Ethnicity is a relatively recent concept and focus of studies in the social sciences, first appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary Supplement in 1972. The term ethnicity comes from the Greek word ethnos, commonly translated as “nation” or “people” in the NT. Ethnicity has been defined in a variety of ways by scholars, but the key elements are (1) reference to common ancestors (fictive or metaphoric kinship), (2) a sense of distinctiveness (what makes “us” different from “them”), and (3) the idea that ethnicity and ethnic identity are relevant only when two or more ethnic groups are involved in the same social system (Eriksen; Hicks). Since ethnic identity has to do with individuals’ perceptions of being a “people,” the belief in common kinship is foundational to that identity. What makes a group distinctive from others can be drawn from a wide range of symbolic elements that may include, but is not limited to, what one wears, eats, believes, and/or the language one speaks.
Constructing Ethnicity
A class of students drawn from many of the different ethnic groups throughout China might say that what made their group distinctive was religion (many of them might be Muslim), clothing (some might wear distinctive outfits related to their group), language, and food (one group might be different because they do not eat dog). For the Basque people in northern Spain and southern France, their distinct language, Euskara, is a key symbol to their identity. This is seen in their traditional self-identifying term, Euskaldun, which means “speaker of Euskara,” and the name of their homeland, Euskal Herria, which means “the land where Euskara is spoken.” These symbolic elements, then, are used to create and often maintain the boundary between “us” and “them” (Barth).
One reason why ethnicity escaped the scrutiny of scholars for so long is that, according to the then-dominant modernization theory, these preindustrial allegiances should have given way to the integrative forces of modern society and broader national or class identities (van den Berghe; da Silva). In other words, traditional group loyalties to family, tribe, and clan would be replaced by interest-based loyalties to class, party, or state. However, the very processes of modernization— for example, urbanization, industrialization, education, improved communication technologies, including transportation—often had the opposite effect; increased contact through improved communication systems and urbanization led to a greater sense of distinctiveness and mobilization along ethnic lines than in the period prior to modernization (Connor).
Two seminal works published in 1963 challenged the modernizationist assumptions and had a great influence on the development of the study of ethnicity and ethnic identity. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz, surveying conflicts in the newly independent states of Asia and Africa, proposed that the problems were largely caused by competing allegiances between ethnic groups and the state, or more precisely, between what he termed “primordial sentiments” and civil politics. Many of these new states were inherently unstable because individuals tended to be loyal to their primordial groups (e.g., family, clan, ethnic group) rather than to the state government. Based on what we continue to see in some of these states today, Geertz was not only insightful but also rather prophetic. But lest we think that ethnic identities and conflicts are something relegated to the new states in Africa and Asia, the second influential publication of that year focused on these issues in the United States, specifically New York City. Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, authors of Beyond the Melting Pot, empirically challenged the assimilationist assumption of that most cherished metaphor of ethnicity in the United States. Summing up the main idea behind Israel Zangwill’s 1908 play The Melting Pot, the authors state, “The point about the melting pot is that it did not happen” (Glazer and Moynihan 290).
These two works were influential in ushering in an era of heightened interest and scholarship on ethnicity and ethnic identity that has persisted to this day. The field, however, has continued to develop over the years, with ethnic identity now being studied within the context of broader movements, particularly globalization and transnationalism. There are many aspects to globalization, but certainly a key one has to do with the increased migration of people from less productive to more productive areas. In one sense, this is not new (studies conducted by the Manchester School of anthropology in the 1940s and 1950s focused on the social transformations taking place as the result of migration and urbanization in Africa), but what is new is the extent of this migration, particularly from certain parts of the world. In addition, beginning in the 1990s, anthropologists and other social scientists began studying the contexts that migrants came from, their adaptive strategies in the host country, and their continued ties with “home” (i.e., transnationalism). Globalization and transnationalism have called into question the idea of nicely bounded cultural (ethnic) groups and have replaced this with an emphasis on hybrid-ity and creolization—the mixing of cultures and identities (Vertovec). As a result, although ethnic identity remains an important area of research and scholarship, it is understood to be much more complex and contingent than was previously thought.
Ethnicity, Scripture, and the Church Nationalism, understood as an ideological movement, certainly is a modern phenomenon, but ethnicity and ethnic identity are found in antiquity (Smith). We read in the OT of groups such as the Canaanites, Cushites, Hittites, and Egyptians, to name but a few. We witness the ethnogenesis (creation) of a people, the Israelites, through Abraham, and we see God’s jealousy for his people. In the NT we encounter a more complex multicultural context than often is assumed. We tend to think of the world at that time as divided between two or three groups: Jews, Greeks, and perhaps barbarians. However, when we look at the day of Pentecost alone, we find no fewer than thirteen languages referenced, which is a good indicator of distinct cultures and identities.
Issues pertaining to ethnicity and the church are found in the book of Acts as well as in many of Paul’s letters. For example, Acts 15 tells of the Jerusalem council, in which the leaders of the church came together to decide if gentiles had to adopt Jewish customs once they became Christ followers. In other words, was the church going to be bound by the culture of one ethnic group (i.e., the Jews), or was it adaptable to other cultures and identities as well? The leadership decided on the latter, based largely on the testimony of how God had been working in powerful ways among the gentiles.
From that time onward, Christians and the church have had to grapple with what Andrew Walls calls a paradox: “The very universality of the Gospel, the fact that it is for everyone, leads to a variety of perceptions and applications of it” (Walls 46). Unfortunately, the church has had a difficult time with this paradox, often erring in one of two ways: either baptizing its nationalism with Christianity, thereby confusing its ethnic/ national identity and culture with the gospel, or totally rejecting any identity other than “Christian,” which turns out to be just another version of cultural chauvinism, since, as Walls intimates, what being a Christian looks like will vary according to the cultural context. People are never “just Christians”; they are Christians from particular cultures and with particular identities. Maintaining the tension between the universal nature of the gospel and its particular cultural and identi-ficational manifestations (i.e., unity in diversity) has been, and continues to be, a major challenge for the church.
See also Colonialism and Postcolonialism; CrossCultural Ethics; Culture; Globalization; Imperialism; Nationalism; Race; Urbanization
Bibliography
Barth, F. “Introduction.” Pages 9-38 in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, ed. F. Barth. Little, Brown, 1969; Connor, W. “Nation-Building, or Nation-Destroying?” World Politics 24 (1972): 319-55; da Silva, M. “Modernization and Ethnic Conflict: The Case of the Basques.” Comparative Politics 7 (1975): 227-51; Eriksen, T. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives. 2nd ed. Pluto Press, 2002; Geertz, C. “The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States.” Pages 105-57 in Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa, ed. C. Geertz. Free Press of Glencoe, 1963; Glazer, N., and D. Moynihan. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. MIT Press, 1963; Hays, J. From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race. InterVarsity, 2003; Hicks, G. “Introduction: Problems in the Study of Ethnicity.” Pages 1-20 in Ethnic Encounters: Identities and Contexts, ed. G. Hicks and P. Leis. Duxbury Press, 1976; Smith, A. “The Problem of National Identity: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern?” ERS 17 (1994): 375-99; van den Berghe, P. Class and Ethnicity in Peru. Brill, 1974; Vertovec, S. “Introduction: New Directions in the Anthropology of Migration and Multiculturalism.” ERS 30 (2007): 961-78; Walls, A. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Orbis, 1996.
