Dark Passages: violence condoned in Scripture?

[Riley259]

Philip Jenkins wrote an article in today’s Sunday Boston Globe entitled “Dark Passages” and he basically compares the endorsed violence of the Koran with an equally endorsed violence in the Bible, especially Old Testament passages. He cites several passages including Deutoromony (foreshadowed passages in 32:42) and in what he calls “a full orgy of militarism, enslavement and race war in the Books of Joshua and Judges”. He goes on to write that “Moses himself reputedly authorized this campaign when he told his followers that, once they reached Canaan, they must annihilate all the peoples they find in the cities specially reserved for them (Deut. 20: 16-18). Joshua, Moses’s successor, proves an apt pupil. When he conquers the city of Ai, God commands that he take away the livestock and the loot, while altogether exterminating the inhabitants, and he duly does this (Joshua 8). When he defeats and captures five kings, he murders his prisoners of war, either by hanging or crucifixion. (Joshua 10). Nor is there any suggestion that the Canaanites and their kin were targeted for destruction because they were uniquely evil or treacherous: They happened to be on the wrong land at the wrong time. And Joshua himself was by no means alone. In Judges again, other stories tell of the complete extermination of tribes with the deliberate goal of ending their genetic lines. *In modern times, we would call this genocide.” *He continues, "Not only do the Israelites in the Bible commit repeated acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but they do so under direct divine command. According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the Amalekite people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3). And it is this final detail that proves Saul’s undoing, as he keeps some of the animals, and thereby earns a scolding from the prophet Samuel. Fortunately, Saul repents, and symbolizes his regrets by dismembering the captured enemy king. Morality triumphs. The Bible also alleges divine approval of racism and segregation. If you had to choose the single biblical story that most conspicuously outrages modern sentiment, it might well be the tale of Phinehas, a story that remains unknown to most Christian readers today (Numbers 25: 1-15). The story begins when the children of Israel are threatened by a plague. Phinehas, however, shrewdly identifies the cause of God’s anger: God is outraged at the fact that a Hebrew man has found a wife among the people of Midian, and through her has imported an alien religion. Phinehas slaughters the offending couple - and, mollified, God ends the plague and blesses Phinehas and his descendants. Modern American racists love this passage. " Jenkins point is that the Bible has just as many if not more blatent acts of violence most of which were purportly endorsed and blessed by God Himself. Are his assertions accurate and if so, how do we reconcile the Christian message of love, hope, and redemption with violence? Any thoughts.

boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_passages/?page=1

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Philip Jenkins wrote an article in today’s Sunday Boston Globe entitled “Dark Passages” and he basically compares the endorsed violence of the Koran with an equally endorsed violence in the Bible, especially Old Testament passages. He cites several passages including Deutoromony (foreshadowed passages in 32:42) and in what he calls “a full orgy of militarism, enslavement and race war in the Books of Joshua and Judges”. He goes on to write that “Moses himself reputedly authorized this campaign when he told his followers that, once they reached Canaan, they must annihilate all the peoples they find in the cities specially reserved for them (Deut. 20: 16-18). Joshua, Moses’s successor, proves an apt pupil. When he conquers the city of Ai, God commands that he take away the livestock and the loot, while altogether exterminating the inhabitants, and he duly does this (Joshua 8). When he defeats and captures five kings, he murders his prisoners of war, either by hanging or crucifixion. (Joshua 10). Nor is there any suggestion that the Canaanites and their kin were targeted for destruction because they were uniquely evil or treacherous: They happened to be on the wrong land at the wrong time. And Joshua himself was by no means alone. In Judges again, other stories tell of the complete extermination of tribes with the deliberate goal of ending their genetic lines. *In modern times, we would call this genocide.” *He continues, "Not only do the Israelites in the Bible commit repeated acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but they do so under direct divine command. According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the Amalekite people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3). And it is this final detail that proves Saul’s undoing, as he keeps some of the animals, and thereby earns a scolding from the prophet Samuel. Fortunately, Saul repents, and symbolizes his regrets by dismembering the captured enemy king. Morality triumphs. The Bible also alleges divine approval of racism and segregation. If you had to choose the single biblical story that most conspicuously outrages modern sentiment, it might well be the tale of Phinehas, a story that remains unknown to most Christian readers today (Numbers 25: 1-15). The story begins when the children of Israel are threatened by a plague. Phinehas, however, shrewdly identifies the cause of God’s anger: God is outraged at the fact that a Hebrew man has found a wife among the people of Midian, and through her has imported an alien religion. Phinehas slaughters the offending couple - and, mollified, God ends the plague and blesses Phinehas and his descendants. Modern American racists love this passage. " Jenkins point is that the Bible has just as many if not more blatent acts of violence most of which were purportly endorsed and blessed by God Himself. Are his assertions accurate and if so, how do we reconcile the Christian message of love, hope, and redemption with violence? Any thoughts.

boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_passages/?page=1

He’s right. The answer is that for Christians, these passages are to be judged in the light of Christ. The genocidal brutality Saul was rejected for failing to complete is to be judeged in one way in its own context, & in a completely different way by the standards of Jesus. For the tradition which lies behind that episode about Saul & Samuel, it was less obviously evil than it would be for a Christian. It would be meaningless & unjust to apply Christian ethical standards to non-Christians. There is a great deal of immoral & wicked behaviour in the Bible, & neither its presence in the Bible, nor its frequent depiction as required by God, alters this. To suppose that OT crimes are holy acts worthy of Christians & commanded by God is to degrade the Gospel & to render it meaningless. It amounts to throwing out the centuries of ethical & moral progress, & ignoring the Prophets, Amos & Hosea & Isaiah & the rest, who made the religion of Israel ethical.​

 

[colliric]

He’s right. The answer is that for Christians, these passages are to be judged in the light of Christ. The genocidal brutality Saul was rejected for failing to complete is to be judeged in one way in its own context, & in a completely different way by the standards of Jesus. For the tradition which lies behind that episode about Saul & Samuel, it was less obviously evil than it would be for a Christian. It would be meaningless & unjust to apply Christian ethical standards to non-Christians. There is a great deal of immoral & wicked behaviour in the Bible, & neither its presence in the Bible, nor its frequent depiction as required by God, alters this. To suppose that OT crimes are holy acts worthy of Christians & commanded by God is to degrade the Gospel & to render it meaningless. It amounts to throwing out the centuries of ethical & moral progress, & ignoring the Prophets, Amos & Hosea & Isaiah & the rest, who made the religion of Israel ethical.​

Agreed, and also Almost all of these violent actions could have been motivated by self-defence and strategic reasoning(Things which the scriptures may not openly record).

Simular acts of Violence are commited by Judith. She is confronted with an invading army and is at a loss over what to do. She enters a deep medidative prayer and then as a result she realises the task that God has put on her heart. She seduces and later cuts off the head of of a commander of an invading army while he is sleeping(It’s one of the most famous renaissance paintings) in his chamber. It sounds even more horrible when you realise she then procceeded to display the head in a public place for all to see.

However the motivation in her case was to save the lives of her kindsmen and to put an end to a bloodthirsty invasion, she has a strong motivation of Self-defense and puts her own life at extreme risk. it is a near totally redeeming aspect of what is otherwise one of the most horribly violent OT stories. In these situations we have to see both sides of the coin in order to more accuratly judge the actions of these OT figureheads.