The Jewish Roots of Christianity: Exploring Jeremiah's New Covenant

What is New in Jeremiah’s New Covenant?

          

Although disputed, most scholars attribute Jeremiah 31:31-34 to the prophet Jeremiah, however some argue the verses under examination are not his ipsissima verba.^[2] Jeremiah is one of the most interesting characters in the Old Testament. What makes this character a unique figure is the fact that he is the only prophet that writes before, during and after the exile and destruction of the temple in 586 B.C. While it is a historian’s job to explore the historic Jeremiah, for the objective of this paper and to further develop its purpose, I will construct a general idea of the Prophet through the Book of Jeremiah as it contributes to the examination of the verse. The Book of Jeremiah tells us the following things about Jeremiah: He is a man of God, he has been anointed, appointed and consecrated, he is called to a celibate life for the sake of his mission, he has been sent on mission and he is a man to whom promises have been made. 

As a result of these promises and his ministry, Jeremiah struggles, shows vulnerability and yet resiliency in his mission.^[3] We learn that Jeremiah is a man that struggles with his calling from the start and is often ready to resign from the task assigned to him. In the Book of Jeremiah we also learn that he continually advocates for the people of Judah. We learn that Jeremiah is a prophet in every sense of the word—a man destined to suffer for knowing personally the will of Yahweh and Yahweh’s tender love towards Israel. If we attribute Jeremiah 31:31-34 to this understanding of the Prophet Jeremiah, then the verse under examination expresses words of pain and hope that are a result of a lived experience from the prophet. First, this oracle may be a direct message from Yahweh, but the oracle may speak of Jeremiah’s own personal struggle as well. The story of Jeremiah tells us that he experiences the pain of Yahweh and therefore the emphasis to have the Law in the minds and hearts of Israelites could be Jeremiah’s own desires as a product of his own experience failing to rescue them from destruction.

 It is a difficult task if not impossible, to date scripture with certainty. Scholars have different opinions for the date of Jer. 31:31-34. Some think of an early time in the prophet’s career with a final editing during or briefly after the exile, while others offer strong foundations that it happened during an early exilic date shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. Yet another group of scholars date the verses to the late exilic or even post-exilic period.^[4] As Jeremiah’s words are not recorded chronologically in the book attributed to him, it is only safe to say that the verse can be place sometime during his long forty-five year ministry of preaching between 627 BC and 586 BC, concluding that they are closer to the dates prior to the exile.^[5]

 Jeremiah follows a long lineage of prophets that warn the people of Judah of the tragedy that will fall upon them. Among them we can find Isaiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum and Habakkuk. 

As the prophets reiterated the upcoming devastation to fall on Israel, the historical setting provides powerful insights about the nature of Jeremiah’s ministry and preaching, including the oracle being examined. Prior to the witnessing of his oracles of destruction, Jeremiah had witnessed the failed attempt of reformation from King Josiah.^[6] In his oracles Jeremiah denounces idolatry as one of the most serious grievances against Yahweh. Many believed that the defeat of Josiah was a sign that other gods were angry since the people were worshiping Yahweh, which turned the Judahites to the worshiping of idols, for protection of the next generation.^[7] The ministry of Jeremiah then can be summed up as the destruction of old ways and the re-construction of new,^[8] and in his effort he would make idolatry the center of his condemnation. And while King Josiah would fail in his attempt to reform Judah through political and cultural transformation, Jeremiah would fail in his attempt to provide warning of worshiping of idols through prophecy. 

