- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostWhy Does the Universe Look So Old?
- Next Post »Trusting God with what Matters Most
How Could God Command Holy War?
- 06/20/10
- 46
Yesterday I posted a brief summary of Al Mohler’s answer to “why does the universe look so old?” Today I want to provide the answer to another tough question. In this case I’m summarizing Derek Thomas’ thoughts on how a good God could command a just holy war (as he did in the Old Testament). I’m not sure that I completely “nailed” the answer, but I tried to capture it the best I could. At the very least I think i got his main point (for which you can skim right to the end).
Thomas turned first to Joshua 6 (the story of Jericho) introducing it by saying this is a topic you speak on only because you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture; it is both solemn and heart-rending as we discuss the killing, the slaughter, of men, women, children, babies. These are the kinds of passages in Scripture that make some people believe that the Bible cannot possibly be the inerrant Word of God.
There are four aspects to this narrative: Joshua’s encounter with the captain of the Lord’s army; the account of the collapse of the walls of Jericho; the salvation of Rahab; the destruction of the people. And this fourth part is the one that concerns us as we ask how a good God could command such a war. We have to be careful not to glamorize this story because it is about brutal violence, about blood, about destruction by instruments of war. How could God possibly command the killing of babies?
The Pentateuch has set this up as a just act on God’s part, a righteous act. There has been a clue back in Genesis 15 that though Abraham was promised the Land, he could not receive it immediately because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full; it was only when ungodliness reached a certain level that God would devote them to destruction. Joshua and his men would be implements in that policy of holy war.
Thomas structured his message around three points: the concept of holy war, the ethics of holy war and the ethics as it specifically applies in the Old Testament.
The concept of holy war. He passed over the discussion of any kind of defensive war, but looked specifically to the holy wars, the kind of war that was set apart to this specific purpose. Only God could declare such a war and in such wars soldiers had to be consecrated to the Lord. The cities and people that were to be attacked were to be fully devoted to destruction.
The ethics of holy war. Our doctrine of inerrancy, our belief that all of the Bible is the Word of God, tells us that what we have in Joshua 6 is not mere description but actual prescription. Joshua did these things because God explicitly commanded them. It was not Joshua’s policy, but God’s. This is the policy of Jesus, of the One who is Love. He is the one who commanded complete annihilation and destruction.
This kind of holy war is not something we can immediately draw into a New Testament concept, whether through thinking it may be ethical to shoot an abortionist today or in thinking that a nation like Israel is justified in waging war because “they are God’s people.” We may not take up a sword today and engage in a crusade against anyone else; there is a radical distinction between holy war as it applied to the Old Testament Israel and what applies to the modern state and what applies to the New Testament church. So when we discuss ethics, we are asking how it is ethical within its context, within the unfolding timeline of the narrative of Scripture.
The ethics as it specifically applies in the Old Testament. The Bible’s answer to our big question begins in Genesis 15:16. Here the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. Abraham had to exercise restraint because in the providence of God, there must be a filling up of iniquity of the Amorites before God poured out his wrath upon them. But by the time of the conquest of Canaan, the iniquity of the Amorites is full. We may now ask, were they any more sinful than Orlando today? Why would God pour out wrath upon that group and not upon us?
To even begin to answer this question, we must grasp the heinousness of sin, we must understand that God is so holy that he cannot even look upon sin. God is so holy that he cannot just will you to be saved, but instead must send his Son to suffer his wrath to make propitiation. One of the reasons we find this ethically difficult to understand is that we have such a low view of sin.
What is happening in these holy wars is a breaking into the world of here and now, into this space/time continuum in which Joshua lived, of the judgment that will be evidenced in the last day. This is an intrusion ethic, an eschatological intrusion of the end into now for a special reason—in this case because of God’s desire to have Israel occupy the land of Canaan so within the flow of redemptive history Jesus would be born and we would be saved. God is love, but he is holy love and cannot spare the ungodly. Here is a bigger question: why does God not judge us, given the fact that millions of unborn children who bear his image are aborted? If God were to do so, he would be altogether just! If you do not believe this, you do not believe in the God of Scripture. There is coming a day when Jesus will come on the clouds of heaven but he will separate one to his left and one to his right and will say to hundreds of millions, men and women and children, “depart from me into everlasting fire, into hell.” What happened to Canaan will be as nothing on that day.
Holy war tells us that the love of God is a holy love. This is just a glimpse of what awaits those who are outside of Jesus. What an enormous blessing it is that today is a day of grace, a day when we can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (46)
So the basic argument goes like this:
People are SinfulGod is Holy and cannot look on SinGod is free to punish sin however he wants, including using his people to bring about judgment.Everybody will be judged one day, even more strongly than the Holy Wars.
I’m not sure why this should only apply to the Old Testament, specifically the wars in Canaan. Seems like all the same arguments could be applied to modern day Israel claiming a divine right to the land, or even to Christians. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander??
Michael Garner:
Well, it could apply today if God actually told us (or Israel) to do that today. But, as far as I know, Israel is not a theocracy. God does not speak to them in the same way that he spoke to Joshua and Moses.
And, God does speak to us, most clearly through His incarnation. Jesus preached a radical ethic of enemy love. In addition, His Kingdom is now the diverse and dispersed lot of us who follow Him.
