The sub-title of my blog is “Telling the Story of the Story-Bound God”. This reflects my conviction that the identity of the God of the Bible is unknown without the story and peoples of the Bible. His identity is wrapped up with his people’s story–a dangerous proposition.
In the “Song of the Vineyard” in Isaiah 5 we read of YHWH’s expectations for the people he planted and cultivated. What grapes did he expect to find?
The vineyard of YHWH of hosts is the house of Israel,
and the people of Judah are his pleasant planting;
He expected justice, but saw bloodshed;
righteousness, but heard a cry! (NRSV, alt)
YHWH expected justice and righteousness. Why? Because the job of the vineyard is, apparently, to make known its planter, protector, and cultivator. When we read the following several verses later, we start to realize that Israel’s problems are a problem for Israel’s God:
YHWH of hosts is exalted by justice,
and the Holy God shows himself holy by righteousness. (NRSV, alt.)
The purpose of the vineyard was to exalt its maker and put its God on display before the world. Where are we to look to see who God is? Among God’s people, to whom he has bound himself for better or for worse. And often, we discover in the prophets, it’s for worse.
God’s name, his identity, is tied to the deeds–and fate–of his people. In this case, the identity of YHWH is obscured by his people’s faithlessness. In the exile itself, his identity will be obscured by their suffering.
Being a story-bound God is a dangerous proposition.
Did God bind himself to Adam? Did he tie his identity up with Adam’s identity?
Yes, by creating Adam and Eve as children. That’s why Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Israel, David, etc. each function as “2d Adam” figures in the OT. God is bound to his creation, and humanity upon it. That seems to be why we see visions in scripture of new creation rather than destroying everyone and starting over. Or ending.
And I think this stands regardless of the (non-)historicity of Adam as depicted in Gen 1-3.
Oh, I’m not questioning the historicity issue (at this point
I’m questioning (or exploring the contours of) your reticence about “covenant” usefully describing the kind of binding God does. If Abe and Noah and Moses and Israel and David had god bind himself to them by way of covenant, why not Adam too?
Because that’s part of how the overall picture changes. What was Adam’s by nature is Israel’s by covenant. This is another way in which Pete’s way of putting it “Adam is Israel” doesn’t quite mesh for me, and I’m more comfortable with “Israel is Adam.”
It really is quite a “dangerous proposition” to see biblical authority through the lense of story/narrative. Within this frame humankind is constantly is given a functional role not unlike God, reimagined and put back on track by Christ.
This mutual interdependency between Creator and creation is never marked by easy relations. As His identity goes, so does ours, and vice versa. The biblical plot has developed in ways that are sometimes hard to stomach…
Take Hosea: Israel cheats on Yahweh by bedding Baal; Yahweh is furious, and has every right to shred up the covenant (2: 2-13). Yet, nevertheless, Yahweh is willing enough to take back unfaithful Israel, remarrying her (14-23)!
What are we to take from this? Are we to image such a God? Or is this just a task fit for a deity?
This God is willing to get his divine hands dirty — he really is “story-bound”. That is inspiring… But on the flipside, we now have an awesome and terrible task of imaging such Godly compassion and resilience…
But instead global media perpetuates sex and promiscuity. Call-girls in the political arena is a common refrain; sex slavery is an increasing problem; sports icons fashion themselves one way in the limelight and quite another way behind the scenes…
The biblical God, as depicted overall, is one that naturally gives grace, and has to restrain this natural inclination in order to judge — which he reserves the right to do. There is no impunity. Therefore, how much longer can we be like this?
Dm,
A commenter on my facebook page today said that God’s storied character was dangerous–for us!
I think you’ve well articulated the astounding nature of the proposition we find in scripture.
Yes, dangerous — but I meant that we should speak of a “God-bound story,” not a story-bound God (unless you mean the latter to refer to epistemology and, in that sense, to God’s character).
JRDK,
The alternative to narrative, sadly, is usually Bible qua “rulebook”. I think that misses the mark.
I’ve experienced that Christians like to fashion themselves as reading the Bible “how it is.” That idiom usually translates into black and white interpretations. But narrative is the prime vehicle regarding the text’s makeup, which is usually grayer in meaning… that’s just how it is.
While rule and law does exist in the biblical account — and retains merit as Fulfilled by Christ — it is largely narrative-based. Narrative does not eliminate law but fills it out in a way that is plausibly authentic.
…I wonder if narrative, as a genre, gets a bad wrap in Christian circles because of quack renditions like Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” — oh, and have you heard? Moses is now going Hollywood too; Fox just bought a pitch by writers Adam Cooper and Bill Collage (never heard em). Brace yourselves, the story of Exodus is going to be shot in greenscreen — Sin City/300 style.
– I wonder how “faithful” (so to speak) they’ll be to the actual text?
MMThompson,
Or maybe it is a God BOTH bound to story and story bound to God?
The episteme or truth is found in God’s storied willingness to share power with creation via humankind. That is not to say that God can’t act unilaterally — which he clearly retains to the power to do so — but that when he does act in the biblical narrative it often includes the filter of human imagination.
This biblical truth even extends to the point of depicting God as willing enough to change His mind about a plan of action, as when confronted by thoughtful human counteraction (see Ex. 32-34 as basis for such prophetic imagination).