Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part IV: The Old Testament
October 12th, 2006 | by Scott |There is nothing in the life of Christ that support or proclaims violence as a legitimate end. His life, teaching and example was about another way. A way that rejects violence and passivity.
A way that embraces effecting positive change through the turned cheek, the second mile and the love of enemies.
This is problematic because it runs counter to our instincts. Loving enemies, praying for those who persecute you, and foregoing the opportunity to strike back are not natural to us.
But if Jesus touts a different way, what do we make of the Hebrew Scriptures?
Again this is problematic. The surface understanding of who God appears to be in the OT is not a God that illicits a bunch of warm fuzzy feelings. He seems too wrathful for that.
I step on tenuous ground here on at least two fronts: one is, ultimately, I cannot speak for God. His ways are not my ways. I don’t understand why He has done all the things He has done. And likely never will.
Second, is the seeming dismissal of the literary use of war metaphors and manipulations in the editing process in favor of pure literalism. But that’s a road I’m not fully prepared to go down.
The best I can do is lay out a series of thoughts:
–God has often employed a sort of progressive redemption (HT: William Webb). He took people where they were and moved them in the direction that He wanted them to go. He does not take us from A-Z in one fell swoop, but instead is patient with us. The OT is replete with things that God tolerated but was not necessarily fond of: polygamy, slavery, repression of women, etc. But He acknowledged where the people were primitively and moved them on from there. Would any of us doubt today that God despises slavery, although it happened through the NT times? Would any of us doubt that God hates the second class treatment of women, although it continues to this day? God may have utilized war but it was never His ideal. He created us to be in union with each other, not dis-union.
–Ultimately, if we take the stories of the Israelites conquest of Canaan and God’s instructions against the Amalekites then the OT example for us is not warfare, but genocide. Hopefully, none of us are that barbaric to think that should be the lesson we learn from the Hebrew Scriptures.
–The Ultimate Mover of these conquests in the OT was God, not man. His blessings were given upon those He commanded to act in such a way. I have never received a direct order from God to attack anyone. Without His bellowing from the Heavens to attack then we become far too presumptuous to go on the offensive.
–Israel wanted a king because they wanted to be like the other nations. God warned them that having a king would move them toward warfare, toward the establishment of armies.
–There is a strong sense that God is operating under the constructs of fallen man, not on the ideal. When the Perfect came, we see His intents and purposes come into full view. The stipulation against David building the temple because of his status as a warrior is not something to be glossed over. If war precludes building a temple and the Temple today is not made by human hands but is the individual believer, then it seems to reason that the Temple of the individual believer must not be given to violence.
–We have much to learn from the prophets. We see a systematic laying out of the ideal for the Kingdom. The visions were of swords being beaten into plowshares, of the lion laying down with the lamb. It was a vision of peace. God was emphatic that He detested people dying without a relationship with Him. Jonah is prime example of that: he was dispatched, not to condemn, but to proclaim a saving relationship.
–Ultimately, Israel was to be the avenue for all people to know God. Any failure in that regard was the fault of the nation-state, not of their God.
–The prophets proclaim the way to the peaceable kingdom. They point the way to the Messiah who would be both Suffering Servant and Victorious Warrior. (A fact that many Jews did not get because they were anticipating two distinct Messiah’s.)
–Again, the ultimate way to understand this progression is through the person of Jesus. He tells us in Matthew 5:17 that He had come to fulfill the law and the prophets. He was the culmination of what the Hebrew people were called to be and do. What was that? What was the true message of the Hebrew Scriptures? Very simple:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandment depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
The more I study both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament the more convinced I am that it all comes down to these two ideas: Love Him and love each other. All else is commentary.
Ultimately, what we have from the OT is this:
–We can trust in God and His might. Or our own. That’s idolatry.
–To view God as warrior in the OT is to look over the more plenteous aspects of His personality there: lover, Father, protector, merciful, shepherd, redeemer, kinsman, deliverer, and on and on.
There is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures that gives us license to perpetrate violence on another. Especially when we see the Hebrew Scriptures through the one who fulfilled them: Jesus Christ. To understand the OT apart from Jesus, His life, teaching and example is to miss the God of grace and wonder.
Again, we are back to Christ.
Again, we are back to non-violence.
80 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part IV: The Old Testament”
By KS on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
“Israel wanted a king because they wanted to be like the other nations. God warned them that having a king would move them toward warfare, toward the establishment of armies.”
I would go with much of what you are saying. But do what about the story of Moses and Joshua. I believe God himself killed the Egyptian first borns and then had Joshua wipe out several people for the Israelites to take their land. This was way before the kings.
While I am not for going out and killing others, if this is the argument against just war, it is weak at best. All I have seen in this blog is a justification of a theory. Where in other blogs you used scripture as a backround, you used very little in this blog.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Did you start reading halfway through the post? I talked about that earlier in the entry. I used little scripture because I assumed the knowledge of the reader of these particular passages. I can fill in more if you want.
But, what argument is weak? The fact that Jesus is fulfillment of the OT and He talked about love, mercy and non-violence.
