© Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture
Vol. 33, Special Issue, Fall 1998

The Role of Nature in Natural Disasters

by Dianne Bergant, CSA
Catholic Theological Union, Chicago

DIANNE BERGANT, CSA, is Professor of Old Testament Studies and Director of the Joint Doctor of Ministry Program at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. She is the author or editor of fifteen books, including the recent Israel's Wisdom Literature: A Liberationist-Critical Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). She has also published more than a hundred articles dealing with biblical interpretation and many critical reviews and essays in a wide variety of academic journals as well as in publications for general readers. In addition, she is an associate editor of The Bible Today and serves on the editorial boards of such publications as The Catholic Biblical Quarterly and Biblical Theology Bulletin. Her current research areas include biblical liberation theology and biblical theology and ecology.

Lewis University and Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture
Annual Seminar Fall, 1998

Dear Reader,

This publication marks a new series of lectures sponsored by Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture and Lewis University. The editors and staff of Listening take great pleasure in presenting you with "The Role of Nature in Natural Disasters," a lecture on biblical interpretation and ecology by Dianne Bergant, Professor of Old Testament Studies at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. Professor Bergant is the first speaker in the Lewis University-Listening Seminar, an annual event at which an established scholar addresses an area of interrelation between religion and culture. Listening thus continues in a new way its thirty-three year old tradition of addressing significant cultural and religious themes.

We believe that you will find Professor Bergant's discussion of how Old Testament theology can be related to present day ecological concerns to be of great interest and value. Certainly it represents the kind of creative and interdisciplinary thinking needed to confront effectively the many serious challenges faced by our contemporary world. Teachers as well as study and discussion groups are welcome to make photocopies of this lecture.

We hope you will find this and the following lectures in our series refreshing and serious, sensitive and clear, perceptive and honest. These characteristics, we believe, are necessary in listening and responding to the continuing and challenging dialogue between religion and culture in the modern world.

Sincerely,
Brother Mark McVann, FSC, Editor,
Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture

THE NEED FOR REINTERPRETATION

Time and again it has been said that we are in the midst of a paradigm shift (cf. Kuhn,1970; Ming & Tracy, 1989). Our scientific-technological achievements have thrust usout of the confines of classical western civilization into a new age. However, ouradvances in devising a corresponding theological worldview have not always keptpace. Traditional patterns of religious thought and conventional expressions ofspirituality, once so meaningful and reassuring, now too often seem empty andobsolete, making religion itself appear to be an archaic practice. Today we face thechallenge of either devising a viable religious worldview that is more compatible withcontemporary knowledge and experience or resigning ourselves to religious thinkingthat is either out of date, or if attuned to contemporary science, lacking a solidtheological foundation.

Despite the present failure of theology generally to embrace such an ecologicalperspective, many maintain that certain biblical narratives do in fact provide us with adistinct understanding of creation's intrinsic integrity. If this claim is true, then perhapswhat appears in some of the biblical material to be an anthropocentric (human-centered) worldview has been imposed by the biblical reader rather than implied by thebiblical author (cf. Bergant, 1991:5), and therefore, new interpretation of biblicalpassages should be made. Such an optimistic understanding of the biblical tradition is adirect challenge to any view that lays primary blame for our ecological difficulties atthe doorstep of the Scriptures themselves (White, 1967:1203-7). It is also opposed toother biases brought to biblical interpretation by readers, be they androcentric (malecentered) or gynocentric (female-centered).

No one would deny that creaturely limitations make it impossible for us to measurereality from anything but a human point of view. Such a perspective is inevitable.However, it is quite another thing to maintain that humankind is itself the actualmeasure of everything. Acknowledging this limitation, most biblical interpreterscontend that the Bible really displays a fundamentally theocentric or God-centeredperspective. In such a point of view, the principal value of creation lies less in itsusefulness to humans, or its instrumental value, than in the fact of its existence fromGod, or its intrinsic value. It is this intrinsic value of creation and creatures that ispresumed in biblical passages such as the creation narratives (Genesis 1-3), theaccount of the Noachic covenant (Genesis 9), the YHWH Speeches (Job 38-41), andvarious other poetic sections (e.g., Psalm 104, Eccl 3:1-9, etc.) In such passages, wesee that the world has not been created merely for human use. Rather, "The earth isthe Lord's" (Ps 24: 1).

