I am disappointed by Latvus’ inattention to the broad strokes of the biblical story in her attempt to understand the end of 2 Kings and Judah’s national history. Her interpretation assumes from the outset that God cannot will colonial oppression (after all, this is the liberating god, right?).
But this is to just ignore little books like Jeremiah and Ezekiel. See, YHWH does not commit the fallacy in which the oppressor, being a demon, automatically makes the victim an angel. That’s not the case. YHWH was complicit in both Judah’s fall, and in the “iron yoke” of her servitude (e.g. Jer. 28). If this isn’t the god Latvus likes then she may want to look for a deity somewhere outside of the biblical narrative.
YHWH wants Israel to be the agent of restoration and redemption in the world, but neither the Northern nor the Southern kingdom can live up to YHWH’s call. The result is judgment. YHWH’s word to Jeremiah indicates that the people should serve in Babylon, purify themselves, and eke out an existence in which they long for home. When this has gone on an appropriate length of time, YHWH will restore the people.
And notice that the Jews are the only ethnic people in history to have survived without a land (for 2 thousand years!!). So YHWH’s plan may not have been politically correct enough for Latvus, but it sure worked for the Jews.
Now, in the NT God changes the battle plan up. Instead of associating the kingdom with a particular piece of land, YHWH locates the kingdom in hearts and minds. YHWH’s plan changes (surely Latvus will be happy to find this out), but that doesn’t mean we should just go back to Israel’s national history and decide for ourselves whether or not we like the way it went down or whether or not we can possibly “rescue” the biblical stories.
I would rather let the stories rescue us.
Filed under: Reading Response | Leave a Comment
Search
-
You are currently browsing the Tobennett0420's Weblog weblog archives.
No Responses Yet to “Week 7 PCBR, “Decolonizing Yahweh” by Latvus”