and my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Will You indeed be to me like a deceptive stream with water that is unreliable?” It appears that the prophet Jeremiah certainly believed that God was capable of lying and deceit. If this is so, how can one ever trust such a God? Granted, in all instances where God is seen as being the inspiration for false prophecy it is first instigated by disobedience within the receiver of said prophecy. Thus, it may be safe to say that God will always tell the truth to those who are obedient. To those who have sin (and don’t we all), the possibility of a lying God remains a distinct possibility.

Can God be trusted? Can God be counted on to bless those who are righteous and curse those who are wicked? I don’t believe so. Blessing and curse, as bestowed upon humans, seems to be random at best, at least in the worldly material sense (which was the main concern of those perpetuating this theology as seen in the Biblical texts). The blessing and curse theology was likely a result of humanity trying to take some control over their respective god in order to have some hope of a better life.

Also, if God is capable of lying and deceiving those who are disobedient, then it seems difficult to trust the words of such a God. Modern Christianity is fraught with examples of people who have felt that God was telling them a certain thing, and that they believed it very strongly only to discover that they were wrong. Was God deceiving that person or was that person merely not as in touch with God as they thought they were? Both are a possibility. How many times have people prayed for their loved ones to be spared only to have that prayer unanswered. It is difficult to reconcile this with the verses in Luke 11.

9"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
10"For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.
11"Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?
12"Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?
13"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"

Here God is even comparing our intellect with his own, saying that if we know how to do good for our children, how much more does God know how to do good for us. It stands to reason then, that if my intellect tells me that a 13 year old boy should not have to die from cancer, how much more would God agree? Yet, if he does agree, why doesn’t he answer the prayer to save that boy?

Prayer in itself may be somewhat comparable to the blessing/curse theology of the Israelites and Mesopotamians in regard to how we as Christians use and perceive it. Like the blessing and curse theology, prayer at times can be used as a system to try and control God. I have heard the phrase that God only acts if we pray. This seems to me like it is putting God on some kind of leash. This attitude seems to place humans in the position of power and control, and not God.
In the same way the Mesopotamians had a long list of reasons why a certain extispicy may not have worked, Modern Christians also have many reasons as to why prayer may not have worked (lack of faith, sin in our lives, result of the fall, didn’t pray hard enough, or not in God’s will). All of those reasons, except for perhaps the last, again puts the onus and control back into human hands. Maybe the purpose of prayer never was to control God and have him do our bidding. I have a friend who is going through a very difficult time right now. He tells me that he is finding himself praying constantly throughout the day. He is waking up at 4:00am every morning simply because he can’t sleep and has to pray. It flows out of him at every moment. He feels like he has nothing left to hope for and that praying to God is all he has left. I have seen him change even in the last few days as he has been going through his struggle, and he has begun to realize a sense of hope. He doesn’t know if God will answer his prayer or not, but it I’m sure he can relate to the following quote from the movie Shadowlands about the life of C.S. Lewis. Here, C.S. Lewis had just received some news that his wife, who was terminally ill, was doing better.

Harry: Christopher can scoff, Jack, but I know how hard you've been praying; and now God is answering your prayers.

C. S. Lewis: That's not why I pray, Harry. I pray because I can't help myself. I pray because I'm helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time, waking and sleeping. It doesn't change God, it changes me.

I believe that God can be trusted, but I don’t think he can be placed into a box. If one takes the Biblical text at its word, then God is capable of lying and reneging on his own covenants that he has made. I particularly like the description of Aslan in the “Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” by C.S. Lewis.

“Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver…”Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”

God is good, dangerous, and all powerful all at once. Trusting God cannot come from our own preconceived notions of what a promise or covenant is. Trusting God, like faith, is often simply a choice. Can he be trusted? By human standards and according to human intellect, he cannot be trust. But, if you are prepared for some surprises and willing to grant him the control he rightly deserves and relinquish your own leash on his power, then perhaps, you can learn to trust God in a new way.

Sources:

The Bible and the Ancient Near East, J.J.M. Roberts, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake Indiana, 2002

Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia, Jean Bottero, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2001

Dingir. s̆a. dib. ba Incantations Author(s): W. G. Lambert Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Jul., 1974), pp. 267-322 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/544700