Much can be said also about the Book of Jeremiah as literature. For the objective of this paper, I will contemplate where the verse in found in relation to the book and whether the verse stands alone or in relation to other literature found in the book in order to provide better understanding of the verse at hand. The Book of Jeremiah can be divided into five sections that help organize the large text. First, Jer. 1-25 speaks of oracles and accounts involving the evil of Judah under three kings: Josiah (1-6), Jehoiakim (7-20), and Zedekiah (21-24). Second, Jer. 25-36 tells stories about Jeremiah and oracles from the times of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, (where we find the verse under consideration) Third, Jer. 37-45 is where we find the story of Jeremiah’s last days. Fourth, Jer. 46-51 reveals oracles against foreign nations, and finally, Jer. 52 outlines an appendix describing the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC (taken from 2 Kgs. 25 to complete the story of Jeremiah’s words).^[9] Also, Jer. 31:31-34 takes the form of a divine revelation to Jeremiah. This text is completely independent of any other texts within The Book of Jeremiah. The oracle does not have original connection with the sayings that precede it and follow it.^[10] Thus, the verse must be examined independently from the chapter and only compared to other oracles of hope within The Book of Jeremiah for context. Chapters 30-31 (with Ch. 32-33) are frequently referred to as "The Book of Consolation." Jer. 31:31-34 is found here mainly because of the hope it portrays after a series of oracles foretelling destruction. While the oracles of hope are dispersed throughout the Book of Jeremiah, it provides information on how Jeremiah’s mission and prophecy shifts. Here, the prophet becomes an agent of hope and no longer a prophet that foretells of destruction. ^[11]

In conclusion, Jeremiah is probably speaking shortly before the exile (perhaps during the first major deportation in 594^[12]), or during the exile, while personally experiencing the doom that has fallen on the people of Judah. Overall, Jeremiah had failed in his mission as a prophet trying to have the people of Judah turn to Yahweh. He preached against the worshipping of foreign idols and gods, against social injustice, and against the personal immorality of his age.^[13] He was unable to prevent the destruction of Judah and the temple. Finally, this oracle illustrates how Jeremiah transformed from a prophet of despair to a prophet of hope.^[14]

Now that a general external and internal context has been provided to the verse, let us approach the issue at hand. What makes this passage complex and ultimately profound is the notion of new. The term is only mentioned once in the entire Old Testament.^[15] Hence, this paper raises the question: what is new about this particular covenant? The history of Israel had been established and defined by covenants. Scholars agree that while the Israelite history is full of covenants five are very significant: the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic or Sinai Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant of Jeremiah explored here.

In order to understand what is new about Jeremiah’s covenant, I will outline a brief explanation of how Israelites understood covenant-theology at the time. The word berit, often used to refer to a covenant in scripture, is unclear and scholars debate about several possible meanings including: to shackle, to bond, or to cut, although most agree that ultimately it came to refer to any form of binding.^[16]  For Jews then, berit meant to be one with the counterpart of the contract. The analogy of a coin here is helpful. For Israelites, Yahweh’s covenant meant a union of two sides of a coin, where the coin itself it’s the bonding and either side reflect the statutes of each party.  It is far more precise to shift from etymology to theology here, in that the belief of a covenant captured the Jewish faith and religiosity. For the Jewish mind at the time, covenant referred to their story and Yahweh’s relationship to them. For Israelites, a covenant alluded to how they were bound to an unbreakable covenant-union with their God; how God had made known his love and his mercy to them; how God had given them commandments to guide their life; how they owed him worship, fidelity and obedience; and how they are marked by the sign of that covenant-bond.^[17]And so, when Jeremiah begins with v31 and exclaims the coming of a new covenant, these concepts would have come alive to the Israelites at the time, particularly as they were experiencing the complete abolishment of the Sinai covenant in the renouncement of the Promised Land where they had prospered for so long. 

Israelites had been exposed to covenants in the Torah and embedded in their faith-experience years before Jeremiah. How is this covenant new? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to dissect the statues of the covenant and examined them independently. In v33 the first condition of the covenant reads: “I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts”; followed by the next statute continuing in v33, “…and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” In v34, the next decree reads, “And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” to the last statue also found in v34,  “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.’^[18] But of all the statutes in Jer. 31:31-34, only one may have been new to the Israelites at the time. The notion of apprehension or engraving the Law in the heart mentioned v33 is already stated in Deut. 6:67, Psalms 37:31, and in Ezekiel 36:26-27.^[19] The statue proclaiming Yahweh becoming Israel’s God, and Israel becoming His people in v33 is a parallel to previous covenants. This statute goes back to Abraham in the first covenant in Gen. 17:7 and is also echoed throughout the whole Exodus in the Sinai Covenant.^[20] The notion of forgiveness of sins in v34 is also not new. Sometimes appropriated by Christians, the promise has roots in Ex. 34:6, 7 and Ps. 103:8-12 and so this notion of the covenant is also not new.^[21] However, the first promise in v34 referring to the knowing of the Lord is in fact new to the Israelite. In this new covenant, it is not the content of the covenant which will be different, but how it is learned. ^[22]

