Old Testament Genocide

[Alabaster]

I'm not sure which of my points "are not tolerated". Can you specify, please?

Nazi Germany was an immoral system. Hebrew migration to "the promised land" held many of the same ideologies. Pre-Civil War America held some immoral ideologies, . . . and similar ideologies were condoned in the Old Testament.

These aren't statements of attack, but of truth.

What unbelievers consider as intolerable action coming from a holy God in their paradigm is misunderstood because they do not accept that God is holy in all His judgments. What man would judge to be a just punishment is not the same as what our holy God deems judgment.

In the OT, God commonly passed swift and harsh judgment for sin within men's lifetimes. Today, we have His immense and inestimable mercy in the Son, Jesus Christ, that we actually take for granted!

 

[Drew]

Re: Man is Evil

Hello Deavonreye:

Clearly you raise a legitimate question about the Old Testament genocides, ordered by God and perpetrated by the Hebrews. These accounts, of course, should raise serious questions - how could a God of love and justice order such things?

Well, there is a plausible answer that is consistent with the notion of a loving and just God. And it is this: that God had no choice but to order such actions in order to achieve some greater good.

Consider chemotherapy. The doctors introduce a toxic substance into the patient, resulting in the destruction of many healthy cells. And yet this action is entirely consistent with the patient's ultimate best interests - the doctors have no choice but to inflict pain and suffering in order to "love" the patient.

I suggest that something analagous is at work in the Old Testament genocides - God is seeking to heal the word and has no choice but to undertake these actions. And I am prepared to argue that the Bible essentially does makes this "argument", albeit in a very subtle way.

At the end of the day, it is an over-simplification to assume that the Old Testament genocides are evidence of a God who is not entirely loving or just. And the reason is that God might have had no choice but to orchestrate such events in the service of some greater good. And I think that this is indeed what has happened.

 

[Drew]

Re: Man is Evil

What unbelievers consider as intolerable action coming from a holy God in their paradigm is misunderstood because they do not accpet that God is holy in all His judgments.

I do not think that this is an answer that addresses the legitimate "objection" of the unbeliever to these Old Testament genocides.

They (unbelievers) have a very legitimate point - it seems entirely at odds with the image of a loving and just God that He would order the mass murder of entire peoples. Your response (above) seems to be basically an "appeal to mystery" - that is, it may not seem just to us, but it must be just since God is just.

You seem to be basically arguing thus:

1. God ordered Old Testament genocides;
2. God is just, therefore these events must be just, even if they seem otherwise.

This is really not very convincing, I suggest.

 

[Alabaster]

Re: Man is Evil

I do not think that this is an answer that addresses the legitimate "objection" of the unbeliever to these Old Testament genocides.

They (unbelievers) have a very legitimate point - it seems entirely at odds with the image of a loving and just God that He would order the mass murder of entire peoples. Your response (above) seems to be basically an "appeal to mystery" - that is, it may not seem just to us, but it must be just since God is just.

You seem to be basically arguing thus:

1. God ordered Old Testament genocides;
2. God is just, therefore these events must be just, even if they seem otherwise.

This is really not very convincing, I suggest.

You overlook the fact that God was pronouncing JUDGMENT upon people. He reserves and defers His judgment to another time during this dispensation for the sake of His beloved Son who is busy building His Church.

 

[Strangelove]

Re: Man is Evil

You overlook the fact that God was pronouncing JUDGMENT upon people. He reserves and defers His judgment to another time during this dispensation for the sake of His beloved Son who is busy building His Church.

What do you mean by dispensation?

 

[stovebolts]

Drew,

I think that both your view and Alabasters view can be perfectly reconciled.

Genesis 15:12-16 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

We see here one of the many purposes for the 400 year exile in Egypt. As with Pharaoh, the sins of the Amorites had not yet reached judgment.

But more to your point, we see God's ultimate purpose.

Genesis 12:1-3 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

I think these two aspects are a great foundation for this topic.

 

[stovebolts]

Re: Man is Evil

What do you mean by dispensation?

From Dictionary.com

dispensation
4.Theology . a. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.

b. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by god.
c. a divinely appointed order or age: the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

 

[Strangelove]

Re: Man is Evil

From Dictionary.com

dispensation
4.Theology . a. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.

b. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by god.
c. a divinely appointed order or age: the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Yeah I looked it up and found a similar definition but I still dont really understand it.

Is this trying to say that God changes?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The "Graven image" problem

"loving and just God"

The "Graven image" commandment essentially addresses our tendency to "Remanufacture" God according to our own specifications. THESE DAYS, it appears that the "Pop God" is insistently "pushed" by the churches, and by "Pop culture" as a "God of Love" - ONLY.

