Interpreting Historical Events

Recall the way in which ancient Israel interpreted historical events. Now reflect on any events in your own life, or in the world today, that are or could be interpreted in a similar way. What are the strengths and the weaknesses of this kind of interpretation? What are some of the implications?

Ancient Israel saw God as good and just. When evil befell Israel it was because YHWH was angry with them; but when they triumphed over their enemies it showed that YHWH was pleased with them. If they escaped defeat, they attributed this to YHWH’s help. He was the God of their history, directing political events to redeem his captive people. If they were obedient to the covenant laws, YHWH rewarded them; if they were disobedient, YHWH punished them. If a punishment was over then the people were forgiven and granted freedom. YHWH’s agents didn’t need to know him, he could still use them as instruments of change, restoring the Israelite community and rebuilding the temple. Victory was always attributed to YHWH.

This kind of interpretation was immediately applied by some fundamentalist Christians to the 7.0 magnitude earthquake on 12 January 2010 in Haiti, and the multiple aftershocks exceeding 4.5 that happened thereafter, until 24 January 2010. It was estimated that 230,000 people had died, 300,000 had been injured, 1,000,000 made homeless, 250,000 residences and 30,000 commercial buildings had collapsed or were seriously damaged. Evangelical pastor Pat Robertson’s best estimation was that all of this was surely the result of the Haitian people making a pact with the devil when they were trying to get themselves out from under French oppression in the 1800s. Pat Robertson was also the one who said that Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 was God’s punishment on America for legalizing abortion: he appealed to the Old Testament to support his hypothesis (Lv 18:28).

The strengths of interpreting historical events in terms of obedience equals blessing and disobedience equals punishment are that:

• it supports an image of a God who is omnipotent and always in control, and the world is consequently a secure place to live;
• God is always given the glory for success and achievements;
• fear of punishment can be a very effective motivator in achieving obedience; and
• it acknowledges that God can work in and through all people, regardless of whether they know him.

The weaknesses of interpreting historical events in these terms are that:

• it promotes the notion that all suffering is the fault of the individual: if they are suffering it is because they are being punished for their own disobedience; and
• it perpetuates an image of a mercilessly just God.

Some of the implications of adhering to this principle are that religion and society can too easily become the judges of people’s relationship to God: it is very easy to interpret the circumstances of a person’s life as an indicator of how obedient or disobedient they have been to the will of God. It also relieves believers of the duty of compassion: if someone is suffering as a result of what can only be their own wilful disobedience, then I have no business interfering with “God’s punishment of them”. If I am supportive and kind towards someone who is “being chastised by God”, and if I express sympathy with their plight and regret for their suffering, or if I try to give them any kind of material help, then I align myself with their “sinfulness” and make myself God’s judge. My attempts at corporal and spiritual works of mercy in this instance would actually be the ultimate blasphemy.

From my personal experience, I can say that I am not partial to this way of interpreting events. There was a time in my life when I seemed to have it all, but I was not living a relationship with God. And once my relationship with God came alive and I started doing what I believed God was asking me to do, I suffered some really difficult consequences! I was “retrenched” from a job that paid very well and gave me social status – because I had the temerity to stand up to some very powerful people who were quite corrupt and argue for what I believed was good and right, and I refused to collude and find creative ways of taking advantage of my staff and suppliers alike, in the name of giving our client bang for his buck.

And just when I was trying to figure out how God would let me take this kind of fall when all I was doing was being obedient to what I believed was his will, there were people around me who were very quick to interpret my come-uppance (ironic terminology!) as a sign that I must have done something seriously wrong to deserve my punishment: why else would God take my grand job in advertising away from me?