Reflections on the Violence in Gaza and Biblical Interpretation

Let me begin by stating the obvious, the conflict on the Gaza Strip is mind-blowing in its magnitude. The scope of history and its origins, the intricacies and complexities of actions and reactions, the horrific and incalculable losses, and the global impact of this conflict are staggering. Many of us have witnessed the recent events in stunned silence not knowing what to say or where to begin. Others have jumped into the fray, only to add chaos by spouting ignorance and committing textual homicide through their (mis)reading and/or (mis)interpretation of Scripture. And while I recognize the limits of my understanding and education as it relates to the political, social, economic, and religious dimensions that affect the lives of the people who live in that region, I do know something about the Bible and biblical interpretation and that is what I would like to offer. Here are 5 things (along with a couple of references) that I think people of faith, specifically those of us who preach the gospel of and/or follow Jesus the Christ, a Palestinian Jew.

1. Who is God?

Beneath (or right on the surface) have been appeals and/or allusions to the book of Exodus, specifically the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage and their conquest of the “Promised Land.” Many groups have used this story as paradigmatic for their understanding of who God is and what God wills for them. In “Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians,” Robert Allen Warrior (canaanites_cowboys_and_indians.pdf) identifies two primary images of God that emerge: YHWH the Deliverer and YHWH the Conqueror. Enslaved Africans understood God to be their deliverer and believed that this God who set the Israelites free, would do the same for them. European settlers understood God as a conqueror and themselves as heirs to the same promise of land given to ancient Israelites. Thus, the slaughter of indigenous people in Americans was tantamount to the slaughter of “Canaanites” and “Amalekites.”

Warrior writes:

In other words, does one group’s or individual’s liberation necessitate the oppression (conquering) of another group/individual? Can “let my people go” and “leave my people alone” co-exist or has God pitted people against each other and chosen sides? Is God so small that the only way God can provide for one is to take from another?

2. There are 2 “exodus” events in Scripture

There is an exodus from Egypt (the most “popular”) and an exodus from Babylon. Naim S. Ateek, in “A Palestinian Perspective: Biblical Perspectives on the Land,” in Voices From the Margins notes the difference between the Israelites’ attitude and treatment of the people who occupy the land that they (re)enter. In the first exodus, the Israelite will not co-exist with the indigenous population. They either displace them or destroy them. In the second exodus, the Israelites live among the people. In other words, their resettlement does not include the removal or destruction of those who are already there. When interpreting the Bible, I think, that it is important to realize that the witness of Scripture can lead us to transformation through evaluation, consideration, and alteration-not just imitation.

3. Chosenness/Who are we?

Perhaps it is also time (has been time) to (re)evaluate our understanding of who we are especially in relation to how we speak about “chosenness” (and “favor”). Throughout history and currently, a people’s (or person’s) belief that they are “special” and therefore, more valuable or worthy of the things they want or need, often leads to the suffering of others. An understanding of “chosenness/favor” that does not critically examine behaviors, attitudes, and speech of the “chosen/favored” bestows a level of holiness that justifies whatever the “chosen/favored” do and devolves into divinely sanctioned privilege that suggests (or outright asserts) that God is partial-loving some people more than others. Too often, the ones who most vehemently shout John 3:16 to the world, think that the world and the God who loves it only includes the people who think and believe like them.

Any understanding of “chosenness/favor” must safeguard itself from favoritism, lest we continue to act like rivaling siblings asking our Divine Parent who they love best. Perhaps if Christians adopted a healthier understanding of “chosenness/favor,” we could refrain from usurping Israel’s story, trying to replace Judaism with Christianity, and positioning ourselves as God’s favorite. I think Ateek provides much needed food for thought:

Now back to siblings…

4. Isaac and Ishmael had no “beef;” their parents did

The conflict on the Gaza Strip cannot be summarized as “Abraham’s boys just can’t get along.”

• Ishmael and Isaac played together with no problem. Sarah was the one who got upset (Gen. 21:9)
• Ishmael and Isaac buried their father, Abraham, and both were referred to as “his sons” (Gen. 25:9)

Moreover, Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was the first person to receive a divine announcement of an upcoming birth (annunciation) and the first woman to be given a divine promise regarding her offspring. Hagar was told, “I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude” (Gen. 16:10). Ishmael and Isaac were both children of promises and they did not have a problem with each other. Therefore, we must not promote division among them either.

5. Revelation is not a “train schedule” for heaven

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, a particular literary form. Apocalyptic literature is revelational. It communicates what is understood to be previously hidden. It presents a divine perspective that allows the reader/hearer to understand that what is happening on the earth is connected to what is going on in the heavens. It, therefore, depicts reality on 2 levels.Symbolism, cosmic phenomena, divine mediators (like angels), and divine judgment are key features.

Apocalyptic literature is written in times of severe oppression to express and maintain confidence in the fact that God is still in control regardless of what things currently look like. The symbolic use of names, numbers, and places is coded language that enables the author to establish “insider” communication without alerting their oppressors (think Negro spirituals). Therefore, apocalyptic literature should be interpreted in light of the writing’s social, historical, and literary setting because apocalyptic literature ¹ prophecy. It affirms the belief that God will have the final say while being deeply concerned with how people live out this confidence by being faithful witnesses to God. Brian Blount, in his award-winning commentary on Revelation, puts it succinctly:

Each of us should consider whether our interpretations or the ones we accept promote faithful, steadfast confidence in God and enable us to witness to this God. We must not accept fatalism masked as faith that yields complacency, comfort, and even celebration in the face of unimaginable loss and suffering: “This conflict in Gaza (including the death, suffering and destruction) has to happen (and escalate!) so that Jesus will return.”

No! We must witness to our God Who wills peace on earth and goodwill to humanity by pursuing peace; a God Who sides with the least of these and then do the same; a God Who truly loves this messed up, broken world enough to redeem it and desires us to follow Jesus’ example of love and not just look for our exit.

In hope,

Rev. Raquel