The Bible, despite the protestations of many a defensive evangelical, is not always internally consistent. This is not all that surprising, considering that its books are authored by many different writers over wide stretches of time and under appreciably different circumstances. Unless one insists that God directly dictated the words of Scripture to God’s human amanuenses and therefore serves as the one and only source, there is really no controversy here. Different writers have different concerns, worldviews, and axes to grind, all of which are reflected in their writings.
We see this when we compare two readings from the Old Testament—one from the Psalter and one from Second Isaiah. Psalm 98 presents a conventional view of the role of Israel vis-à-vis the Gentile nations of the world, while Isaiah 49 evinces a more progressive attitude. If we take just one verse from each reading, we can see this contrast clearly. In verse 3 of Psalm 98, the psalmist extols God because God “has remembered [God’s] steadfast love and faithfulness to the house of Israel. All the ends of the earth have seen the victory of our God.” Note that word “victory.” Turning to Isaiah 49:6, we have God declaring to a mysterious figure known as the Servant, “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” In this case take note of the words “light” and “salvation.”
See the difference? The psalmist portrays God’s relationship with the Gentiles in an almost antagonistic way: Israel’s victory almost assuredly entails the other nations’ defeat. If we look back one verse we see this sentiment expressed even more blatantly; verse 2 says that God “has revealed [God’s] vindication in the sight of the nations” (emphasis added). Israel and the nations are set in an adversarial relationship. But look how the mood changes in the passage from Isaiah. Now instead of taunting the Gentiles with news of God’s victory and vindication, the prophet depicts God as one who cares enough for these non-Israelite nations to give the Servant as a light that will guide them to salvation.
In the contemporary church we see the same dynamic at work. There is a triumphalist and insular branch of the church that is happy to portray God in combative terms, always ready to wreak judgment on those who fail to toe a very narrow line. This version of God curiously seems to share this group of Christians’ prejudices and hates. On the other end of the spectrum are those Christians who have an expansive view of God and of God’s world. Instead of the scarcity and parsimony that characterize the other group, these Christians see the world as a place of abundance and recognize the prodigality of God’s grace. They prefer the prophet’s God, who wants to extend salvation “to the end of the earth” (Isa 49:6), as opposed to the psalmist’s God who exults that “all the ends of the earth have seen the victory of our God” (Ps 98:3). In one vision the nations are mere spectators, looking on, one assumes in dismay and envy, as the chosen people celebrate their chosenness. In the other they are full participants in the economy of grace, and the chosen people shine a light to help them find their way and then rejoice that God has grown the category of chosenness enough to incorporate everyone.
The question we each must answer is, which of these visions is more attractive? Which God do we choose, the tribal deity who is on our side alone or the expansive God who invites everybody to join God’s side? What kind of Christianity do we want to practice, one that is characterized by suspicion or one that is open, one that fears or one that embraces the other? The choice is ours. Let us make it wisely.