Steven Ybarrola
Eugenics is the attempt to improve one’s offspring or the human race by promoting “good” genetic features (positive eugenics) and eliminating genetic “defects” and “degeneracy” (negative eugenics). Eugenic endeavors range from encouraging careful selection of a reproductive partner or voluntarily refraining from reproduction to forced sterilization and direct extermination of those deemed “unfit” to live and reproduce.
Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin, developed modern eugenics. The American biologist Charles Davenport, whose work the Carnegie Institute supported, was key to the international spread of eugenics. Governments, scientists, leading institutions such as the American Medical Association, and many religious leaders advocated eugenic policies. Margaret Sanger urged contraceptive access as one way to reduce “dysgenic” reproduction. Various states legalized involuntary eugenic sterilization, laws that the Supreme Court upheld in the 1927 decision Buck v. Bell. Christine Rosen argues that religious adherents who advocated the modernization of their faith communities were those most likely to support eugenics. Proponents of the social gospel movement found eugenics amenable to their sense of responsibility for realizing the kingdom of God on earth. Fellow believers such as G. K. Chesterton did speak against eugenic programs.
Modern eugenics is most closely associated with Nazi Germany and the horrors of the Holocaust. After World War II, many eugenic ideas and programs were rejected. However, eugenics persisted in other forms, such as immigration policies and laws against miscegenation.
Advocates of modern eugenics enlisted Scripture to support their positions. As Rosen details, some preachers saw the great flood described in Genesis as a divine eugenic cleansing. They linked human races to Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, from whom all humans presumably descended after the flood, and argued for a racial hierarchy based on Noah’s cursing of Ham (Gen. 9:24-27). The election of Israel as a people set apart and covenantal purity codes were read as code for eugenics. Galton himself likened the eu-genist to the good and faithful servant found in the parable of talents (Matt. 25:15-30). In the hands of eugenists, this parable becomes a warrant for genetic stewardship.
Eugenic programs that segregate, sterilize, and exterminate “unfit” populations are incompatible with the scriptural affirmation that God creates humans in the divine image (Gen. 1:27). While God did elect Israel as a covenant partner, remembrance of their delivery from oppression should prompt compassionate and just treatment of aliens (Lev. 19:33-34). Eugenic programs betray the example of Christ, who reached out to lepers and other marginalized persons (e.g., Mark 1:40-45).
Increasing knowledge about human genetics, reproductive technologies, and prenatal genetic diagnosis foster what some call a “new eugenics.” Knowledge of the human genome and technologies developed to improve human life through genetic intervention are not inherently bad. They extend the reach of human power and raise ethical questions regarding the scope and limits of human responsibility for ameliorating suffering. Scriptural perspectives on human dignity and equality, parenthood, procreation, sickness, suffering, and technology should inform morally appropriate exercises of genetic technologies.
See also Bioethics; Image of God; Reproductive Technologies; Sanctity of Human Life
Bibliography
Chesterton, G. K. Eugenics and Other Evils. Cassell, 1922; Dyck, A. “Eugenics in Historical and Ethical Perspective.” Pages 25—39 in Genetic Ethics: Do the Ends Justify the Genes? ed. J. Kilner, R. Pentz, and F. Young. Eerdmans, 1997; Galton, F. “The Possible Improvement of the Human Breed under Existing Conditions of Law and Sentiment.” Popular Science Monthly 60 (January 1902): 218—33; Hall, A. Conceiving Parenthood: American Protestantism and the Spirit of Reproduction. Eerdmans, 2008; Rosen, C. Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement. Oxford University Press, 2004.
Darlene Fozard Weaver
The word euthanasia is composed from the Greek words eu (“good”) and thanatos (“death”). For centuries, it referred to a “good death” in gen-eral—that is, a death free from agony or suffering and for which one was well prepared. From the early nineteenth century, however, it came to refer more specifically to medically assisted dying in the case of severe suffering with or without a patient’s request. In the first half of the twentieth century, the term frequently was used in the context of eugenics. Hitler’s infamous euthanasia program led to the killing of tens of thousands of handicapped and elderly people. In some discussions the term still carries this connotation.
The term is most commonly used in the context of a terminal disease and hardly ever refers to the voluntary killing of people without a medically classifiable disease. In the Netherlands, in 1995 the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia, the requirements include not only severe suffering but also a patient’s request. About 90 percent of all euthanasia cases in the Netherlands are performed on patients suffering from cancer with a prospect of six weeks or less to live.
The difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide lies in the identity of the actor initiating the death: the doctor in the former, the patient in the latter.
Of all forms of killing a human being, euthanasia is considered by many as the least controversial. From an ethical point of view, it is important to observe that the Bible does not imply “vitalism”—that is, the view that life should be prolonged at all costs. “Dying well” may imply a recognition that an illness has won, and that time and resources should be spent on spiritual and palliative care rather than on intensive medical treatment with little chance of success. There is reason to assume that the suffering underlying a euthanasia request may sometimes even be caused by aggravating medical interventions. Insofar as a “right to die” refers to a right to refuse invasive and futile medical treatment, this right is relatively uncontroversial.
Despite the fact that the Bible rejects vitalism, despite the seriousness of human suffering, and even though a euthanasia request may be well informed and sincere, euthanasia remains problematic from an ethical point of view. A society allowing the intentional and direct killing of some of its citizens may have difficulty in drawing a line between use and abuse, between those who are eligible and those who are not. The availability of euthanasia may hamper attempts to develop efficient and accessible palliative care. The last stretch of a human life may not only be tragic and burdensome but also may provide opportunities for spiritual growth, valuable social encounters, and reconciliation. Even for many of the physicians who are willing to perform euthanasia, the act remains emotionally burdensome. In a sense, euthanasia can be seen as an act that destroys one’s autonomy altogether rather than as an expression of an autonomous wish. The Bible does speak highly of the capacity of humans to actively engage in their own destinies, but this autonomy has its proper place within the context of respect for life. The Bible contains several accounts of people yearning for death (e.g., Elijah, Paul), but not a single passage justifies a decision to actively kill oneself or to ask others to do so. Although occasional acts of suicide in the Bible are not explicitly condemned, descriptions of their context reveal the utterly tragic character of such decisions.
Discussion continues concerning the appropriateness of the distinction between “active” and “passive” euthanasia. Although refraining from life-support treatment may in some cases be as problematic as active euthanasia, most sources in the Christian tradition agree that the active killing of a person, other things being equal, is more problematic than a decision to let “nature take its course.” Another point of debate is whether a death that is the side effect of painkillers and sedatives can be called “euthanasia.” The tradition of natural law, through the “principle of double effect,” stresses the difference between death through active and intentional means, and death that is the side effect of another action. If a medication necessary to provide relief for pain and anxiety causes death, and if the intention is merely to make comfortable rather than to kill, such a decision may be justified.
In the past two decades, new medications against pain, anxiety, itch, extreme fatigue, and nausea have helped healthcare workers to provide more efficient palliative care. Experience from the Netherlands shows that palliative sedation—that is, inducing a deep sleep until the moment of a patient’s natural death—has become increasingly acceptable as an alternative to euthanasia. There is reason to believe that new developments in palliative care will cause a further decrease in the demand for euthanasia. At the same time, the quest for assisted suicide in cases in which there is no physical and terminal disease is not likely to decrease.