The nuance of the covenant proclaims a prophetic imagining of a post-exilic community where knowledge of God (through the internalized Torah) is shared by all without any intermediary teaching authority.^[23] Jeremiah uses the faculty of a prophet to visualize a community of equals in the understanding, comprehension and discernment of God. Jer. 31:31-34 proclaims a new covenant in that it challenges the pre-established social and religious order in the accessibility of knowing Yahweh, which was a radical thought for Judaism at the time. In this oracle, Jeremiah is calling for a personal relationship with Yahweh that excludes religious authority. In To Build, To Plant, Brueggemann suggests that these verses imply that “there will be common, shared access to this knowledge of God—which evidences fundamental egalitarianism in the community; on the crucial matter of connection to God, the least and the greatest stand on equal footing. No one has superior, elitist access, and no one lacks what is required.”^[24] The notion of the knowing of God without intercessor is supported by the Pirke Aboth. In Ch. 3:3 it states, "But when two sit and there are between them words of Torah, the Shechinah rests between them, as it is said: 'Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another....'" (3:3).^[25]  The verses are product of a time when Jeremiah had seen the fail attempts of Josiah and the ones before him to try to impose the Law on the people. Jeremiah had lost hope for an institutionalized and top-bottom religion and passing down of tradition: prophets, priests, kings and courtiers had failed to use the responsibility they had been given.^[26] They had failed to teach the Torah and now Jeremiah envisions a community with no need of these religious roles in order for Israelites to know Yahweh.

            Thus, in Jewish theology, this new covenant is much more a reiterated covenant. This prophetic oracle stands out not only for its nuance but its relevance of hope and its radical claim challenging religious authority. Jeremiah had undergone three failed kingdoms in Judah that tried to impose the Law of Yahweh. He had seen Yahweh use the Babylonians as a tool to chastise Israel. Now, he is proclaiming words of hope by asserting that this knowing will not require priests, kings, or prophets. In other words, the new covenant is new in that it embodies or internalizes the Torah in lived experience. Jeremiah exclaims that no longer will it be necessary for the religious authorities to teach it, because the Israelites will know what it means to hope in Yahweh. This knowing will be in the minds and in the hearts of the Israelites: it will be in their personal exilic experience. This exilic experience did not discriminate, but came down on all Israelites despite their rank or social status. Consequently, Jeremiah’s clause on how the least to the greatest will know Yahweh is an equalizer that levels the playing field. As all Israelites are equal in the knowledge of Yahweh, religious authorities are no longer necessary. Thus, the newness of the covenant entails how of learning will be acquired, through experience, and not on what will be acquired, that is the content.