That God is God and I’m not?
By Jon on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
I agree that the basis is just what you stated. Love God and love one another. No problem with that. The conclusion that I have come to, and if I am jumping way ahead in your progression of this study then stop me and I will wait until it is appropriate to post further thoughts, is that to deal with fallen and corrupt world there needs to be force. Govt’s need to wield certain power and force to keep order in a fallen world. It is a fallen idea to deal with a fallen world. We have evil desires to use force to stop things but we need to be transformed in our minds and that leads to a transformation in our actions. For me to try and impose these ideals is an uphill battle on a slop coated with Crisco. As for war in a fallen world, except for ending slavery, facism, naziism, communism war never solved anything.
I disagree on the point that God despises slavery. He despises the unfair treatment of the slaves. I maybe confusing slaves with servants here but I am refering to the latter.
As for trying to understand why God killed the first born or had Joshua and Israelites wipe out entire nations of people; that is for God to understand and for us to never understand. God used things to bring about his plan in the OT that we don’t understand. I think He had the Israelites wipe out the nations that inhabited the promise land because He knew what would happen, and it did, to His people if any remnant of evil was left in the land.
Israel wanted a King and wanted to be apart of a fallen order and God let them and we read what happened as a result of them living in a fallen world. You want to go live in the fallen world then be prepared to be dealt with in fallen world ways.
By justin on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jon,
No one here is trying to impose those ideals on anyone through a government. Scott isn’t saying that our government should be non violent. Even the most peace loving government is violent at its core. (The only reason people follow laws is through threat of force. I get a speeding ticket, they fine me. I don’t pay the fine, I go to jail. I refuse to go to jail, they will shoot me)ALL the governments of the world are fallen. We are supposed to render to Caesar what is his, but live at peace with everyone. We can’t control who our country goes to war with, but if we adhere to the end of Romans twelve, we can do our best to live at peace with everyone, as much as it depends on us.
That’s why I don’t vote. By voting, I’m choosing a leader who will us force against others, in one way or another. I don’t agree with using force, because of the example that Christ set. There will always be governments until Christ returns. And God will use them however he pleases. But Christians should not support governments in evil actions. We don’t know which wars are just in the eyes of God, so we live at peace with everyone.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jon, we have to live in the fallen world. And the best way to do that, Kingdom speaking, is to follow in the steps of Jesus. Sure, it runs counter to what our instincts tell us. But that’s the cost of discipleship.
In the progression of these posts I am trying to construct an apologetic for non-violence as purported by Scripture.
I’m dealing specifically with the Hebrew Scriptures here. They can only be fully understood in the person of Christ.
And again there is no defense for US using violent means.
By Jon on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Justin-
Agree with what you said, aside from voting. If Christians shouldn’t support governments in evil actions then you had better stop paying taxes because it’s our tax dollars that fund wars, stem cell research, police, military, etc…
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jon -
So God approves of slavery? Or if we’re nice can we legitimately own other people?
You say, “to deal with fallen and corrupt world there needs to be force”
I think this is the pivotal argument in favor of governmental use of violence. Who places leaders on their thrones? God says he does. Who causes nation to rise up against nation? God says he does. God may have allowed and tolerated the use of violence by nations as a compromise in a fallen world.
But, wait, what about all the bad governments? Did God raise up the Nazis? He says he did - at least if we claim he raised up America. So did God authorize the extermination of the Jews by the government? Again, as much as he authorized the use of force by the Allies. The slaughter of Stalin’s government? And so on.
Attributing to God the decisions of humanity seems a very treacherous slope to step onto.
The problem with just war theology - without a prophet (who in the OT is the one conferred with the right to declare war - not the king, by the way) - we are really left guessing what God is “authorizing”, aren’t we? It’s left to our “intent” and “good judgement”.
What do you think the intent of “evil” leaders is/was? Enrichment? Land? Wealth? Security? Not too different from our own. However, the basis for us being “right” and them being “wrong” is the means we use to try to acquire such things, right? Genocide, ethnic cleansing, murder, rape, theft. If a nation uses these things to seek their betterment - and expands it to other nations, just war theology arguments (quite convincingly) that these nations are therefore de facto immoral and should be restrained, by force if necessary.
But what underlies that judgement? The supposition that our moral claims about these methods are valid, right? Genocide is wrong, for example.
But, wait, God did that.
Slavery is wrong.
But, wait, God doesn’t mind that.
Murder is wrong.
But, wait, God likes folks who murder.
When you try to use OT examples of wars specifically directed by God himself, you’re left with total confusion.
Don’t you believe that the Islamic radical believe with all their heart that they are carrying out a “just war”? We quibble because of their attacks on non-combatents. But God didn’t seem to mind the wholesale slaughter of women and children. Why should we?
My point here is that when most folks use OT war examples to prop up modern decisions, they typically omit:
(1) the direct presence and direction of God himself,
(2) the inarguably immoral (by modern standards) methods directed and authorized by God,
(3) the plain trajectory of those OT examples toward total evil when placed in anything but a post-Christian context.