So, going by those bits of reasoning, I know of no war today that I can support as a Christian. I would prefer to work to make peace. And, I would prefer that my fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord did the same.
Of course, there will be a final judgement. God’s love and grace interact with his justice. He is patient, but there will come a time when His judgement arrives in full fury and completeness. At that time, however, it seems from Scripture that He, and his heavenly armies, are the ones that work the justice (as per John’s Revelation).
E.G.Although I am with you about God not speaking directly to us as he did with Joshua and Moses. So we can’t say that God told us to go to war on those grounds.I will say however, that I don’t believe in pacifism. I can’t go into any Scripture at the moment why I say that, mainly because it would take more time than I have at the moment.However and I may be wrong on this matter, but there are very few Christian denominations (Mennonites) that believe in pacifism and that includes Reformed denominations.No, this doesn’t mean they are correct, only Scripture can determine that, however I believe it is very telling; especially in Reformed tradition, where Scripture is viewed in a high regard.I personally do not know of any Scripture where pacifism is taught. But I do find prohibition against revenge, hatred, vengeance, wrongful anger, murder and sinful behavior.
The display of a just God’s terrible fearful wrath against sin is a thing of intrinsic awful beautiful glory. Intrinsically. And God tends to like to display that glory in the destruction of the wicked in ‘holy wars’ and ‘unholy wars’ here and there throughout history, but so much more so at the great judgment for the majority made in his image who take the wide gate and broad road. The fact that a human perspective is unappreciative of that glory does not change the fact for God or the heavenly host. The minority who will be recipients of an amazing glory of grace will, however, forever appreciate that glory… intrinsically, and as a backdrop to their received amazing grace.
Clearly, the Holy War fought by Joshua and the Israelites is different from wars fought in light of the New Testament. God commanded the war to be fought, and He commanded total destruction of all people - men, women, and children.
However, we should also remember that Canaan was not the only group that God commanded to be totally destroyed in the O.T. There were several. Take for instance 1 Sam. 15, when God commanded that Saul destroy the Amalekites and all that belonged to them. Remember what happened? Saul took Agag, king of the Amalekites alive, and God rejected Saul as king because of this disobedience.
Two KEY issues that I always point out when discussing this topic:
1- The picture is a seed battle. In the Old Testament, the seed of satan came through the enemy nations, such as the Canaanites and Amalekites. The flesh and blood war that was being fought was literally the seed of the woman (the Messiah) and the seed of Satan. Satan was trying to keep the Messiah from being born by these vessels of wrath. This point is proven by Saul’s disobedience, whereby Haman, the descendent of Agag, rose to second in command to Xerxes and issued a command to execute all Jews.
2- The total destruction of Israel’s enemies and all they possessed in the Old Testament, in addition to being God’s judgment executed by divine command, also depicts the believer’s battle against sin. When Achan at AI held back and hid the sheckles and robe, he was put to death as disobedience, the application being that when we wage war with sin, we must not secretly cherish that which God has commanded in His Word to be killed.
The Messiah has been born. Our battle is no longer with flesh and blood, because Satan cannot use lineage, nations, etc. from stopping what has already occured on the cross. The seed battle has moved to a fight for faith for those who have been born again by the bloody cross of calvary by our Savior. We must be killing sin, just as OT Israel was commanded to annihilate their enemies.
Tom Hardy:
“I personally do not know of any Scripture where pacifism is taught.”
Really?
Well, we could start with “Blessed are the peacemakers…” and go from there.
pacifism is not peacemaking.
To refuse to defend yourself or others for any builds tyranny of the wicked.
There is nothing peaceful about tyrant rule.
Thanks Marie, good answer.
All of these arguments fail to deal with the real issue underlying all this: how can God judge creatures that he supposedly made with the capacity (or if one is to follow the logic of “absolute sovereignty) predestined to sin?
The only real comfort about the annihilation narratives in the OT is that there is absolutely no archaeological or extra-biblical evidence that they ever happened.
“…One of the reasons we find this ethically difficult to understand is that we have such a low view of sin.”
Understanding that the OT serves as a foreshadowing of the NT, we understand that even sin is ultimately a tool in God’s hand to reveal His glory. When we see judgment as the Divine right, we will have far less trouble with understanding these difficult passages that speak of the destruction of babies. Psalm 119:91 says, “All things serve You.” And as the writer of Hebrews declared, “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.”
Truly something of what it is to fear the Lord.
Marie,
That sounds very noble to American ears but it flies in the face of Scripture. Christians are not commanded to defend with violence themselves or others. The opposite is true.
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:17-21)
This is one of those topics where we let our cultural norms override Scripture. If you believe in a sovereign God and in salvation, why would you be so concerned with your own safety that you would kill another in direct contradiction with Scripture?
Mark T:,
The predestination of the elect does not nullify responsibility. Scripture tells us that mankind was created in God’s image, with a general revelation of God’s Law, and is without excuse.The explanation of annihilation by the Seed Battle argument answers your question in that God’s judgment of our sin will occur one of two ways, by the fulfillment of the seed of the Messiah displayed ont he cross, or by the fulfilment of the seed of Satan, depicted in the OT as the destroyed nations that were enemies of Israel. The culmination found either in an eternity in Heaven with Christ and army of His Angels, or and eternity in Hell with Satan and his demons.
