6.4.1 - The Antagonists’ Punishments
The death of Nabal in 1 Samuel 25 was discussed by all nine groups. For some there were no qualms; Nabal deserved the judgement he received. Others were extremely uncomfortable about God acting in this manner and raised extensive questions about it. Gehazi’s leprosy in 2 Kings 5 was somewhat less contentious. Four of the groups considered it entirely fitting, three considered it harsh but recognised it as self-inflicted and only two groups were uncomfortable. The third protagonist to be struck by God was Herod in Acts 12. Here only one group expressed concern, eight considered this a fitting, even humorous, end.
Trinity Church
Nabal:
The most noticeable pattern amongst the Trinity church groups on the subject of God’s violence towards the antagonists was that the older the group the less concerned they were. The younger group, who were newest to the church, wrestled at length with the idea of God killing.
45 R. Warrior, A Native American perspective: Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians in R. Sugirtharajah (ed.), Voices from the
Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World (London: SPCK, 1991), 290
46 Seibert, Divine Disturbing Behavior, 67 47 Ibid., 71-83
140
Simon: Why did it take ten days for Nabal to die? Why didn’t He [God] strike him straight away once she’d told him it was bad? I don’t get that bit.
Jenny: I don’t mean to be controversial, but if God, through the Holy Spirit could empower her [Abigail] to do all that, then why didn’t he do the same for Nabal? God could have empowered Nabal to do it and saved the whole thing!
Jenny, a new believer, repeatedly asked why it had been necessary for Nabal to die. She was not alone in this, and the group wrestled with possible answers for a considerable amount of time. One option was to distinguish between it being a divine or medical death (i.e. heart attack or stroke). This initially appeared to absolve God of responsibility but on examining the text it was accepted that God had done the killing - although perhaps as an act of mercy to put Nabal out of his misery after giving him time to repent. His failure to do so apparently justified his death. Others argued that Nabal had already “had his chance” and “paid him [David] with evil.” God’s actions were justified, since a rejection of David was a rejection of God himself. Jenny, however, responded,
That’s one thing I find it quite difficult to get my head around, because God can choose. He can change us, there’s no depth of sin God can’t work on in your life, and change, and save you. So it just confuses me why he chooses some people and not others.
She was wrestling with a question larger than Nabal’s fate, questioning the doctrine of election. Despite their Reformed background, the group responded with confusion. Vague references to this being “in the Old Testament, pre-Jesus time” were made; others agreed, “Nabal never had the chance, but I guess we don’t know!” Naomi argued,
I guess it all comes down to freewill, because we don’t know the whole story. God gives free will so obviously he [Nabal] might have chosen not to follow Him or something…
This is moving away from the immutability of God and echoing freewill theism, such as that propounded by Wesley or C.S. Lewis, more than classical Calvinism.48 The confusion is interesting
because, although it was driven by the questions of a new believer, a group of established Reformed emerging adults were unable to give her a satisfactory response. Ultimately, the conversation moved on to God’s striking of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5, Simon adding, “He’s still pretty brutal in the New Testament!” He concluded,
It’s still the same God, he’s not changed his mind or anything. Jesus has come and his love is expressed a lot more, but it’s still if you reject God you’re still
48 J. Sanders, Divine Suffering in an Openness of God Perspective, in G. Long & G. Kalantzis (eds.), The Sovereignty of God
141
ultimately going to die…and Nabal basically rejects him. I think, in a way it’s showing if you reject Jesus you will die.
The conversation moved from the death of an individual to penal substitutionary atonement. To reject David was to reject not only God but also Jesus, and rejection of Jesus had one outcome – death. This was no longer an episode in the rise of the Davidic kingdom but a warning of the consequences of rejecting the gospel. This mirrors some aspects of the typological readings proposed by Origen. Although the entire narrative is not spiritualised, at one level Nabal is. He represents the unrepentant sinner and functions as a warning.49 It is interesting that this pre-reformation interpretation appears to
fit comfortably within a Reformed evangelical framework. It might have been expected that the groups would adopt a Calvinist ‘plain sense’ reading but in negotiating this issue, they accessed other interpretative resources. The group seemed content to conclude their conversation with this analogy. They had not resolved all their questions, but concluding the conversation with Jesus appeared to be a satisfactory response.
