 |
| Stained glass image of a biblical prophet. Image source. |
So here's an interesting post: How a Tale of Demonic Possession Predicted the Decline of an Early Medieval Empire (via).
In the ninth century, Frankish courtier Einhard was, apparently, exorcising a demon. Turns out the demon's name was Wiggo and he had some things to say about the ruling class:
He was Satan’s doorkeeper, Wiggo declared. He had been roaming the land of the Franks with 11 friends for the last several years. “Following our instructions,” the demon continued, “we destroyed the grain, grapes and all the earth’s produce that is useful to mankind. We slaughtered the stock with disease and even directed plague and pestilence against human beings.” The priest asked what had given Wiggo such power. The demon replied, “By reason of the perverseness of this people, and of the manifold sins of those who are set up to rule over them.”
The sins of the Franks and their rulers had made the land fertile for Wiggo and his friends. This was a land without justice in which greed ran rampant: The powerful “abuse the higher place,” Wiggo said, “which they received that they might justly rule their subjects, giving themselves up to pride and vainglory; hatred and malice they direct not only against those who are far off but against their neighbors and those with whom they are allied; friend mistrusts friend, brother hates brother, and father has no love for son.” None, Wiggo concluded, gave honor to God as they did in previous generations. His speech finished and his work apparently done, the demon left the girl, overcome by the power of the martyrs’ relics.
The article is about how people used stories about demons (and other supernatural happenings) as a way to indirectly call out their leaders' abuses of power. Because, you can't really go tell the king "here's my opinion on what you're doing wrong." But you can say "a demon told me that it's been given power to cause all these problems in our society because of the bad behavior of our rulers."
Fascinating!
And, here's a question: What if the prophets from the bible were doing something similar?
I've always conceptualized the Old Testament prophets like this:
So, God gave all these laws to his people, and they need to simply follow those laws, and God will bless them and make their society prosperous. It's not that hard, just follow the laws. Mostly about believing in the correct religion, and doing whatever little arbitrary traditions God set up, like how exactly to sacrifice animals and when to have feasts and whatever.
But the Israelite people strayed from God and didn't follow his laws. Ugh, you guys, why can't you just do this? It's not that hard. So God sent prophets to tell them "come on you guys, you need to stop worshiping those bad gods, and worship the correct god instead, otherwise all kinds of terrible things will happen to you."
But for the most part the people didn't listen to the prophets. God kept stalling for time, kept delaying the punishment that they deserved, but eventually he let the Assyrians invade Israel and the Babylonians invade Judah, as punishment for the people's sin. And that "sin" was basically believing in the wrong gods.
Basically, when I was evangelical, I took it at face value what the Old Testament prophets said. The people weren't faithful to God, so God sends prophets to warn them, but that doesn't work, so eventually he lets other armies invade and conquer them.
But hey wait a minute, what if it was more like this instead:
It wasn't about "the people" sinning. It was about the rulers and upper class. And their "sin" wasn't simply about believing in the "wrong" gods- it was about oppression and injustice and how they didn't help the poor. And it wasn't really God telling the prophets these things- that was just a way to frame their criticism so that they would be allowed to say it. And when enemy armies invaded, that wasn't actually related to their society's sin. It was unrelated but offered a convenient narrative for the prophets to use.
Hmm, interesting.
Also, I always read the rebuke from Old Testament prophets as being primarily about "you guys are following the wrong gods instead of the right god"- simply about what label you put on your religious activities, not about what you actually *do* and the way you actually *treat people*. Sure, if you had asked me why the other religions were bad, I would have trotted out some apologetics answer about "those other religions had human sacrifice and prostitution" but that was a secondary concern for me- the main concern was that the god you have in mind when you do your worship isn't the right one.
And I always read the bible from that mindset. If the prophets primarily wrote about social justice, I would not even have noticed. Sure, I know there are a few bible passages where the prophets' criticisms are about the way they treat people, and not about which religion they belong to- like Isaiah 58. But mostly their criticism was about which god(s) the people believed in, right? Right? ... It would be fascinating to read the bible again and see if the prophets' writings are mostly about social justice or about what label you use for your god(s).
Another thing I wonder: The people who believed in demons back then- in the bible or in ninth-century Europe- what did those beliefs look like exactly? Did they literally believe it, or was it more of a vibes-based thing?
I've been ex-evangelical for a long time, but I don't think I've thought about this before. Were the biblical prophets speaking to all the people, about their religious affiliation, or were they speaking to those in power, about their failure to create a just society? And were the eventual invasions by Assyria and Babylon really punishments from God, or were they just things that happened that the prophets used as part of their story?
---
Related:
My mind is blown by how cool the Synoptic Problem is
No One Can Take The Bible From Me
The Bible Stories As I Read Them Were Never Actually In The Bible
No comments:
Post a Comment