As far as no evidence for people who were destroyed in the OT, I always found it compelling enough that they ceased to exist after the timein which the OT describes.
Hey Mark,I know exactly where you’re coming from. Before I came around to embracing the theology of predestination, I understood it to be what I call “double predestination”. I fought long and hard against the doctrine, because I didn’t truly understand what predestination was about.
My understanding of predestination goes like this:1) God created us with free will2) Adam and Eve screwed up3) Therefore all are sinners and deserve hell4) Therefore God predestines to save some and lets others receive the punishment they deserve.
So the “active” process of predestination is that God actively saves some.
“Double Predestination” goes like this1) God created humans to be evil2) God predestines to save some and lets others receive the punishment that he created them (predestines) to deserve.
But here there are two “active” processes involved in “double predestination”: God actively saves some and actively damns others.
(Yes, I’m not using “active” in its literal meaning; it’s just a way to wrap my brain around it.)
When I finally understood that there was a difference in those two positions, that we started out with free will, and sinned, and therefore God can punish us as he wants, I was finally able to understand scriptures like Romans 8-9.
Maybe some would disagree, and argue for what I call “double predestination,” or maybe someone will posit a third option, but that’s my story, anyway. Hope it helps.
One more comment, re: pacificism: I’m not advocating for “no war ever.” There is a case for “Just War” by the overwhelming majority of NT scholars. However, from Augustine to Aquinas to Calvin and forward, considerations such as Jus ad bellum (Just cause, right intention, last resort, proportionality, etc,) as well as Jus in bello (treatment of combatants vs. non-combatants) have provided prominent boundaries for acceptable and necessary warfare based on NT principles.
While war is still necessary in this fallen world, clearly our objectives and mision have taken and should take a different form and approach than it did for God’s people in the OT, since we are not receiving direct revelation from God on who and how to fight. Thanks!
I agree with Michael Garner’s response.(Matt. 13:28-30)
Did they? That would be news to almost all experts in ANE archaeology and history. And even where they did disappear, there is no evidence that it was by sudden mass-annihilation by Hebrews. In most cases, they were assimilated into larger conquering nations, just as the Hebrews themselves were for a time.
Hi Mark T. ,You are correct. Sorry, I stand corrected. :)
http://www.truthnet.org/biblicalarcheology/6/conquestcanaan.htm
The information on that site is about as outdated and inaccurate as is the information on answersingenesis.org
Always amused when evangelicals link to only other conservative evangelical “science” sites to “prove” they were correct. Should I ask your mom if you were an above-average child? ;-)
I think people create a lot of confusion for themselves when they put God in a box labeled LOVE and forget that he is JUST and HOLY HOLY HOLY.
Here’s the best explanation I’ve seen on the internet: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html
His conclusion:
Judgment is called God’s “strange work” in the OT prophets. What for us humans is the problem of “why does God not do anything about evil and cruel people” is simply the other side of His patience with us. He hopes that we will accept a love of the truth and a commitment to value. In love, He deliberately “believes the best” (I Cor 13).
What started out as the “Unfair genocide of the Canaanites” ended up as the “Less-than-they-deserved punitive deportation from the land”—filled with patience and mercy and ‘second chances’. It was nonetheless a judgment, and nonetheless involved death—as it later would be repeated to His people.
Far from being the “genocide of an innocent people for land-hungry Israelites”, it was instead the “firm, yet just—and even a little merciful to the masses—removal of a people from a tract of land, mostly through migration.”
Whoa and ouch, Mark. I said that you were correct, that I was wrong.
Oh, sorry. I’d assumed you were being sarcastic.
Mark T - The vehemence and narrow view evidenced in your comments does not reflect well on you (or your beliefs). As part of my Masters program, I took Biblical Archaeology at Harvard’s school of Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Not exactly known as an evangelical hotbed. Should you choose to reply to this comment, I hope you’ll avoid the same presumptive and condescending tone you’ve been employing up till now.
You have made some incredibly broad statements (“absolutely no archaeological or extra-Biblical evidence” of the conquests). Your blanket statements evidence either an unwillingness or inability to deal with the challenges of Biblical Archaeology (or archaeology of the Levant if you prefer to strip the Biblical references). They make you sound as narrow-minded as those you would wish to attack.
How you deal with issues of relative dating, orthography, comparative linguistics, and even the disparate archaeological methods used by various teams and projects in question necessitates that a great deal of caution and nuance be used. That is, if you don’t want to sound like an arrogant hothead.
Palestinian/Levantine/Biblical archaeology offers a tremendous wealth of data, the interpretation of which differs. In the end, that interpretation usually aligns with the a priori beliefs of the practitioners.
My conclusion - there is enough good science to back up any argument or position. The body of archaeological data (and interpreters of that data) in support of the Biblical accounts rivals the body of data (and interpreters) opposed to the Biblical accounts.
That fact requires that you start at a little different place - the human heart. G.K. Chesterton said it thus, “The problem is not that the ideals of Christianity have been tried and found wanting, but they have been found difficult and left untried.”
still not satisfied with justifying the slaughter of babies.isn’t it a bit counter to the logic if we denounce abortion today for the taking of an unborn, innocent life (discounting original sin), when in this specific context, the lives of babies, seemingly unable to make moral decisions, are taken away merely on account of the sins of their fathers?
