Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:34:34.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Yahweh is a Man of Wars’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

P. C. Craigie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The declaration that ‘Yahweh is a Man of Wars’page 1 poses a problem for the modern reader of the Old Testament. The direct connexion between God and war seems to be alien to the spirit of the New Testament. And today, when the horrors of war are so constantly in the news, this epithet for God seems to be all the more abhorrent. The epithet was quoted at the beginning of an article in an earlier volume of this Journal, A. Gelston's ‘The Wars of Israel’.page 2 The problem becomes most acute in the question of the wars of conquest, for there we can trace two aspects of Yahweh's activity. On the one hand, Yahweh uses war as a means of judgment on the sinful Canaanitespage 3; on the other hand, He uses war as a means to an end, namely the fulfilment of the patriarchal and Covenant promises.page 4 Although Gelston mentions this double aspect of the wars of conquest (p. 326), his conclusions only satisfy the former of the two aspects (p. 331). Of his five summary points, two are applicable to this particular case. The first is that ‘when Yahweh is identified with Israel's cause, the motive is usually the execution of judgment on Yahweh's enemies’, and secondly he declares that ‘Yahweh alone is ultimately sovereign in human history, and his cause is always just’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1969 , pp. 183 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 183 note 1 Exodus 15.3 (from the ‘Song of the Sea’).

page 183 note 2 S.J.T.., vol. XVII, 1964, p. 325f.Google Scholar

page 183 note 3 Genesis 15.16, Deuteronomy 9.4 etc.

page 183 note 4 Exodus 13.5 etc. Numbers 33.51–53 implies both aspects of Yahweh's purpose.

page 183 note 5 That is, the Old Testament stresses Yahweh's initiative in the wars of conquest. H. van Oyen tends to emphasise the element of defence without really coming to grips with Yahweh's initiative in the wars of conquest; Ethik des Alien Testaments, Gütersloh, 1967, p. 182f.Google Scholar

page 184 note 1 Mowinckel, S., The Old Testament as the Word of God, Abingdon Press, New York, 1959, P. 49. etc.Google Scholar

page 184 note 2 War and the Christian, S.C.M. Press, London, 1938, p. 51.Google Scholar

page 184 note 3 This is perhaps oversimplifying the case, but C. S. Lewis expresses it well in his treatment of the analogous problem created by the ‘acursings’ in the psalms: ‘… we must not either try to explain them away, or yield for one moment to the idea that, because it comes in the Bible, all this vindictive hatred must somehow be good and pious’ (Reflections in the Psalms, Fontana Books, London, 1961, p. 25).Google Scholar

page 184 note 4 e.g. I Corinthians 8.6; cf. Kelly, J. N. D.Early Christian Creeds, London, 1950, p. 19f.Google Scholar

page 184 note 5 That is, if the Song of the Sea is accepted as a very ancient poem reflecting the situation in which it is set in Exodus. For recent discussions of the problem, see Schmidt, H., ‘Das Meerlaied’, z.A.W., vol. XLIX N.F. 8, 1931, pp. 59–66Google Scholar; Cross, and Freedman, , ‘The Song of Miriam’, J.N.E.S., vol. XIV, 1955, pp. 231fGoogle Scholar; Watts, J. D. W., ‘The Song of the Sea’, V.T., vol. VII, 1957, pp. 371ffGoogle Scholar; Muilenburg, J., ‘A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh’, Studia Biblica et Semitica, 1966, pp. 233ffGoogle Scholar; cf. Caspari, W., in Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. 54, 1912, pp. 110–158.Google Scholar

page 185 note 1 Perhaps the best source material is the early poetry of war, for it is likely that it preserves for us the emotions of the warriors who partook in the battles (cf. Judges 5 etc.).

page 185 note 2 cf. Wright, G. E. in Wright, and Fuller, , The Book of the Acts of God, Duckworth, London, 1960, p. 86f.Google Scholar

page 185 note 3 Muilenburg, J., The Way of Israel, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1961, p. 161.Google Scholar

page 185 note 4 I am using the term in the general sense which is defined by Dreyfus, F., ‘The Existential Value of the Old Testamaent’, Concilium, vol. X, no. 3, 1967, p. 18fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Porateous, N. W., Living the Mystery, Blackwell, Oxford, 1967, p. 161.Google Scholar

page 186 note 1 It is sometimes argued that the Israelites' approach to war and their ethical standards in war compare quite favourably with, for example, those of the Assyrians, or of early Islam. Cf. Kruse, H., ‘Ethos Victoriae in Vetere Testamento’, Verbum Domini, vol. XXX, 1952, pp. 8ff and 79Google Scholar. But this is only a relative comparison and does not really deal with Yahweh's use of war.

page 186 note 2 ‘It is probable that the power of much of the Old Testament teaching about history would be more vividly appreciated, and its relevance to the twentieth century more readily recognised, it only we could rid ourselves of an obsession and genuinely convince ourselves that the history of the ancient Hebrews was fundamentally of the same texture as our own’ (Butterfield, H., Christianity and History, Fontana Books, London, 1957, p. 97).Google Scholar

page 186 note 3 Mowinckel, op. cit., p. 51, notes that ‘even sin and evil he can link into his plan…’ but the world is such that the majority of God's plans must appear to be through media which are sinful and evil.

page 186 note 4 cf. van Ouwerkerk, C., ‘Gospel Morality and Human Compromise’, Concilium, vol. V, no. 1 (May 1965), p. 7Google Scholar: ‘This world … is himself as sinful man … it is the concrete realisation of his own self.’

page 187 note 1 We can never hope to answer fully such a question any more that we can say why God elected Israel for His divine purpose. Both war, as a means to an end for Israel, and Israel, as a means to God's end for the salvation of the world, were imperfect, yet a part of God's plan.

page 187 note 2 This is a point hinted at with reference to the wars of conquest by Bruce, W. S., The Ethics of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, 1895, p. 263Google Scholar: ‘Whatever view be taken of this perplexing question it is to be said with all reverence that there was here but a choice of two evils.’

page 187 note 3 cf. the discussion of this subject in general terms by Brunner, Emil, The Divine Imperative, Lutterworth, London, 1937, p. 469fGoogle Scholar

page 188 note 1 Though often our perspective is wrong, for peace can hold more evils than war; cf. Waddams, H., A New Introduction to Moral Theology, S.C.M. Press, London, 1964, p. 171.Google Scholar