I have an “ask” at the end of this post, and will appreciate
any feedback.
A few months ago, I decided to read the Bible all the way
through, from beginning to end. As familiar
as I am with some parts of the Bible, I have never read it all the way through
before and there are many parts I have likely never read.
I think we can all say that it’s pretty exciting until the
middle of Exodus, then it becomes a slog for quite awhile before getting to
some more interesting reading again. But
what I am after in this post is the genocidal-type stuff: things like God said
to slaughter them all, and God took displeasure if the Israelites didn’t obey
this edict.
I have written
something on my thoughts about this before; instead of coming up with some
new way to say it, I will just copy and paste:
To properly understand this book
and the time, I will be walking on some difficult terrain, especially when it
comes to the Israelites and aspects of the Jewish tradition beyond that which
pointed to Jesus. I am not trying to
understand or develop theology when I note the history: there is much of Old
Testament Jewish history prior to the times of the prophets that is greatly
similar to all Middle Eastern cultures of the time: wars, territories
conquering and conquered, massacres, slavery, dislocation, etc., etc., etc.
Why do I point this out? The Old Testament, absent that which points
to Jesus, can be a history about any of the tribes and gods in the Middle East
of the time. Change the names and the
victors, and it is the same story: my god is bigger than your god; god will
lead us to victory in battle; god, why have you forsaken your people; god, why
have you abandoned us?
In the beginning was the
Word. The Word became flesh. This is unique. In the Old Testament, it is what points to
this Word that is unique – unique vs. other Middle Eastern religions and
unique, to my knowledge, among any of the major religions around the
world. Without the Word, it is just
tribes doing battle and hoping that my god is stronger than your god.
Jesus summarized the law with two commandments: Love the
Lord your God; love your neighbor as yourself.
On the surface (and maybe deeper), this is quite contrary to much of
what we read in the Old Testament.
I will add: while I have not yet made it to the time of the
exile in my reading, from my recollection (and also from reading The
Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions, by Karen
Armstrong), my sense is that the story changes significantly – the relationship
of God to man starts moving toward what Christians see in Jesus and the Apostle
Paul. Maybe I am wrong about this, but
this is somewhat secondary for now.
So, why am I writing this?
I am certain that the early church fathers and many since then have
dealt with this question of what clearly are recounted as genocidal
stories. How do these fit into an understanding
of proper Christianity?
So, I ask for any references to serious apologists on this
matter.
Might I suggest you have a look at this?
ReplyDeleteYahweh the Two-Faced God: Theology, Terrorism & Topology (Apocalypse Theater Volume 1)
by Joseph P Farrell & Scott D deHart (Author)
Here's another interesting link you might find of interest.
Deletehttps://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/
Yes, I read the Unz article the other day. While I have been thinking about this issue for quite some time, it was that article that prompted me to go public with my request.
DeleteThis might save you having to order and wait for the book.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK8U5wvAzAc
BM,
ReplyDeleteNow you’re getting into areas I have some experience with!
To directly answer the question, I think you would find “Is God a Moral Monster” by Paul Copan helpful.
Also, per your comment about the story changing as you read along; keep in mind that the Bible isn’t currently ordered chronologically, which may confuse that progression.
More thoughts:
I think one thing that is hard to avoid, even when trying to, is to read the Bible like it was written yesterday and to me personally. It was written in a specific time, place and culture and the original hearers would’ve understood things a certain way. That’s not to say there cannot be deeper levels of meaning and understanding, but I think you must start there first and build.
The challenge becomes understanding what that original context was, given there are many millennia and vast cultural differences between us and them. Its tempting to think that, “we’re all human, so they must’ve thought similarly to me.” But there are certain ways where that is very far from the truth.
To that end, here are some recommendations for resources. There are sources I have come to trust, but as always do your own due diligence:
1) Online:
a. www.christianthinktank.com – lots of very detailed and meticulous analysis of various Biblical topics
b. www.tektonics.org – apologetics resource site
2) Entry level books
a. “How to Read the Bible for all its Worth” by Fee and Stuart - good introductory companion to use while going through the Bible. Has helpful context and background info
b. “Misreading Scripture through Western Eyes” by Richards and O’Brien – good introductory volume on the social world of the Bible and the cultural differences between them and us.
3) More in-depth books
a. “Is God a Moral Monster” by Paul Copan – mentioned above, a good look at the “questionable” OT stuff that you mentioned in this post
b. “Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity” by David deSilva – in depth look at some of the major social views of the ancient near east
c. “The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament” by James Jefferes – a good book of the social world of the NT.
d. “Handbook of Biblical Social Values” by Malina and Pilch – good material on the social world of the Bible, not quite as in depth as “Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity,” but more broad.
Hopefully this is helpful.
-Dave
Dave, thank you for this. There are a few of these that I will look up.
DeleteI recognize that the Bible is not ordered chronologically. I think the only context in which I made this point (maybe I am wrong) is in dividing the pre- and post-exile. I know thus far (to the point where I came to write this post), everything is pre-exile.