One of the least appreciated books of the Bible is The Wisdom of Solomon, alsoknown as the Book of Wisdom. It does not appear in the Protestant Bible because itwas not included in the Jewish canon upon which the decision of inclusion was based.Considered apocryphal by Protestants, it is regarded as Deutero-canonical byCatholics and included in their canon. It gets its name by inference: although theauthor does not explicitly identify himself as Solomon, speaking in the first person hedescribes himself as such (7:5; 8:2 1; 9:7f; cf. I Kgs 3:5-15). The book itself is a formof royal testament, an ancient form of instruction from a dead monarch to those whosucceed him in governance of the people.

The Wisdom of Solomon has been chosen for consideration for this paper principallyfor two reasons. First, it gives us a glimpse into the ancient cosmological worldview, aworldview significantly different from ours but one from which we can gain ecologicalinsights. Second, it provides us with a wonderful example of how earlier biblicalmaterial was recontextualized and reinterpreted for a later community of believers, aprocess that continues to our own day.

In order to demonstrate these issues, we will begin with an overview of the tradition ofthe plagues of Egypt as found in the Book of Exodus. We will then examine the sametradition as it is found in the Wisdom of Solomon. The differences discovered willafford us insight into the process of reinterpretation of the tradition that resulted fromits recontextualization. The entire process should offer some direction for our ownrecontextualization and reinterpretation.

SIGNS AND WONDERS: THE BOOK OF EXODUS

The narrative of the ten plagues or ten wonders covers five chapters of the Book ofExodus (7:14-12:36). From Israel's point of view, the events are considered signs andwonders, manifestations of divine power that worked to Israel's benefit. However,from Egypt's point of view, they were plagues, afflictions that wrought havoc in theland. Actually, the text calls them signs and wonders, manifestations of divine power.The narrative includes the accounts of the pollution of the Nile River and all otherEgyptian water supplies, the infestations of frogs, gnats, and flies, the onslaughts ofpestilence and boils, the hail and thunder, the swarming of locusts, and darkness, andfinally, the death of the first-born.

Over the years, scholarship has detected clear evidence that what is now a literary unithas a very complicated source history. There are both repetitions in the variousdescriptions as well as discrepancies. Things are destroyed by one plague that hadalready been destroyed by an earlier one. Furthermore, several names for God areused. The literary character of this material has led scholars to assign certain sectionsof it to one of the Pentateuchal traditions (Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, Priestly[JEDP]) and some sections to another (see Childs, 1974:130-41).

The demythologizing tendency that marked the early part of this century resulted in aninterpretation that viewed this narrative account as a series of descriptions of verynatural phenomena, the kind that frequently occurred in that area of the world in thatparticular type of climate. Some have even argued that one natural infestation orphenomenon actually causes the next. Regardless of the degree of scientific orhistorical accuracy detected by such an interpretation, it still does not explain why thebiblical tradition arose in the first place or the nature of its theological meaning.Besides, the narrative clearly states that these phenomena, scientifically understandableor not, were the direct result of divine intervention.

Insights into one understanding of the biblical account lead to questions about the roleplayed by the literary unit within the Book of Exodus itself. It may have functioned asa kind of cult legend, part of the narrative explanation of an ancient blood ritual whichwas historicized and became part of the Passover celebration. This is a reasonabletheory since the plague account was probably a composite with the final plague, thedeath of the first-born, significantly different from the others. If there is any accuracyin this interpretation, one might conclude that the plagues describing naturalphenomena were arranged in such a way as to suggest increasing severity. Eachaffliction afforded the Egyptians an opportunity to repent. Failing this, anotheraffliction ensued, and another, until the final adversity fell upon them. As horrible as itwas, perceived in this way, the final tragedy was understandable.