The mid-aged group also had an extensive discussion around Nabal’s demise. There was initial confusion about why God should have acted in this way - given that it was David who was insulted. They explained this in two ways: firstly, by exploring the idea of humans trusting God to bring justice rather than avenging themselves. Similar to Volf, they were clear that David’s violent response was not a model for humans to follow but that God could be trusted to bring about justice on behalf of his people.50 Their second method of resolution was deciding that David represented the line of Christ
and thus it was actually Jesus who was being rejected.
James: You’re either with David – you’re on God’s side or you’re against. There’s no middle ground, in the same way, sort of, the gospel is you believe or you don’t.
As with the younger group, the narrative was read as a metaphor for Christian conversion. Nabal was positioned with unbelievers and thus deserving of his fate. However, the group did have some qualms about God’s violence and posited a number of alternative readings. They speculated at a medical diagnosis for Nabal’s heart failing and explored cultural taboos or Jewish laws that he might have broken in refusing hospitality to David. This, they suggested, legitimised God’s actions. They also suggested that, “He’s a wicked man and maybe he doesn’t deserve redemption?” This is an interesting statement given that they understood the narrative as pre-empting the gospel. Since a traditional understanding of the gospel is that undeserved forgiveness is available to all, that Nabal should be excluded as “undeserving” seems incongruous. It suggests at some level, even if it is unconscious, a
49 Moberly, ‘Is Monotheism Bad for You?’, 103 50 Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 301-3
142
misunderstanding of grace and a framework that suggests good people deserve God’s mercy and bad people his judgement.
A final justification for God’s action included his averting a massacre of Nabal’s household, that Nabal’s death was the lesser of two evils (a ‘greater good’ approach).51 This received some support
but was questioned:
Sophie: But God does allow this to happen in the Old Testament doesn’t he? When they’re going into new territory, and its people that don’t believe in God, he asks them to wipe out whole cities doesn’t he? One might argue in that case young children… young babies who don’t know anything about God… I often struggle with that thing…
In referring to instructions to annihilate the indigenous peoples of Palestine in Joshua 20.13, Sophie’s dilemma was left unresolved, as was the suggestion of Nabal’s death being the alternative to whole- scale bloodletting. The group were uncertain but, as with the younger group, resolved the tension by concluding that Nabal’s actions were like all those who reject Jesus and thus his death was the inevitable outcome of siding against God - who was perfectly entitled to pass such a judgement. The oldest Trinity group were least conflicted about Nabal’s demise. Initially there was some speculation as to why, when he so often used humans to bring about his judgement, on this occasion he prevented David from doing so. This was understood to be part of a learning point for David – to trust God for justice. They had no qualms about whether Nabal deserved death.
Suzi: Nabal’s holding a banquet like a king. So you see Nabal’s heart and he’s rejected God as king and put himself in that place. [His death] is the Lord saying 'No!' He’s obviously thinking 'Look at me, I’ve got away with this!'
Charles: And the good thing at the end [is that] justice is done. So David wanted to take justice into his own hands and God prevented him through Abigail. But that didn’t mean justice wasn’t done – God did it!
Although they too speculated about a medical condition, they ultimately viewed Nabal’s death as an appropriate punishment for his physical and spiritual actions. He rejected David’s request for hospitality and rejected God in doing so.