Finally, it isn't so much the cultural context that I am after - I understand, as much as many moderns, the differences of our time vs. theirs. If Moses committed genocide on his own, with God directing him, I would never have asked this question. But it is written that God commanded him.
Then a mere couple of centuries later - a blink of an eye to God - we have Jesus (God) telling us to love our enemies; that even to be angry with our brother is murder.
It is this that I am trying to understand.
BM, I probably should have elaborated on my focus on cultural differences. I believe it is important in this context due to how it affected the language the OT authors would have used. Particularly the use of hyperbole, extreme conditions and indirect communication.
DeleteI can’t remember off hand, but there’s one telling example (maybe the Canaanites?) where it says that they were basically wiped out, but then Canaanites show up again a few verses later. I’ll try to find the reference. So they obvious weren’t wiped out.
This is a helpful specific page from the Christian Thinktank:
http://www.christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html
-Dave
Dave, that's a fair point. There are many ways that the Bible - or passages within it - can be read and understood.
DeleteDave raises a good point. There is hyperbole and exaggeration in the Bible. They are common features of ancient writing styles. That doesn't mean some of it couldn't be exact but it is good to understand how language was used back then. We use it now too, specially our President.
DeleteTwo people I would explore to better understand the importance of free will and how the Old Testament (genocidal stories) fits into Christianity:
ReplyDelete1 Bruxy Cavey
A recent article from his blog (shorter):
God’s Wrath and our World
http://www.bruxy.com/news/gods-wrath-our-world/
I would also suggest the current series on “The Origin, Evolution, and End of Religion” (longer):
http://www.bruxy.com/gospel/the-origin-evolution-end-of-religion-part-1-of-4/
(Bruxy Cavey is with The Meeting House https://www.themeetinghouse.com/)
He has authored a couple books that might interest you - you can find them on his blog.
2 Greg Boyd
It would be remiss to not mention Greg Boyd with Woodland Hills Church. His own personal story is pretty incredible and he explains free will/open theology as well as anyone. He has directly addressed your ask (question) for years, specifically in two books:
“Cross Vision - How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of the Old Testament Violence” (shorter)
“Crucifixion of the Warrior God - Interpreting the Old Testament’s Violent Portraits of God in Light of the Cross” (longer)
I haven’t read the books, but have listened to numerous sermon series by him on the topic of Old Testament violence (including conversations with Bruxy mentioned above). There’s enough available on his blog to give you a very good idea of his teaching - browse by topic - to give you an idea if reading the books might interest you.
https://reknew.org/
(Greg Boyd is from Woodland Hills Church https://whchurch.org/)
Bruxy Cavey and Greg Boyd directly address the Abp. Di Noia quote that struck you from the prior post (5/18/20) in their teaching - you’ll see this in their incorporation of free will into their message. Their sermons/sermon series are available through their respective churches websites.
Thank you, Nat. I will poke around at the online resources before deciding about a book.
DeleteThe old and new testaments fundamentally teach the same message (it’s primary purpose is that of salvation; repentance from sins, trusting in Christ) though the outward administration of true religion differs. The OT is full of signs, types, and shadows of that which was to be fulfilled in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ (Westminster Confession of Faith 7:5-6). In light of these interpretative principles, the violence that God commanded to the ancient people of God is specific, not indiscriminate (see Deuteronomy 2), and should be a seen primarily as a shadow of the final judgment (Revelation 20:11ff), a just punishment for sins against God (Genesis 15:16). King David himself is prevented from building the temple for being a man of bloodshed (I Chronicles 28:3) and OT warfare itself was otherwise carefully regulated (Deuteronomy 20), however poorly the kings of Israel practiced it. As you will recall, God didn’t exactly treat his people particularly well at the hands of the Babylonians on account of their sins, later punishing Babylon for the same. (Isaiah 13-14)
ReplyDeleteMy comments are obviously not a book recommendation but do require a particular interpretation of Scripture. Using the same interpretive grid, in the Resurrection era the civil laws of Israel have expired (WCF 20:4) so while war itself can be necessary and just (WCF 23:2, and a long history of scholastic thought from Augustine to 17th century comes to mind), modern states are certainly not justified in looking at the OT as any kind of model for their own behavior, which includes the modern and inappropriately named state of Israel.
"...and should be a seen primarily as a shadow of the final judgment...a just punishment for sins against God."
DeleteThis is interesting. It also might shed light on when Jesus says "love our enemies," we know that not all of our enemies will receive salvation.
I would appreciate knowing if this concept has been flushed out somewhere in church history. Don't misunderstand me: it's not that I don't respect this view (it could work, given my very limited understanding, but I would respect it more if I could find it in a meaningful source from some point before the last 100 years.
I find so much has been muddled by modern Christianity and modern Christian doctrine. That's all I'm saying. I sincerely thank you for the comment.
BM, I can't remember the exact verses. But go back to Genesis 15 and read through the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It speaks about the Abrahamic covenant, the promise of land, and description of the evil of the Canaanites.
ReplyDeleteThen look at Joshua for when he leads Israel into the promised land. There is lots of violence, but there are some further descriptions of God's purpose.
Parts of Ezekiel and Israel talk about the evil of the Canaanites. Also, different stories in 1-2 Kings/Chronicles.