Just keep watching the comments here, JC. People will justify anything in the name of religion. ANYTHING.
“Just keep watching the comments here, JC. People will justify anything in the name of religion. ANYTHING.”
Yes, many people will do that, but that’s not what you’re seeing here. What you see here is justification of actions based upon direct commands from God — not the same thing at all. Now, if you deny that such a God exists, or that the Bible is his Word, you’re not expected to agree, but you can at least accurately represent those with whom you disagree.
Marie:
Pacifism does not mean not defending yourself. It means not using violent means to that end.
And, if the end is, instead, death, then that is God’s will.
When I (hypothetically) kill another to protect myself, I am either killing a nonbeliever, or I am killing a believer that is not acting in God’s will by attacking me.
In either case, I am killing an image of God. In the first case, my pacifist (but *not* passive… there is a difference that many fail to comprehend) stance may be part of the Lord’s work in them. In the latter case, who am I to kill another of the same Kingdom?
We are called either to pacifism (by Christ’s example) or to Holy war. Since I don’t see any call for the latter at this time from the Scriptures - but rather a radical other-centered love modeled by our Savior - I default to pacifism.
So, what do you mean by “pacifism is not peacemaking”? Do you see anything in the context of the rest of the Sermon on the Mount (or the rest of Scripture, OT in light of the NT included) that speaks to using violence to achieve our ends? I certainly don’t.
“Do you see anything in the context of the rest of the Sermon on the Mount (or the rest of Scripture, OT in light of the NT included) that speaks to using violence to achieve our ends? I certainly don’t.”
The Bible rules out revenge (Matt 5:39; Rom 12:19-20) and allows for self-defense from attack (Ex 22:2-3; Luke 22:36). But what Christian pacifists overlook is that the Bible commands us to defend the innocent when it’s in our power to do so (Is 1:17; Jer 21:12, 22:3). It’s not optional, it’s mandatory. So while there is some virtue in declining to protect one’s self from attack, there is nothing virtuous in standing by passively while innocents suffer and injustice prevails. As C.S. Lewis once put it, “If war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful.”
Andy:
That reading of Luke 22:36 is very questionable when read in context with the rest of the passage and with what Christ told Peter when he actually did swing a sword in Gethsemane.
Isaiah 1:17 says nothing about the use of violence to that end. I’m not sure why you think that it does.
Exodus 22:2-3 gives benefit of doubt to what goes on in the dark, when the defender cannot tell if he/she is using lethal force or not. Note, of course, that some (many?) pacifists are not against physical restraint, but against lethal violence. There is a difference, and this passage shows that God understood that a person who was not intent on lethality could make a mistake in certain circumstances. Note that the defender is liable for murder if the force applied results in the thief’s death after sunrise.
Jeremiah 21:12 - Who is the “House of David” that we look to today for justice? Christ. It is He who has the right, and ability, to correctly apply justice… even lethal justice. At some point, when He returns, that justice will be completed. By His grace, however, there is still time for sinners to repent.
Jeremiah 22:3 - again, like the Isaiah passage that you put forward, there is no mention of the use of violence, let alone lethal violence.
C.S. Lewis - wise as he was - was not inspired Scripture.
It all seems simpler than that: since God commanded war, God is not a pacifist.
That doesn’t mean that every urge we might have to engage in violence is therefore acceptable, but it seems to me like pacifism as a broad principle goes right out the window. God hasn’t changed since the events of the book of Joshua occurred, therefore it cannot be true that physical violence is by definition wrong.
For those of you who are Christian pacifists and claim that there is no room given for anything other than peacemaking, please do yourself a favor and watch “The Devil Came on Horseback”.
You can watch it on-line at topdocumentaryfilms.com if you can’t find it for rental.
The situation in Darfur is pure out and out genocide. It is exactly what happened in Genesis…the wiping-out of entire families, communities, villages, ethnic groups…only the families who are being slaughtered simply want to live in peace to farm their land and raise their families…they only want peace…it’s not working-out well for them. The second half of the documentary chronicles the “peacemaking” in the rest of the world…it’s not working out too well either, because words without force behind them seldom stop evil from being done.
Unfortunately in our world today, the reality is that when you are dealing with well armed and motivated aggressors who are committing genocide, they tend not to listen unless you back-up your defence of the innocents with force.
If you could stand there and watch your neighborhood be razed to the ground, your children chained to their beds while they are set alight and your wife and daughters gang-raped and hauled off to slavery without being willing to take-up arms to defend the powerless from such aggression and evil, then I’m quite frankly stunned.
This train of thought would have let the Nazi’s win and the Holocaust continue. I just can’t get on-board with the ramifications of not defending the powerless. The current geopolitics in our world are byzantine with their interconnections and much…all too much…of what is done in the name of war today is about securing land and resources (hmm…seems this was happening way back in Genesis too)but it doesn’t negate the fact that sometimes it is neccesary to take life to save lives.