Whether this ritual theory is accepted or not, most interpreters agree that the centraltheme behind the tradition of the plagues is the manifestation of the sovereign powerof YHWH, the God of Israel. This is not only presumed by the reader, it is clearlydemonstrated in the text. In every case, it is God who sends the individual plague.Then, after the plague is removed, it is God who hardens Pharaoh's heart so that hereally cannot respond positively to Moses' request for release (cf. Childs, 1974: 170-5).

I will make Pharaoh so obstinate that, despite the many signs and wonders that I willwork in the land of Egypt, he will not listen to you. Therefore I will lay my hand onEgypt and by great acts of judgment I will bring the hosts of my people, the Israelites,out of the land of Egypt. Exodus 7:34

God is in charge; there is no question about this.

The sovereign power of God is not an unusual theme. It is presumed throughout theentire Bible. In fact, all of the nations of the ancient Near Eastern world believed thattheir god(s) or goddess(es) exercised power over them and over all of thecircumstances of their lives and their environments. However, these were usuallypatron deities whose exercise of power was normally territorially circumscribed. Tomove outside the boundaries of one's tribe, or city-state, or nation, whichever the casemay have been, was to remove oneself from the protection of one's own god and toplace oneself in some way under the control of other deities. The gods of Egypt, forexample, ruled over all who dwelt there, Egyptians and foreigners alike.

Therefore, to maintain that YHWH was able to wield power outside the land of Israelwas to make an extraordinary religious claim. It meant that the God of Israel was notlimited by national boundaries. Though still perceived as a kind of patron deity, this was after all the God of Israel and not of Egypt or any other ancient Near Eastern nation, YHWH was more a God of the people, following them where they went and providing for them wherever they were. Even more than this, the claim that YHWH was able to wield power in another land meant that the sovereignty of YHWH exceeded the rule of the local deities. The account of the plagues is a startling demonstration of this claim.

This account was not merely the report of a contest between Moses and Aaron and themagicians of Egypt, each side demonstrating its magical skills. This was a battlebetween the Pharaoh, who was believed to be in some way divine, and the God ofIsrael. It was a battle between deities. Consequently, in a very real sense, it was acontest for the loyalties of the Israelite people (cf. Durham, 1987:96). Though in thenarrative YHWH was already worshipped as the God of Israel's ancestors (Exod2:23), in that same narrative the extent of God's saving power had not yet beenrevealed to them. Rather, the oppressive experience of the people in the land of Egyptsuggested that God was either powerless in another land or disinterested in theIsraelites' affliction.

The second suggestion is clearly not the case, for an earlier text states that God isindeed concerned:

But the Lord said, "I have witnessed the affliction of my people in Egypt and haveheard their cry of complaint against their slave drivers, so I know well what they aresuffering. Therefore, I have come down to rescue them from the hands of theEgyptians and lead them out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowingwith milk and honey." Exodus 3:7-8

The account of the plagues will demonstrate that the first suggestion is incorrect as well. It will show that God does have both the power and the will to bring this salvation about.

Initially, the sides appear to have been equally matched. The Egyptian magicians wereable to perform wondrous deeds that were comparable to those of Moses and Aaron."But the Egyptian magicians did the same by their magic arts" (7:22; 8:3). This doesnot mean that YHWH was no more powerful than Pharaoh. Instead, it was apreliminary manifestation of divine power that rivaled that of the reigning sovereign. Initself, this was remarkable, for it was performed outside the confines of Israel. Afterthe third plague, however, even the Egyptian wonder workers acknowledged thesuperior power of YHWH. "The magicians said to Pharaoh, 'This is the finger ofGod.'Yet Pharaoh remained obstinate and would not listen to them, just as the Lordhad foretold" (8:15).