As a shortcut look at up where Molech, Asherah, and Baal worship show up. Or look up how those gods were worshipped.
My comments are helpful because it just means more reading, semi-directed but nothing that specific. Then think through Romans 1-3 and how it describes humanity. Contrast that with a 100% Holy God.
RMB, Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't you saying that sin, evil, wickedness cannot approach a 100% holy god? People tend to forget that the texts explicitly state things like the people were "continually evil", including each and every thought they had. It is only merciful to put them out of their misery.
DeleteI agree.
DeleteRMB, most succinctly I am trying to understand how God commanded Moses to commit genocide and a couple of centuries later He said love your enemies.
DeleteMaybe it's as simple as it is God's place to judge, and we have a different role; maybe, as I suggest above, just because Jesus told us to love our enemies, it does not mean that all of our enemies will receive salvation.
BM, I think part of the answer is in the difference between Israel and the Church. God has different purposes for each. They exist to be and do different things.
DeleteThere is also the fact that one is pre-Jesus and the other is post-Jesus. The payment being made. The Holy Spirit being sent. Ezekiel 18 (?) talks of the God writing His laws on the hearts of men. Galatians 3 talks about Israel needing a pedagogue, talking about the Law, until Jesus was resurrected. This gets a little into dispensationalism. It does seem like there is some truth to it in a soft, partial way.
Part of it is as simple as your last paragraph. God judges according to His will and we don't always know what that is while we are under the sun.
Comments aren't helpful. Mis spell.
ReplyDeletewell, like how the flood changed things: maybe the "genocides" changed too? both are god
ReplyDeleteI recommend The Unseen Realm by Michael S. Heiser (Lexham Press, 2015). Heiser is a serious scholar with impeccable credentials. He addresses all of your questions.
ReplyDeleteYour understanding is rooted in Western Philosophy. The OT is Ancient Near Eastern and the differences in "worldview" are incompatible. The OT comes from a completely different place.
ReplyDeleteThe same God commanded genocide and commanded us to love our enemies - all in a matter of a couple thousand years.
DeleteI don't believe this is worldview issue of mine - I get how they had multiple wives and we don't see things the same way. God has one worldview - His worldview didn't change in the intervening period. So, what was God doing?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I'm sure we both have much more we need to learn and understand regarding God's message to His people."
DeleteI certainly do, and the more I learn, the more I realize I have yet to learn.
Thank you, Roger.
Hey Roger, Interesting post, but I looked up the Greek, and don't see what you're referring to with the KJV doing any dirty work. The word is "tov" (ton) which is the Definite Article "the" Lord. There is no "our" in the original manuscripts. So this is not a translation problem. If the other manuscripts are different, and that's a BIG IF; then it's a manuscript problem; not a translation problem. I don't have the other manuscripts in front of me so I don't know. More importantly, I'm not sure I see the distinction your making here. I'm also not one of those King James only people. As far as this preference for "our" over "the", I think this may be ignoring the idea that it is we who are the Lord's precious possession, rather than we who own him.
DeleteIt is a Non Sequitur to suggest that just because we are God's possessions, that he is ours as well. More importantly, I see no difference between this claim, and the Jews perspective of claiming God as their own to the exclusion of the rest of the world.
The gospel message points out that Christ came to save that which is lost, not just that which has already been made righteous. The focus should never be on us, and ultimately, all that is created is created for Christ. It's all his. None of it is ours, even Christ himself. The Genitive of possession is a cosmic joke for anyone other than Christ.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteroger,
DeleteI have not opened a Pandora's box by pointing out that I don't know if there are any other manuscripts that differ with regards to this claim you've made. So far there is no evidence to support your position. The burden of proof is upon you to provide any evidence to support your claims. You haven't addressed this fact.
You didn't address the blatant Non Sequitur either. Instead you go on a wild goose chase with yet more speculation. What Thomas literally said was, "The Lord of me, and the God of me" Gr. "ὁ κύριός μου κ. ὁ θεός μου". In Greek this is how one would refer to two persons. If one wanted to refer to one person he would say, "the Lord and God of me." This is confirmed by the first and Sixth Granville Sharp rules.
The fact is that both nouns, (1) Lord, and (2) God, are each qualified by the definite article ('the'). Second, both nouns, (1) Lord, and (2) God, are qualified by the words "of me." This is also telling. Thomas could have said, "the Lord and the God of me." But he didn't. Essentially, two definite articles ("the") indicates two persons are in view. One definite article, one person, two definite articles, two persons.
To see and believe in Jesus is to see and believe in the Father, but one needn't explore open wounds for this to be the case, and the texts nowhere ever suggest that Thomas ever probed Christ's wounds. If so, where? Just because Jesus invites Thomas to probe his wounds, it doesn't then follow that he actually did probe his wounds. Thomas simply believes because he has seen the risen lord, and the texts explicitly state this so once again, you are basing your claims simply on false assumptions.
I made no claim to genetics, but simply to the claim that God is "ours" rather than "the", and pointing out that this is the same claim the Jews made as well. I am sure the same fate awaits anyone who makes that claim regardless of genetics as God 'is not a respecter of persons'.