How is the new covenant relevant today? What does it teach us in its original interpretation? The prophet Jeremiah moved from a moment of grief and affliction to words of hope. He writes them not because the Israelites needed to hear those words (and they needed to), but instead because Yahweh reminds his people that he remains faithful to his promise. For the Israelites, this is not a new covenant but a reiteration of the Sinai covenant with one nuance. Jeremiah’s new covenant speaks to us in the same way that all covenants in the Old Testament do, through the providential care from Yahweh despite our unfaithfulness. As echoed throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh’s promise remains true despite the poor efforts of Israelites to honor their part of the covenant. However, Jeremiah’s New Covenant also brings about a new understanding. Jer. 31-31-34 teaches the challenge of authority in that it makes it possible for everyone to know Yahweh. Jeremiah’s covenant shows us that painful experiences teach better than religious dogma. The destruction of the temple and exile in 586 BC was the most painful experience of the people of Israel and this event would affect all Jews alike—equally, from the least of them to the greatest. In his oracle, Jeremiah claims that pain and suffering do not discriminate but plague everyone. These experiences of pain and suffering, however, can be a tremendous opportunity to know Yahweh and to tattoo his love on our hearts and remember it in our minds according to the prophet. Jeremiah teaches us that this type of knowing is not external, it is not dogmatic, it is not intellectual and it is not a product of determination; rather this type of knowing comes from painful experience. From a covenant perspective, Jeremiah speaks of this source of bonding as one that goes beyond the Torah and the Law itself. By rejecting religious authority, Jeremiah’s oracle envisions a covenant that is deeply personal. He rejects institutionalized dogma and social religious identity to emphasize an individualized relationship with Yahweh. The covenant is new in this sense: Yahweh reveals who He is to us in our most personal and painful experiences. The covenant explains that these painful experiences are an equalizer to know Yahweh in that no one escapes suffering. And while we all face suffering, our experiences of them are deeply personal and offer us opportunities to immerse ourselves in the providential love of covenantal partnership with Yahweh. This knowing is eternal, forever in our minds and hearts.

---

^[1] Bright, John. Exercise in Hermeneutics: Jeremiah 31:31-34

^[2] Potter, Harry D. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34

^[3] Brueggemann, Walter. The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet.

^[4] Becking, Bob. Text-internal and text-external chronology in Jeremiah 31:31-34

^[5] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction

^[6] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction

^[7] Gnuse, Robert K. Phd., Thibeaux, Evelyn PhD., Ryan, Thomas F. The Jewish Roots of Christian Faith. Online

^[8] Brueggemann, Walter. The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet.

^[9] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction

^[10] Bright, John. Exercise in Hermeneutics: Jeremiah 31:31-34

^[11] Gnuse, Robert K. Phd., Thibeaux, Evelyn PhD., Ryan, Thomas F. The Jewish Roots of Christian Faith. Online

^[12] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction

^[13]Gnuse, Robert K. Phd., Thibeaux, Evelyn PhD., Ryan, Thomas F. The Jewish Roots of Christian Faith. Online

^[14] Gnuse, Robert K. Phd., Thibeaux, Evelyn PhD., Ryan, Thomas F. The Jewish Roots of Christian Faith. Online

^[15] Potter, Harry D. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34

^[16] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction

^[17] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction

^[18] Didache Bible

^[19] Wallis, Wilber B. Irony in Jeremiah’s Prophecy of a New Covenant.

^[20] Wallis, Wilber B. Irony in Jeremiah’s Prophecy of a New Covenant.

^[21] Wallis, Wilber B. Irony in Jeremiah’s Prophecy of a New Covenant.

^[22] Jewish Study Bible. Tanakh Translation.

^[23] Rhymer, David. Jeremiah 31:31-34

^[24] Brueggemann, Walter. The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet.

^[25] Pirke Aboth (Avot) Sayings of the Jewish Fathers

^[26] Potter, Harry D. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34

Why is God so Angry? Understanding the God from the Old Testament

In Pastoral Essays in Honor of Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament, we find an essay by Mark S. Smith titled ‘Why is a Loving God so Angry in the Bible?’ In his essay, Smith outlines a problem for readers of the Old Testament: the depiction of a wrathful and cruel God in the Old Testament. The problem is evident—how does one reconcile the idea of a loving God in texts that portray God as a vengeful God?

The idea of thinking of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament in binary ways, that is, the former being a wrathful God and the latter being a loving God is debunked by Smith. The notion of a wrathful God is mentioned several times in the New Testament, as one can find the notions of a loving God in the Old Testament as well. Yahweh’s love for Israel is mentioned in, Deut 7:8;Hos 3:1; Kgs 10:9; Chr 2:10; Ps 47:5; Isa 43:4; Jer 31:3; Mal 1:2 and many more parts of the Old Testament. In a similar way, the New Testament talks about the wrath of God in Jn 3:36; Rom 1:18; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; Rom 2:5; Thess 1:10; Rev 6:16-17; 11-18; 16:19; Mt 13:41-43; 49; 18:34-35.