E.G.Lethal violence is sometimes needed, when that is the only option that is given when someone or a warring nation is trying to kill, or perhaps harm family members in one way or another. There are times, when the only option is to kill or be killed, or perhaps stop a violent crime from occurring.In the police force, they are trained to shoot to kill. There is nobody more dangerous than a wounded enemy, who wants to take your life at any cost. The role of police is mainly for public safety and to stop crime. This at times requires them to use lethal force.I believe that only force that is needed in a given circumstance should be used. However, in a life or death circumstance, there is not a lot of time to react.Taking someone’s life is not something anyone should want, but it is something that unfortunately at times is needed.I agree with you that taking anyone’s life is taking the life of someone who is made in the image of God. Therefore it should not be done lightly; however as I said there are times when it needs to be done.I have had talks with Mennonites on this issue and the way they talk, they don’t believe that anyone should be in either the military or police force. This logically means that they would be content to let anarchy or a warring nation take over. They justify this by saying that seeing God is sovereign, it is God’s will if it happens.One Mennonite said to me; “Can you honestly say while looking down the barrel of a gun that you love that person? ” It is a hard question to answer, but I believe the answer can be yes. In fact I have of heard of one father that was forced to kill his own son when the son was on drugs and was going to kill him and other family members. You can bet that he loved his son, but he was forced into a life or death situation.How would you react in this situation, if kill or be killed was the only option?Your answer determines your true beliefs in this matter.
Tom Hardy: “How would you react in this situation, if kill or be killed was the only option?”
Of course the normal situation is not as simple as “kill or be killed.” But, since that’s the common refrain, I’ll answer.
I would choose to be killed. I know that I am saved. I know that God is in control of the situation. I do not know if the other person worships Jesus as Lord (and, judging by their actions, they are not). As such, if I kill them it is not love, as their ultimate, eternal fate is Hell. I would rather that they continue to live to, hopefully someday, come to also follow the Lord.
My death is simply a continuation of my eternal life. As such, it is a mere blip on the radar of eternity. And, if my death might be a witness to the perpetrator or to others, then God will work through it to bring others to Himself.
But, I would prefer to leave it in God’s hands rather than my own. He knows the big picture much better than I. So, I follow Christ’s example while He was here on earth.
Notably, His example is one in which He chose to be killed in a “kill or be killed” situation.
Mighty noble of you E.G., but you forgot something.By your choosing to be killed you just put the rest of your family in harms way. It is one thing to say that about yourself, it is another when others are involved, especially family.
E.G.:”Notably, His example is one in which He chose to be killed in a “kill or be killed” situation.”
I would offer up a different analogy for Christ’s death than the one you and Tom are working with. Christ did not come to condemn but to save. In Christ’s death, he did not fire any bullets but rather took the bullet for us, stepping in the way of the already fired-bullet. Perhaps Jesus does not add to the case for ethical use of violence, but he most definitely does not say “oh well, I’ll just sit back and let God’s will happen,” but is an active force in preventing harm to others.
Stephen:
Well, if you read my earlier comments, I’m not suggesting that one do nothing at all.
In the case that you note, I simply was answering the rather limited “what do you do if your ONLY option is to kill or be killed?” It’s a bit of a false dilemma but…
…in that (unlikely) case, I’d be killed.
In real life, however, 99.99% of situations are probably not that cut-and-dried. And, in that vast majority of situations a pacifist can still be actively pursuing defense… particularly of others… without resorting to violence. As Christ did.
(In any case, who says that the violent option is the best anyhow? Perhaps a more pacifist approach will help to calm the situation, whereas a “grab for the gun” approach will force the perpetrator to pull a trigger that he did not want to pull in the first place. That’s just pragmatism… but there it is.)
Note: pacifism does not mean passivism. I’ve also noted that earlier. So, there it is again.
I’m glad somebody mentioned genocide. The animals that Abraham sacrificed were a “covering” for the sins of the Canaanites. [1] He was an evangelist and they were under Covenant until his descendants returned. God’s Covenants always carry blessings and curses. The curses include losing your place in history, having your generations cut off, and your kingdom given to those who will bring forth godly offspring. We see this all the way through the Bible - the most notorious examples being the Psalmist’s mention of Babylon’s little ones being dashed against rocks, and Elisha’s calling of the bears against the children of idolatrous Bethel (home of a golden calf).The blood of Jericho atoned for past sin and founded a new kingdom. It was a Day of Atonement.We see the structure repeated in the first century, with Christ as the initial covering, chasing the ‘Covenant curse’ birds away, and ending with the destruction of the Herods’ “Jericho”, the city over which Jesus said the birds would gather. This makes the preaching of the apostles the “Trumpets,” the plagues, the warning for those who rejected Christ that there was no more sacrifice for sin.___________________________________[1] See http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/01/01/pass-over-and-pass-through/
I see by your response to Stephen that you completely ignored the context of “kill or be killed”. I was talking about killing as a last resort, not just to save ones own life, but to save the lives of loved ones. I thought I was very clear on that.
Yet you said this is a bit of a false dilemma, but I can assure you that in some cases, it is a very real dilemma, as in the example I gave about the father who was forced to kill his own son, when the son was going to kill him and other family members.I might also say that as in this case, the ideal is not always applicable. I am sure that if this father could think of another way to handle the situation, while saving the life of his other family members; he probably would have. As it is, although I am sure he is thankful that he could save his family members. He will be haunted for the rest of his life, at what he had to do to save them.