Which leads us back to Jesus, who made all things new and has shown us a better way.
By T.H. on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott – I’m not sure about all the ins and outs of progressive revelation yet, but the OT does bend toward a progressively peaceful portrait at its end with Jesus as the climatic revelation of peace in the opening pages of the NT. While it begins in bloodshed between nations, at the end of the law hangs Jesus spilling his blood for all of humanity in hopes that bloodshed will be no more. Of course he knows it’s not over (c.f. his weeping over Jerusalem’s inevitable demise due to their rejection of a peaceful resolution and an unwillingness to abandon their nationalistic Judaism), but his life, death, and resurrection provide us with the model for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.
I look forward to this latest installment!
By justin on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Render unto Caesar what is Caesars. The money has our founding father’s faces on it. I’m just following in the footsteps of Jesus, David Lipscomb, and James Harding
If Bobby Valentine were here, he’d tell you to check out his book about Lipscomb and Harding. He may very well do that before this thread is done.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, right on. If we take God’s actions in the OT as being our examples to follow divorced from the fulfillment of Christ then we can slaughter our firstborn. Right?
Context is everything. God detests violence. If you doubt that read the flood story again in Genesis 6. He destroyed the earth because of the violence in our hearts.
Does that give us a justification for violence on our own initiative? Absolutely not.
I’m not really interested in attacking just war theory because it’s pretty flawed to begin with. It can’t stand up on its own merits.
What I do want to see is a systematic defense of violence borne out of scripture. It’s just not there.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
The challenge, though, Scott, is to try to understand those passages where God decries violence - but then uses it himself, empowers others to use it, praises others for using it - or, worst of all, using totally immoral measures of violence.
By justin on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here… but have we ever thought about that maybe there’s an issue with inerrancy of scriptures here?
I’m from the belief that inerrancy means God got the message through the bible that he wanted, but that there is some human editorialisms (is that a word) in the bible. Granted, this is a slippery slope I realize, but its the only way I can get past some of the striking timeline issues in the bible. If God was whispering in people’s ears what to write, there shouldn’t even be the hint of contradicition.
That being said, is it possible that the israelites thought they were going to war for God and wrote that, when that wasn’t actually the case?
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jon -
Great point on the tax dollars!!
In fact, couldn’t you construct an argument that says by paying taxes, but not voting, you’re actually getting the worst of both worlds?
If voting props up immoral government, but taxation undergirds even that, it seems voting is, at a minimum, an opportunity to limit the evil, doesn’t it?
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Justin. ;-0 re:inerrancy!
By justin on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
I guess my response to that would be, by voting, I am exerting my authority over God saying, “you can’t be trusted to pick the best ruler, so i’m going to do it for you”. I will pay taxes to whatever government God ordains me to live under.
BTW, this is off topic, but there should be a discussion on this at some time. How were the “patriots” who rebelled against taxes and tyranny not, in essence rebelling against God? We’ve always thought of them as being very christian, but they started a war over taxation. Seems Jesus says that we shouldn’t worry about those things, and we definitely shouldn’t kill over them.
By KS on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Justin: I’d stay on the tree and off that limb. If we say that man messed up some of the bible, who’s to say that they didn’t mess up on other areas.
Scott: Read the whole blog, you still have not used scripture to back up this point. Don’t get me wrong here. Although I disagreed with some of the other blogs, I could see where you were coming from through the bible. On this blog you are rationalizing on your own.
By Jon on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
I would never be so presumptious as to portray that I know why God did what He did in the OT but for me the only way I can understand it is that God is perfect, exacting justice and mercy perfectly.
Again Justin has made my point of trying to impose these ideals on governments.
Jeff-
Yes, yes. Voting is my voice to limit the evil. To vote against stem cell research, abortion laws, homosexual marriages, etc. By not voting against these things am I just as guilty as having voted for them?
just to play devil’s advocate here.
Jeff are you saying that Jesus is better than God ( ” Jesus, who made all things new and has shown us a better way.”)
By justin on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, your comment #11 is the rub, isn’t it? Justin hit at part of my ultimate take on this. But as I said in the original post, it’s not a road I’m prepared to go down right now.
As far as the voting thing goes, and we’ll discuss this several posts down the line, all powers of this world are fallen and I still am called to participate in them: capitalism, schools, etc. Ultimately, you have to “in-break” where you can. But that’s for a later time.
Kenny, I did use Scripture.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Sooooooo farrrrrrrrr offffffffff topppppppiiiiiicccccccc
By justin on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
that’s what she said.
sorry, I’m 22.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
For Kenny,
Exodus 15–celebrates the actions of God and not man.
1 Samuel 8:10–22–the dangers of a king
1 Chronicles 22–the man of peace would build the temple
Visions of restoration:
Hosea 2:15–23
Isaiah 2:1–5; 25:6–9; 56:1–8
More:
Zechariah 9:9
Jeremiah 7:1–15
Ezekiek 18:21–23
What is the message of the Hebrew Scriptures: Ultimately I believe it comes down to Micah 6:8–do justice, love kindness and walk humbly.