The tradition does not suggest that God's initial plan was to defeat Pharaoh. Rather, itwas a request of Pharaoh to free the people of Israel from bondage and to allow themto go into the wilderness in order to worship their own God. It was because ofPharaoh's refusal to concede to this request that God's mighty power was manifested.Again and again, through the agency of Moses and Aaron, the scope of God's mightwas revealed. It was shown to be superior to that of the deities of the land of Egyptand it was exercised through the orders of nature. God commanded the waters andanimals of the earth as well as the hail and darkness of the sky. Finally, in the mostterrifying event of all, the death of the first-born, God exercised control over life itself.

Several very important points are revealed through this final catastrophe.Paradoxically, the blood on the doorposts symbolized both life for the Israelites anddeath for the Egyptians. In a world of competition and limited resources (cf. Malina,198 1), survival among more or equally powerful nations required assurance of God'spower over life and death. Here, God's power was believed to have been manifestedthrough protection of Israel and triumph over Israel's enemies.

The first-born of a family (Exod 12:12) usually signifies continuity as well as the veryidentity of the people. Here, God explicitly touches the lineage of both people. Thereseems to be an implicit parallelism between the households being protected and thosebeing attacked. Using the life blood of the sacrificial animal, God both safeguards thelife and future of Israel and strikes down the life and future of Egypt. The naturalphenomena appear to have been individual skirmishes that built up to this final conflict.Pharaoh and all of Egypt with him have been conquered by the mighty hand and theoutstretched arm of the God of Israel. There is now no question about the superiorityof YHWH.

The complexity of the literary history of this unit makes identification of its historicalsetting very difficult. This is true about the individual incidents described within thenarrative as well as the entire literary piece in its final form. It is as difficult to uncoverthe actual events that took place during the Egyptian sojourn as it is to ascertain thehistorical circumstances of the community to which the tradition was eventuallyaddressed. From a historical point of view, this could be considered unfortunate.However, from a theological perspective, precise historical dating is not as important.This is so because the uncontested power of YHWH, the principal theme in this unit,speaks to every generation in all circumstances.

BLESSING INSTEAD OF AFFLICTION: THE BOOK OF SOLOMON

The Greek character of the Wisdom of Solomon is unmistakable. It is only found inthe Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible that appeared around the third centuryB.C.E. (Before the Common Era). There its linguistic form is natural and free-flowing,suggesting that it originated in Greek rather than Hebrew. Its ample vocabulary fromHellenistic anthropology, philosophy, psychology, medicine, and the popular Isis cultreveals an author who enjoyed an exceptional grasp of the learning of this culture, aculture that did not exist at the time of the Israelite king to whom the book isattributed.

Several rhetorical devices found within the book resemble those developed by variousGreek Cynic or Stoic philosophers. The technique that is used in the section underconsideration here is the syncrisis, a Hellenistic form of comparison. All of this literaryevidence suggests that the book originated in Alexandria in Egypt, one of the greatestintellectual centers of the Mediterranean world and the site of a large Jewish diasporacommunity. Most scholars date the Wisdom of Solomon somewhere in the last half ofthe first century B.C.E.

Despite the Greek characteristics, this is nonetheless a Jewish book. The influence ofthe Hebrew poetic technique of parallelism as well as certain Hebraic figures of speechcan be detected throughout. The description of God's care during the exodus is a formof homiletic midrash, a method of Jewish interpretation that makes the biblicalmessage relevant in new situations (cf. Reese, 1970:91-102). This kind ofinterpretation allows the traditional law, restated as halakah, and earlier narratives,retold as haggadah, to give faithful direction to a new generation.

In the past, the literary integrity of the Wisdom of Solomon was questioned (cf.Winston, 1979:12-14). Today, scholars generally agree on its structural unity. Thebook is usually divided into three sections, each of which appears to treat a verydistinct theme. They are: Immortality as the Reward of Wisdom; Solomon and theQuest for Wisdom; God's Providence During the Exodus. However, a closer lookshows that the book really does contain a coherent theology. God is encountered inthe cosmos through Wisdom; eschatology or final fulfillment is built into the verystructure of the cosmos; and history illustrates that same cosmic structure (Collins,1977:128). In other words, in this book, creation is the matrix within which bothhistory and salvation are to be understood.

