If I was a Classical Theist, who believed in the traditional (let’s face it, imperial notions) of divine omnipotence and omniscience over and against God’s Wisdom and Power, I would be going through a faith crisis right now.
I have read the Hebrew Bible over and over again, yet never noticed 2nd Kings 3. Perhaps because I just thought it was just another divine war story.
In 2nd Kings 3, Elisha’s prophecy, at first seems to succeed, but at the end, it fails. Why? Because the king of Moab offers his son and heir to the throne as a sacrifice.
I will say, as my tendency to defend *unpopular* people persists, that it was unfair for Thom to say it is Hess’s dedication to inerrancy that is the problem with Hess’s reading of the passage. That is not the case at all. Affirmation of inerrancy need not lead people to believe in classical theism. It is Hess’s dedication to traditional categories of God’s knowledge (omniscience) that is more at play than anything.
2nd Kings, another case in point that God’s knowledge is contingent upon our free will decisions.
And Elisha wasn’t completely wrong; the Israelites defeated all but one city of Moab.
Oh, and does not anyone else find problematic that the king of Israel was taking tribute from Moab as a colonial political power?
Footnote 1: post has been editted to change ableist language; 1/3/14.
- Book Review: Walter Brueggemann’s An Unsettling God (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)