Jesus teaches us to that.
By KS on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott: The ENTIRE OT-Shows how force can and is used by the Creator. My point was you are giving verses that show God (at the very least) allows violence, and at time even decrees for it and rationalizing these verses to fit with the theory that you want them to fit.
BTW: Glad to see some more verses though.
By justin on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, have you read Matthew 5? Jesus reiterates some things in the old testament. He basically says “it was ok to do this then, but I’m telling you now you can be better”
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
But, it’s not a theory Kenny. Every time God decrees violence in the OT it is HIM that is doing the bidding, not us.
To take that as justification for our own violent acts is to move the onus of Diety from God to us. If we run willy-nilly into any conflict with the express endorsement of the Almighty, what does that make us?
And the entire OT does not show that force is used. It shows a God who is continually moving His people to a greater understanding of His will–a will that is perfectly displayed in Jesus.
Look closely at what Jesus says–He is the fulfillment of the law and prophets. Jesus’ take on the law and prophets? That it was about love for God and neighbor.
Where does that leave us?
Can you construct a use for violence based upon scripture?
I’m not rationalizing anything. I WANT the loophole.
If a kid hits my daughter I WANT to tell her to hit the little thug back.
I WANT to flip off the idiot who cuts me off.
I WANT to strangle my doctor after being violated this morning and still feeling it this afternoon.
But I haven’t been given the power to do that.
I have been told to turn the other cheek. To love my enemy and pray for those who persecute me.
God did some stuff in the OT that is problematic for me. But He never said “Go and do likewise.”
Show me how I can take the OT as an argument for violence.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
That should say “without the express endorsement of the Almighty.”
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
KS -
Specifically, how do you extrapolate all those OT passage which [s]how[] how force can and is used by the Creator into how we, without God’s direct guidance are supposed to use force?
What do you do about all the questions I raised about God’s apparent authorization and use of force in the OT? Genocide, patricide, infanticide, murder, etc.? Are these also legitimate for us? Why or why not?
By KS on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Justin: Obviously I have read Matt. 5. Unless you are meaning that as an insult to my intelligence. I have also read of David and Goliath, of the entire history of the Israelites.
Scott: I am not advocating violence to be used in every instance. When have I said to take revenge on someone or act out of anger. I believe I have made it a point to not do those things. What I am saying is that throughout the OT God advocates any means needed to carry out his plan. To me, defending my family and others that are powerless is carrying out the will of God. I know there will be comment after comment of how this makes me a sinner, but I will take my chances with the real judge, and not worry much about the theorists that make up much of this panel.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
KS - Looks like a lot of posts are coming your way. Sorry if any of mine seem confrontational - I don’t intend them to be so. I’m sincerely curious to understand how with all the violence in the OT clearly seen as immoral by today’s military standards, how we use those OT examples to legitimize our violence today - how they authorize what we are to do if we aren’t to do what they did.
By Jon on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott -
Correct me if I am miss reading you. So you are saying basically that God is perfect and used violence/war/etc.. to bring His people to a place where they needed to be? I would conclude from that that God is able to use all things to bring about His will. He sees the end and justifies the means. We however can never determine the end yet we have/still justified the means for an end that we have no clear picture of.
The understanding that I have is that we cannont understand God and why He seems to abhore violence yet uses it to move His people to repentance so He sent us His Son who did live as us and experienced everything that we experience and inspite of all that He was always able to use a non-violent means to bring about an end.
Off base here?
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, I hear you. If someone came and threatened my family I would do anything I could think of to protect them.
But to say that I’m just spouting theories is far off the mark. You’re sensitive about anyone insulting your intelligence. Please don’t insult mine.
I am wrestling deeply with these texts. I have spent the last year 40+ hours a week studying the OT. I know all of what it says. I’m not putting together some shoddily constructed hypothesis. This is borne out of my understanding of the whole of Scripture.
Please, constuct a rationale for violence. I really want to know.
By justin on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
KS, I’m just saying that Jesus pretty much put to rest the old way of doing things. He’s God, so he’s allowed to do that. There was law in the old testament, and Jesus then made things more specific.
And I would agree that if you use the Old Testament to rationalize violence today, you can’t argue with anyone who wants to kill all women and children and do other brutal things to people.
By KS on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jeff: I am not God. You are correct. But how is my opinion of what he has written in the bible less valid than others. I do not claim to know why God wiped out the nations from the earth. But I can see that he allows for us to use force in situations.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
KS - You claim that your version of “justifiable” violence “is carrying out the will of God”. To Mohammed Atta, flying an airliner into the WTC was carrying out the will of God. Just sayin’ it don’t make it so.
That’s why discussing it and trying to understand “theory” is important. What if we all just did what felt right, regardless of the “theory”? Would you agree with that?
Let’s try to be respectful of the discussion.