See also Death and Dying; Healthcare Ethics; Hospice; Suffering; Suicide
Bibliography
Biggar, N. Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia. Darton, Longman & Todd, 2004; Boer, T. “Recurring Themes in the Debate about Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.” JRE 35 (2007): 529—55; Gorsuch, N. The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Princeton University Press, 2006; Keown, J. Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument against Legalisation. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Theo A. Boer
Evangelical ethics reflects the moral commitments, positions, and practices that one derives from the gospel, the euangelion of Jesus Christ, by considering questions of moral obligations, ultimate goods, and virtues in light of God’s purposes for humankind revealed in the Scriptures. Evangelical ethics often is associated with the subculture of American Protestantism known as evangelicalism, a movement that emerged out of the modernist versus fundamentalist controversies of the early nineteenth and twentieth centuries, particularly around disagreements on the authority of the Bible. This more recent context in the United States, along with the influence of the European Reformation emphasis of sola scriptura, explains the centrality of Scripture in evangelical ethics. Evangelicalism clusters around a set of beliefs about the authority of Scripture; the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ; the necessity of conversion to Christ; and a sense of mission in the world. Although evangelicalism is not an ecclesiastical tradition, it is descriptive of beliefs shared in many theological trajectories of the Protestant Reformation and has much in common with those committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture for faith, practice, and moral norms found in African American ethics, Anabaptist ethics, Baptist ethics, Reformed ethics, and Wesleyan ethics.
Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Expressions
One early expression of evangelical ethics was offered by Carl F. H. Henry in The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947). Henry articulated a foundation for evangelical ethics in response to the separatist tendencies of fundamentalist Christians who retreated from society after the controversies between fundamentalists and modernists. Henry represented “neo-evangelicalism,” reflective of the efforts to recover a former social ethic embraced by early evangelicals. The recovery of ethical concern by neo-evangelicals was based on a commitment to mission and evangelism at the heart of its movement and a desire to morally influence American culture. These neoevangelicals desired to reclaim a heritage of social engagement and moral concerns characteristic of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in the United States, when evangelicals were involved in organizing missions, relief work, and education; addressing issues such as abolition of slavery, temperance, child labor, women’s suffrage; and alleviating squalid urban conditions. Henry’s work provided a basis for evangelical ethics that spurred on diverse social engagements, moral concerns, and commitments of evangelicals well into the second half of the twentieth century.
Henry’s work contained certain assumptions that would come to characterize the ways in which Scripture was used in evangelical ethics. One was the emphasis on evangelism. Scripture’s message was seen as stressing personal salvation, with an emphasis on social justice as secondary to a person’s conversion to Christ. The individual ethic of a person was seen as the key to transforming the moral ethos of a society. This minimized attention to larger social concerns, except for such issues as abortion, which later propelled evangelicals into public engagement with the US Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in January 1973 that overturned state laws prohibiting abortion. This bifurcation between personal evangelism and social justice was addressed by a gathering of evangelicals (including Henry) who wrote and endorsed “The Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern” in November 1973. The Chicago Declaration called for evangelicals to repent of their complicity in social injustices and to address racism, poverty, economic injustice, sexism, militarism, nationalism, and materialism. The Chicago Declaration became the impetus for the founding by Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action. Its mission to promote holistic ministry and work for social transformation is based on a commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ reflective of evangelical ethics.
Another legacy that came to characterize evangelical ethics was the equating of conservative theological positions with traditional social views and public policies. The Bible was used to buttress those positions and views. The emergence of Sojourners in 1970, formed by a group of students at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School during the Vietnam War, and its initial publication, The Post-American, challenged that equation and explored the relationship between Scripture, faith, social policies, and political action. With its official founding in 1971 by Jim Wallis and its subsequent move to Washington in 1975, Sojourners continues to provide an important voice for an evangelical ethic in its publication, Sojourners, and its advocacy for just social policies that address, based on Scripture, the needs of the poor and oppressed.
Stephen Charles Mott represents another early important expression of evangelical ethics. His book Biblical Ethics and Social Change (1982) influenced seminary students, particularly those who would later pursue graduate work in Christian ethics. Mott laid the foundation for a “biblical theology of social involvement” by providing an overview of the biblical theme of the kingdom of God in Scripture and its implications for love, justice, and strategies of social transformation.
Evangelicalism remains diverse and includes a variety of ethical perspectives and positions. Since Scripture is a primary source for ethics in evangelicalism, and since evangelicalism is diverse, there are various perspectives on Scripture’s use in ethics. Important work is being done today by evangelical ethicists in their attempts to bring Scripture, Christian tradition, theological claims, and ethical theories to bear on contemporary issues such as hospitality, immigration, bioethics, nonviolence, just peacemaking, human rights, torture, consumption of resources, social justice, environmental concerns, and poverty.
Scripture in Evangelical Ethics
Scripture is a key source for moral guidance and ethical reflection in Christian ethics in general, but it is of singular significance in evangelical ethics, where there is a strong theological commitment to the authority of Scripture for faith and practice. The more difficult issue is to understand how Scripture is normative in ethics and how it offers moral guidance, given its complexity and various genres and also the methodological diversity in the application of its teachings to our contemporary contexts. Ethical theories provide various emphases and alternatives for understanding moral obligations such as rules, principles, virtues, and consequences. Evangelical ethics is predisposed to utilize Scripture for understanding one’s duties, for determining positions on ethical issues, for establishing overarching moral commitments and themes codified as principles, and for character formation and growth in virtue. While these methods have provided clear ways for the use of Scripture in ethics, they also present some difficulties that can be addressed by new possibilities in biblical interpretation for understanding the relationship between Scripture and ethics.
Most typically, evangelical ethics approaches Scripture from a deontological perspective. The Bible is viewed as God’s revelation to humankind and contains the rules and prescriptions by which people should live. God, as ultimate authority, issues commands through Scripture that all humans are obligated to obey, and in doing so they fulfill their moral obligations. This method of using Scripture emphasizes its perspicuity, its straightforward meaning in communicating what humans are obligated to do out of duty to God and to other persons. The rules and principles of the Bible are seen as clear, timeless, and universal, applicable to all persons in all contexts.
Evangelical ethics frequently employs Scripture to establish positions on moral issues. Given the inclination in evangelical theology to see Scripture as exhaustive, united in message, complete in what it communicates about God’s intentions, and adequate to address every issue that humans will encounter, evangelicals look to Scripture to find a right position on a moral problem, enabling them to support a particular position on an issue by appealing to Scripture.
Sometimes evangelical ethics uses Scripture to determine overarching themes and moral commitments and to establish principles by which to live, often described as moral absolutes. Whereas God is viewed as the divine commander and Scripture is God’s rule book for ascertaining what one is to obey from a deontological perspective, using Scripture to find principles by which to live assumes a natural moral order and purpose to the world that God intends humanity to follow. Using the Bible to ascertain moral principles assumes that the principles found in Scripture are easy to understand and what God expects of humanity is clear. By following God’s principles found in Scripture, life will be lived well and good will prevail. Some examples of moral principles derived from Scripture to guide behavior are truth-telling and keeping promises, the Golden Rule, loving one’s neighbor as oneself, and following established norms for sexual morality.
And often evangelical ethics makes use of Scripture for personal growth and the development of character. Evangelicals look to Scripture for modeling character traits that are pleasing to God for the purpose of becoming a better Christian and, therefore, for becoming more moral and virtuous. Underlying this method is the assumption that in reading Scripture one grows closer to God, which often is seen as the ultimate purpose of one’s life. In growing closer to God, one becomes more righteous and more cognizant of how to please God. Scripture is an important aid to this process of spiritual growth. It is a method that privileges one’s own morality and personal piety as contributors to the overall ethos of one’s community. This method of using Scripture tends to prioritize one’s being over one’s action, heard in the rhetoric that God cares more about who we are than what we do.
