Recently, I did a
12 part series on the Canaanite genocides. Evangelicals have tried every way imaginable to attempt to defend the wholesale slaughter of nations including women, children, and even babies. One of the arguments presented was that this is only a concern to we modern Westerners. It may seem to violate our moral sensibilities but our sense of morality is adapted to our culture and would not apply to ancient peoples. In an article entitled,
After Inerrancy: Evangelicals and the Bible in a Postmodern Age, Part 2 by Kenton Sparks, mention is made of Gregory of Nyssa (335-395 CE ) and his discussion of the execution of the firstborn children in Egypt by Yahweh. The church Father wrote:
The Egyptian [Pharaoh] is unjust, and instead of him, his punishment falls upon his newborn child, who on account of his infant age is unable to discern what is good and what is not good … If such a one now pays the penalty of his father’s evil, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries … “The son should not suffer for the sin of the father?” How can history so contradict reason?
Sparks adds:
Gregory concluded that, ethically speaking, the Passover story simply could not pass as literal history … it was an allegory about sin, that directed us to quickly destroy evil before it grew too troublesome for us. Now my point is not whether Gregory handled the difficulty as we would, for it seems very doubtful to me, and perhaps to most of my readers, that the author of Exodus intended an allegory. But Gregory’s method aside, his 4th century comment shows that the ethical problems in Scripture are not the result of modern imagination run amok.
Sparks,
Professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University and author of
God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship, sees the problems facing the evangelical view of the Bible. He writes:
The factual contradictions within Scripture or between Scripture and extrabiblical sources cited in my previous blog are not, in my view, the most serious difficulties that Christians face in the Bible. More troublesome are those cases where a biblical text espouses ethical values that not only contradict other biblical texts but strike us as down-right sinister or evil. Consider this example:
The fact is that there are contradictory moral codes in the Bible. Thus, those who argue that the Bible presents the only "objective" standard for morality need to specify which one of these codes they believe is the true one. Is it the one presented in the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn and the Canaanite and Amalekite genocides or is it the one presented by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount?
Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the research you do on these topics. I appreciate your rational and succinct approach.
I think putting the O.T. together with the N.T. created lots of difficulties. I mean, I'm just a regular person, not a scholar, and to think that the god of the OT is the same one in the NT-and he had different plans throughout time on how to handle sin-just seems unbelievable to me.
ReplyDeleteAnd the people who wrote all these books in the Bible had no idea that they would all be jammed together and expected to have a common message, right?
I never did understand how Paul writing letters to churches could turn into Holy Scripture, without error.
I think morals are separate from the Bible. We have them, but they don't originate in the Bible.
I think putting the O.T. together with the N.T. created lots of difficulties. I mean, I'm just a regular person, not a scholar, and to think that the god of the OT is the same one in the NT-and he had different plans throughout time on how to handle sin-just seems unbelievable to me.
ReplyDeleteModern "orthodox" Christianity would probably be easier to defend nowadays if they had followed in Marcionite Christianity's footsteps in rejecting Yahweh and the Hebrew bible. No more atrocities to have to rationalize away. (except that whole eternal hell thing)
I never did understand how Paul writing letters to churches could turn into Holy Scripture, without error.
Ditto.
To me this would be like someone a few hundred years from now finding a transcript of a Billy Graham sermon and considering it to be the inerrant Word of God. Paul was just a man with his own theological opinions.
It's utterly transparent that modern Christians want the Bible, and their God, to be a source of absolute moral truth; but when confronted with the innumerable atrocities condoned and commanded by God in the Bible, they rationalize it with cultural relativism – the same thing they posture themselves as opposing.
ReplyDeleteSorry xtians, you can't have it both ways!
I like just about anything that Sparks writes. His "God's Word in Human Words" is what finally ended my faith. I honestly do not understand why people like Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks continues in the faith despite all of the problems with the Bible and Christianity.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the whole article by Kenton Sparks I find myself rather confused. It is okay to believe that the bible was written by men who made errors, however, Jesus is still the son of god and the way to salvation. He believes Jesus will return one day. Not sure how one picks and choses what is truth in the bible and what is not. Again the christians do not agree on what the bible teaches and what should or should not be believed. Anyone else confused?
ReplyDeleteTo compare the pre-conquest commands to slaughter babies and the later teachings of Jesus about loving one’ neighbor and conclude they are incompatible (and thus “proof” that the whole thing is a sham) is (in my mind) to make at least two mistakes.