Deut 32:
39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.
41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.

This is a "fuller picture" of the artificial "God is Love" monolith, and of course our HUMAN concept of "justice" doesn't now, never did, and NEVER WILL mean spit. And if anybody doesn't LIKE that - oh well.

We don't "do God a favor" by becoming Christians - He does us the INFINITE favor of being willing to accept us in our hopeless sinful depravity, and working in us to make us HIS children.

I like C.S. Lewis' protrayal of Aslan, the great lion - and the warning: "He's not a TAME Lion - He's not "Safe".

Our God is not "Safe" - He's God.

 

[Deavonreye]

I posted this in another thread, but it goes here much better . . . .[and it is just my personal opinion]:

Back in those days, warring and pillaging were common place amongst many culture, and the Hebrew people were no acception. That which we would find immoral today were normal practices, including slavery, laying waste to armies, their village, families, kids, livestock, taking what plunder they could.

Now, if you were the leaders of a large group of people, and needed to expand and profit, what better way than to say "this is what your god commands of you" and then let it be known that those who do not go along with this will be punished. For instance, the tribe that didn't report for the battle. Because ONLY the religious leaders of that group were the ONLY ones allowed into "the holy of holies", thus, being the only ones that "god spoke to", they could get this large group of people to do their bidding. . . . all the while, still having these immoral ideologies common to that day.

That summarizes my thoughts. Is it provable, . . . no more than it can be proved that it was an actual god who commanded these people, but it is much more reasonable.

Considering if this were the truth, what does that mean for the bible? Either, there was no god. Or, god allowed the follies of man and their immoral actions to be recorded, even though their motives were based on their "belief that their god commanded such things".

 

[Drew]

Re: Man is Evil

You overlook the fact that God was pronouncing JUDGMENT upon people. He reserves and defers His judgment to another time during this dispensation for the sake of His beloved Son who is busy building His Church.

I am not overlooking this. DR, and others have a legitimate "ethical" point - it seems extremely hard to believe that an infant in the arms of its mother "deserves death". Or to put another way - why does God order the wiping out of one "race" at the hands of the other? As we know from Paul, all have sinned. So the judgement argument is really a little hard to make work. Surely there is some Hebrew who is more sinful than the most innocent person from the people that was ordered to be slaughtered at the hands of the Hebrews.

Having said this, I do believe that these genocides were indeed ordered by God. But my explanation for this is not that God was "judging" the people who were slaughtered, at least not in the sense that I suspect you mean.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

I think that both your view and Alabasters view can be perfectly reconciled.

I wish that were the case, but I have serious doubts.

Genesis 15:12-16 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

We see here one of the many purposes for the 400 year exile in Egypt. As with Pharaoh, the sins of the Amorites had not yet reached judgment.

I confess that I do not remember if God ordered the Jews to slaughter the Amorites en masse at some later time.

Let's assume that this is the case - if so, it would certainly then seem that Alabaster has a point. However, I suggest that, in keeping with a lot of other Biblical texts, things do not necessarily mean what they seem to.

I think we really need to abandon this frankly absurd idea that an entire people - all of them - are deserving of death at the hands of another people. If this were really what God were doing - "judging" one race at the hands of another, I would suggest that this hardly can be reconciled with other things we read in the Bible, especially in Paul, about how race is not an issue when it comes to a person's standing before God.

I suggest that something more subtle is going on. As you may know, I have argued, following theologian NT Wright, that God used the Law of Moses to bring sin to its full expression in Israel. Yes, the Law of Moses makes Israel more sinful, not less. Why is God doing this? Because (following Paul in Romans 7), sin is really a "force" or power that needs to be condemned. So God "deceives the deceiver" - luring sin into the nation of Israel so that sin can then be focused into the flesh of the one "true" Israelite - Jesus. And then, as per Romans 8:3, sin (not Jesus!) is condemned on the cross.

In short, God uses Israel as a "lure" for the power of sin. Once sin "takes the bait", it is "cornered" in one place - the nation of Israel. And then it is cornered even more - in the flesh of a single Jew (Jesus).

So I see all these genocides as part of this process. God is not really "judging" these nations in the conventional sense. What kind of a loving God would needlessly order the slaughter of an entire race to satisfy what could only be seen as a deeply "immature" sense of justice?