While evangelical ethics provides clear, straightforward, and simple methods for using the Bible in ethics, these methods are also problematic in certain areas. Although Scripture does contain rules and prescriptions, it also contains many other genres that offer moral guidance in forms other than commandments. Simply looking to Scripture to find a rule to follow tends to reduce the ways in which Scripture offers moral guidance through narratives, prophecy, poetry, wisdom literature, epistles, and apocalyptic material. Scripture itself is complex, akin to the complexity of moral decision-making, and it requires various ways of using it to provide guidance for ethics. Another methodological problem in relying on the Bible for prescriptions is the interpretive difficulty in determining which rules should be followed and which ones can be ignored. Given evangelicalism’s commitment to the plenary inspiration of the Bible, all that is offered in Scripture is authoritative and normative for theology and ethics, even rules often deemed morally problematic. Therefore, the use of Scripture to determine rules to follow and commands to obey is not as easy as it first appears without the requisite attention to the contexts and narratives in which the commands of Scripture are embedded.
Using Scripture to establish positions on ethical issues also presents hermeneutical and methodological difficulties. The ethical issues that confront people today are not the same as those that confronted people living in the contexts in which biblical texts were written and delivered. Our modern, scientific, and technological societies have presented us with a host of issues that are foreign to the ethical sensibilities of communities described in the Bible and those who first received these writings. Moving from Scripture to a stance on issues not specifically addressed in the Bible presents its own set of challenges for the use of Scripture in evangelical ethics, given the propensity and desire for clear, straightforward biblical answers to complex questions. While the Bible does offer moral guidance in the form of principles, the interpretive challenge remains in evangelical ethics in determining which principles are to be given priority and how these principles are to be lived out in highly complex and diverse contexts. So although neighbor love and the Golden Rule may be binding ethical principles, how to enact these moral commitments is another matter, requiring additional tools of ethical analysis. And although character and virtue are important aspects of Christian moral formation, the use of the Bible in evangelical ethics often attends to individual morality and tends to reduce complex moral issues to problems of personal ethics. The Bible often functions as a private book of devotion and virtue, hiding both the social contexts within which the Scriptures were written and our social contexts, which require more complex means of moral analysis.
A Richer Role for Scripture in Evangelical Ethics
Scripture’s use in evangelical ethics can play a richer role with some methodological shifts in emphases that will not undermine the importance of the Bible but will elevate it by giving greater attention to the myriad ways in which morality and ethics are guided by Scripture. The growing interest in reading the Scripture as a narrative can provide a more communal and theological grounding for evangelical ethics that will increase its efficacy to more than just finding moral rules and principles by which to live. Narrative ethics will help evangelicals in their use of Scripture to make important connections with how one is to live and act in light of the overall story that one believes the Scriptures to tell. In this way, evangelical ethics may become more biblical in its justification of certain attitudes and behaviors in light of an expanded understanding of what Scripture is and what it is meant to do.
The use of the Bible in evangelical ethics has been influenced by Western individualism. This influence has minimized the social dimensions of Scripture as texts about the complexities of human communities. A recovery of the communal dimensions of Scripture and its location in ecclesial contexts may correct the over-personalization of Bible reading in evangelical ethics and help to recover the importance of the church as a location of Christian moral formation. This shift may expand the use of Scripture beyond a narrow reliance on duty, principles, and positions to one that sees the rich interaction between the reading and appropriating of Scripture by Christian communities and the formation of morality within the context of the church as a “community of moral discourse, deliberation and discernment” (Verhey 15-20). The renewed interest in a theological interpretation of Scripture can help evangelical ethics make important connections between theology and ethics, as can the renewed interest in the centrality and nor-mativity of Jesus Christ for Christian ethics. Jesus’ message and inauguration of the kingdom of God and its embodiment in Christian communities provide a moral framework for both personal and social ethics that can renew evangelical ethics, for imagining the shape and direction of the moral life consonant with the purposes and visions of God discovered when reading the Scriptures, and for informing choices about how to live and why.
See also African American Ethics; Anabaptist Ethics; Baptist Ethics; Deontological Theories of Ethics; Divine Command Theories of Ethics; Golden Rule; Individualism; Narrative Ethics, Biblical; Narrative Ethics, Contemporary; Reformed Ethics; Wesleyan Ethics
Bibliography
Cosgrove, C. Appealing to Scripture in Moral Debate: Five Hermeneutical Rules. Eerdmans, 2002; Dayton, D. Discovering an Evangelical Heritage. Harper & Row, 1976; Fedler, K. Exploring Christian Ethics: Biblical Foundations for Morality. Westminster John Knox, 2006; Grenz, S. The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics. InterVarsity, 2000; Hollinger, D. Choosing the Good: Christian Ethics in a Complex World. Baker Academic, 2002; Mott, S. Biblical Ethics and Social Change. Oxford University Press, 1982; O’Donovan, O. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. Eerdmans, 1994; Reuschling, W. Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality. Brazos, 2008; Spohn, W. What Are They Saying about Scripture and Ethics? Paulist Press, 1995; Stassen, G., and D. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. InterVarsity, 2003;
Verhey, A. Remembering Jesus: Christian Community, Scripture, and the Moral Life. Eerdmans, 2002.
Wyndy Corbin Reuschling
The concept of evangelism can provoke vigorous responses among those who confess Christ and those who do not. Among Christians, responses to the language of evangelism vary from passionate commitment to antagonistic resistance. Perhaps because of an early desire to translate evangelism accessibly into English, the term has been too narrowly construed as preaching by a few rather than as witness through practices of love of God and neighbor, including verbal proclamation, by the baptized in and through communities of faith. A closer look throughout Scripture reveals evangelism embodied in the words, practices, and lives of individuals and communities for the purpose of witnessing to, and inviting others to share in, God’s reign and salvation in Jesus Christ.
A generally accepted translation of the Greek term euangelizomai is “proclaim the gospel, or good news, of salvation in Jesus Christ.” The content of the gospel is Jesus, his ministry, life, death, and resurrection. However, as many have noted, although the news of the gospel is ultimately good, it can be difficult for some to hear at first, particularly those comfortably embedded in habits and systems of sin. Another nuance related to a more textured understanding of evangelism is the realization that God is the author of salvation. Although God often invites human participation to share the gospel and initiate persons into God’s reign, it is God who saves.
The OT is seldom seen as a source for evangelism, but as Christian Scripture it contains significant foundational themes to the gospel. God invites Israel into covenant relationship, to which Israel responds by living according to the Torah, often represented by the Ten Commandments, which include practices of love of God and neighbor. Although Israel can be seen as an exclusive and sometimes fierce enemy, a central theme in the OT is Israel’s witness to the nations of its relationship to God through the covenant. Israel is more often portrayed as a light to the nations through which all may receive the blessings and salvation offered by Israel’s God, Yahweh, creator of the universe.