If you are the temple in which God's spirit resides, does that make you God? I suspect you would deny that possibility. We all know the difference, and can distinguish between the temple, and God who dwells within it. Paul explicitly states that your life is not your own, and that you are bought with a price, and that you are that temple in which God dwells. It is not your temple, any more than it is your life. God is the God of all, not just a select few.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt’s very simple: please check out DR Micheal Heiser, The unseen Realm, 1st 2nnd Temple, Semitic languages.
ReplyDeleteThe sun of the watchers, deut 32 worldview. The nations have been disowned after Babel, only Israel is Gods portion. The other nations, the nephalim, the offspring watchers, giants, in all ancient texts are practising abomination after abomination, Molech arousing Yahweh’s anger. Yahweh wants the giants destroyed- unfortunately they cannot go to the pit or heavenly realm, so stay on the earth as demons.
Interestingly, there are several ancient sources, which suggest that Gilgamesh himself was a half-god or semi-divine being of gigantic stature. According to the Sumerian Kings List, Gilgamesh was the 5th king of Uruk, who reigned sometime between 2800 and 2600 BC. While there are traditions considering the father of Gilgamesh to be king Lugalbanda, the Sumerian Kings List states that his true father was a “lillu-spirit, a high priest of Kulaba”, and he is described in the epic as “two-thirds god”.
I used to wonder about this too, until I learned about Dr. Michael Heiser. He is a language specialist and focuses on the meanings of words used by the ancient writers of the Bible that often lose context in modern translation. His book, The Unseen Realm explains exactly this question. He also has some insightful youtube videos.
ReplyDeleteGod had given the promised land to Abraham in return for his faith and obedience. However, the promised land was inhabited over the 400 hundred years of Hebrew bondage in Egypt by people who practiced human sacrifice to demons (IMHO, a bastardization of Christ's sacrifice on the cross) and also by the giant tribes, from which came Goliath (who was 9 feet tall), Anak, Og of Bashan (whose bed was reported to be 14 feet long). All these had to be removed. However, not all the Canaanite cities had the "giant" taint, and only those that did were ordered to be totally destroyed, down to the animals.
ReplyDelete"I came not to bring peace but a sword" I think we start there. Everyone, including Jesus calls himself the Prince of Peace, I think.Well, actually he called himself the "son of man" we called, or labeled him the prince of peace. yet peace comes only to those who take the red pill vs the blue one. Sorry, couldn't resist. I see the red pill as a metaphor of the Holy Spirit, and if only Christians would do so we'd cut to the chase. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, the article, the intended Gestalt, the killing and maiming, the my god is better than yours. "But, we know what we worship" There is only one God. I did like the reference to the Word. I think we start there. In the beginning. The epistemology that for some reason we tend to forget, and then over complicate matter when it is that simple. Love God, love neighbor as yourself. It all begins there, and is then furthered by the Gospel, the "good news" of our salvation, that we are now free from the law of sin and death. What could be better than that?
ReplyDeleteThe reason given for the 400 years in Gen 15:13 was that "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full", see vs 16. When the Israelites finally went into Canaan they were told to try to make peace with most of the cities. For certain named cities, the Amorites being one of them, they were to totally destroy with no chance of peace. This is because their iniquity WAS FULL. This is similar to why the Flood was brought on, "the thoughts of his (mankind) heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5
ReplyDeleteGod has to cut out the cancer when it is beyond salvation. The more people resist the work of the Holy Spirit the more entrenched they get into their own understanding. They commit the unpardonable sin.
The entire book of Job testifies to the sovereignty of God. As counselor Elihu said, If God removed His atmosphere all flesh would die. The old covenant was established with Abraham but God was still concerned about the pagan nations (Jonah) and always gave them space to repent of the horrible practices in which they engaged. In due time He rendered judgment on people and nations as He was entitled to do. (Flood) During the old covenant we were under Law which could only condemn us. Under the new covenant (Christianity) we are under Grace and God's attitude since His very special Son paid the price for sin we could not pay predictably changed. This is summarized in Paul's speech to the unknown God given in Athens when he said, The times of ignorance God winked at but NOW commands ALL men everywhere to repent. (Emphasis mine) The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New are one and the same.
ReplyDeleteIf I consider God's OT acts as "judgement" just as we will all receive judgement one day, this could work. I hope that some of the sources that others have pointed me to will expand on this point.
DeleteJudgment follows individual physical death - we either inherit eternal life or we don't, depending on whether we meet God on His terms. Heb 9:25-28
DeleteThe basic problem you've encountered is a lack of knowledge of all scripture. That's not meant to be an accusation, but an observation. The accusations of genocide of certain peoples is understandable on that basis, but it also does not go into the back story that led to those mass killings.
