The Struggle to Define God
Dissent in Postexilic Judah
Robert A. Butterfield
The Struggle to Define God
Dissent in Postexilic Judah
Copyright © 2017 Robert A. Butterfield. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.
Wipf & Stock
An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers
199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3
Eugene, OR 97401
www.wipfandstock.com
paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-1789-8
hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-4296-7
ebook isbn: 978-1-4982-4295-0
Manufactured in the U.S.A. May 2, 2017
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank my brother, Dr. Bruce A. Butterfield, whose editorial assistance has been invaluable to me. My thanks also go out to the Rev. Dr. Jerry L. Folk and the Rev. Dr. Frederick Trost for their helpful comments on the final chapter. Any errors in this book are, of course, entirely my own.
A Note on Method
Hundreds of scholarly opinions have been published on the books of Jonah, Job, and Ruth and on the story of Rahab. These opinions all have a certain authority, but to fully respect a literary text is to allow it to speak for itself. This book presupposes that a literary text is perfectly capable of speaking for itself, in the sense that every text is or creates its own logical universe. Analyzing every element of that universe and showing how its elements function in relation to each other should clarify what the text is trying to do. In short, the text is its own authority and does not require confirmation from outside the text. Seen in this perspective, the task of the reader or critic is to understand the universe of the text and follow its logic to the conclusions to which the text itself points.
Since the aim of this book is to learn from these four biblical texts and to apply that learning to the wider world, it will be necessary to reflect on the impact that these texts had on postexilic Judah and, later, on the synagogue and church. The next step will be to offer a brief history showing that xenophobia/nativism and misogyny are serious problems in the United States. The final step will be to reflect on the role and responsibility of the synagogues and churches with respect to these problems.
Introduction
The Hebrew Bible includes a vast collection of protest literature of two types: protest against abuses that occurred before the Babylonian exile (586–538 BCE) and protest against abuses that occurred after this exile. This book focuses on the second type of protest. But before getting into a discussion of this second type, it is useful to say something about the first type.
The northern kingdom, Israel, from its earliest beginnings until its destruction by the Assyrian empire in 722 BCE, was a weak state oppressed by more powerful neighbors. The southern kingdom, Judah, was even weaker and was destroyed by the Babylonian empire at the beginning of the sixth century BCE. Not surprisingly, much of the Hebrew Bible’s protest is directed against foreign enemies. After the Babylonian exile, the Jews1 who had survived the Babylonian exile became monotheists, so that, when they edited the history of Israel and Judah—found in Deuteronomy through 2 Kings—they also protested vigorously against polytheism, against the Israelite or Judahite kings who had tolerated or even promoted polytheism, and against the social ills that they believed derive from polytheism. This first type of protest is found not only in Deuteronomy through 2 Kings but also in the books of the eighth-century prophets, especially Amos, Hosea, and Micah, and in the books of the sixth-century prophets Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.
When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and its temple, they forced Jerusalem’s religious and literary elite into exile in Babylon. Fifty years later, upon returning to Jerusalem after the exile, this elite undertook the project of re-building the city walls and the temple but also, importantly, of converting the entire population of Judah to monotheism. In this monotheism project, Jewish intellectuals—whether those who had returned to Jerusalem or those who had chosen to remain in Babylon—were generally united, but as the project evolved, dissent arose over theological issues. The Hebrew Bible does not mention any such schism among Jewish intellectuals in the aftermath of the Babylonian exile, but the only plausible way to explain the production of texts like the books of Ruth, Jonah, and Job or the story of Rahab, which criticize key elements of the monotheism project, is to assume that Jewish intellectuals were divided into a very conservative main faction, who argued for a just and punitive God and who in this book will be referred to as the “hardliners,” and one or more liberal factions, who argued for a gracious God and who will be called the “liberals.” The second type of protest comes from these liberals. The aim of this book is to define God through an analysis of these liberal texts and to reflect on the relevance of that definition not only for postexilic Judah but also, and especially, for the modern world.
What gives these four liberal texts such importance is that, besides contributing to an understanding of God’s grace, they underscore the fact that God has much more inclusive intentions than the hardliners ever imagined. That is, God loves and seeks to embrace all human beings—not only a particular ethnic group or gender. The message of these liberal texts is that the community and the world are blessed when, in imitation of God, the community lives by grace and rejects xenophobia, misogyny, and other forms of prejudice.
Because the northern kingdom was polytheistic and rife with corruption and with every form of social injustice, it is not surprising that protest arose against those abuses. Before the Babylonian exile, the southern kingdom was also polytheistic and corrupt, and that sad state of affairs produced a good deal of protest, too. But when the Jerusalem elite returned from exile in Babylon toward the end of the sixth century BCE, the situation in Judah improved dramatically. Specifically, the elite launched a program of religious purification and national unification based on loyalty to the one God and on worship in the re-built Jerusalem temple. This program was quite successful, as evidenced by the adoption and continuing vitality of monotheism among Jews in the postexilic period, roughly 538—350 BCE. Given this success, it seems reasonable to infer that this period was marked by a great meeting of the minds among Jews on matters both social and theological. However, as mentioned above, such was not the case. The best starting point for understanding why dissent arose is to explain the way that the hardliners viewed the history of Israel/Judah and the world.
The worldview of the hardliners was formed in Babylon, where they reflected on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple—and on their own exile—and concluded that God was punishing them for centuries of polytheism. Extrapolating from that observation, the hardliners believed that the whole history of Israel followed the pattern set forth in the book of Judges—Israel sins, God punishes, Israel repents, and God forgives and rewards. Until sometime during the Babylonian exile, the Jerusalem elite had themselves been polytheistic, had wallowed in corruption and in all the other social diseases caused by the worship of false gods, and had been thoroughly disloyal to the God of Israel. It was the elite’s exile experience that helped them—finally—to recognize the God of Israel as the one true God. Significantly, their exile experience also gave them a sense that they held the key to defining God. The elite came to believe that they deserved all the divine punishment that they had endured. But in Babylon they had sincerely repented and “paid their dues,” so that now, according to the time-honored pattern of divine behavior, the hardliners believed that God was in turn forgiving them and blessing them.
Their safe return from exile, the successful reconstruction of the city