In the NT, Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, Emmanuel (“God with us”), sent to Israel and all the nations to bring God’s reign and salvation from sin. Inviting others to share in God’s reign and the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit occurs throughout the NT in words and in lives. Indeed, Jesus, as message and messenger, gave his life on the cross to redeem a fallen creation. Although a verbal proclamation of Jesus’ message of salvation remains at the heart of evangelism, throughout the Gospels the ministry of evangelism is consistently embodied. When the baptized feed the hungry, tend the sick, and visit the imprisoned, while also verbally narrating the gospel, the salvation of Jesus Christ is not merely told, but is shared, as we participate in evangelism by inviting others to share in God’s reign and receive salvation in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
See also Kingdom of God; Proselytism; Salvation
Laceye C. Warner
Evil
Evil in the Old Testament
The primary term for “evil” in the OT is ra'. This root can have a moral connotation (“evil, wicked”) or a nonmoral connotation (“worthless, trouble, calamity”). As a moral concept, ra' signifies any activity or state of affairs that is contrary to God’s will. In this usage it is closely associated with the Hebraic concept of “sin” (hata, “to miss the mark”), a term that denotes any activity that violates covenantal faithfulness (Gen. 2:9; Prov. 11:21; 12:13). Evil resides in and springs from the human heart (Gen. 6:5; Prov. 6:14; Eccl. 8:11; Jer. 17:9) and issues forth in a wide variety of sins mentioned throughout the OT, including idolatry (Deut. 4:25), murder (2 Sam. 12:9), and adultery (Deut. 22:22).
Yet, in sharp contrast to the individualistic, secular mind-set of most modern Westerners, the OT does not limit moral evil to human individuals, but also reflects a belief in corporate/structural evil. Without denying the responsibility that individuals bear for their own evil choices, the OT depicts families, tribes, and nations as organic wholes in which individuals are held morally responsible for one another. Hence, when Achan sinned, for example, his whole family was punished and all of Israel suffered (Josh. 7). Similarly, when the wealthy of a nation systematically oppress the poor, the entire nation is vulnerable to God’s judgment (Amos 4:1-3; 5:11-12).
While much more subdued than other ancient Near Eastern cultures, the culture of the OT also reflects the understanding that nonhuman agents can be evil and can bring about evil. Thus, for example, the OT mentions various evil spirits (e.g., sedtm [Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37] and se'trtm [Lev.
17:7; 2 Chr. 11:15]) as well as various evil spirits that Yahweh uses to judge people (Judg. 9:22-25; 1 Sam. 16:14, 22) (Boyd, God at War, 79-83). So too the OT adopts and transforms the ancient Near Eastern understanding of cosmic evil, which scholars commonly refer to as the Chaoskampf (chaos struggle) motif. Thus we read about Yah-weh battling against threatening hostile waters (e.g., Pss. 29:3-4, 10; 74:10, 13; 77:16; 104:6; Prov. 8:29; Job 7:12; 9:8; 38:8-11; Isa. 51:9-11; Nah. 1:4; Hab. 3:8, 15) as well as menacing cosmic monsters such as Leviathan (Ps. 74:13-14; Job 3:8; 41:1-34; Isa. 27:1), Rahab (Job 9:13; Ps. 89:9-10), and Behemoth (Job 40:15-24) (Wakeman; Day; Boyd, God at War, 73-113). Yahweh also must contend with rebellious gods who, though created to form his heavenly council (e.g., 1 Kgs. 22:20; Job 1:6; 2:1; Pss. 82:1; 98:7) and constitute his mighty army (2 Sam. 5:23-24; 2 Kgs. 2:11; 6:16-17; Pss. 34:7; 68:17; 82:1-8; 103:20; Dan. 7:10), have rebelled and now work at cross-purposes with him (e.g., Gen. 6:1-4; Ps. 82; Dan. 10:12-13, 20-21; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:35; 2 Kgs. 3:26-27; 23:13) (Wink 87-127). It is evident that evil in the OT is a cosmic and spiritual reality, as well as a reality of the human heart.
While the OT consistently celebrates the goodness, faithfulness, love, and mercy of God (e.g., Exod. 34:6-7; Deut. 32:4; 2 Sam. 22:31; Pss. 48:1, 9; 89:1-2; 92:15), several texts have led some scholars to conclude that, at least in the earlier stages of Hebrew religion, Yahweh’s character included an evil element (Kluger 10; Westermann 16). For example, in Isa. 45:7 Yahweh declares, “I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe [ra ]; I the Lord do all these things” (cf. Amos 3:6; Lam. 3:37-38). As a number of scholars have pointed out, formidable difficulties accompany this view, and in any case these passages are easily understood simply to assert, in specific instances, that it is Yahweh alone who brings blessings and judgments (“calamities”) in response to covenant faithfulness or unfaithfulness (Lindstrom).
Evil in the New Testament
The primary terms for “evil” in the NT are poneros and kakos. As with the Hebrew term ra, both terms can have either a moral or nonmoral connotation. And, as in the OT, when used with a moral connotation, both terms are closely related to the concept of “sin” (hamartia, “missing the mark”). The “mark” or moral goal in the NT is best captured by the concept of agape—other-oriented, self-sacrificial love for God and neighbor (Matt. 7:12; 22:36-40; 1 Cor. 13).
The NT goes far beyond the OT in emphasizing the inner, attitudinal nature of both right-relatedness and sin, as seen, for example, in Jesus’ six antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:21-48). In this sense, the concept of sin is used to denote instances of attitudinal and/or behavior transgression or trespass whereby rightrelatedness and agape love are violated for self-centered purposes. According to Paul, all humans have “sinned” in this sense and thus stand under God’s judgment and in need of salvation (Rom. 3:23). Reflecting the OT understanding of corporate solidarity, Paul traces this condition back to Adam and Eve’s rebellion, when evil first entered the world (Rom. 5:12).
With the advent of the apocalyptic worldview in the centuries leading up to the NT era, the OT view of cosmic evil was greatly intensified and expanded. Thus, Paul views sin not only as a matter of individuals “missing the mark” but also even more fundamentally as a cosmic power that holds all humans in bondage (e.g., Rom. 3:9; 6:6-12; 7:7-20, 23, 25). So too the NT views humans as held in bondage to a variety of evil principalities and powers (e.g., Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 15:24; Gal. 4:3, 8-9; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:8, 10, 15; cf. 1 Pet. 3:22) to such an extent that the entire present age can be construed as fundamentally “evil” (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:16). Creation itself is viewed as afflicted and corrupted with evil, waiting for its day of redemption (Rom. 8:19-22).
Significantly, the NT strongly emphasizes that Satan is the ultimate originator and expression of evil. For this reason, Satan is referred to as “the evil one” (ho poneros [Matt. 5:37; 6:13; 13:19; John 17:15; Eph. 6:16; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 John 2:13-14; 3:12; 5:18-19]), who rules the world (John 12:31; Eph. 2:2; 1 John 5:19) and is depicted as the one ultimately behind all sin, sickness, and death (John 8:44; Acts 10:38; Heb. 2:14). Individual and social evils are thus understood in the NT to be aspects of the kingdom of darkness and its ruler, Satan.
Jesus came to overthrow this kingdom of darkness and to liberate humanity and creation from its oppression, thereby reconciling all of creation to God (1 Cor. 15:20-28; Col. 1:19-20; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8) (Boyd, “Christus Victor”). Understood against the backdrop of the apocalyptic worldview, Jesus’ life, ministry, teachings, and especially his death and resurrection are seen as aspects of his messianic war against, and ultimate victory over, Satan, the powers, demons, and human sin (Boyd, “The Kingdom”).
Having been liberated, followers of Jesus are called and empowered to manifest his victory in the midst of a world that remains oppressed. As with Jesus, “our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). Our mandate is to reflect God’s character and will in our lives and resist sin, social/structural evil, and the kingdom of darkness that fuels it. The promise of God is that there is coming a time when Christ’s victory over evil will be fully manifested throughout the earth. When God’s kingdom is fully established on the earth, evil will be no more, and God shall be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28; cf. Eph. 4:10).