ReplyDeleteThe Amelekites, for example, were to be killed because of their behavior when Israel was approaching the promised land. Others that were ordered wiped out during the conquest of the promised land were peoples of the same type killed in the flood. Called Nephilim in scripture, these were hybrid beings, and not humans. They were physically large, and skeletons of such beings have been found in many places in the world. If you want to know more, L.A. Marzulli has done much research and leg work on the subject and his work can be found on You Tube.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly disagree with the claim that "absent that which points to Jesus", the Hebrew scriptures can be about any middle eastern tribes, gods, etc. The main reason is that all of the other gods can be objectively worshipped. For this Hebrew cult, it is idolatry. Moreover, Jesus, or "Joshua/Yeshua" literally means "God's salvation", and God's salvation comes through the personification of selfless obedience to God's law in the person of Christ.
What is really unique about the beginning is that John's introduction doesn't begin with, "In the beginning was God". It is the word that actually exists eternally, not God. God is omnipotent; from "omnia + potenze" or all + potential. It is not God who becomes flesh, but God's word. Paul affirms this in 1 Corinthians 8:6 by pointing out the logical distinction between God who is the origin of all that exists, and Christ who is the means by which everything comes into existence. Logically, the origin of existence cannot exist. However, it does exist conceptually, and the reality is that there can be no being without becoming; what becomes, is.
The early church fathers came up with what is effectively a different god to ease their cognitive dissonance. The fact is that there is no essential or effective difference, and we can see this popping up in a number of places in the New Testament texts. For example, Christ flies into a rage in the temple. He points out that those who dishonor their parents "must die the death". Many will point to the woman caught in adultery as proof he is different from the Old Testament deity, but this is due primarily to ignorance of the Mosaic law itself, not to mention the text which points out that he is being tested on his knowledge of the law, not if he will ignore Roman law, or is willing to have this woman executed. If she was guilty, she "must die the death". However, this woman is married, and the procedure is different than stoning(See Numbers 6 and "the law of jealousies").
He points out that anyone who is unable to maintain a level of obedience superior to the Pharisees is damned. The Pharisees were notorious for their piety, and strict adherence to the Mosaic law. They were the standard, and even they were damned. Jesus points out that he didn't come to condemn, but he also points out that: ""There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day."John 12:48 And Jesus very clearly upholds all of the law which is the only standard of judgement.
God's holiness is a disinfectant for sin. It kills on contact. We see this with Peter's comments to those who openly professed to donating all the proceeds from the sale of their property to the church. They lied, and they paid the exact same price anyone would who bears false witness to God in the Old Testament.
Paul echoes these same sentiments with "God will not be mocked..fear and trembling...vessels fitted for destruction...etc."
"For example, Christ flies into a rage in the temple. He points out that those who dishonor their parents "must die the death"."
DeleteWithout commenting on your other points, much of which I can agree with (including, I know I was playing fast and loose with my language on the OT), I cannot compare these events of Jesus with the commands by God of genocide. Jesus didn't command Peter to kill those who dishonored their parents.
Some good comments and recommendations here (Heiser is great). One thing missing though is the Biblical worldview/presupposition of who God is and what HIS rights are (as opposed to a man-centered worldview which is focused on man's rights). You are only going to find this discussion in Reformed circles, whether it be in Christian apologetics, theology, or philosophy. In short, the Biblical answer to your questions, meaning God's answer, is who is man to question God? See Job, Rom. 8-9, etc. If God truly is the creator of all, including man, He absolutely has the right to define morality and dictate what human behavior should be; and it follows that He absolutely has the right to judge rebellion as He sees fit. And we see over and over again that God uses nations to carry out His will. See Isaiah 10 for a classic text on this issue. The Assyrians were conquering out of their own wicked desires, but they were carrying out God's judgment against Isreal. The genocidal passages that concern your are examples of this. And as clay in the Potter's hands, we have no right to question the will of the Lord. Of course, this answer is unpopular among non-believers and even within mainstream Christianity. But it is the Biblical answer.
ReplyDeleteJSmetal, good points. i would only add that I suspect God deals with people according to their talents and abilities. In other words, we see Satan meeting up with God in heaven, in those "heavenly places". Why? Because as Milton says, the fallen angels don't lose all their virtue, and therefore, while their destiny is severe, it is tempered by the fact that they are still beautifully able to reflect God's glory. Barbarians, not so much. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword, so that's how God uses them. Each part of the body has its role and purpose, but God isn't going to be treating the seemly like the unseemly. Moses makes one mistake, and is only allowed to see what was Promised. Christ makes no mistakes and is crucified. We make lots of mistakes and receive eternal life. As you say, this is God's tinker toy set so he gets to do with it as he pleases. I find it interesting that those who are usually so vocal about a woman's right to terminate her baby's life, have a problem with the biblical god ending lives only he could create.
DeleteJSmetal, I have to believe that pre-reformed theologians grappled with these questions. That they might not have concluded "who is man to question God?" is secondary to this.
Delete"He absolutely has the right to judge rebellion as He sees fit."
From your comment (and others above) it is something along these lines that I am coming to understand. I am hoping that some of the resources offered both here and via email to me will expand on this idea.
Given our modern sensibilities, these commands appear barbaric. The main set of initial commands to the nation of Israel, though, were that they separate themselves in all ways from the people whom they encountered and that they demonstrate obedience. If something other than annihilation and complete rejection were allowed, there would necessarily be compromise in these principles of what in the new testament is called hagios, separateness (saintliness).