ReplyDeleteThe first mistake is assuming that they are both presented as moral standards for normal living. The Bible says no such thing. The pre-conquest commands were a wartime standard. Far off neighbors of Israel were to be provided an option to submit or be vanquished. Near neighbors (all of the –ites) were to be completely destroyed. The OT explains the rational behind the “no mercy” policy. Yahweh was seeking to establish a beachhead for the geographical location of an earthly throne in Israel through which he would ultimately bring the ultimate deliverer-king, Messiah. Yahweh states clearly that the reason for such extremity was the real potential for loss of this beachhead. The idol-devil worshippers would become a snare to Israel that would ultimately threaten this beachhead, and thus the ultimate plan to bring Messiah would be thwarted. The remaining history of the OT shows that this threat was real and if left to Israel’s faithfulness alone, Messiah would never have made it.
This doesn’t justify killing babies as a normal ethic for normal day-to-day living. It does show just how intolerant Yahweh is of the kingdom of darkness. There can be no agreement between Christ and Belial. In the end there won’t be a coming to terms between Christ and the devil. Satan’s rule of darkness will be utterly destroyed along with all his subjects—those who have refused the offer to repent and enter God’s kingdom through faith in Christ.
A second mistake fails to understand the ultimate goal in the Canaan conquest. The goal was to re-establish God’s rule (his perfect will) on earth. Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom of God accurately reflect the will of God “as it is in heaven”. This was made possible, in part, because of the conquest. Jesus’ teachings do in fact reveal the perfect will of God. Loving one’s neighbor has always been a reflection of God’s heart. The conquest commands were required because a real battle was at hand.
Today, Europe enjoys relative peace and safety. Prior to the Normandy invasion, Hitler was oppressing and slaughtering all over the continent. The necessary steps to take Omaha beach under Eisenhower were ruthless. The beach had to be taken at all costs. This wasn’t “life as normal”—it was war. Eisenhower didn’t bring Hitler candy and flowers.
Was there another way? My theology about God’s good, loving and holy nature says that if this means wasn’t absolutely necessary, God would have found anther way. Apparently there wasn’t. I don’t presume to understand everything about God and his perspective of the two kingdoms.
I leave all such presumption to this blog site.
I'm raising my hand to admit total confusion! I think trying to figure out the Bible-what it all means, how to apply it, etc. forever-is crazy-making!
ReplyDeleteThe happiest people ofcourse just read a nice little verse, say "how beautiful!" and go on their merry way with some vague notion of "goodness" from the Bible. They maintain this by not spending too much time reading it, I think.
It's always struck me how Christians have to be nagged about daily devotions-I think this shows reading the Bible and praying is a chore even for many Christians.
The Bible is much more interesting when read not as a guide for life, but as a document to be dissected to see who, why, when, where, any archeology backing this stuff up, etc.
DC Griff,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments. If you have time go back and read my series on this subject as I discussed virtually every argument you made.
Yes war is ugly but there are rules of warfare that countries have agreed upon. One of those is not to target innocents. Innocents are killed but they should be collateral damage not direct targets. Yahweh commanded the complete destruction of peoples including the infants. If a nation engaged in that kind of warfare today, virtually the whole world would decry it. Yet if God says to do it, its okay? That is very dangerous. The Islamists who flew the planes on 9/11 thought God had commanded them too.
Even if one accepted your explanation as justifying the killing of whole peoples in order to establish a beachhead and avoid the corruption of idolatry, the action didn't work. By the time you get to the book of Judges, virtually the whole nation of Israel is idolatrous. If that was going to happen anyway, then why kill all those innocents in Joshua?
Furthermore, you have the problem of the Amalekite slaughter in 1 Sam. 15. These people were killed for what their forefathers did centuries prior. How can you justify that?
I only have time for the first question now.
ReplyDelete"the action didn't work. By the time you get to the book of Judges, virtually the whole nation of Israel is idolatrous. If that was going to happen anyway, then why kill all those innocents in Joshua"
Because it did actually work. Because of the conquest there would still be a remnant through whom God's mission would ultimately be fulfilled. Jesus did come, but only because of the remnant, and that only because of the initial conquest. Without the conquest there would have been no remnant, no Messiah, no kingdom re-established, no hope--the kingdom of darkness wins. Those who have tasted the powers of the age to come in the present expression kingdom of God, are grateful that this option is available.
"Furthermore, you have the problem of the Amalekite slaughter in 1 Sam. 15. These people were killed for what their forefathers did centuries prior. How can you justify that?"
ReplyDeleteYou assume they were not still at war against Israel. According to Exodus 17:16, Amalek raised their fist against God's throne itself resulting in the declaration that God would be at war with Amalek "generation after generation."
The reason for the attack was because war was still being actively waged between Israel and Amalek. There are many second and third generation terrorists who continue the fight against democracy despite the fact that the initial warring personalities have died. I suppose all wars would be conveniently settled by jut sending their leaders to war. Oh, wait a second, isn't that what Jesus ultimately did crushing the serpent's head?