See also Eschatology and Ethics; Goodness; Institu-tion(s); Powers and Principalities; Sin; Theodicy
Bibliography
Boyd, G. “Christus Victor View.” Pages 23—49 in The
Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, ed. J. Beilby and P. Eddy. InterVarsity, 2006; idem. God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. InterVarsity, 1997; idem, “The Kingdom as a Political-Spiritual Revolution.” CTR 6 (2008): 23-42; Day, J. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. UCOP 35. Cambridge University Press, 1985; Eichrodt, W. Theology of the Old Testament. Trans. J. Baker. 2 vols. OTL. Westa minster, 1961; Kluger, R. Satan in the Old Testament. Trans. H. Nagel. Northwestern University Press, 1967; Lindstrom, F. God and the Origin of Evil: A Contextual Analysis of Alleged Monistic Evidence in the Old Testament. Trans. F. Cryer. Gleerup, 1983; Wakeman, M. God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery. Brill, 1973; Westermann, C. Isaiah 40—66. Trans. D. Stalker. OTL. Westminster, 1969; Wink, W. Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces That Determine Human Existence. Fortress, 1986.
Greg Boyd and Paul R. Eddy
Of the four NT verses that reference arete, a common term in Hellenistic ethics, three are significant: Phil. 4:8; 2 Pet. 1:3, 5. Arete (“excellence, virtue”) concerns skills and qualities of character, acquired over time through practice and effort, that enable persons to live well and/or perform their proper function. The reasons for the term’s near absence in the NT are unclear. Perhaps Wolfgang Schrage is correct that it was viewed as overly individualistic.
In Phil. 4:8, Paul affirms “excellence” or “virtue” within a list of admirable traits that would have been familiar in Greek culture. Paul does not assume that the church and broader culture are always at odds. Instead, Paul calls the church to recognize what is true, honorable, just, pure, pleasing, commendable, excellent (arete), and praiseworthy, wherever these qualities are found. In context, this is not a blanket affirmation of the surrounding culture; it is instead a call to discerning appropriation of moral insight, whatever its source. The community is to consider or “think about” these matters in light of Paul’s own example and under the rule of the “God of peace,” who guards their hearts and minds (Phil. 4:7-9).
In 2 Pet. 1:5, arete occurs within a carefully constructed catalog of qualities toward which we are to exert “every effort.” The readers are encouraged “to support” their faith with virtue (arete), knowledge, self-control, endurance, godliness, mutual affection, and love. Allen Verhey rightly notes that this list is interesting due both to a heavy use of Hellenistic vocabulary and to a conception of moral growth in the Christian life via progress in qualities of character. This assimilation of Greek virtues is nevertheless grounded in a response both to God’s generosity in providing “everything needed for life and godliness” and to Christ’s own “goodness” (arete) (2 Pet. 1:3).
The paucity of NT references to arete suggests to some that the NT lacks interest in or is incompatible with a virtue- or character-oriented approach to ethics. Such a conclusion could be devastating to the contemporary interest in virtue-oriented approaches among many Christian ethicists, but it reads too much into the term’s infrequency. Both Phil. 4:8 and 2 Pet. 1:3-7 show openness to virtue or character language and thought patterns. Moreover, without calling them such, Paul made frequent use of lists of virtues and vices (Rom. 1:29-31; 13:13; 1 Cor. 5:10-11; 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 12:20-21; Gal. 5:19-23), and he pictured the Christian moral life in a virtue-like way: as a race requiring effort, self-control, and training (1 Cor. 9:24-27; Phil. 3:11-17; cf. Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:16). Similarly, again without naming it such, Matthew espouses excellences or virtues such as humility, justice, and integrity (Matt. 5:6-8). Indeed, Benjamin Farley’s survey suggests that much of the biblical material is rightly read as promoting specific excellences or virtues, including faith, justice, patience, and hope. As the NT references to arete indicate, the caveats to this affirmation of virtue-thinking are that it should be a discerning appropriation, grounded in grace, and guided by worthy examples such as Paul’s and by Christ’s own moral excellence.
See also Character; Teleological Theories of Ethics; Vices and Virtues, Lists of; Virtue(s); Virtue Ethics
Bibliography
Farley, B. In Praise of Virtue: An Exploration of the Biblical Virtues in a Christian Context. Eerdmans, 1995; Kotva, J. The Christian Case for Virtue Ethics. Georgetown University Press, 1996; Schrage, W. The Ethics of the New
Testament. Trans. D. Green. Fortress, 1987; Verhey, A. The
Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1986.
Joseph J. Kotva Jr.
Excommunication is the exclusion of a person from participation in the fellowship, worship, and particularly the sacramental life of a religious community. It can name a series of practices (e.g., cursing, banning, shunning) that entail the separation and potentially complete social ostracizing of an individual for the sake of minimizing the threat that this person’s moral failure or heretical belief presents to the purity and holiness of the community. The practice of excommunication may appear strange within a modern context of denominationalism and individualism where the church is often more concerned with attracting members than disciplining them. Also problematic is the potential for abusive practices associated with excommunication, in view of the ease with which community discipline has been and can be used for less-than-holy ends.
Scriptural roots and guidance for such practices are found in both Testaments. In the OT, Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the garden of Eden and the exile of the covenant community reflect the tradition of the “curse and ban,” God’s punishment of those individuals or groups that violate the terms of the covenant. Closely related are the laws of ritual purity that ensure the holiness of the community via the separation of the “clean” and the “unclean.” Although neither tradition unambiguously constitutes excommunicative practice, both certainly influence later developments of more explicit and structured forms of excommunication in the first-century synagogue, some coinciding with the birth of Christianity as Christians themselves are excommunicated (see John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Similar disciplinary practices appear to develop in the early church, particularly evident in Paul’s encouragement to exclude those who propagate false teachings (Gal. 1:9) or introduce morally problematic practices (1 Cor. 5:9-13).
However, such exclusions must be held in the light of Jesus’ key teaching on excommunication and community discipline in Matt. 18 and the broader witness of his ministry, which overcame the ritualized definitions of clean and unclean. In his embrace of the “sinner,” Jesus redefines the nature of holiness, located not in the purity of the community that excludes the unclean but rather in the new “social wholeness” of a reconciled community that embraces the outsider, practices repentance, offers forgiveness, and seeks to extend fellowship (2 Cor. 2:5-11). The character of God’s gracious intent is revealed in this and makes visible the mercy that tempers God’s judgment; even Adam and Eve are not given the death they deserve but instead continue their story in God’s grace and presence, albeit in a new way. Excommunication serves the disciplinary purpose of encouraging repentance and restoration, but it does not nullify the promise of God’s grace signified in baptism.
In this context, excommunication finds its place
not as censure, or even as insurance of community holiness, but primarily as a description of the world outside the church: dis-membered, excommunicated, and as such, that which the church hopes to overcome in its graceful offer of community constituted by the disciplined hard work of forgiveness, reconciliation, and the sharing of a meal hosted by Jesus and to which all are invited.
See also Accountability; Discipline; Exile; Holiness Code; Punishment
Bibliography
Bonhoeffer, D. The Cost of Discipleship. Rev. ed. Macmillan, 1963; Brower, K., and A. Johnson, eds. Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament. Eerdmans, 2007; Hein, K. Eucharist and Excommunication: A Study in Early Christian Doctrine and Discipline. EH 23/19. Herbert Lang, 1973; Jones, L. Embodying Forgiveness. Eerdmans, 1995; Vodola, E. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. University of California Press, 1986.