ReplyDeleteGiven the peri-Sinai shennanigans and that almost all the original Israelites were destined, intentionally, to die in the desert and not see the promised land, this emphasis on utter non-association with the temptations of idolatrous populations takes on a different sense.
I guess God really, really wanted these fledgling people he had adopted to practice separation and obedience. Also, the slaughtered people had had 400 years to get their act together, and from God's perspective, there was a reckoning due.
"Vengeance is mine saith the LORD." Only G-d knows all the facts to judge. We have a handful such as Moloch demanding child murder as a sacrifice, and the Amalekites. In Jewish tradition, Amalek and his father Esau represent impulse and physical desire, while Jacob was about study and godliness.
ReplyDeleteIn the Kings, you will find G-d rejecting Israel's first king Saul because he failed to kill Og, the king of the Amalekites. This seems so arbitrary in context, but from this descended Haman who tried to kill all the Jews. Esther get permission to fight back, and today the Jews hold a big party about it. But at the time, many Jews must have died and there was mourning as well as joy that the nation/people had survived.
In our own time, there was Hitler. I know someone who know Hitler's mother's family in Colorado. Hitler's mother was Jewish--which means he was Jewish. "Self-hating Jew," it is called. AND Hitler was Amalekite! This would have meant an agonizing internal conflict that he never resolved. Knowing these two genocidal events both traced to Saul disobeying a Kill order from G-d gives important understanding as to why we err in judging others not only in the mean sense but also in being more merciful than circumstances or G-d require.
Start with Exodus 34:5-7, which ends with "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." It's not to be read separately from its full definition in the preceding verse, Exodus 20:5, "the third and fourth generation of THEM THAT HATE ME."(also see Deut.5:9) To hate the LORD is to oppose what He says of Himself in the first part of these verses, where He is declaring His name and character(Ex 34:...) "The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy... forgiving..."
ReplyDeleteIt also goes with Proverbs 8:36, "all those that hate me love death." Only love is qualified to put away evil, and giving evil what it loves is compatible with love. Israel was to be led by God, not clear the way for Him. He was to go before them. There were other ways. Our fallen natures run to Satanic reversals. And He,longsuffering, allows us continue misinterpreting the shadows, employing carnal solutions and gratifying our evil imaginations. Look at the failures recorded in Scripture, all indicating departure from God's true plan. Did they learn? Violence was still the favored problem-solving device when Jesus Christ, God's Word incarnate, God's beloved Son, God with us, appeared. The human race applied violence and death (inasmuch as it was in their power) directly to the very one who lived against it. Yet He, in love, turned it to His eternal glory, and confirmed the superiority of love and its power. We're got no excuse now. So why, did the "Christian Right" not defend Ron Paul when he was booed repeatedly for quoting the Golden Rule? They hated him. Why? For quoting Jesus, for goodness. And violence and death remain their preferred problem-solving device. Who are these people -- really?
The treatment by the Christian right of Ron Paul says everything that is wrong about the Christian right.
DeleteBM, your excellent question did arise early on in the Christian movement.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the story, there was a fellow called Marcion who was the wealthy son of an eastern bishop. Marcion was active in the early 100s, and wanted to help organize and evangelize the church in Rome. He even offered wanted to donate a huge sum to the church authorities.
Marcion had been a follower of Paul. Marcion thought that Jesus' apostles, (excepting Paul), were all blockheads who completely failed to understand Jesus' real message.
According to Marcion, Jesus was the divine son of the "true" God, who was loving and forgiving, and had nothing to do with the Yahweh of the Jews. Moreover, Marcion believed that the very essence of Jesus' mission had been to save people from the violence, hatred, anger, and vengeance of Yahweh. Although the concept didn't exist in Marcion's day, it's likely that Marcion thought of Yahweh as the quintessential psychopath, the perfect antithesis of Jesus' God of compassion and mercy.
In any event, the church in Rome returned Marcion's donation, and told him to hit the road. They rejected Marcion and denounced his preaching as heretical.
Later, however, Marcion did have some success in proselyting to non-Jews/gentiles, who, after all, had no emotional attachment or affiliation to Yahweh.
Ultimately, the Christian establishment was successful in exterminating the Marcionite heresy, which had persisted in places for years.
The reality is that the Jesus movement hadn't arisen out of a vacuum, but had been a product of Second Temple Judaism, and that provenance brings with it all the (approved) literature of the period, including all the Yahweh stories.
But Second Temple Judaism itself was influenced by Hellenism and rationality, and the Hellenized Jew Philo was a thought leader in advocating for an interpreted approach to understanding Hebrew scripture.
Philo's "textual interpretation" method was highly influential in early Christianity and the Christian Gnostic movement, and helped rationalize Canaanite barbarities into something less objectionable to more civilized audiences.
I neglected to mention that Marcion was the first Jesus Movement evangelizer who claimed to have a set of writings that believers needed to know, the "Apostolicon". This amounted to the Gospel of Luke, and ten of Paul's letters. Marcion edited these writings to remove any references to the creator God, Jesus' God, as being the god of the Jews. Marcion believed such references were adulterations made by the ignorant apostles.