By KS on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott: Give me a little time to put scripture/verse with my ideas. I’ll come back to state clearly my position.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
As I said earlier, respecting you as a person, and giving you my full attention in trying to understand your perspective is my obligation as a fellow believer and as part of a respectful dialogue. Accepting your opinions as valid without any supporting evidence is not.
As far as I know, I haven’t questioned your opinion of what was written, as you claim. I think we all agree that the OT is replete with lots of violence. What I have asked is for someone who holds the pro-violence view to explain to me how those OT passages are correctly applied to modern decision-making without the direct speaking of God, as occurred when all that OT violence took place.
I honestly am open to how that would work - I just haven’t heard anyone hear explain it or propose it.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
I think I’ve asked for that a few times as well.
By KS on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Here is what I believe (I do not claim to be some representation of any other groups of Christians):
1) We should do everything to avoid conflict.
2) We should never seek revenge.
3) We should defend the undefendable by any means (starting with ALL non-violent ways).
Here are just a few verses out of the OT as to why I think this way.
God uses violence when needed.
(Exodus 11: Killing of the first born)
(Hell: Revelation and other teachings of Christ)
Now, I realize that I am not God, but he obviously does not feel that violence is never to be used.
God Condones Violence at times
(EX 17:8-15 - The Amalakites getting wiped out by the Israelites)
(EX 21: 12-20 - Advocating the Death Penalty to punish offenders of the law)
(EX 32:27-28 - Levites kill those that danced around golden calf and are made priests as a REWARD for their good deed)
(Josh 6:20-21 - Wiping out of another group of people by the Israelites)
There are many other verses I could put here, but hopefully this is sufficient. Again, I know the arguement will be that God ordered it. That is exactly my point, God ordered violence to do his will.
God condones/allows violence
(Judges 3:15-25 - Destroying of another group of people)
(Jdg 15:1-15 - Samson killing many as a leader chosen by God)
(I Sam 17 - David killing Goliath. This is a cornerstone of the stories we are told in which if we have faith we can do anything through God…even kill Giants)
(I Sam 18:24-27 - David kills many to be able to marry Saul’s daughter)
(II Sam 5:22-25 - David destroys another army)
I understand these are OT stories, but I am of the opinion that God does not change. David to me was not a violent man, he just did what he felt (knew) God would have him to do. He attempts to live at peace with Saul even though he is being hunted. He is called a man after God’s own heart. The only time he is rebuked by God is for adultery and ordering an innocent man killed. Not for any other killings he did.
NT verses
While we have covered much of the NT I thought I’d share the verses that I believe lead into the line of “just war”.
(Matt 8:5-13 - Jesus compliments a centurian for his great faith) He does not ask him to turn away from his deeds, but says he is a man of great faith.
(Acts 10 - Corneilius is allowed into the kingdom as a Centurian)
(Hebrews 11:32-34 - The writer praises several that have brought JUSTICE through the sword. He also mentions the great deeds done by routing enemies in the name of God)
My views are as mentioned at the top of the comments, live peacefully at all costs. But I am willing to stand up for the undefendable.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Excellent post, KS. Thanks for the objective review!
There’s much there to think about. Here’s what I would say:
God uses violence when needed. [H]e obviously does not feel that violence is never to be used.
Assuming we’ve got the OT correct, I agree 100% with both of these statements as it relates to the OT context. God can do what he wants when he wants.
Key question to be answered:
As you admit, we’re not God - so do we have the same freedom to act as God does? I say no. So the fact that God can use violence has no bearing on human activity.
God Condones Violence at times. Again, I know the arguement will be that God ordered it. That is exactly my point, God ordered violence to do his will.
Agreed. Not only can God do violence himself, he can order others to do violence on his behalf.
Critical question
Can we, without God’s direction, act with violence? These verses do nothing to support that point - which is, unfortunately, the only relevant one.
God condones/allows violence. Various folks in the OT murder and kill and God seems to be OK with his.
I assume the point here is that since God didn’t condemn these acts or directly punish the actors (ignoring Saul, Moses and David who were punished for their violence), that God is OK with independent human violence - which, if true, would be the only argument from OT violence offered here that would have any bearing on our discussion regarding modern day violence.
Critical question:
Based on the same argument, God condones the following in the OT:
Murder
Genocide
Infanticide
Prostitution
Polygamy
Slavery
Drunkenness
If the argument is valid for violence, why is it not valid for any and all of the above?
KS - Thanks again for putting this together.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, I’m with you up to the “any means necessary” bit. Your words are that “God uses violence.”
Again, I don’t have the sanction from Him to do likewise.
One of the tricks of preaching from narratives is that you don’t paint all of the story as universal truths.
If that is the case I’m signing up some concubine.
Through the person of Jesus and in light of the New Testament does God:
Use violence
Condone violence
And you have to understand that at no time have I said that you shouldn’t stand up for the undefendable. But that does not mean that violence is what is necessitated.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Good point on that last, Scott.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Where’d everybody go. Where’s Len, Jason and T.H.
Come on, it’s not like we have real jobs or anything.
I have to go to the fair now.
Talk amongst yourselves.