 Instead, Smith points to the heart of the problem by challenging the notion of love and divine anger as two opposites, and calls this perception ‘not biblical.’ Put simply, Smith argues that anger cannot be labeled as bad. To do this, is to insert into an ancient text a modern standard. Smith explains that, ‘authors of the scriptures did not view divine love and divine anger as opposite emotions but as related emotions.’ For the Israelite of the time, divine love and divine anger were part of the same covenant explains Smith, ‘In Israel’s own religious context, divine love represented God’s recognition of human fidelity to the covenantal relationship with God, while divine anger aimed at Israelites commonly resulted from their failure to keep their covenant relationship with God.’

To truly understand this concept of divine anger; Smith goes on to explain the origin of human anger within the context of the scriptures. He claims that anger in the mind of scripture writers is link to several themes: subordination to authority, protection of family and fierceness. Anger among humans is no different than how the writers will portray the anger of God, claims Smith. Throughout scripture God’s authority is compared to a disregarded husband or father, a property owner who has been robbed, a defied political leader, or a spurned covenant partner—in other to emphasize the authority that has been broken by God’s subordinates. Idolatry and the breaking of The Law or religious violations are also manifestations of the transgressions of God’s authority and therefore call for his anger. God also manifests his anger at situations of social injustice and at the maltreatment of the least of Israel as well. Divine anger explains Smith, ‘is not simply a restoration of divine authority,’ however, ‘it is an act of persuasion on God’s part, to remind Israel that God is Israel’s rightful authority.’ In the mind of the ancient writer, divine anger is the declaration of ownership by God that establishes Israel’s as its own—not expressing possession but rather mutuality and oneness.

Understanding how scripture writers thought of anger leads us to understand how anger is connected to love, as two sides of the same covenant.  Divine anger is a demand of ownership rooted in oneness and covenant mutuality; it is a manifestation of fierceness—to put it all on the line for a cause; divine anger represents the wellbeing of one’s own: children, family, loved ones, and favored ones. To put it all together, ‘[divine anger is]…a powerful claim of divine concern for human suffering,’ Smith claims.

Smith’s essay identifies one of the greatest challenges in reading the Old Testament, the problem of reconciling a loving God with a description of a vengeful God. Not only does this problem have tremendous theological implications of how we read and understand the Old Testament, but because of this, it also has theological implications of who God is and how we can experience God based on our understanding and perception of these texts. To this day, I know more Catholics and Christians alike who speak of God in the Old Testament as a completely different God than the God of the New Testament, or perhaps more frequently as a God who is no longer to be studied or taken into consideration and therefore forgotten altogether because the full revelation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament outdates him.

This problem is best communicated in one of the most angry and bloodiest depictions of God in the Old Testament, the Book of Ezekiel. The Book of Ezekiel is divided into three sections: Ezekiel 1-24 describes the oracles against Judah and Jerusalem before 586 BC, Ezekiel 25-32 describes the oracles against foreign nations and Ezekiel 33-48 describes the oracles of hope and restoration for Judah. The book is situated in the fifth year of the exile in 593 BC. At the time, Jews were found in Egypt and Palestine alike—no longer bound to one particular location. (Boadt, 338) Ezekiel emerges as a unifying voice—that extended further than a land, kinship or temple rituals. (Boadt, 339)

Ezekiel’s God is full of anger. In chapter 6 God condemns Israel’s idolatry and proclaims slaughtering Israel and scattering the bones, ‘I will lay the corpses of the people of Israel in front of their idols; and I will scatter your bones around your altars,’ Ez 6:5.  In Chapter 8 God condemns abominations in the temple where priests and elders were blaspheming God, he announces that his wrath will be unstoppable and he will not know mercy, ‘I will act in wrath, my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity,’ Ez 8:18. In chapter 11—13 God condemns false prophets and counselors and calls for a wind to break out and a deluge of rain to destroy all, ‘In my wrath I will make a stormy wind break out, and in my anger there shall be a deluge of rain, and hailstone in wrath to destroy it’ Ez 13:13.  In chapter 16 God calls Israel a prostitute and calls to stone her, ‘They (man who you slept with)…shall bring up a mob against you, and they shall stone you and cut you to pieces with their swords,’ Ez 16:40. 