DeleteMarcion considered the books of the Septuagint, and all the other Christian writings, both (later) canonical and pseudo-epigraphical/parabiblical books, to be irrelevant to the Christian message.
It seems to me that many modern Christians follow Marcion and don't know it!
DeleteHi, BM. No doubt but that you are correct.
DeleteI think it's also true that the "pilgrim fathers" were from a philo-semetic, Judaizing sect, who, despite their small number, became the bedrock of the American founding myth.
The subsequent decline in the U.S. of the liturgicals and the rise of the pietists, culminating in the political triumphalism of the evangelicals, (not to mention central banking Mammon), has moved much of American Protestantism from a Second Temple Era ethos to an indeterminate Noahide/Third Temple/We-want-Moshiach-now future. In other words, the polar opposite of Marcionism.
Interesting. Perhaps by ignoring the "bad" parts of the OT (you understand my meaning, I hope) they are left with a clear conscience to support what they see as the Israel/Zionist/state part.
DeleteBioMosq,
ReplyDeleteSeems like you've stumbled onto the cognitive dissonance that should lead you to a crisis of faith--if you're honest.
"Tribal" fealty. If, before Christ, "scriptures" were the stories and myths of "tribes," then what "tribe" is the "Old Testament?"
And what does that "tribe" believe today? What is their own "holy book," and what does it say about Christ and Christians?
Does it make any sense at all for a Christian to be involved in anything to do with that tribe, their past scriptures (the Old Testament) and their present Scriptures?
Might want to study those questions.
Here's a great overview of their God slaughtering everyone, genociding men, women and children.
http://www.creationtheory.org/BibleStudy/Ref-Violence.xhtml
"...if you're honest."
DeleteWell, now you got me in a box.
I do not have much to add except an to warn to keep in mind descriptive versus prescriptive text
ReplyDeletedescriptive: narration, what happened, who did what.
prescriptive: commands, rules, that must be followed.
Prescriptive text may lead into descriptive texts. Are the commands universal or are they bound by context, time and space? Are rules/laws universal or are the bound to a specific group of people?
Good point. Part of that context is seeing Israel and the Church as separate things. Not that there is no relationship between the two, Romans 11. But the Mosaic Covenant is not the same as the Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as the New Covenant.
DeleteThat helps my thinking about it anyway.
I'm sorry I didn't read all the comments, but surely you are familiar with Dr. William Lane Craig and Paul Copan?
ReplyDeleteWLC, yes. If he has said or written something specifically on this, may I ask for a title or link?
DeleteCopan, no, not before some of the comments above (along with a book recommendation).
Yes, the Copan book "Is God A Moral Monster". WLC website Reasonablefaith.org is tremendous resource. Yes he has written and spoke at length on this issue. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/slaughter-of-the-canaanites offers a good summary.
DeleteThe first chapter of the Bible, Gen. Ch. 1 explains the entire bible. However, you need understanding to get that. Therefore, start with the writings of Moses. He is the prophet of all prophets & said it all. Everyone after him simply expanded on what Moses wrote and/or referred the reader back to it. (It is the reason why the first five books is called The Law!)
ReplyDeleteCheck out Walter Kaiser's book "Toward OT Ethics" https://www.christianbook.com/toward-old-testament-ethics/walter-kaiser/9780310371113/pd/12321P
ReplyDeleteThis site may have a PDF of the book https://www.booklibrarian.com/pdfepub/toward-old-testament-ethics
Dear Bionic Mosquito:
ReplyDeleteYou have helped me so much through LewRockwell.com, so I want to thank you for everything you have done.
I am not a biblical scholar, but I myself struggled with this issue in graduate school, until I was exposed to contextual explanations like that of
Richard Hess (https://bit.ly/3g7Eju5).
Hess’s viewpoint--typical of other, similar scholars--is as follows.
חָרַם is a ritual, stereotypical military command. It is not a statement that women and children were to be killed but rather a typical war statement commanding energetic attack. As Hess notes—in the Jericho narrative and in Joshua 1-11 specifically—the death of women and children is “unlikely and unattested.” Whenever חָרַם is used with a geographical place identifier, the singular word עִיר is used, translated into English often as city (hence, the accusations of genocide).
But the word when used with חָרַם is much better translated as a walled fort or, sometimes, a makeshift fort, a place where soldiers would make a last stand. This is not a place where women and children would permanently hang out nor, when attacked, would they stay in the fort hoping not to be bothered, as Hess notes. Unless they were Rahab, who had an ulterior motive, they would almost certainly flee to more geographically safe places, such as the hills around Jericho (as Israelites did elsewhere). And if חָרַם was a command to genocide, and Joshua carried that out, why in Judges are there Canaanites everywhere, leading Israelites astray?
Hess does not specifically deal in the above lecture with Numbers 31, the only place I know of in the Bible where there might be an implication that children were killed. Certainly, women, Midianite prostitutes, who had previously led many dead Israelites astray were killed in Numbers 31. But regarding the children, we don’t know whether a good translation of the Hebrew words זָכָ֖ר בַּטָּ֑ף here is "males of the little ones" or "males of the family." Were they male babies? Probably not. Regardless, the text does not necessarily say they were children.
