Genocide in the Old Testament

[TimothyH]

I definitely agree that God has all authority to take life away as He sees fit and He has demonstrated that He can do these things Himself, i.e. Flood, killing firstborn Egyptians, Sodom and Gomorrah… What is hard to understand is why he would command humans to kill off other humans, and then come later in the person of Jesus and contradict His own commands, “love your enemies”, “those who live by the sword, die by the sword”…

“Those who live by the sword, die by the sword” is not in the Bible.

Nothing even close to that is in the Gospels from the mouth of Jesus.

-Tim-

 

[TheHolyGhost]

“Those who live by the sword, die by the sword” is not in the Bible.

Nothing even close to that is in the Gospels from the mouth of Jesus.

-Tim-

I was quite sure Jesus said that. Even if I am mistaken about that, Jesus did instruct for us to love our enemies. He taught forgiveness and mercy. My original point still stands: How could God instruct genocide and then come and instruct mercy and forgiveness? Which command shall we follow, to kill off our enemies or to love them? And why a preference for one over the other?

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Im also aware that the Church teaches that the ends NEVER justify the means. Is God commanding genocide so that good may come of it a case of the ends justifying the means?

Also the problem of morality being objective and absolute. Things are moral or immoral based on deep truths and reasons, they are not just arbitrarily assigned moral or immoral. How can God instruct His people to break objective truths, even so that good may come from it? Things are moral or they are not, irrespective of the circumstances, which is precisely what makes them objective truths.

 

[Reuben_J]

You can access Akin’s article here. The point he makes is that if the OT story is true, then the finite amount of temporal suffering the innocent Canaanite children experienced would be far outweighed by the infinite, eternal joy they would receive in Heaven from a just God by way of making it up to them.

I know about this article (by Akin) but thanks for giving the link anyway. I meant what about it since it is what I have been saying though maybe differently.

The argument here is that unlike us humans, God’s perspective in a man’s life is not just the temporal world but afterlife which is eternity. He sees a man’s journey as both earthly and after death which is eternal. The earthly life though important and worthwhile, is only but temporary.

If God has to do something for a greater good, the innocent Canaanite children had nothing to lose. Their places with God are simply anything that they could ever imagine in goodness (infinite).

We humans often dwell in the importance of our earthly life that we forget what’s more important – that is the eternal life. You need to have a paradigm shift to see what the Christians are talking about regarding this subject to understand the rationale behind it. Of course, not that you have to believe them but then we are talking about a specific Christian belief and the context is always important.

No one is arguing that those were the actions of a completely sane person.

Then why make the argument?

If she was indeed insane, then there’s no reason to think that she would be held accountable for her actions. If she wasn’t insane, then there’s no reason to think she couldn’t regret and seek forgiveness for her actions later. In either case, eternal punishment in Hell would not be a given for Yates or someone like her. But again, the issue isn’t what happens to the murderer, it’s what happens to the victim.

If she is insane, then her action would not be held against her and as I said the point in bringing her into this discussion is moot.

I had said she would be condemned to eternal damnation for murder. It was a theoretical consequence of such action. In reality, we do not know who are in hell. We cannot see into her heart and as God is the sole judge, it would be between her and Him.

As for the victims, Christian’s teaching is that all of us whether one is a Christian or not, would not be spared of natural calamity, suffering, sicknesses, death, even at the hands of others, etc. Some of the things that happen to people can be very painful and unfair.

Herod ordered all children under two years old to be murdered so that he thought he could kill Jesus who would be perhaps among one of those children. These children were made saints (the Holy Innocents). If God could give good things to children who were victims of someone else and for the wrong reason, what more He would do to one of His own actions for the greater good?

I understand that the Catholic church does not definitively state that innocent children who die automatically go to Heaven (or at least to a state of some limited bliss). It does, however, give grieving parents of such children every reason to hope that they do.

We cannot for sure know about this but certainly it is not hell. Jesus said to come the little children to him. If this is any indication of God’s love for children, we can be sure they are surely his priority.

As for grieve and pain, unfortunately we would not be spared of this on this earth. Our only hope is the eternal life. Jesus himself says we have to carry our crosses. Many Christian saints were martyrs. They looked forwards to death but without asking for it. But this is the reality of the world that is caused by the fall of the first man.

I also understand that some theologians speculate that the souls of the children might have to undergo some kind of test so that their eternal disposition remains a matter of choice for them. It would seem that for such a test to be fair, the children would have to know what they would be turning down. Armed with that knowledge, I find it difficult to believe that any child would choose Hell instead; Hell being the only other option.

I would not believe such theologians though. Theologians are theologians but they do not make/set the doctrines of the Church.

Here’s a list of some children apparently killed by their parents for just that reason. I have no reason to think that that list is all inclusive.

Thanks for the data. My comment for this is as above.

Again I would like to repeat. Parents who kill their children are not God. They do not have anything to offer to their children after they pass the earthly life. Everyone of us after our death would find ourselves at the mercy of God and we cannot do anything about it.

God on the other hand, is the Creator who creates and takes away lives. Life is His; not ours. We have no right to meddle with it and thus the Commandment, “thou shalt not kill/murder”. Being all-powerful, He has the capacity to give what is good for his creations and we can trust that whatever he does, it is always for the good of his creations unless they spurn His gift of goodness.

To God, man’s lifetime is not just what we spend on earth but in eternity. Probably this is one obstacle to understand the action of God in the said Biblical passages of the Old testament.

 

[Reuben_J]

I definitely agree that God has all authority to take life away as He sees fit and He has demonstrated that He can do these things Himself, i.e. Flood, killing firstborn Egyptians, Sodom and Gomorrah…

What is hard to understand is why he would command humans to kill off other humans when He could have just done it Himself again (not to.mention the commandment of “Thou shall not kill”) and then come later in the person of Jesus and contradict His own commands once again, “love your enemies”, “those who live by the sword, die by the sword”…

Hi. A good point there. Perhaps God was tired of killing and wanted others to do His job? Nah, I was just kidding.

We can never fully understand the whole reason behind these incidents. What I could think of is that the Israelites then were on a journey of conquest of the Promised Land. Thus began a nation. Probably in this context, the people themselves had to do their own war. And that the non-believers would see that God was with the Israelites and because He was with them, they prevailed over their enemies. These were often the themes of the ancient Israelites – see how God was with them and gave them the enemies and how they were conquerors. They became an example of what it was to be when God was on their side.

Another thought, though perhaps may be quite atypical, it was time for the chosen people to destroy the symbol of sin on their own (with the spiritual help of God of course). These would play a prominent part later on when they became an established nation. What would they do to deal with sin and foreign gods? At last they failed miserably in this nevertheless.

 

[TimothyH]

I was quite sure Jesus said that. Even if I am mistaken about that, Jesus did instruct for us to love our enemies. He taught forgiveness and mercy. My original point still stands: How could God instruct genocide and then come and instruct mercy and forgiveness? Which command shall we follow, to kill off our enemies or to love them? And why a preference for one over the other?

No, you were right and I was wrong…

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

Mea Maxima Culpa!

-Tim-

 

[fred_conty]

Hey everyone. I am really confused. There are instances in the Old Testament where God basically commanded the Israelites to commit genocide. How could a loving and merciful God do this? How do these stories fit in with the rest of the Bible which seems to present God as loving and merciful which we believe He is. I’m sorry, its just that these instances have really been causing me doubts lately. Please help. Some examples of what I am talking about would be in Deuteronomy chapter 2, Joshua chapter 6, Numbers chapter 31, and there may be others as well.

This is an interesting explaination.
christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html