We have just had an interesting debate in our lecture about the historicity of the Exodus story. The argument was made that it matters that the story was historical because these stories reveal something of the nature of God. An analogy was made to someone claiming to be able to play a piano - if they have never actually ever played a piano before then the claim doesn't reveal their true nature. This sounded very persuasive and was met with much approval in the room. However, I disagree with this line of arguing for two reasons. Firstly God does not need to corroborate the claims he makes about his nature with actual experience and a divine myth can reveal as much truth as a historical record. Secondly (and more significantly) as Christians we believe that God's nature is revealed in Christ. The nature of Christ is not always consistent with the nature revealed through the 'historical' actions of God in the Old Testament. Of course we can pick and choose stories that reinforce the nature of God as revealed in Christ but we must be honest that that is what happens.
Some would say we must maintain that accounts are historical because they are our source of understanding the nature of God. However, the point I want to make is that the consequence of this is that we end up with an un-Christlike God as a result of this approach. The actions of God in the Old Testament seem to be an incomplete/poor/wrong revelation of the nature of God when held against the bench mark of the ultimate revelation of God in Jesus (e.g. the sanctioning or commanding of genocide/ethnic cleansing).
I would want to argue that we find, in the Old Testament, an evolving understanding of the nature of God. I therefore don't need to cling on to historical recordings of the actions of God as indicative of the nature of God. There should be other reasons why it is argued to matter that accounts are historical.
No comments:
Post a Comment