If they were boys, for Jews, a 13 year old was an adult male, and how do we know these boys, if they were boys, were non-combatants? Clearly influenced by Midianite ideology, by the most convinced, they would all likely to be dangerous to incorporate into Israeli society. Israel was not a wealthy society which could easily incorporate a few dozen enemies into their ranks and guard them from treachery, nor could it trust the women to 'just go.'
I argue that Israel was a society which was extremely kind to women, children, and servants (Israel did not have slaves in the modern, 19th century chattel sense). The accusations of genocide are built around several verses that are contextually misunderstood. The English words genocide and city etc. are also misunderstood and placed in a context extremely different from our modern, wealthy, legalistic one. Israel was a poor society facing ISIS just over the hill. We are a rich society without imminent threat from an equally large nation living a few miles away.
A Note On Numbers: Hess, like other biblical scholars, does not accept typical modern translations of אֶלֶף as always meaning a thousand, as in Numbers 31 but argues it sometimes meant a sort of family or military unit, so the numbers are likely much smaller than in most Bible translations.
Mark Hamilton
Thank you, Mark, for your extended comments. I will also watch the Hess video.
DeleteThank you, bionic, for everything you have done for me!
DeleteFor your consideration:
ReplyDeletePremise 1: God has property right in the this earth and everything in it including our bodies. We are given a stewardship for our bodies and other possessions. The only thing we truly own is our will, our choices.
Premise 2: God's purpose for us in this life is to learn to live by "The Law", that is the laws of heaven; and then to resurrect us to immortality and if we have learned to live the laws of heaven to return to His kingdom.
Premise 3: Our limitations in mortality make it difficult for us to understand the perspective, foreknowledge, and methods of an all knowing God.
Given the above, it is illogical to expect God to send His spirit children (mankind) to be born into a depraved society with no chance of learning to love God and to love their neighbour; to learn to live by the laws of heaven. Hence the flood, and other instances of mass destruction of depraved societies by pestilence, war, natural disaster, etc.
I have been giving some thought to this idea as you summarize in the last sentence - in terms of depraved societies. It was prompted by an email exchange driven by this post.
DeleteAbraham and his pleading for Sodom. If God found even ten righteous he would not destroy it. One can infer (maybe I am wrong to do so), that Abraham could have kept pushing the number lower and God would have concurred.
My takeaway (tentatively): there were none righteous in these other cases.
We all face punishment of death for our unrighteousness. It's just less troubling, perhaps, to think about it happening in the afterlife.
There was one righteous family in Sodom. Gos saved them. Lot. Of course his wife didn't make it but the condition was you couldn't look back.
DeleteForgive me for not having sources, but it seems entirely reasonable that these "races" which are killed off are part Nephilim, therefore not fully human. It's not murder or genocide per se because their seed is mixed with fallen angels.
ReplyDeleteJesus summarized the law with two commandments: Love the Lord your God; love your neighbor as yourself. On the surface (and maybe deeper), this is quite contrary to much of what we read in the Old Testament.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: "According to Scripture, what is the definition of 'neighbor'?"
The preachers all tell us that God loves everybody. According to scripture that is a downright lie.
roger
Maybe. I love my children. There are times I have to discipline them. It is even possible to conceive of a time when I might have to separate myself from them - or separate them from me. Call it banishment or whatever.
DeleteI do this out of love - love for my children and love for my community. My desire for them is that they grow to be God-fearing, healthy, productive contributors to society - this is best for them and best for the community. To achieve this, some of what I do might not seem like "love" to them in any superficial understanding of the term.
As the saying goes, they will understand once they have children.
To love your neighbor as yourself is dependent upon how well you treat yourself, not to mention how self absorbed one may be. If you have a cancerous growth on your body, but you've grown attached to it, your warm fuzzy feelings are eventually going to kill you. Note that nowhere does anyone claim to love God as we love ourselves. We're supposed to love God with our whole being, but who actually does that? Christ comes along and abrogates the golden rule by commanding to love others as God loves us. The cornerstone is self denial, or self sacrifice. Once one has denied themselves, they have no enemies. This doesn't mean that our neighbors are all going to be treated the same because our neighbors are not all the same. This is because some neighbors are healthy while others are effectively cancerous growths on the face of the earth.
Deleterog, how can you rattle my cage with regards to "if" when you still haven't addressed the point made? Again, if you prefer to have your own god, that's your deal. It's really none of my concern what private interpretations you prefer. You're essentially making an Appeal to Authority, or maybe you're just saying your version is the right one, and the others are false. Whatever floats your boat. When the biblical authors point out that "every knee shall bow", I take that to mean every knee, not just those who think they own their god as a possession, or have some need to objectify their gods.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that there is a different, more appropriate platform on which you can continue this discussion.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI don't pretend to have the answers. If I were a better person I would have done more research by now. But I think I know someone who can help you with this question. Dr Mike Heiser, who is a biblical scholar and academic. https://youtu.be/U-GlGvY4Azk
ReplyDelete