The book's midrashic reflection on some of the Exodus events shows how Wisdomactually directed the course of history. The section under consideration consists of fivesyncrises, contrasts that compare the plight of the Israelites with that of the Egyptians(cf. Wright, 1967:177; Murphy, 1990:90f; Perdue, 1994:294; for seven contrasts seeReese, 1970:98-102; Winston, 1979:227). The contrasts themselves function in severaldifferent ways. At first glance they appear to demonstrate how God rewards therighteous and punishes the wicked. A closer look shows that what acts as the agent ofIsrael's blessing is as well the means of Egypt's affliction. "For by the things throughwhich their foes were punished, they in their need were benefitted" (11:5). Even theEgyptians realized this. "For when they heard that the cause of their own torments wasa benefit to these others, they recognized the Lord" (11: 13). Finally, the adversity isfrequently effected through the Egyptians themselves: "That they might recognize thatthey are punished by the very things through which they sin" (11: 16). Thesecomparisons constitute a reflection on God's preference of Israel over Egypt, a lessonaimed at the author's own contemporaries (perhaps Alexandrian Jews who are beingseduced by the Hellenistic culture).

The first syncrisis develops the theme of thirst in the wilderness. It begins with theGreek word anti, "instead of" (11:6; cf. H: 15; 16:2; 16:20; 18:3), and compares theplague that bloodied water of the Nile was for the Egyptians with the boon that thespring from the rock was for the Israelites. In this experience, the Egyptians suffered atwo-fold affliction: not only were they plagued with the polluted water, but they werefurther distressed with the knowledge of Israel's good fortune in the wilderness.

The second syncrisis (11: 15-16:15), which develops into a very extensive digression,both begins and ends with anti (11:6; 16:2). It compares the way the Egyptians wereplagued by certain small animals, while the Israelites were fed by other small creatures(16: 1 f). It also states a secondary theme (v. 15f), the manner in which the very agentsof Egypt's sin, the reptiles and insects that were worshipped in that land, turn on thepeople as blight and pestilence. The third syncrisis (16:16-23) describes how theheavens poured down both water and fire, and how these consumed the fruits of theland of the Egyptians. In contrast (anti, v.20), the same heavens opened up and rained manna, which sustained the Israelites in their need.

In the fourth syncrisis (17:1-18:4) the author weaves together themes from legendsthat grew out of the Exodus narrative with data gleaned from Hellenistic psychology.The Egyptians were paralyzed by the darkness. On the other hand (anti, 18:3), theIsraelites advanced in the light provided by the pillar of fire. This comparison movesthe discussion of darkness/light to the metaphorical plane. Those who preferred thedarkness of ignorance and had imprisoned the children of God deserved the terror ofthe night, while it is fitting that those who would bring the brilliance of the law to theworld should walk in light. The fifth and final syncrisis (18:5-19:2 1) describes how thedecision of the Egyptians to massacre the sons of the Hebrews reverted onto their ownsons. Once again the author shows how God turns things around.

The ethnocentricity of this book is striking. Such chauvinism is not merely acharacteristic of the work, it is its primary focus. Furthermore, as described here, theethnocentricity is given divine legitimation. In fact, according to this version of thestory of the signs and wonders, it originated out of God's preference of one peopleover all others. From start to finish, the author is intent on demonstrating thesuperiority of his own religious tradition, and he does this at the expense of Hellenism,the culture that appears to him to have posed a real threat to the commitment of hiscompatriots. Not content to deride this threatening culture which was contemporarywith himself, he ridicules another nation and culture, Egypt, the culture by which hisancestors had been threatened in times past. He does this in order to show that thepeople to whom he belongs have from their inception been God's special people andtheir religious beliefs and practices have always been superior to the beliefs andpractices of all others.