These passages are gory and violent and these are only a few examples found in Ezekiel. For anyone who reads these passages for the first time or does so in isolation and without a context, the image of God must be difficult to conceptualize. In Ezekiel 14, God’s judgment is justified, as God proclaims that only those who are righteous will be saved, remembering Noah, Daniel and Job. It is easy to interpret all of Ezekiel in the light of this passage. That is, with the mind of righteous anger, divine wrath, or just judgment—where the sinful many will be condemn but the holy few will be saved by their own righteousness. After all, this is a theme throughout the scriptures and this interpretation parallels the New Testament and the words of Jesus’ when he proclaims that narrow is door of salvation for example. It also helps the reader depart from the horrific blood thirst of God. This interpretation is also supported by chapter 18, where Ezekiel highlights individual responsibility and God proclaims individual righteousness and individual sinfulness, ‘It is only the person who sins that shall die’ Eze 18: 4. This interpretation serves to appease the notion of an unjust God but not of a violent and wrathful God however. 

The problem becomes evident in this depiction of God in Ezekiel, and the question resonates: ‘How can a loving God be so violent, cruel and vengeful?’ In the past, my interpretation was limited to two approaches when I encounter passages such as Ezekiel’s wrathful and vengeful God. The first, to interpret them in the light of divine wrath, as we can see from Ezekiel 14 and 18, where God’s wrath was limited to those that are sinful only and led to believe that his punishment must be just and divine and therefore far beyond comprehension.

However, this interpretation did not solve the problem that is the oxymoron of a loving and vengeful God. A second interpretation I had when I encountered passages as the ones found in the Book of Ezekiel was to see these texts in the light of the New Testament, to have to emphasize the loving Jesus Christ, as the full revelation of God, and trump a critical view of the Old Testament. The result of this interpretation was to think of chastisement out of love. Often we have heard these difficult texts to be aligned or compared to the images of a loving father who must be stern to correct his children. As a father disciplines his son, so does the God of the Old Testament chastises his children out of love. Needless to say both of these interpretations never sufficed.

I had not approach the text critically before and the understanding of anger for the scripture writer was not something familiar to me before. Smith points to the heart of the problem as he redirects my understanding of divine anger as it is linked to the notion of human anger for the scripture writers. Anger was not perceived as naturally bad in the scripture writer’s mind, instead it was the opposite. In a time where war and strive were part of a daily experience, being ready for combat was seemed as a value. God’s anger was perceived as the notion of being ready to fight for the ultimate cause. Smith points to the vast difference of how we come to understand anger bringing a new understanding to scripture. Anger now is understood very differently than how anger was perceived back in the time of the scripture writers. Whereas today anger seems to be placed as a reaction and considered negative, one that yields to hate and violence, this was not the case for the ancient writers. Anger and love were not polar opposites for the scripture writers, in fact, they were related. As mentioned, Smith refers to love and anger as two sides of the covenant, ‘God shows love to those who keep the covenant and anger to those who don’t’ Ezekiel’s God in many ways is showing anger as a manifestation of his love—of a deep desire to restore the covenant with his people. As Smith states, the ‘…ultimate aim at divine anger is not simply restoration of divine authority. It is an act of persuasion of God’s part.’ Divine anger is a declaration of love—of mutuality, of oneness, of a promise, a covenant. God’s violent words are approach very differently for the writer at the time.

In short, the God of Ezekiel can be read in two ways. Either, he is a maniac God at the verge of unleashing all his infinite power in retribution for a people who have failed him in all ways possible or as Smith’s suggests, as a God’s whose anger is ‘a powerful claim of divine concern for human suffering.’ And so the old question of, ‘What is God so angry?’ Turns out says more about our ‘modern sensitivities’ and the paradox that we place in the text, rather than with the intentions of the writers at the time.