By Jason Bybee on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Seems like a great deal of this discussion centers around the ability (or our inability) to know God’s will. In the OT, the prophets were able to articulate the will of Yahweh to the people. As it’s already been noted, God made His intentions clear. If He said go to war, then you went to war.
Even before the prophets, Abraham is instructed to murder Isaac. Failure to comply would have been sinful. Granted, God spared Isaac’s life, but Abraham was operating under the assumption that killing his son was God’s will.
In the absence of an ordained command from Him, though, it’s difficult for us to make a case for our own violent tendencies. In fact, to do so is tantamount to idolatry.
But this is a timely discussion. I continue to appreciate the many different perspectives here. I’ll continue to chew on this.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jason - well said.
By KS on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Thanks guys for the comments. Obviously the question, as I knew it would be, is how do we know when it is Ok to use violent force in a situation?
I can’t answer that for you, and I don’t believe anyone can for me. I would like to say I’d figure a way out of a situation without the use of violence, but until I am in one I will never know.
That would lead to knowingly putting yourself in harms way to protect others as a career. Personally, I would say protecting people (the job of the police and military) is a place where Christians need to be. Obviously there are different points of view.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Actually, KS, I agree completely with you last statemetn on this.
This is where I am currently: do exactly as you (KS) say and hope God just missed this in the instruction book.
I would rather stand in judgement having used, to my most conservative estimate, justifiable force as a last resort - and take the chance of being wrong - than do nothing and take the chance of being wrong.
Now, how this applies to countries is a very different discussion…
By scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jason, great points. Ultimately, we still have to wrestle with the life of Christ.
Kenny, I have to disagree with you on a fundamental point: the question is not about finding situations where violence (or force, depending on the euphemism you choose to use)is justified. The question is how does Christ teach us to live.
We have to deal with the passages at hand. That is the prerequisite to answering the questions that so many of us long to jump to. Take lust for example. Jesus tells me its a bad thing to do. I start there and wrestle with the implications of that. I don’t jump ahead to Jessica Alba walking nude through my living room and then dismiss the heart of the matter. (Note: Jessica Alba has never walked nude through my living room. This is just a hypothetical.)
Let’s deal with the text and then move on to rightly applying it.
By scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
For anyone who is interested in the idea of progressive redemption, I highly recommend William Webb’s “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals.” Fantastic work. While, ultimately I disagree with his stance on homosexuals the outline of his hermeneutic is well worth looking into.
I’d love to hear Jeff (who recommended this book to me) and JTB’s thoughts on the possibility of a progressive redemption theme as how it relates to women and warfare.
By len on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Boy, I try to get some work done and you guys have a party without me!
Some good thoughts are shared. I’m glad I read through all of them before posting because I was getting worried about some of you.
Here’s where I am: that Jesus is clear that personal violence is not an option when I am down wrong, attacked personally, etc.; that I am way too violent in my thoughts, words, actions, etc. and need to become like Christ in this area. I am also at a point where I realize that the Bible is painfully quiet on some topics which I wish were clear. But I am convinced that what I need to take away from this discussion, above all else, is the desire to leave personally like Christ in the everyday circumstances. I hope to act like Him the next time I am cut off in traffic.
I agree that we need Christians in the police and military. John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to quit the military in order to bear fruit worthy of repentance. I personally can’t imagine Jesus ever being a soldier or policeman, but I still think there is a Christ-like way to do those roles.
As I’ve thought of this I keep wondering how justice fits into all of this. God has delegated to human government the reponsibility of providing justice for its citizens. Can justice be served in this world without certain degrees of violence being used?
By Jason Bybee on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
If Christ is the central figure in human — and salvation — history, then all history must be interpreted through him. Whatever I make of God’s activity in the OT, I have to interpret it through Jesus. Whatever it means to live as a disciple today, it must filtered through Him. Thus, Jesus was our starting point and our constant point of reference.
I know I’m just recycling what’s already been said here, but it seems like we can’t say it enough.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Len - Good thoughts and a succinct roll up of some of the issues.
That final questions seems to lead us back to two issues - imagination and practicality. We can’t imagine that or how a non-violent government would work - so we tend to disbelieve we can have one. We can’t see a practical way to achieve our desired outcomes without some capability of violence.
I agree with those statements. As long as we limit the possibilities to human outcomes, vision and imagination, we won’t see how things can be. The question is whether we in the kingdom are called to step beyond what we can can see and imagine and control and trust God.
Scott on the idea of progressive revelation, I personally think this is exactly what’s happening with issues like violence - along with slavery, gender inequality, property rights, etc. God tolerated the inadequacies of humanity and “tempered” his revelation to what the culture of that time could adapt to without total dissolution. Thus, God doesn’t march into the middle of a primitive society and tell them to free their slaves - which would grind their economic and social systems to a halt. He tells them that they should treat their slaves humanely - a significant step in the right direction, but not the moral perfection God ultimately desired. Later, as society evolved, through God’s providential leading, believers rose up and proclaimed what had become obvious: the clear immorality of human bondage. No reasonable person today would hold that slavery is moral - though God didn’t say that in the time of Isaiah or Paul.