The notion of having been specially chosen by God has been at the core of Israel's self-perception from the very beginning. At times, this belief has brought the people totheir knees in awe and humble gratitude (cf. Exod 19:3-8). At other times it has ledthem into attitudes of arrogance and false confidence (cf. Jer 7: 1 -15). It is importantto understand such ethnic bias and not superficially reject it, or worse, consider it partof divine revelation. It seems that in the Wisdom of Solomon such ethnic bias may wellbe a defensive reaction to a perceived threat to cultural survival, a threat arising out ofa sense of vulnerability in the face of Hellenistic acculturation rather than superiority.

Although the content of the tradition of the signs and wonders as found in Exodus andin the Wisdom of Solomon is fundamentally the same, the point of each respectiveargument and the audiences to which they are directed are quite different. In Exodus,at issue was the sovereignty of YHWH and the loyalty of the people of Israel to theirGod. In the Wisdom of Solomon, at issue is God's preference for the people of Israeland the superiority of their religious beliefs. It is clear that the circumstances thatchallenged God's people at various times in their history influenced theirreinterpretation of the Exodus tradition.

A question that arises from both books is yet unanswered: Does God use nature as aninstrument of reward and punishment? To put it another way: what is the relationshipbetween the natural order and the moral order? Is there merely an instrumentalconnection? Is nature simply a device that God uses to reward or punish? Does itserve not only the God-given purposes intrinsic to it but human designs as well? Ifsuch is the case, then nature is somehow dependent for its unfolding both on God andon humankind. In other words, it will rain when God so decides, but God's decisionhinges upon human obedience. The texts certainly appear to say this, but when theydo, what do they mean?

ANCIENT WORLDVIEW

There is no question that the God of Israel controls the forces of nature. At issue is therelationship between the natural order and the moral order. The basis of theconnection between morality and the natural order is tseadqah, the Hebrew word forrighteousness. The original meaning of the word is "to be straight," "to conform to thenorm." In the tradition of ancient Israel, this norm is the nature and will of God. Inreality, it is God who is righteous (Ps 145:17). Human beings are righteous to theextent that they conform to God's will. Furthermore, righteousness and judgment, orjustice (mishpat), are the foundation of God's throne (Ps 97:2). And according to thecreation tradition, the cosmic throne was set up only after order had been established.

God's cosmic rule is rooted in righteousness. Israel believed that the same principle ofrighteousness governs the order on earth, because all order was established in thebeginning by the same creator (Fretheim, 1991a:111). What happens on one plane ofreality, therefore, has repercussions on another. Disruption of one facet of God'screated order affects the harmony of the entire system. Such a worldview holds thatmoral order and natural order are inherently interrelated (cf. Fretheim, 1991a:106).The covenant theology found in the First Testament does not create this relationship, itreflects it and builds on it. With its law, Israel believed that it made specific the moralorder established at creation, the moral order that was to be observed. With therewards and sanctions associated with that law, it drew clear lines between thismorality and the natural order to which it was linked.

Israel further believed that when women and men live lives of integrity, submissive tothe orders of the universe, the balance within creation is maintained and all creaturesenjoy peace and ecological tranquility. However, sin upsets this delicate balanceestablished by God at creation, and the consequences of this imbalance are felt innatural disasters such as flood or drought or infertility of any kind. Israel maintainedthat because of the structure of this order, fidelity to God would ensure it prosperity inthe land, while faithlessness would put into motion a series of events that could wreakhavoc on the whole earth.