Does God tell us to judge in this way - to slaughter our enemies? No. I suggest that, in keeping with my earlier post, God has no choice - in order to heal the world, he has to make sin take up residence in Israel, so that it can later be defeated on the cross. And one way this is done is by ordering the Hebrews to commit what are really sinful acts of genocide, and certainly not the "moral judgement" of a righteous God.

Now I have said a lot of controversial things here, so I will stop for now.

 

[Drew]

That summarizes my thoughts. Is it provable, . . . no more than it can be proved that it was an actual god who commanded these people, but it is much more reasonable.

I see no evidence that this explanation is more reasonable than the one I have offered. As I see it, we have at least these three explanations on the table:

1. DR Explanation: The Hebrew people rationalized their desire for power and wealth by "making up" a divine explanation - God told them to do it.

2. Alabaster Explanation: These acts of genocide were righteous acts of divine judgement by God.

3. Drew Explanation: These genocides were the only choice God had in order to heal the world. In other words, in the interests of the ultimate greater good of all mankind, God ordered these genocides (exactly as a cancer doctor will intentionally kill millions of good cells in order to the kill the bad ones).

Now I suggest we both do not like the "Alabaster" model - fair enough. But I really see no reason why explanation 1 is "more reasonable" than explanation 3.

 

[Deavonreye]

Drew, it is just how I see it. . . and how life was at that time. Motivation by fear [of not doing what was commanded in the holy of holies] does much towards getting people acting.

My point doesn't say "there is no god". It just says, . . . "this is how people were, and even if a group of people DID have the one true god, they were still flawed and followed after human desires."

As for your explaination, . . . it sounds a little nicer than Alabaster's, but an advanced being capable of creation WOULD come up with a better plan than systematically destroying countless multitudes of people. And remember, not everyone WAS killed.

 

[Alabaster]

Re: Man is Evil

What do you mean by dispensation?

Dispensations are periods of time punctuated by a particular way in which God deals with man.

 

[Alabaster]

Re: Man is Evil

I am not overlooking this. DR, and others have a legitimate "ethical" point - it seems extremely hard to believe that an infant in the arms of its mother "deserves death". Or to put another way - why does God order the wiping out of one "race" at the hands of the other? As we know from Paul, all have sinned. So the judgement argument is really a little hard to make work. Surely there is some Hebrew who is more sinful than the most innocent person from the people that was ordered to be slaughtered at the hands of the Hebrews.

Having said this, I do believe that these genocides were indeed ordered by God. But my explanation for this is not that God was "judging" the people who were slaughtered, at least not in the sense that I suspect you mean.

They weren't genocides. They were Godly judgments upon a wicked generation of people, including infants who had no hope of being reconciled with God. God's anger is complete and just---always. Food for thought.

 

[Deavonreye]

Wow...... :o

 

[Elijah674]

What good were the pre/flood ones when they passed the 120 years of the Holy Spirits striving? There was No turning back! And Abe in Gen. 18 asking God for these ones of Sodom if there were even 50?? Gen. 18:22-26 on! (+) God would have spared Sodom for even tens sake! Chapter 18:32. A Christian could go on & on how God gave time for one to repent before it was a 'full cup' of rebellion! (even the one in heaven)

But hear is another perhaps forgotten thought? God gave mankind FREE/WILL! And by doing that, it is God who takes the Heat of even the saved when they made serious mistakes. (Because He allowed or pernitted it)
Case in point is seen in 1 Sam. 8:6-7. Now, who made free/will shipwreck over & over again by this free choice. And who took the heat for allowing freewill to do so? Even the kings haram has some ones teaching that that was God's will.

1Sam.8
[1] And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
[2] Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beer-sheba.
[3] And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

[4] Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
[5] And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
[6] But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

[7] And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

[8] According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
[9] Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

[10] And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
[11] And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
[12] And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
[13] And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
[14] And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
[15] And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
[16] And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
[17] He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
[18] And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
[19] Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
[20] That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. (there was some thought about genocide?)

[21] And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
[22] And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

 

[Drew]

As for your explaination, . . . it sounds a little nicer than Alabaster's, but an advanced being capable of creation WOULD come up with a better plan than systematically destroying countless multitudes of people. And remember, not everyone WAS killed.

You cannot simply assume that God was "free" to come up with a "better" plan. You are not accounting for the possibility that God "had no choice" but to take the "genocide" route in order to heal the world.

 

[Deavonreye]

"Had no choice"? That's a peculiar statement. God can fine tune the intricacies of an eye [though it really isn't all that perfectly made, but that's another topic], . . . but couldn't come up with something better than millions of dead bodies? I know that sounds harsh, but that is a scriptural fact, right?