Similarly re:women - God improved the status of woman first in the case of Israel and later in the time of Christ. But he continued, through his church and through human society to improve that status even up to this very day toward the perfect moral state when there truly is equality.
Also social justice (as I mentioned in a previous post) - “an eye for an eye” was an improvement over “a death for an eye” of the time. Jesus would say “turn the other cheek”, but tolerate armed governments. Perhaps God is leading us closer toward the perfect moral state (non-violence) even today.
By George Freeman on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
I know I said I wanted to weigh in on this topic and still do in a different venue. But here is my take…
We approach this issue from such different perspectives that I find it difficult to find a common ground from whic to debate. You are armed to the teeth to support your logic from a fundamentalist perspective with which I disagree. I think that is great that as people we can have diversity of thought and opinion
I simply do not believe that passages found in the 6th and 7th century can be held in the regard with which you hold them. Frankly, I have a higher regard for the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Without doubt we cannot proclaim a faith. I believe the God of the OT did not make a quick transformation into a pacifist God of the NT.
Anyhow, I weary of such speech. In the end we just all die and fade away. We will then for sure learn more about life.
As such, as an Auburn fan I offer congratulations to all you pigs!
All the best from your post-modernist doubting libertarian Ayn Rand hugging brother,
George
By Jason Bybee on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Len / Jeff,
I think we’re probably jumping ahead here, but I also have questions re: the government, the military, police, etc. When the time is right, I’d love to fully delve into this topic. I have a feeling we’ll all come to the same conclusion: governments and militaries are some of the necessary byproducts of a corrupt, fallen world. My question is how should a Christian interact within those orders & systems.
But like I said, I’m jumping ahead.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Len, I agree with you that there is a place for those roles. I hope that in the coming posts we can begin to suss out the practical implications for a non-violent life. I believe it is growing time to really discuss how to go about doing this. Before we do, however, I plan to talk a little bit more about some of Jesus’ most troubling sayings.
Jeff, that idea of a progressive redemption has been a tremendous aid to my understanding God and faith.
Ultimately, we have to take what we have in the Scriptures and determine how to apply it. How can we truly live a nonviolent life in our world. Again, we shall see…
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jason, I’m going to get there really soon. One more stop at the words of Christ and then move on from there.
By Scott on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
George, I’m really not quite sure what to say to that. Yes, my faith dictates my positions. That’s undeniable.
I hope you find the answers you are looking for as well.
By Jeff on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
George - Don’t think of it as a quick transformation; think of it as punctuated equilibrium.
By Amy on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Okay, so I’ve been out of pocket for a few days. Geez. I’ll have to take a day to catch up over here.
sooooo farrrrr offfff toooopppiccc:
You & Tracy need to plan to come to Zoe next year so you can meet me.
By George Freeman on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, I have no idea what you just said.
Scott, I am not looking for answers. I’m not even sure what the questions are. I will say this, please use prudence in your quest.
I found it interesting as I read your remarks about being a youth minister.
Can all of that shift forward?
I see all of you guys posting a bunch of stuff that is really thoughtful, insightful and beyond my ability to comprehend. You use words and phrases that have no meaning to me like…punctuated equilibrium?
Now I know Jeff is a great guy. He posted that phrase with a wink. I have no idea what it means but it must be funny!
Now, why would you say to me, “I hope you find the answers you are looking for as well.” What answers am I looking for? I did not know I was searching for any.
Please tell me what in my post indicated I was looking for an answer.
You see, to me the problem is learning to frame the question.
Doubt is the only substance to faith.
All the best from your thorn in the side brother,
George
By JTB on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
I don’t have any thoughts on women and progressive revelation this morning other than it’s a logical way to make sense of the perceived differences between the OT and the NT, and NT and moral convictions we hold as Christian today. Sort of God’s version of a theory of congregational change (doesn’t everyone who gets an MDiv learn you have to go slowly?)
I think the most important question in this thread so far is Len’s: “Can justice be served in this world without certain degrees of violence being used?” This is the ultimate disagreement between proponents of nonviolence and advocates of force (since no one ever calls him/herself an “advocate of violence”); the former say yes, the latter say (regretfully) no.
One final comment: I find it problematic as a theologian to propose a solution to the apparent violence in the OT that claims it’s okay for God to do it, but not okay for us to emulate it. This rips apart Trinitarian Christian faith. If Jesus is God incarnate, and our God is the God of the OT, then proposing that there are some things it’s okay for God to do but not us (because God is God and we are not) takes the force out of Jesus the Christ, second person of the Trinity, as our moral example. If we are not bound to emulate God, why are we bound to emulate Christ, who is God-for-us?
By Jeff on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
George -
PE is a theory within the framework of biological evolution that postulates natural explanations for the pre-Cambrian explosion in the fossil record and other similar data in the fossil record often used by Creationists to dispute evolution.
Maybe I should’ve said, “Who is John Galt?”?