Reading Smith’s interpretation of the anger of God—I come across understanding anger in a completely different light. In our world view, anger is perceived negatively but this is because it is automatically associated with violence and or hatred. However, they are not same but far from it. Instead, I dare to say that the Old Testament God and Smith’s insight help me understand the holiness of anger. There is no holiness in violence or in hatred—but there is in anger. When anger stirs us deeply—when it indignities us, when it moves us to action, when we feel other’s pain and suffering—this anger is not only justified but it comes from God. In other words, we are embodying God’s own displeasure and God’s own anger. Jesus turns tables at the scene of merchants making money by invoking people’s faith, how many times do we not feel indignant of false prophets, faith-telemarketers, who at the cost of people’s faith are making money? Likewise, God is moved by anger in Exodus, he hears the cry of his people and commissions Moses to deliberate them. Does God move social-workers, politicians, and all those who work for the greater good and welfare of all by the righteous anger that is provoked out of the selfishness of few? Shall we not too feel anger at the poor working conditions of many throughout the whole world? Are we not called to liberate them from their condition? God is fill with anger when the Law is broken. “For Thus says the Lord: The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” Lev 19:34. Is God’s patience not provoked when we break the law and treat foreigners with animosity? Do we ourselves not feel righteous anger when we see a group people treated differently based on their place of origin, their social status, economic status, education, sexual orientation, or race?

This new understanding also shines light on my ministry and work. Often, because of our modern values, we can see anger and automatically be turned off by it. We often disengage if we are communicating with an angry person and this is reasonable if things are escalating or if they are yielding to violence in any form. However, it is true also, that anger it’s a call for disciples to engage at its deepest core. The Book of Ezekiel, ultimately, it’s a book of pain: A book that unfolds the deep pain that Yahweh feels for the turning away of his people and the pain of his people as they feel forgotten in the midst of suffering and hopelessness.

At the time of the writer, the idea of a God who feels pain deeply was as foreign to them, as the idea of a God that gets angry and loves at the same time is to the modern reader. The Book of Ezekiel shows both of these. With no need to provide a profound psychological analysis, where there is anger—there is pain. In some way, people who express anger are expressing suffering, for it is much easier to express anger which shows resilience and fierceness, than to express pain, which shows vulnerability and dependence. Ezekiel, embodying the lonely voice of a prophet, that is, carrying the message of Yahweh that is ignored or much worse defied, is echoing in the mist of suffering, turn into your pain and raise your dependence on God.

As a teacher, interacting with high school students, anger is frequent and often runs wild. I can see that often, this anger is projected or displaced, but often the real issue is never at hand. It is finally when layers unfold, that there is at the core, a source of pain and suffering. When that comes to the light—Yahweh proclaims, ‘A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.’ Eze 36: 26. Ultimately, this is my take away from the Book of Ezekiel and from ‘Why is a Loving God so Angry in the Bible?’ the proclamation of dependence and vulnerability from Yahweh to Israel. When students go to this place of hurting, they can only rely on something bigger for healing. This is an experience that seems to be true for anyone that experiences anger. For those that anger at injustice, there is a pain for people that move them. When my students are angry, there is hurting of some sort. When I become angry, I questioned my hurting and I come to the encounter of a new heart. 

It seems to me, that it is not enough that we begin to question the assumption of anger as a negative trait. For it is not. Furthermore, the God of Ezekiel shows us a deep pain for the suffering of his people. We feel it too when we experience holy anger—God gives us a heart of flesh. When people ask, Why is God so Angry? We can say, because God cares deeply.

The Importance of Inter-Religious Dialogue and Freedom of Religion in Fighting Extremism

Second Vatican Council brought to light the importance of Inter-Religious Dialogue in the life of mission and the life of the Church. 

The council described as bringing aggiornamento, or fresh air to the Church, defined the role of inter-religious dialogue in the Church as an integral element of the Church’s evangelizing mission. The council did not stop by pointing at the core of the identity of dialogue in the Christian life but unfolded a way in which we are to live this mission in the world.