I'd like to have the time to read all of your other blogs on this topic, fortunately this blog isn't my life and I have many other things that occupy my time and thought. Regrettably, I am only afforded an occasional perusal of your material. If I do get more time, I will. I do enjoy reading your stuff despite our likely irreconcilable differences.
Seems like a God capable of speaking an entire universe into existence could simply cause all of the "-ites" in Canaan to simply drop dead--clearing the land for the "chosen" tribe.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that an omnipotent God could have such a fragile plan that was almost thwarted by some bronze age warriors.
DC Griff,
ReplyDeletePlease watch the video in the post I did today on Ethical Intuitionism. I think its totally unnatural to kill innocents. How one could even kill a baby in its mother's arms is beyond me. How a loving God could command such is beyond me.
We both see killing babies as horrific. You see it as an occasion to hate God. I see it as an occassionally to hate sin which made the conquest a necessary evil as a step towards ultimate redemption.
ReplyDeleteDC Griff,
ReplyDeleteNo, I see it as reason not to believe in God, at least a god who would command such a thing. Do you hate Santa Claus?
Do I have a blog dedicated to destroying the
ReplyDeletemyth of Santa Claus?
I really surprized tha a phd like you dont know that that old dude Maimonides already answered all this stuff.
ReplyDeleteDC Griff,
ReplyDeleteIn the history of the world, have there ever been people who killed in the name of Santa Claus?
Chaz,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you enlighten us then?
Think of all the resources that have been spent promoting the idea of Santa Claus! Wouldn't those gazillions of dollars been better served feeding the hungry and clothing the naked? Perhaps one of your readers could take up that cause. Come on, admit it. You do actually hate God. The rest of us can see your bias here. I freely admit that I am biased towards faith. It is a lense through which I see and interpret the world. Your lense is unbelief. It colors everything you see.
ReplyDeleteDC Griff,
ReplyDeleteOr has anyone ever claimed that Santa Claus ordered them to kill a whole group of people including babies?
You can't hate something or someone that you don't believe exists. I despise the wrongs done in the name of this one that I don't believe exists.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't believe the Bible has historical merit, then what makes you think that Israel actually killed anyone anyway? How do you get to have it both ways? You get to reject a God who would order such things, but then dismiss the record that claims he ordered it. I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteSince there is no God, He didn't actually order any such killings. And since the "biblical" record of such atrocities happening is just the inaccurate invention of people anyway, maybe you're actually all worked up over nothing! There was no conquest. There were no atrocities.
Since there is no God, He didn't actually order any such killings. And since the "biblical" record of such atrocities happening is just the inaccurate invention of people anyway, maybe you're actually all worked up over nothing! There was no conquest. There were no atrocities.
ReplyDeleteGlad you see it our way :-)
I would say that skeptics are arguing with believers like yourself that defend that kind of behavior as being A-OK as long as the command comes from God. If you read these same stories coming from another religion, you would condemn the characters as acting immorally. But when the story is found in a book that you revere as sacred, the behavior of the characters is no longer considered to be bad. Yahweh and his chosen tribe get a free pass for engaging in extreme brutality.
DC Griff,
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that evangelicals believe it happened and they believe Yahweh commanded it. My point is that counts against the truth of evangelical Christianity.
If evangelicals were to say that these events didn't happen and that the commands were merely invented by later Israelites but were never really commanded by Yahweh (as liberals hold), then I would have no argument.
So your intent is ultimately to destroy the myth of Christianity, thus allowing the world to be free from the tyranny of this oppressive religion, while perhaps showing the light to a few of us deluded ones so that we might be rescued to what? The hopelessness of believing that there is no justice now, nor will there ever be? The hopelessness of not believing that our grievous sins might be pardoned? The present experience of one who cannot even classify the condition of his own theological system (theistic agnosticism?).
ReplyDeleteShow me something better. I wouldn't wish the hopelessness that you offer on my worst enemy.
The kingdom of God has appeared in the ministry of Jesus. The offer of pardon exists now for any who read this blog to receive the gift of eternal life through God's gracious offer. The powers of the age to come have broken into the world. Peace and joy. Grace and forgiveness. Healing and mercy and compassion are freely yours in Jesus. But God's kingdom will come in fulness one day. Now is the day of salvation. Now is the offer made. Repent and believe the good news and you will taste and see that the Lord is good. You can then have the discerment to know the certainty of what I say. Billions have and receiving this offer. Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart. Open up your heart. Ask, seek and knock. You will ne answered. God's kingdom will be found. The door will be opened to you.
ReplyDeleteDC Griff,
ReplyDeleteMy goal is much more modest. It is to simply describe and discuss my reasons for leaving the faith. I invite discussion and dialogue. For many though it is just too emotionally troubling to seriously look at their belief system.