Jeffrey Conklin-Miller Execution See Capital Punishment
The central issue in discussions of the ethics of exile is how the ethical examples of biblical characters and the values counseled in exilic texts are inevitably contextualized in the events and setting of conquered Israel and Judah. Exilic ethics, therefore, are advised under conditions of subjugation and subordination. A preliminary illustration of the importance of this contextualizing of exilic ethics is the behavior modeled by Abram/Abraham in the famous case where Abraham feared for his life and thus advised deception (Gen. 12:13). If this passage is dated to the time of the postexilic period (so Brett), then it must be read as a “subcultural” or even “survival” ethic—that is, misinforming the authorities for the sake of survival. Such ethical behavior may not be exemplary for “institutionalized” or “mainstream” ethics (the determination of which is always the privilege of the powerful), but may well be considered wise behavior in the context of subordination to hostile power. Therefore, any discussion of the ethical significance of biblical behaviors modeled or counseled in exilic texts cannot be separated from consideration of the events themselves.
Assessing the Historical Impact of the Exile
The historic importance of the exile and its impact on the life and faith of ancient Israel have not been matters of universal agreement in the last century of biblical scholarship. Charles Torrey, for example, famously wrote that the exile “was in reality a small and relatively insignificant affair” (Torrey 285). Early in the twenty-first century, however, as a result of both new archaeological work and recent interdisciplinary study of biblical texts (especially when read in comparison with literature on refugee studies, post-traumatic stress disorder, and minority existence), the situation has dramatically changed. In his most recent survey of archaeological work, Oded Lipschitz refers to material evidence of “Nebuchadnezzar’s desire to eliminate Jerusalem as a religious and political center” and summarizes what he calls “the totality of the devastation” (Lipschitz 80). He concludes, “The demographic evidence thus supports the previous hypothesis that Jerusalem remained desolate throughout the time of Babylonian Rule” (Lip-schitz 218). The total population of Judah at the end of the Iron Age is estimated at 108,000, but at the beginning of the Persian period at 30,125 (Lipschitz 270). It should not be surprising, then, that Rainer Albertz begins the most comprehensive recent summary of the exilic period in biblical history and literature with these words: “Of all the eras in Israel’s history, the exilic period represents the most profound . . . [and] radical change. Its significance for subsequent history can hardly be overstated. Here, the religion of Israel underwent its most severe crisis” (Albertz 1).
A more radical transformation in biblical scholarship is hard to conceive. The events themselves are easily summarized. The short-lived “united” monarchy of ancient Israel existed from about 1020 BCE to the death of Solomon in about 722 BCE. After Solomon’s death, the Hebrew tribal territories split into rival political entities: the northern “state” of Israel, and the southern “state” of Judah, based in Jerusalem. Before long, however, the assertion of power from Mesopotamian regimes to the east eroded any sense of independence on the part of these small, rival states in Palestine (not only Judah and Israel but also Damascus, Moab, Edom, Ammon, and others). The Neo-Assyrian Empire conquered the northern state of Israel in 722 BCE, and Sennacherib also devastated Judah in 701, but Judah was not fully conquered and made into a Neo-Assyrian province as the north certainly was. Still, the devastation of colonial control by Assyria had its continued impact on Israelite and Judean territories.
A century later the rising power was the NeoBabylonian Empire. In their military attempts to possess Egypt, the Babylonians needed the corridor down the Mediterranean coast clear and under control; thus, Judah was “in the way.” Judah, at first, surrendered to Babylon in 597 BCE, after a siege, and a number of prisoners of war were exiled into separate communities in the Babylonian heartland. Ten years later, the remaining Judean political vassal of Babylon, Zedekiah, tried to revolt with promised assistance from Egypt, and the results were catastrophic. The deportations associated with the Babylonian conquests of Judah are normally referred to as “the Babylonian exile.” Substantial Diaspora communities were permanently planted in the eastern regions of Mesopotamian and Persian territories from the sixth century BCE onward, and remained well into the modern period. The biblical literature from the time of the Babylonian conquests consists of writings from both the homeland and the Diaspora, and often it reflects relations between the two kinds of communities (homeland and Diaspora). However, given the universal agreement that the writings that would later be canonized into the Jewish and Christian Scriptures were gathered, widely edited, and many actually written after the devastations of the sixth century BCE, the Bible as we now read it is largely the product of the conditions of Diaspora and occupation.
With regard to the Neo-Babylonian policies, David Vanderhooft surmises that Nebuchadnezzar’s western ventures had monetary motivations as well (Vanderhooft 82, 209). Furthermore, following the Babylonian Empire, the Persian “economy” was also a system for the hoarding of precious metals facilitated by a massive tax and labor (Frye 114-15). These realities continue right through to the Hellenistic period under the Ptolemies and Seleucids (Green 187). Irrespective of the very real differences between the political and ideological regimes from 587 to 164 BCE and into the Roman period, any discussion of biblical ethics must be attentive to the stubborn realities of ancient imperial designs toward power and control over wealth, territory, and human resources.
Situating an Ethics of Exile A number of ethical issues are raised when biblical literature of the period is read in a social context featuring these sociopolitical dynamics.
First, there is the problem of “public transcripts” and “private transcripts” (Scott 1985; 1990), which refers to ideas that may be discussed within a minority community, as opposed to those ideas intended for public consumption. As Eftihia Voutira and Barbara Harrell-Bond illustrate, this has been an important emphasis in refugee studies: “To be a refugee means to learn to lie” (Voutira and Harrell-Bond 216). One of the most important arenas for ethical debate, therefore, is the relation of the subordinated to the powerful.
It hardly seems necessary to emphasize that such perspectives would dramatically change a modern reading of, say, the stories of Dan. 1-6. These can be read naively as mere counsels to faithfulness, but in their context they also must be read as stories of religious and social resistance to assimilation. Furthermore, the Daniel stories clearly represent a counsel to be highly suspicious of imperial power as well as a call to maintain identity in a hostile social and political environment.
Finally, the notion that the stories of Daniel suggest vaguely “positive” evaluation of emperors should not be easily taken to mean that the biblical texts reveal positive feelings about living in the shadows of empires. Even the case of Nehemiah, whose role as “cupbearer” often is cited as an example of the potential for success among Diaspora Jews, must be carefully reconsidered in historical context. How much of an honor is it to be chosen to be the taster of food for the emperor, thus the one who will die first if anyone tries to poison the emperor? This is hardly a success story; rather, it merely reveals the ambiguity of living under a regime and the expendability of minorities, and it reveals Hebrew stories that must calculate public relations as an element of domination.
In sum, the ethics of exile must be explicated in the context of oppression and fear. If not, then such ethical reflection is insufficiently biblical. With these foundational observations in place, then, the following are suggested as potentially important ethical themes arising from a consideration of exilic contexts and literatures of the Bible.
Communal solidarity and definition. It is widely noted that the language of the Mosaic legal tradition changes rather significantly from the earlier Covenant Code (Exodus) to the more compassionate language used in the Deuteronomic Code (dated, at the earliest, to the reign of Josiah, 640-609 BCE, but amended to include references to exile [e.g., Deut. 28:49-68]). Among the more compelling aspects of the Deuteronomic Code are counsels to mutual aid—care for fellow Hebrews (and even non-Hebrews) typified especially by a concern for the indigent (widow, orphan, foreigner). Many laws instituting care for the poor are unique to the later law code (e.g., gleaning [Deut. 24:19], provisions for hunger [Deut. 24:20]) and suggest an increased social solidarity among the Hebrew people that may well be tied directly to a sense of common threat in the Assyrian and Babylonian periods.