Gehazi & Herod:
With regard to the other antagonists, Gehazi received unquestioned hostility. His leprosy was entirely deserved as far as the Trinity groups were concerned. The younger group stated, “Yeah, Gehazi knew
143
exactly what he was doing, that it was wrong.” The mid-aged group were equally unsympathetic, although they recognised the severity of the punishment. A member of the older group stated,
Joss: I mean, how stupid is Gehazi? Even though he’s just seen this whole thing happen. He knows who Elisha is, knows he’s just cured this man, all this power from the Lord and yet he thinks he can hide something like that?
They saw his crime as “robbing a brand new believer.” No one questioned his receiving leprosy; they considered it an appropriate punishment, given the severity of his crime.
Similarly with Herod, the older group raised no concerns, certain that a human accepting worship was something God would not tolerate. The mid-aged group concurred, “as if we need a sort of
explanation for why Herod deserved to die!” They were mildly perplexed that his accepting of worship rather than his execution of believers was the final cause of his judgement, but they had no concerns that God should strike him down. The youngest group recognised that his death “sounds horrible!” and there was some concern that God might have tortured rather than just executed him, but this was not a major problem; Herod was an enemy of the gospel and, in a power struggle with God, was inevitably going to lose.
Central Chapel
As Ken had suspected, the response of the Central Chapel groups to God’s acts of violence were diverse. The older group’s responses demonstrated a conservative and relatively relaxed position. The mid-aged group expressed concern in some narratives and ignored it in others, while the younger group, who spent 37% of their time on the subject, presented diverse opinions; it being the sole point of discussion on 1 Samuel 25 yet virtually ignored in the other two texts.
Nabal:
The primary query of the older group was whether David’s response had been justified or not? Their interest was in the cultural norms of hospitality and Nabal’s crime in violating them, and their concern was primarily at David’s seemingly disproportionate threat to slaughter Nabal’s entire household. They repeatedly stated, “God provided a way out” for David, adding, “God deals with it himself”, “God stepped in and struck Nabal”, “It’s God’s place to take vengeance” and going so far as, “And they all live happily ever after…ish!” God’s actions raised no ethical concerns at all.
The Mid-aged group’s discussion primarily focussed on whether Nabal’s death was the result of a medical condition.
Mary: It’s hard isn’t it? Especially with the Old Testament because so many things are attributed to God, its like ‘God made this happen’ and ‘God made that happen’ but actually in that culture so many things are attributed to the will of God. It’s
144
hard to know if there was actually a supernatural occurrence, where clearly a man was struck down by God visibly or if a natural cause happened?
Notwithstanding Mary’s dualistic understanding of something either being caused by God or being natural, this statement is interesting in that she is questioning the author’s interpretation of events. It reflects a wider uncertainty as to whether God would do such a thing or whether this is a primitive misinterpretation. The group discussed Nabal’s crimes at length, making it clear that they considered his judgement deserved. However, there were some notes of uncertainty. Alan could see that God was teaching David a lesson in self-control but stated, “I don’t understand God’s will towards Nabal. I mean God strikes down Nabal, in the end, God takes his life.” He clearly felt concerned that perhaps Nabal, for all his crimes, had been harshly treated. Charles added,
There are passages, really difficult passages, especially in the book of Joshua, like God just wiped people out! And it’s sometimes maybe judgment is what a whole household deserves. But God is saying in a way that there’s justice and there’s also grace.
He cited alleged ‘genocide’ texts52 but was unwilling to doubt God’s motives and proposed a ‘Just
Cause’ approach, assuming that even though it is not apparent why, those groups must have deserved such action. He concluded by distinguishing the justice of Nabal’s death from the mercy of God’s protection on his household. This group recognised the theological difficulty but, as Ken suspected, were willing to give God the benefit of the doubt.
For the youngest Central Chapel group, the question of Nabal’s death was the first point raised, and the allocated time was almost entirely devoted to trying to make sense of it:
Joel: Well, the bit about Nabal getting killed, err… dying, getting stricken down, just struck me as an example of where God shows his justice and his plan in quite a sort of…severe…blatant way that we don’t often look at.