The biblical texts often portray God as acting in a very direct fashion whenever Godblesses or punishes. This seems to be the view described in the account of the signsand wonders found in the Book of Exodus (for a view that sees the signs as propheticcf. Fretheim, 1991; 1991a:107-8). On the one hand, Israel certainly did believe thatthere is an inherent connection between and among all of the various facets of creationand that there was a cause and effect link through which God's will is accomplished.On the other hand, Israel also insisted that God is totally free, transcending allstandards and bound by no criterion. The first mode of divine action might beconsidered the usual way that God acts, through the regular laws of the natural world.The second mode of action could be seen as the extraordinary manner of divineactivity. When the biblical author wished to stress divine sovereignty and freedom as inthe Book of Exodus, the second mode is developed. When, as is the case in theWisdom of Solomon, harmony and interdependence are the focus, the first isemployed.

According to the tradition of the signs and wonders wrought in Egypt, the Pharaohinitially had agreed upon Israel's safe departure but then he revoked this permissionand pursued God's people with a vengeance. This pursuit was to no avail, for,according to the Wisdom of Solomon, even nature worked to save the Israelites andpunish their pursuers (16:24-9). It should be noted that what are being described inthis book are not miraculous events. Rather, nature protected and provided for God'speople according to its own law, as if reward of the righteous is built fight into thestructures of the universe (cf. Collins, 1983:184). "For all creation, in its several kinds,was being made over anew, serving its natural laws, that your children might bepreserved unharmed" (19:6).

The distinctiveness of the creation theology found in the Wisdom of Solomon shouldnot be overlooked. It is clear that the author follows the creation narrative of thepriestly tradition (Gen 1: 1-2:4a) in his teaching about creation. However, in a boldmove, he has used this same tradition here to describe salvation (Vogels, 1991). TheExodus event is not viewed as a military feat, but as a refashioning of nature (19:6).Even the sequence of this description follows the pattern of the creation narrativerather than events in the Book of Exodus.

The Book of Wisdom makes a unique contribution to creation theology. Much of the First Testament moves from salvation to creation:

I will make a covenant for them on that day,
with the beasts of the field,
with the birds of the air,
and with the things that crawl on the ground.
Bow and sword and war
I will destroy from the land,
and I will let them take their rest in security.
Hosea 2:20

Lo, I am about to create new heavens
and a new earth;
The things of the past shall not be
remembered or come to mind.
Isaiah 65:17

As the new heavens and the new earth
which I will make
Shall endure before me, says the Lord,
so shall your face and your name endure.
Isaiah 66:22
On the other hand, The Wisdom of Solomon begins with creation and moves tosalvation. In fact, the book itself begins and ends with affirmations of God's creativepurpose: "He created all things that they might endure" (1:14); "The whole creationwas fashioned anew, so that your children might be preserved unharmed" (19:6).

A QUANTUM WORLDVIEW

The ancient Near Eastern worldview may appear to be too simplistic for contemporarybelievers whose perception of world order includes sophisticated scientificunderstanding. However, the ancients were not unlike those modern physicists whobelieve that all of creation is in some way connected and who are in search of a GrandUnified Theory that explains how the electromagnetic force, the strong and weaknuclear forces, and gravity may have originally been united (Davies, 1985; Hawking,1988). Although we understand the natural world in a way very different than did ourreligious ancestors, we have come to realize that interdependence is a fundamentalcharacteristic of every ecosystem and the natural world is really a simple yet intricatearrangement of interconnected ecosystems.

Today we are not faced with the same challenges that faced the people of ancientIsrael. We do not deem political vulnerability evidence of the superiority of a god notour own. Nor do we believe that accommodation to a new culture will necessarilyundermine the fundamental principles of our religious heritage. Consequently, we willnot comprehend the tradition of the signs and wonders in the same way as did thosewho preceded us in faith. However, when we recontextualize the tradition in order tounderstand it from the perspective of our world, it challenges us no less than itchallenged the others. One of the issues facing us is twofold: the viability and thesustainability of the earth.

So much of the ecological devastation from which we suffer today is the direct resultof our anthropocentric imperialism, our unbridled greed, and our disdain for whatcannot immediately satisfy our needs or desires. These attitudes are both sinful andfoolish. We, like every other creature of the natural world, are embedded in the realityof this world, we are not above it. Furthermore, like every other creature of the naturalworld, we are subject to its laws, laws established in the beginning by the Creator. Inmany ways, we have experienced what the ancients professed, that is: those who livein accord with these laws are blessed by the very creation that they respect; and thosewho violate them experience nature's revenge.

