This Book: How to History (1 Samuel 8 v1-10, 19-22)

 To see the full message, scroll to the bottom and click through. 

‘Hyperbole’ is a word that Bible scholars use too indicate exaggeration—blowing things up to help you get the point. In particular, a lot of scholars recognize hyperbole in the battle narratives of the Old Testament.  

In the Old Testament, there is a lot of violence. A lot of people die violent deaths. Much of the Old Testament is not the kind of movie I want to watch. Not the kind of game I choose to play. I don't like this kind of violence.  

During the attack on Lachish, King Horam of Gezer arrived with his army to help defend the town.  But Joshua’s men killed him and his army, leaving no survivors.  So Joshua moved on to Eglon, and laid siege to it ...Captured Eglon and put it to the sword ...everyone in the city.   Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron... Captured it and put to the sword its king, all its villages, and all the people. Joshua left no survivors. Joshua 10 various verses 

I read that... and I cringe. It hurts. I don't get it. How can the God whose covenant with Abraham promised that Abraham's family down the line would be a blessing to the nations, go on to start just wiping them out? How is that a blessing? It hurts me to read those texts because I just don't get it.  

That's where hyperbole comes in.  

We start by remembering who is the author of the Bible?  

• Holy Spirit: the source of the power behind the truth. The breath that breathes these stories.  
• People: stories put on paper by humans who lived in a particular time, who were part of a particular culture, who were reading other things written by other people at their time.  

When Bible authors wrote, they wrote using the vocabulary and the idiom of their own day.  

When they wrote these stories of Joshua, they wrote about his military victories the way people of that day wrote about military victories. Archaeology gives us some really good examples of what that looked like. (For example, look up the 'Stele of Merneptah' and its perspective on Israel.) 

You may say, “but those examples aren’t in the Bible.” 

Ok, then. What does the Bible say? 

One day king Saul of Israel went to battle to settle a score against the Amalekites. The text says: 

Saul slaughtered the Amalekites from Havilah all the way to Shur, east of Egypt. He captured the Amalekite king, but completely destroyed everyone else. 1 Samuel 15 v2 

No survivors.  

Then a few chapters later the text says: 

• David and his men spent their time raiding the Gehsurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, people who had lived near Shur toward the land of Egypt since ancient times. 1 Samuel 27 v8 

In one passage, Holy Spirit-inspired scripture says Saul wiped out the Amalekites and killed them all. A few chapters later, the Holy Spirit-inspired text says David went to battle against the Amalekites.  

Is the Holy Spirit lying? Is the Holy Spirit confused? No.  

When the text says Saul destroyed all of the Amalekites, the writer is employing hyperbole. He's speaking in the language of his day, expecting his readers to understand. They would be able to look out the window and say, “Wait a minute, Bob is an Amalekites. Clearly, this is hyperbole.” 

An understanding of hyperbole does not resolve all of the tension or answer all of my questions.  

What it does do... is take genocide off the table.  

Using hyperbole as a lens through which to to read about military victories in the Old Testament helps me match my understanding of the God of the covenant of Abraham, who said, “You will be a blessing to all the nations.” It helps me understand better (not perfectly, but better) that what was happening as Joshua went into the Promised Land was not a battle against the people who lived there. It was a battle against the stranglehold of their gods.  

_________

The ‘principle of accommodation’ says that God meets us where we are, and he works with what we are.  

Old Testament history is part of the history of our faith. Sometimes we look to history for precedent: an example we must follow. Precedent is the idea that somebody did something, therefore we are supposed to do that as well.  

We use precedent when we look at Christ’s baptism. Jesus was baptized. Therefore, we are to be baptized. That is a good precedent.  

So... Yes or no? Precedent or not?  

• Abraham and Sarah owned slaves. Is that a precedent? Are we supposed to own slaves? No.  
• Gideon laid out fleeces to test God and determine whether God really wanted him to do something. Is that a precedent? Are we supposed to test God that way? Not so much.  
• David had hundreds of wives. Is that a precedent? Definitely not.  
• Solomon was a trillionaire. Is that a precedent? Is that something we are supposed to pursue? Probably not.  

So the question I wrestle with, and maybe you do too: if it's not right for us to do something, why did they get away with it? Why did Solomon get to be a trillionaire if it's not healthy for me?  

Let’s look at a couple of examples. 

In Genesis 4, we read about two brothers, Cain and Abel. Cain is consumed by jealousy. He kills Abel. So what does God do about it in that moment? He confronts Cain immediately. He says to Cain (paraphrased), "You’ve polluted the earth with innocent blood. So as of now, you’re cut off from your deep connection with the soil. You’ve poisoned your family with your jealousy. So as of now, you’re cut off from your family.” There was an immediate, direct response of appropriate justice. That's one example.  

In Genesis 37, we start reading the adventures of Joseph, when his ten brothers, again consumed by jealousy, ganged up and beat him. They threw him in a pit with no food or water. They sat down where they could hear him calling out to them. They could hear him trying to climb out of the pit. They sat there and ate their lunch. Then they took advantage of some slavers coming by to make some money. They sold their brother and just waved goodbye, laughing at the fear in his face. They went home. What did God do about it? The text is silent. There's no punishment, no justice named in the text for those brothers. 

If they had been judged under Moses' Law (that came later), both Cain and the ten brothers of Joseph, would have faced the death penalty. (Exodus 21 v12, 16)

The principle of accommodation helps us to understand these stories a bit better. To understand that sometimes God meets us where we're at, and he works with what we are. Just because someone does something and 'gets away with it' does not mean it's what God wanted. Just because God himself does something does not necessarily mean that it was his first choice for us.  

None of this is God's first choice for us.  

In these histories we see—time and time again—God meeting us where we're at, working with what we are, and always advancing his mission of redeeming not just us, but all of creation.  

• Abraham and Sarah exploited their slave. So... God blessed that young woman as the mother of a nation, and made sure that we know her story. 
• Gideon set those hoops for God to jump through. So... God jumped through the hoops. In doing so, he gave Gideon the courage to step out and do what God wanted him to do.  
• David, with absolutely no excuse, failed horrifically as a king and as a husband. So... God, through David's failure, blessed Israel with one of their greatest kings: Solomon.  
• Solomon himself was obscenely wealthy. So... God used that wealth to establish the great Temple in Jerusalem, where generations of believers would encounter Yahweh God.  

All throughout these texts, people fail and God redeems. God surprises. God points people towards himself and moves his story forward.  

And actually Joseph's brothers did not get away with it; in the end, they were on the receiving end of a mic drop moment where Joseph, standing before them in safety and security, looking into their fear-filled faces, says to them: 

As for you, what you intended for harm against me, God intended for blessing... to save the lives of many. Genesis 50 v20 

Again, this does not entirely resolve my tension. It does not prompt me to say, “Well, that's all right then.” 

What the principle of accommodation does is give me a perspective on the power of God to meet us where we are, work with what we are (however big a mess we are), and to move his story forward and to do good. 

For many.