Joel’s language shows his inner conflict. “Getting killed” is altered to “dying” and then rephrased as “stricken down”, suggesting that he is even uncertain what vocabulary to use. He was uncomfortable with God’s action describing it as “severe” but could not avoid the fact that the text was explicit about it. He also noted this as a subject Christians often avoid.53 Other conflicted language such as “the
killing thing” was used. Various strategies were adopted to try to resolve the tension of God acting violently, which was described as “quite alien to us.” One option was to assign such actions
52 E.g. Joshua 10 &11
145
exclusively to the Old Testament, although this was refuted; speculation about Ananias and Sapphira54
raised a New Testament example of God’s violent judgement. Joel asked,
It’s interesting how some people get struck down and some don’t even though we’re all just as bad as each other. I suppose you wonder why? And I don’t’ know. Does anyone else know?
Jackie responded by challenging his right to question God’s actions:
It’s funny that we ask ‘why’ every time God seems to strike people down or punish them. We’re like ‘Why does he do that?’ Should we ask why he does it? I mean it’s good to question men’s teaching but if God is high and mighty above all then he does it because he does it, and it was the right thing to do. And our little minds don’t have to always understand it – because we have little minds.
This articulates Calvin’s arguments almost word for word: finite humans cannot understand and should not challenge the reasoning of a supreme God.55 Joel went on to postulate that it was a sign of
God’s grace that he didn’t kill everyone immediately.
Just the very act of allowing us to continue living is an act of grace that we don’t deserve. I suppose if God wants to strike someone down to show us that we shouldn’t lie, it’s his call.
It is interesting that their conversation had moved away from the particular instance of Nabal and had become about all human sin. The use of “we” peppered the conversation, with the group identifying themselves as guilty of God’s judgment but living under his grace. This appears to illustrate a
particular trait of contemporary emerging adults: a rejection of judgementalism.56 Guest suggests that
contemporary pluralism and emphasis on tolerance have affected the attitudes of emerging adults,57
and here Joel is illustrating this tolerance, emphasising that he, and the group, have no right to consider themselves superior to “sinners.”
Questions about free will and Nabal’s culpability were also part of the conversation. Jimmy identified examples of “God hardening people’s hearts” but wondered if he ever “softened them.” A confused explanation about law and grace in both Testaments was attempted and there were some vague
comments about faith in Jesus saving those in the Old Testament. However, ultimately these questions were left unresolved. As with the Trinity groups, this group presented Jesus, and penal substitution as the answer to their concerns about God’s violence. Nabal’s rejection of David was seen as
synonymous with a lack of faith in God and thus a rejection of Jesus, which marked him out for
54 Acts 5
55 Earl, The Joshua delusion, 7 56 Savage, Generation Y, 7 57 Guest, Christianity, 98
146
judgement. Others, like Abigail, had placed their faith in God and ‘his anointed’ and had been included in the forgiveness offered by Christ’s death. Once again, the narrative was given spiritual meaning and a messianic theme.
Gehazi & Herod:
With regard to the other antagonists, discussions were more uniform. Gehazi was barely discussed by the older group beyond, “He should have known” not to disobey Elisha. The younger group were entirely disparaging, accusing him of “wanting glory for himself”, misrepresenting both God and Elisha, and concluded, “It’s a really horrible thing Gehazi does.” They considered his punishment a “fitting end” for someone who had exploited Naaman’s new faith. The mid-age group had some concerns, but they read it as a story of how his selfishness and greed caused him to lose his faith. They were particularly concerned that “ultimately Gehazi was almost corrupting the message of grace because he was demanding some kind of payment.” They also attempted to minimise the seriousness of leprosy, suggesting that “the actual psychological effect of leprosy is far worse than the physical one.” They based this on their understanding that the main effects were social isolation and exclusion from the temple, a “separation from the presence of God.” This may be a naïve understanding of the