This does not deny certain social disparity; too frequently the innocent do sufferconsequences of actions not their own and the guilty are often able to avoid the havocthat they have caused. This disparity notwithstanding, when elements within the worldare altered, nature follows its course, even to the detriment of living creatures. Wecannot afford to disregard the order of nature; we can no longer live with the myopiaof chauvinistic anthropocentrism. The natural world works synergistically and if weare to survive within it, we must abide by its laws and not expect it to live according toours.

As we read the biblical texts, we gain new insights when the horizon of ourcontemporary scientific world interacts with the horizon of the world projected by thebiblical tradition of the signs and wonders. It is in this "fusion of horizons" (Gadamer,1975:341-374) that understanding takes place. It is only when these insights are reallyappropriated into our thinking and acting that transformation and conversion arepossible. Human ignorance and sinfulness have threatened the earth's ability to providea viable habitat that can sustain life. This biblical tradition calls us to a real metanoia, a real conversion. Will we accept this challenge?

REFERENCES
Bergant, Dianne
1991 "Is the Biblical Worldview Anthropocentric?," New Theology Review 4:5-14.

Childs, Brevard S.
1974 The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary (The Old TestamentLibrary). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Collins, John J.
1977 "Cosmos and Salvation: Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the HellenisticAge." Harvard Review 17:121-42.
1983 Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora.New York: Crossroad.

Davies, Paul
1985 Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. London:Unwin Paperbacks.
1987 Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary). Waco, Texas: Word Books.

Fretheim, Terence
1991 "The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster," Journal of Biblical Literature (110:385-96)
1991 Exodus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching).Louisville: John Knox.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg
1975 Truth and Method. New York: Seabury.

Hawking, Stephen
1988 A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. London: Bantam Press.

Kuhn, Thomas S.
1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second ed. Chicago: University Press.

Küng, Hans and David Tracy, eds.
1989 Paradigm Change in Theology. New York: Crossroad.

Malina, Bruce
1981 The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta:John Knox.

Murphy, Roland E.
1990 The Tree of Life (Anchor Bible Reference Library). New York: Doubleday.

Perdue, Leo G.
1994 Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature Nashville:Abingdon.

Reese, James M.
1970 Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and its Consequences. Rome:Biblical Institute Press.

Vogels, Walter
1991 "The God Who Creates is the God Who Saves: The Book of Wisdom'sReversal of the Biblical Pattern." Eglise et Théologie 22:315-335.

White, Lynn
1967 "The Religious Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," Science, 155:1203-7.

Winston, David
1979 The Wisdom of Solomon (The Anchor Bible). New York: Doubleday.

Wright, Addison G.
1967 "The Structure of the Book of Wisdom." Biblica 48:165-184.

Listening's thirty-three year old, wide-ranging and adventurous dialogue across thespectrum of religion and culture will continue in the journal's upcoming issues:

· The Winter, 1999 issue will address "Women and Violence" with contributions fromvarious parts of the world, including the United States, Poland, and El Salvador.

· The Spring 1999 issue will address Religious Meaning in Electronic Culture. Theways in which religious meanings have altered and can persist in a radically newambience will be the theme of the issue.

· The Fall, 1999 issue will be concerned with Prayer and Ethics. This theme isbecoming a prominent one in discussions of the interrelation between religion andethics.

Listening is published three times a year in Winter, Spring, and Fall.

1 year individual ($10)2 years ($18)
1 year library ($13)2 years ($23)
1 year individual foreign ($12)2 years ($23)
1 year library foreign ($15)2 years ($27)

Please pay for the subscription at the time it is ordered.
Send to:
Editor Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture
Lewis University -- Box 1108
Romeoville, IL 60446-2298

| Listening | Index | Home | O P Sites | Search |