In recent years, our lexicon has included the language and the horrific circumstances surrounding what has been coined “blood diamonds.” Such diamonds with their beauty, and patrons with the natural impulse to buy these beautiful pieces of nature now have to face the reality that the only way these diamonds are possible and available are on the backs and lives of those who have been crushed to produce them. The diamonds are mined for the sake of the insatiable appetite of others for the opulent life, and for those who are willing to sacrifice the lives of others to accumulate such wealth and beauty. Such is the devastating cycle. Less we imagine that this is a moment that does not affect all of us, we are mistaken. In fact, this idea has everything to do with us who look to God as the architect of our existence and God’s ongoing presence that guides us. Ultimately, the issue here is neither about the diamonds nor the wealth accrued. There are rather two things to note. It is about the source of the wealth, and then what one does with the wealth; that is finally at issue. Fretheim has observed, “while wealth as such is apparently not condemned, the wealthy often are, because wealth is so easily, indeed it is almost always gained on the back of the underprivileged and misused once it has been procured.”11
This is a distinction not to be overlooked. There is nothing evil or condemnatory about wealth in and of itself. But the manner in which it is accrued is of deep concern, and a subject of prophetic indignation. The prophets are unequivocal that there is no such thing as accruing wealth singularly by oneself. There are always others who are used to generate wealth for others. One cannot misconstrue the profound straightforwardness of the prophet Micah who says, “Your wealth is full of violence.”12 We know that among others Isaiah was connected with the “powers that be” and perhaps even had access to wealth. So it is not a matter of wealth and access. Indeed it is egregious enough to gain wealth crushing the poor which we know existed in ancient times and throughout history, and has been documented, but, wealth invariably becomes a platform for further accumulation. What transpires is that one lives lavishly at the expense of the other through the other’s “sweat and tears” and perhaps unavoidable and inherited circumstances. It is about the abuse and infidelity of an indelible relationship. For the prophet to be able to make such pronouncements to the people many of whom are his own people, there must be a dramatic transformation. Speaking from a psychological perspective, Kast argues that mood swings might have an important and perhaps positive function. We are accustomed to concluding that mood swings are a bad sign; an even temperament is sought and hoped for. It strikes me that as a metaphor Kast’s idea is precisely what one might seek for the people as they hear the words of the prophet. Even temperament at that point is neither noble nor hoped for. It has to be a radical change of mood as one sees oneself, and one sees the world. It is a mood swing that is not involuntary but voluntary, one that is intentional. As Kast has suggested, a mood swing might very well be an indication that something has gone out of tune and must be changed to put us back in tune again.13
The nature of moral community in its covenantal commitment to justice, righteousness, and shalom has not changed, but its way of being in the world has changed. Its suffering in the midst of the empire is for the sake of the empire and not Israel alone. This is to have profound implications for future generations of the faithful community of God’s people, because the way of national political power for that community was not to be possible.14
Invariably when discussing the issue of what YHWH seeks or what might be YHWH’s perspective in a matter of gravity or substance, there is a call to the prophet. In this regard, for example one hearkens to the 1 Kings 22 narrative.15 When Jehoshaphat inquires of Ahab as to whether God’s imprimatur has been sought in the matter of war, Ahab refers to his four hundred prophets; Jehoshaphat wonders aloud to Ahab as to whether the perspective of any other prophet was sought. This is all by way of saying that when God’s perspective is sought, the prophet is invariably the one who enters the scenario, and is not left to those under the employment or presence of the king. Ahab is not thrilled at the prospect of having Micaiah prophesy, but nonetheless expects nothing but the truth from him. He feels obliged to hear the prophet’s pronouncements despite his disinclination to do so. He knows the truth. Perhaps in contrast to Ahab is Sophocles’s, Creon, King of Thebes, who in his obstinacy is not only responsible for the death of his son and wife, but the public humiliation of Polyneices, in death, and the vengeful and barbaric punishment of Antigone. Yet, when he is faced with Teiresias, the blind prophet, he is forced to see what the prophet tells him. The prophet’s word will be heard, and unlike Ahab, there is a change of heart on the part of Creon, but even here such dramatic transformation is not enough, as the people who mattered most to him die at their own hands; finally they die because of him. As is the case here and in the biblical text, the prophets must have distance from the ruler.
Immediately after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, Archbishop Rowan Williams wondered about the tragedy and the response that was sure to come. He insightfully notes, with a generalization that has merit: “the hardest thing in the world is to know how to act so as to make the difference that can be made; to know how and why that differs from the act that only relates or expresses the basic impotence of resentment.”16 Williams’ words following September 11 are apropos here. Because the US has not experienced anything quite like the tragedy and horror that befell us on that day, not only did we not have the language and vocabulary, we did not know how to gather our emotions and how to channel them. We have witnessed war and terror from afar, but now it was at our doorstep. Williams suggests that “there is a particularly difficult challenge here, to do with making terms with our vulnerability and learning hope to live with it in a way that isn’t simply denial, panic, the reinforcement of defences.”17
When spoken or written, my words and ideas are never generated in a vacuum. I am shaped singularly by those who have read, listened, dialogued, reflected, critiqued, debated with me, and who unreservedly have committed themselves such conversations. My sincere thanks to Walter Brueggemann who graciously agreed to write the Foreword to this book. His works have been enormously influential on my scholarship, particularly the manner in which I interpret the biblical text in the context of contemporary society. My heartfelt thanks to my Graduate Assistant Aaron Roberts who not only read the manuscript and made copious notes, but formatted the work and created the indices. Many thanks to K. C. Hanson for his ongoing support and acceptance of this work, and the staff at Wipf & Stock for their attentiveness and professionalism. It is a privilege to work with them.
Most of all thanks to my family for countless moments of grace, bidden and unbidden. So my heartfelt thanks to Annika, Chandra, Clara, David, Joshua, Krista, Maren, Nathan, and Rachel. Known or unknown, they have all left their mark on this work. And my deepest thanks to Viera for her love and unwavering encouragement and support; she has journeyed with me at every turn, and it is to her that I dedicate this book.
1. Callaway, “Exegesis as Banquet,” 221.
2. Coles, Handing One Another, 181.
3. Ibid., 197.
4. Ogletree, Use of the Bible in Christian Ethics, 80.
5. Orwell, “Reflections on Gandhi.”
6. P. D. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, 216.