I take it then that you believe that there isn’t any excuse for the father killing the son, even if it meant his other family member and him would be dead, rather than his son
At any rate, unless I believe it is worth my while to keep participating in this thread. It is not worth beating a dead horse.
Tom: I didn’t ignore it. I read it in the full, and I understand that it was a real situation. It is simply that most situations are not like that, and…
…it is also obvious from my answer that I did realize that it was to save others as well. I quote myself (with ** around the part that implies that I knew what you had written):
“In real life, however, 99.99% of situations are probably not that cut-and-dried. And, in that vast majority of situations a pacifist can still be actively pursuing defense… **particularly of others**… without resorting to violence. As Christ did.”
To not pursue violence is a principled stand, based upon Scripture. In all honesty, I have not always thought this way. Coming to this point has been a process. But it is my stance, and the stance of many other Christians both present and past. And it is stance with good theological backing. Which is in contrast to that of Just War and Justified Violence, which has barely any real backing at all.
(And, in any case, if Just War theory were applied in each and ever case, I suspect that the vast, vast majority of wars that have been fought by those who claim to be Christians would not have been justified.)
You think children will go to hell?
Thank you all for your interesting comments.I am not a Christian, but have, for about 5 years, been searching for fulfilment from God, and have not yet found Him, so please excuse my questions and comments should they appear nave or challenging. Trying to elicit one clear answer from a number of Christian people is impossible as they fight with each other over their arrogantly ‘I am right - they are wrong - You wouldn’t understand’ interpretations of the Bible. Surely, if you want to interpret the Bible correctly, ask God. You speak with Him all day long, don’t you? Why would He give you all different answers?Please be patient with my questions.
I strongly feel that there could well be two Gods. One who ruled during the OT times who admitted (according to the OT) that there were many Gods, but he was supreme, and another god, who became Jesus.
The OT God was the God of Abraham and the Israelites, not the English, French, native Americans, etc. (please do not reply with comments about America not being in existence during the OT) and he was a particularly nasty god. Why would 30% of the Heavenly angels decide to leave him and follow Lucifer? (Why is he called the Light?) Had he been a great god, they would have stayed in Heaven with Him, or can angels be just as evil as human people? Being a nasty, vindictive, jealous god, he would be exactly the type to tell humans that Lucifer was the devil. No? How can the OT and NT gods be so utterly different? I don’t understand it. So maybe (Please don’t get angry, this is a serious question) Abraham’s Jewish god was the evil lying God, and Lucifer, the light, became Jesus.
I am not being controversial for the sake of argument, I am trying to understand. I first came across God in the OT when I read Kings ll ,where Jehu was commanded by God to slaughter a city full of people (including babies). On the basis that you feel it was ok because God commanded it, you should be equally happy that 9/11 was prescribed by the word of God. Millions of God-loving Eastern people believe that. I find it difficult to believe.
I have so many questions about how to find God, but Christians seem to give glib answers from the Bible, but only quote what suits them. Maybe someone out there can guide the millions of us who would love to find God, but are lead astray by the church and arrogant ‘committed Christians’ who appear to sin constantly and despicably because ‘Jesus died for them.’
Would really appreciate your helpful comments. Please don’t reply with glib quotes from the scriptures, as those answers do not help people who are seriously trying to find God.
Thank you.
Karabo
I am hesitant to answer your questions, mainly because I think in order to give good solid biblical answer one needs to spend quite bit of time to research the matters.I just don’t have that sort of time, but I thought because I think you are sincere, I will state a few things that come to mind.Concerning Christians not agreeing on certain issues; you are correct we don’t agree on many issues and that is ok when non-essentials like the issue of pacifism vs. non-pacifism are concerned. In this case although I do have my views on the matter; I think one needs to be careful that they do not let their emotions get carried away, lest they forget they are to speak the truth in love.With that in mind, if you have read what I have said on this issue, I hope what I tried to convey was taken the way I truly wanted convey. I do not in any way believe that pacifism is heresy. If my communications skills displayed anything other than that, please forgive me.
Another issue that I think is worth mentioning is, when talking about this issue, or any other issue, it is a matter of hermeneutics (the science of interpretation). If one doesn’t take things like context both from the whole Bible and the immediate text; word meaning within a certain context etc…, then chances are their understanding of a given matter is bound to be wrong.Although to a certain extent any Christian can understand Scripture, however we must not neglect the fact that God has given the Church people with certain gifts for the edification of the body of Christ. Among those gifts (which you can find in 1 Corinthians chapter 12) is the gift of teaching. Those with this gift have spent a lot of time in the Bible studying it so they can know what the Bible says on a given topic. Many of those with this gift have also gone to Bible schools in order to understand the Bible better, so they can pass on to others what they know.
When you see disagreements on issues such as this, one must keep in mind that everyone is at different levels in their spiritual growth and this can affect their understanding of a given issue. For instance, 20 years ago my understanding on certain issues is different than it is now. Why is this? Mainly because as my knowledge and understanding of the Bible grew, I found that I was mistaken on certain issues.It is for that reason, especially where non-essentials are concerned that I must learn to give grace to my fellow believers who I believe who are wrong on a matter. If I fail to do this, it means that I have forgotten what lead to what I now believe.This of course does not mean that I shouldn’t try to correct them. But it means that I must try to do so in a humble manner, with their best interests in mind. This is not always easy, but it is essential.Then there is the fact that, I could be wrong. I find a forum such as this, to be helpful in making sure that I have studied enough. This is when I become thankful to even those whom I strongly disagree, for they help me to remain teachable, as long as I am humble.