With the world becoming more religious and many urban cities becoming hubs of mass communication making pluralistic societies—this necessity to be involve in inter-religious becomes more evident. Either people engage in talks about their faith or they simply ignore it. The good news is that this interchange happens in ways we are unaware most of the times. The Council not only made inter-religious dialogue an essential part of our lives as Christians but it also provided a way to understand and talk about our experiences with people of other faiths. The council explained that there are four forms of inter-religious dialogue: The Dialogue of life, The Dialogue of action, The Dialogue of Theological Exchange and The Dialogue of Experience.

Many believe that inter-religious dialogue needs to take place in an intellectual setting, as scholarship discourse and theological pursue only. However, this is only part of what inter-religious dialogue is. Instead, inter-religious dialogue is grounded in experience, in fact, in the experience of the other. At times, encounter is the word chosen to describe inter-religious experiences—pointing more directly at the face-to-face experience from which it derives from. The Dialogue of life for instance is concerned with ‘neighborly spirit’ sharing joys and sorrows and human problems and preoccupations with people of a different faith, the dialogue of action is concerned with the collaboration of integral development and liberation of people, that is working together with people of different faiths for problems that unite us, and the dialogue of religious experienced is rooted in the riches of spiritual traditions, prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching God.

Pope Francis pointed out the importance of inter-religious dialogue in a recent visit to Turkey promoting Inter-Religious dialogue and openness of faith expression. He urged ‘More inter-religious dialogue to help bring peace and end all forms of fundamentalism, terrorism and irrational fears.’ In his encyclical, Joy of the Gospel, he addresses the role of dialogue, ‘Inter-religious dialogue is a necessary condition for peace in the world, and so it is a duty for Christians as well as other religious communities.’ In a recent meeting in Europe’s Parliament, where extremism is a persistent threat, Mr. Tajani, ex-president of the European Parliament said, ‘who shoots in the name of God, shoots at God,’ stressing the importance of how violence in the name of religion hurts all religions alike. Pope Francis and Mr. Tajani address the same issue alike, inter-religious dialogue is not only a necessity due to our plural circumstances but also the source of peace and reconciliation to address extremism and fundamentalism.

Yet, there are many that are quick to point out that religion is in fact the problem. Many point out at ISIS and current extremist and violent group’s motifs to declare religion as the source of conflict. However, there have been many studies now that challenge this notion. The Institute of Economics and Peace in conjunction with The Religious Freedom andBusiness Foundation, found no general causal relationship between religion and conflict when looking at all of the current conflicts in the world. In fact, the most influential factor affecting peace is the government type showed the study. The study also indicated that not only is religion not a factor in conflict in the world, but a peace catalyzer. The study suggested ‘that freedom of religion is tied to higher levels of peace and that when religious people are free to do good, they bring powerful resources that can counter violent extremism and promote social advancement.’

Inter-religious dialogue and freedom of religion directly shape the way in which we respond to extremism and radicalism. All four forms of dialogue are able to exist because of religious freedom and inter-religious dialogue. Extremism and fundamentalism do not exist in a vacuum. That is, radicals and extremists foster fundamentalists thoughts in cultures and societies that are closed in which religious freedom is not a reality. In the same study by The Religious Freedom and Business Foundation, it was showed that countries with more religious liberty enjoyed more peaceful societies. In a similar way inter-religious dialogue seeks to confront radicalism through a theology of encounter, through all its forms, it promotes and seeks fellowship, justice and unity, it seeks out members that are becoming isolated, violent and closed-off to be members of an active and vibrant community that seeks peace and justice.

The Second Vatican Council put the primacy of inter-religious dialogue in our identity as Christians. We hold that it is necessary to share, communicate, collaborate and get to know people of other faith. Pope Francis reminds us that this notion of being Christian makes us peace-builders in a world that desperately needs it. He summarizes the foundation of these principles by saying, ‘fanaticism and fundamentalism, as well as irrational fears which foster misunderstanding and discrimination, need to be encountered by the solidarity of all believers. This solidarity must rest on the following pillars: respect for human life and for religious freedom that is the freedom to worship and to live according to the moral teachings of one’s religions.’