Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM
We will deal today with a topic na continuation ng discussion on the divine judgment on Canaan. Ang issue na ito ay na-bring up sa akin ng isang university professor si Zane na ang concern ay kung paano ireconcile ang idea ng loving God sa mga violence at judgments ng Panginoon sa Old Testament. If God is loving, it seems unreasonable to read about these divine judgment. Ang argument ngayon na tutugunan natin ay -- “God was unreasonable in giving judgment to the Canaanites because of the overly harsh commands of total annihilation.”
Ilan sa mga warrant netong “harshness” na allegation na ito is because of passages in the Old Testament where God commands total annihilation of Canaanite cities. Two examples,
[Y]ou shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God. (Deut. 20.16-18)
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Sam 15:2-3)I will present dito two models of readings na hindi necessarily magka tunggali subalit maaari nating makunan ng wisdom how to interpret passages.
Dalawa po ang dominant na models sa pagbabasa ng mga passages na ganito. Una ay ang proposal ng mga tulad ni Paul Copan at pangalawa ay galing naman kay Clay Jones. Ang isa sa mga paborito kong apologists na si Greg Koukl categorizes yung kay Copan as God-Did-Not-Mean-It model pero mas gusto ko siyang tawagin na War-Rhetoric position at yung kay Jones ayon kay Koukl naman ay God-Meant-It position.
Sa episode na ito, we will discuss lang muna yung position ni Copan na War-Rhetoric model at sa susunod na episode naman ay yung kay Jones na God-Meant-It Model.
Sa aklat ni Paul Copan na Is God a Moral Monster? nagsisimula siya sa isang warning na kapag binasa mo ang mga complete annihilation passages na ito on face value at hindi mo titingnan ang genre o yung uri ng panitikan o literature mami-misinterpret mo ito to mean that God really wanted complete annihilation. Tandaan muna nating na ang mga utos na ito ay nasa konteksto ng giyera.
For example, sa yung chapter ng Deuteronomy na binasa natin kanina yung verses 16-18 ay chapter 20. Ang first verse ng chapter 20 ay ganito, “When you go to war against your enemies…” Baka nga sa mga Bible ninyo may heading pa ang chapter na ito na “Going to War.” So given that, puntahan natin si Copan at ang kaniyang paliwanag sa napaka-kapal na libro niya. Patulong tayo kay Greg Koukl ng Stand to Reason ministry kasi he gives three guidelines to understand Copan’s analysis, what he’s telling us concerning our model of interpretation.
Una, kailangan nating basahin ang mga passages na ito sa context ng military language ng ancient near east. We’re talking here 1400BC na panahon. Ang mga passages na nag-uutos na complete annihilation ay nasa genre ng “war rhetoric” and as such it has elements of hyperbole o yung sadyang pag exaggerate. Sabi ni Copan, “Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia B.C.”*
So si Koukl ngayon summarized using mga thoughts ni Copan this way,
phrases like “utterly destroy” (haram), or “put to death men and women, children, and infants”—as well as other “obliteration language”—were stock “stereotypical” idioms used even when women or children were not present. It decreed total victory (much like your favorite sports team “wiping out” the opposition), not complete annihilation.†Sa totoo lang bilang dagdag patawa lang dito, ang mga Pinoy nga parang mas matalim pa ang dila pag may ganito. Sasabihin natin sa basketball “pulbusin ang kaaway.” Biro mo, basketball lang pupulbusin mo.
Pangalawa ang mga utos na ito ay naka-umang sa mga military outposts sa Canaan. Sabi ni Copan, “All the archaeological evidence indicates that no civilian populations existed at Jericho, Ai, and other cities mentioned in Joshua.” Yes may mga civilians sa Jericho pero these are military camps.‡
Pangatlo, ang argument ni Copan is that ang mission statement ng mga Israelites was not complete annihilation but to dispossess and displace the Canaanites out of the land. Paalisin sila kumbaga dahil sa kanilang mga kahindik hindik na kasalanan. For example, sa chapter 1 ng Book of Joshua marami tayong makikitang mga laman ng mission statement na ito na related sa possession ng land at hindi ethnic cleansing o genocide. Sabi sa verse 2,
“Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. No one will be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their ancestors to give them.Sa Joshua 1:11 ito ang sinabi ni Joshua sa mga leaders ng Israel, “Go through the camp and tell the people, ‘Get your provisions ready. Three days from now you will cross the Jordan here to go in and take possession of the land the Lord your God is giving you for your own.’” Sa verse 13, “giving you this land.” Sa verse 15, “have taken possession of the land the Lord your God is giving them. After that, you may go back and occupy your own land.”
So ang main na utos ng Panginoon is to dispossess a grossly sinful people who are the object of God’s patient judgment.
Maaaring sabihin ng kritiko na, “Teka muna, di patayan pa rin ang aabutin niyan.” Exactly and that brings me back to my point na pinaghahanda ang mga Israelites na makipag-giyera at pag may giyera may mga casualties. Pero ang point dito is that the true essence of the command literally is to possess the land, not to do genocide or ethnic cleansing.
So ayan po in a nutshell yung War Rhetoric Model ni Paul Copan author ng napakahalagang aklat na Is God a Moral Monster? Ang tatlong key principles for interpreting these passages are: 1) read it in the context of military language; 2) these commands are directed to military men who will attack an enemy military outpost; at 3) the battle order was to possess the land, not to commit genocide, which we should not interpret happening in peace time but in war.
__________
* Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?—Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 171.
‡ Copan, 176.
No comments:
Post a Comment