Concerning Lucifer, one must realize that Lucifer fell because of his pride. He basically wanted to be God, which is to say that he (the created being) wanted to have the same power and authority as the Creator. Think about that for a minute, should the created be able to usurp that which belong solely to the Creator?After Lucifer’s fall, we see this same trait replicated in man after the fall their fall.I find it extremely helpful when reading the Bible to remember that the Bible is written by God through the hands of man (2 Tim. 3:16) and as such it should be read from God’s perspective, rather than ours. To read it from the later is to read it from fallen man’s perspective, which is clouded by its depravity.
About there being 2 Gods, one in the OT and one in the NT.If one reads the OT with the whole context in mind, I believe the God that we find in the OT is completely compatible with the God we find in the NT. What we see is one God (Trinity) in both the OT and NT.There is only one God, yet man in their depravity, creates gods in one form or another to try to fulfill a need that they know they have inside. Romans chapter one is a good portion of Scripture to read concerning this matter. Read it carefully and prayerfully.I am a little curious however, what in particular from the OT and the NT leads you to believe that there are 2 Gods?I have found that many times, wrong conclusions happen when one doesn’t know the whole context.
Concerning Abraham and the Israelites having the one true God and other nations not having Him.While it is true that God chose Abraham and his descendants to be the nation that the Messiah Jesus Christ came from. It is not true that God is only the God of the Israelites. Lest you misunderstand me, what I am talking about here is only those who believed in the one true God were actually believers. If you read through the OT, you will see that there were non-Israelites who became true believers. Or as Scripture says it grafted into Israel. (Romans chapter 9 is helpful here)
You stated: “Abraham’s Jewish god was the evil lying God, and Lucifer, the light, became Jesus.”In order to comment on this properly, I would need more information on what made you say this.One thing that is true is if Abraham’s Jewish god was evil and lying, he would be going against His very nature, as stated in Scripture. There is nothing unrighteousness in God. (Romans chapter 9 is helpful here).In the OT, most of the time when God is mentioned, it is God the Father that is talked about; although all three members of the Trinity participate, both the Word (see John 1:1-…), who became the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit, although equal to the Father glorify the Father.Something that I believe is important to mention here is that when Jesus was on earth, He prayed many times to the Father.If it was true that Lucifer became Jesus in the NT, then he would be praying to that evil, lying OT god. Yet this is far from the truth, Jesus prayed to the Father who is one part of the thrice holy God. (One in essence, three in persons; or put another way, one what, three who’s)Even as I state these things, I am aware that the Trinity and the other things I touched on are not easy concepts to understand and therefore a post such as this hardly does the matter justice.
Over the years I have read/listened to and watched a number of good resources that give a pretty good out-line of the Bible as a whole. But, at the moment I can only think of two.One is called ‘Dust to Glory’ by RC Sproul. http://www.ligonier.org/store/dust-to-glory-dvd-fullset-dvd/Also an article called: ‘Why and What: A Brief Introduction to Christianity’ by Douglas Jones http://www.the-highway.com/brief_intro.html
Perhaps others can think of other resources that you might benefit from?
Dear Tom,
Thank you for your wisdom. I wish I had heard from you many years ago, instead of the pastors, ministers, schoolteachers and Christian friends who were ‘still developing.’ I do not quote from the Bible, as I find many Christians quote specific passages (Often totally out of context) to ‘prove’ a point in their argument, so I really appreciated the way you guided me to a chapter, saying ‘This chapter or verse is helpful.’ First, it made me do my homework by reading the verse in context, and secondly, you were not being prescriptive. Well done, and thank you.
My thoughts about an OT god and a different, NT god, are just my rational thoughts, not derived from particular verses that I have read. To me, the two gods seem so completely different in character that I am trying to rationalise the answer. There being thousands of different translations of the Bible, and indeed the words of Jesus’ Lord’s Prayer being radically changed, I have difficulty in believing the Bible could have been written by God. I see it being physically changed, misinterpreted and defiled by man every day.
I find it difficult to attend church services where pastors preach the Bible in their own dogmatic translation. Maybe they have been given a gift, and have studied long and hard, but I often equate them to the thousands of medical doctors and surgeons who, with little subject knowledge, empirical experience or subjective thought, believe alternative medicine and mind-healing is utterly wrong and dangerous at all times. Those doctors have their own medical beliefs, symptom interpretations and remedies. It is great when I hear Christian pastors actually supporting each other’s different denominations and different beliefs, although I rarely find it. The few times that I have attended church discussion groups has usually led to my becoming more confused. I am repeatedly told that “You have to just accept, and give yourself to God without question.’ I just don’t find that helpful or satisfying: A bunch of Moonies were given the same advice, and although they may have all departed to a passing space ship on that fateful day, I somehow find it hard to believe that any rational person would follow the advice, ‘Trust me. Just believe.’