By Jeff on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
“I find it problematic as a theologian to propose a solution to the apparent violence in the OT that claims it’s okay for God to do it, but not okay for us to emulate it.”
I generally agree. I guess I would make two comments. One of the points I’ve made earlier is that the root problem of violence is the idea that we as individuals do not have rightful dominion over other people - and that, therefore, acting in violence (physical or otherwise) - is an attempt to control or dominant beyond our rightful, God-ordained sphere of influence. In that sense, God has rightful dominion over all existence (depending on how you deal with free moral agency, I suppose), so in that sense God may have “rights” we don’t have.
The other thought goes to the integrity of the texts and whether we are reading “non-inspired” historical revisionism around the idea of God ordaining the violence carried out.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Amy, Tracy and I have already talked about going to Zoe next year. We look forward to it.
George, it’s obvious you don’t like the way I go about doing things. But thanks for the encouragement just the same.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
I do lean more and more toward some of the revisionist idea–but that’s a whole new can of worms.
By Larry Freeman on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
I have nothing to say, except love you guys!!
By GKB on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
I say the next time God shows up in a pillar of fire and commands us to take up swords and wipe out some folks, we pay attention.
Until then, it is supremely interesting to watch the theological gymnastics taking place to come to an “apologetic of violence.”
By Scott on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Greg, absolutely. If He told GW to invade Iraq, I don’t have much of a problem.
But He didn’t.
So, I do.
By justin on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
How do you know that Scott????? Maybe God’s just not talking to you.. I mean, he talks to Pat Robertson all the time. He even tells him generic diseases to pray for on the air
so that people will send him moneyso that they can get better.By GKB on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
If only we thought of “violence” as sin, I wonder if folks would be so cavalier as to try and make allowances for its use.
For me, part of the reason I tend to dislike those who argue for violence as a viable option (but only at certain times, they say), is because it sounds to me like…
Well, sort of like a few Congressmen pushing really hard to pass a law that makes it sometimes okay to engage in pederasty with an underage person.
Of course, these congressmen say we should always try to NOT have gay sex with young boys, and we should try all the ways possible to avoid this, but sometimes, darn it, you just have to have gay sex with a congressional page. So, we’d better not be too absolute on our position toward gay sex with congressional pages, because sometimes we have to do it.
By GKB on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
I’m so glad this is happening over here, and not at my blog anymore!
By Scott on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Kendallball.com
The kinder, gentler blog.
It seems to me that we have reached the point where we have to acknowledge that there is no scriptural license for us to employ violence, either in the Hebrew Scriptures or in the life of Christ.
By KS on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
GKB: That is why not many people respect your views. To come over here and say people that will defend themselves are comparable to child molesters shows your lack of…how do you say it…tact.
By justin on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
I respect GKBs views. He is convinced that violence is evil and he says it. He doesn’t let things like tact or relativism get in the way. Seems like the prophets of old didn’t care much for tact either.
By George Freeman on Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, I gotcha! Who the heck is John Galt? I know but most do not. Even if you do not embrace Rand her books are worth reading.
Scott is all over me in such a way that I can not understand. He resents my posts to the point where I have another brother saying, “whoa…”
Read what I said Scott without your agenda. Why do you react in such a negative tone to everything I post?
And I do encourage you… I can only imagine what you deal with from day to day.
Again, I embrace the fact that I am a heretic in the eyes of the C of C. Those folks rejected me long ago and that is ok.
Scott, you have a wisdom and knowledge beyond me. Please let me know how that translates to the people in your communiy.
You see, I passed a guy wanting a ride as I entered I** today. I blew right past him and hated myself for at least 2 miles. And so you know how that goes.
I don’t have much rhetoric to share. I regret that you and I are so many poles apart.
Please just accept this as where I am coming from:
1. blah … blah …
By Jeff on Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
Well, we can’t have it both ways, Justin - we all were scolding some posters here because they got personal and lacked grace in their comments.
Now when someone with a more “appealing” point of view makes some unkind comparisons (though I really think GKB was trying to draw a parallel to the soundness of an argument, not a personal attack - but it did ring a bit too pejorative), we say that’s like the “prophets of old”? Let’s be fair. KS is justified in his comment.
By justin on Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
well first of all, pederasty isn’t child molesting… its an older teenager very close to the age of consent who “consents” to sex. Its different.
He wasn’t just saying “people that try to defend violence are like child molesters” either. He was using a situation in our country today that he thinks illustrates the ridiculousness of which people go to defend something that is wrong.
By justin on Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
George,
I know who John Galt is…. Dagny Taggerts lover and the ultimate good man.
By scott on Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
It is important that we continue to maintain the tone of civility.
By KS on Oct 14, 2006 | Reply
I would apologize to any comments I made that may seem personal. But lets be honest here, a grey area issue (to say the least) is not comparable to child molestation.
By justin on Oct 15, 2006 | Reply
Kenny… pederasty isn’t the same as child molestation. It is more of a grey area issue.
Up until the last century, statutory rape was common. Girls got married when they were young teenagers to men who were much older.
But regardless, some people dont’t think violence is a gray area issue