Another aspect of communal solidarity is the behavior of community members toward one another. There is evidence that this was an increasingly serious concern in the exilic and postexilic contexts. The specific Greek (LXX) addition to Daniel known as the book of Susanna is a clear case of internal conflict and corruption within the community. We know that such issues of internal corruption and behavior also continued to be serious issues right into the Roman period, where such concerns arguably define the conflicts between Jesus and his followers on the one side, and hostile members of his own tradition on the other, who see his teachings as inviting trouble from Roman authorities (e.g., John 11:48).
Later Persian and Hellenistic literature, such as the book of Tobit, also maintains a strong emphasis on service to others within the community (see Tob. 4:13-18). Again, much of the context of the NT ethics of Jesus is illuminated by this emphasis on communal solidarity (see Horsley and Silberman).
Solidarity and group identity. The importance of group cohesion in circumstances of oppression can hardly be overemphasized. Any minority must attend to issues of identity and definition. How are “we” to be defined in distinction from variously identified “others”? In the exilic biblical literature, however, there are clear signs of debate with regard to the ethics of this process of selfidentity and maintaining faithful communities. For example, Ezra’s concern for the “purity” of the exilic community (e.g., the “pure seed” [Ezra 9:2]) clearly reflected an emphasis on maintaining separations and boundaries that maintained identity in circumstances of exile and minority existence. The matter of actually divorcing all foreign wives, however, appears to have stirred debate, given that we have contrary views stated in postexilic biblical literature as well, most famously the story of Ruth (whose obvious status of acceptance in the story is a direct violation of Ezra’s own counsel against Moabites [Ezra 9:1]) and in the counsel of the late texts of Isaiah (Isa. 56:3). Clearly, a major ethical issue involved the definition of, and integrity of the boundaries of, the “authentic” people of faith. The problem of conversion is obviously a related issue, and it haunts any reading of the book of Jonah or of Isa. 19, where even Assyrians and Egyptians will be included in the future definition of the people of God. There are a variety of texts suggesting exilic hopes that foreigners will learn to be well disposed toward Hebrews and Hebrew faith, even if falling short of a campaign of conversion (e.g., Zech. 8:22-23). But actual converts did exist, and thus how converts are to be treated (e.g., book of Ezra: rejection; book of Ruth: acceptance) is another ethical issue of relations with foreigners that continues to define the ethics of communal identity and integrity clear through the Hellenistic period (e.g., in works such as the noncanonical Joseph and Aseneth) and even into the NT debates between Paul and the so-called Judaizers, as outlined in Acts 15-16.
Violence and nonviolence in relation to outsiders. The issue of how “we” relate to “them” finds its utmost expression in the problem of violence. For example, the postexilic warning in Prov. 1 about being tempted to lives of urban crime (Prov. 1:10-19, esp. v. 13) is suggestive of the temptations toward banditry and criminal behavior in the Diaspora or under occupation. But this can also be expressed in the more acceptable language of nationalism and language of “restoration” (1 Maccabees is clearly restorationist). How to relate to non-Hebrews when living as a minority or under occupation is a major ethical debate reflected in exilic and postexilic biblical texts. There are texts that suggest Hebrew involvement in violence, as well as texts calling for apocalyptic punishment by God and angels of destruction (the apocalyptic tradition).
Angry exilic texts calling for vengeance against foreigners (e.g., Ps. 137; Jer. 50-51; Obadiah) are not, however, the only voices of counsel in the postexilic literature. The story of Jonah profoundly holds out the hope of a transformation of the enemy (and thus Hebrew nonviolent involvement in instigating that transformation), a tendency that seems closely related to the call of Isa. 49:6 to be a “light to the nations.” Furthermore, Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles (Jer. 29:4-23) has often been read as a counsel against fomenting revolution in the Diaspora. In this letter, Jeremiah cites the well-known exemptions from military activity (Deut. 20) to proclaim an armistice on the Diaspora communities, and then he concludes this section of the letter by counseling that these Jewish minority communities should “seek the peace [salom] of the city where I have sent you” (Jer. 29:7). It is likely that a disagreement on violent revolution versus nonviolent involvement was at the heart of the policy disputes illustrated by the public debates between Hananiah and Jeremiah in Jer. 28.
Resistance and cooperation in regard to governing authorities. How far can a member of a minority cooperate with the governing authorities? The positive values are continued life, potential prosperity, and even influence (1 Kgs. 8:50 clearly hopes for this) against the dangers of assimilation and loss of identity and thus also faith. Diaspora stories such as Esther, Nehemiah, and Daniel hold out the possibilities of some kind of advancement and prosperity even under the conquerors’ regimes (even if the stories are not taken literally), but they all also raise the dangers of assimilation and loss of faith and identity. Potential for influence goes from the minimal desire to simply be left alone (thus 1 Kgs. 8:50) to the possibility of actually influencing public policy in relation to Hebrew existence (Esther).
Discovering a common ethical language. Finally, it is interesting to note the widespread use of the wisdom genre in postexilic texts. The inclusion of large amounts of foreign wisdom sayings in Israelite works (e.g., Egyptian wisdom in Prov. 22-23; Platonic thought in Wis. 9:15) suggests that the writers of these works we now identify as “wisdom literature” were, at the very least, involved in dialogue with non-Hebrews. This may well explain the pious but hardly uniquely Israelite character of the ethical maxims of wisdom literature: it is, rather, universal in scope and application and represents a sector of Israelite society that was finding a common ethical language for discussion with non-Hebrews. This would further explain the common counsel of the wisdom literature to reasoned discussion as opposed to short-tempered (and ill-considered) violence (e.g., Prov. 16:7; 17:9, 14, 22; 24:5-6; 25:15; Eccl. 9:13-18a). The influence of wisdom traditions carries through the Hellenistic period and into the NT writings as well (e.g., Matt. 7:24-27; James).
The ethics of exile in biblical literature consists of a discussion of ethical models and counsels of behavior that cannot be separated from the lived realities of subjugation and occupation. Such a context helps to explain the emphasis in exilic and postexilic biblical literature on a matrix of interrelated ethical issues such as communal solidarity, relations with outsiders, and relations to the dominant power.
See also Additions to Daniel; Daniel Bibliography
Albertz, R. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. Trans. D. Green. SBL 3. Society of Biblical Literature, 2003; Brett, M. Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity. Routledge, 2000; Frye, R. The Heritage of Persia. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962; Green, P. Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. University of California Press, 1990; Horsley, R., and N. Silberman. The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World. Fortress, 2002; Lipschitz, O. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Eisenbrauns, 2005; Scott, J. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University Press, 1990; idem. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press, 1985; Smith-Christopher, D. A Biblical Theology of Exile. Fortress, 2002; Torrey, C. “The Exile and the Restoration.” Pages 285—340 in Ezra Studies. LBS. Ktav, 1970 [1910]; Vanderhooft, D. The NeoBabylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. HSM 59. Scholars Press, 2002; Voutira, E., and B. Harrell-Bond. “In Search of the Locus of Trust: The Social World of the Refugee Camp.” Pages 207—24 in Mistrusting Refugees, ed. D. Valentine and J. Knudsen. University of California Press, 1996.
Daniel Smith-Christopher