I think one of the questions that many “Not Sure” people have about accepting Christ, is the topic of this column: How can God be so incredibly evil to babies and good people who have not had the opportunity to meet Him or know Him. The glib answers given by pastors and Christians who give me their ‘underdeveloped’ answers, cause me and other searchers much confusion. I was asked at a recent Alpha course to please refrain from asking difficult questions, as I was disrupting the flow. The topic of this column was one of the questions the “Christians’ could not answer to the satisfaction of any of the searchers. These were the expert people we were looking to for insight.
Forgive my ignorance, but I am beginning to feel that the Bible was an extremely cleverly written book, where the idea of a subconscious mind was given explanation by the idea of God or Jesus. I find that this ‘interpretation’ is beginning to make a great deal of sense to me.
‘Experts’ tell us that our subconscious mind influences about 96% of our actions, but we fight it with our rational, will-power driven, analytical, little 4% conscious mind. Handing one’s problems over to God (the subconscious mind) is great advice. Continually saying “Thank you” to God (Our inner-self or our soul) is one of the most healing and satisfactory phrases a human can use. Knowing that we are loved, unconditionally by God or Jesus is as liberating and wonderful as being at peace with the world and oneself. We humans have great difficulty in accessing our subconscious mind, but maybe Christians have found the answer. It does mean that I will have to think through each verse of the Bible very deeply, instead of being told what it means by a ‘Christian expert.’ This is now allowing me to really enjoy the Bible now after many years of frustration at incomprehensible, literal translations, but I’m not sure I am really getting the true picture.
Tom, Many many thanks for your answers to my questions, and the time you took to answer them, and I hope I will one day find the God that so many of us are searching for and be able to help them find Him too.
Warm regards
Karabo
Karabo
One of the things that I believe many Christians are afraid to say when faced with difficult questions is “I don’t know the answer.”When faced with a difficult question such as why did God tell the Israelite to kill everyone even the babies of an enemy nation? I do not believe it is wrong, to answer “I do not know.” I also do not believe it is in anyway agreeing with someone who is a mocker who says that God is unrighteous. It is simply saying “I don’t know the answer.”This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a satisfactory answer from Scripture that other believers are able to answer. But it is impossible to have all the answers and to be ashamed to answer “I don’t know”, when you really don’t know, smacks of pride.It isn’t always feasible, but when those times that someone doesn’t know, they can ask the other person who asked the question, to give them some time to find out the answer.However, this must be done with a certain amount of wisdom and discernment, because no answer will satisfy a mocker who has already made up their mind.
I can say a few things concerning the question of why God ordered the killing of babies. But they will not fully satisfy some people.
If I remember correctly, the times when the Israelites didn’t obey God fully in this matter when they fought against an enemy, they became polluted by the practices of the enemy itself. Of course this brings up the question of how a baby could corrupt the Israelites. To which at this point, I don’t know and would like to know myself.However, I do know that the reason I don’t know is mainly because my knowledge hasn’t brought me to the point that I know.
My knowledge however does give me confidence that God is righteous in all his ways and His nature is not capable of sin and if He did sin, it would be going totally against His nature. So the problem is with my understanding, not God Himself.On that point, I believe it is important to realize that it should not surprise us, that we don’t have all the answers. Although God does reveal a lot in His Word about Himself; God is so much above us that it is a wonder that we can understand anything about God at all.God says in His Word that it is impossible with out faith to please Him. This does not mean that we will always understand the matter, but it does mean that we need to learn to trust that God is as Good as His Word.If God says He is righteous in all His ways and yet your understanding sees something that just does not jive with that; believe God, rather that you’re understanding.God knows what He is doing and in His timing, whether in this life or in the next, things will become clear.Another thing that I have found true; is as my understanding of God through His Word grows, things I don’t understand become less and less important. In other words, it is not that I don’t want to know, it is that those questions no longer make a difference in how I view God.
One thing that I have found helpful is looking back through what God has done in my life. In many of these things, I did not have the benefit of knowing how things were going to turn out, in fact sometimes if I allowed myself I would have been extremely depressed about a possible out come. However, God has always been faithful, not always in the way I might have wanted, but in a way that was for my good. A Scripture passage that has helped me is Romans 8:28 “All things…”.Saying that, I do not want to give the impression that I always act in faith; In fact I am ashamed to say that the opposite is true and sometimes I bare the fruit of that unbelief. But God is always faithful and has a plan for my life.
A truth all of us must learn is our chief end is to glorify God (1Cor. 10:21) and enjoy Him forever (Ps. 73:25-26).Although we can learn by asking questions, our questions must be asked in humbleness in order to know how we can glorify God better. This is counter culture and one that shows that we really have a healthy fear of the Lord. (It might prove helpful to do a Bible study on the fear of the Lord)
Another great truth is that all of us know instinctively that there is a God, but our depravity blinds us of that fact. (See Romans 1:18-19 and context)
Karabo
I thought I would tell you about a site that has been quite helpful to me when I am faced with tough questions. http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/
On the subject that we have been discussing, you can find out what Dr. Sproul says at:http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/why-old-testament-does-god-demand-so-m…
Good morning Tom.Thank you. Exactly what I am looking for. Thanx for your help and encouragement.Regards Karabo