Killing children is a splendid way to teach that killing children is wrong.
Oh, but it does make sense. The problem of getting rid of unwanted populations has come up from time to time in the past. But if we must take everything literally, there are “biblical” options for getting rid of unwanted children. For instance, you could sell them into slavery or use them as sex slaves for Israelite soldiers.
But happily, the violent conquest of Canaan is not historical, anyway. That came as a relief to me. Many things in the Bible are historical, but not this. Most of the cites said to be burned were not, and the ceramic record in most places shows no gaps.
: It is far from clear that the appropriate response to a culture that murders some of its children is to kill everyone in the culture, including the children"
Sparks raises a valid point but how is it not based on a selective reading of the NT? I have a lot of trouble with divine violence in both the Old and New Testaments but it is there and on the lips of the one we call Lord and Savior.
Matthew 24:36 “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[h] but only the Father. 37 For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so, too, will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Sure, Jesus is using the story about Noah to teach about vigilance but He doesn’t seem at all concerned with God sending a flood that wiped away man, woman and child indiscriminately. I’d say Jesus thinks Noah was real and a flood happened. Not only that, but God’s future judgment is compared to the flood wiping people away.
Jesus in the temple with the whip, destroying a fig tree to teach a lesson, drowning thousands of pigs, Jesus in Mark 13 and elsewhere predicting God’s judgment on the temple which was quite brutal (forced starvation, hundreds of crucifixions etc).
The congenial Jesus is not the Biblical Jesus. This is just mopdern exegetes reconstructing Jesus in their own image. Then there is Jesus on his warhorse in Revelation.
And correcting Jesus is a splendid way of being a Christian.
He did provide for them. Jen said he took them to Heaven. Do you think death is the end in Christianity? Anyone who was innocent and killed is also saved. And if we subscribe to universalism they are still on the next part of their journey.
Tremper Logman views the Caananite conquest as an intrusion of end times ethics, and notes it is not genocide as an Caananite that acted like an Israelite was saved, and an Israelite that acted like a Caananite was saved.
I especially like the care he and James Smith take in reading an evolutionary account in Genesis without excluding a historical Adam and Eve. Frankly, I like everything I read in the Story of God commentary series, as each commentator takes care to read the narrative as if it was based on historical events. Like whether or not the Exodus really happened.
Yes the Canaanites as a whole were punished if true. Yes there is pain and trauma, but death isn’t the end in Christianity. If God did order that, the children are in very good hands now. Better hands actually.
So apologists claim God killed the children’s out of mercy because they would starve.
You correctly point out God could provide manna.
The truth may be in the middle.
If historical, God is providing manna in heaven. The standard apologizing answer is wrong. But so is the thought of thinking God can’t bring innocents into an eternal afterlife early. God is God, not us.
I don’t know what to make of divine violence but lately I see heaven as the saving grace. I don’t think most of the OT stories are historical but clearly they depict God acting violently in many instances. Violence is all over the NT as well. I can’t pretend it’s not there or on the lips of Jesus. Correcting Jesus is not as easy as rejecting an OT narrative.
For many, it has been difficult to understand and accept that Genesis and the other OT books do not describe the cosmos through our modern materialistic worldview.
It is more difficult to understand and accept that the descriptions of God’s commands and acts in the OT do not follow the modern ethical guidelines. We try to whitewash those parts of the text that do not fit to what we think is right or wrong.
Much of violence in the OT might be understood through the cultural context - life was violent, gods demanded sacrifices and ANE cultures reflected and supported that. It is natural that the persons in the narratives acted according to their cultural context and beliefs. It may be that some of the commands told as coming from God were commands given by the leaders believing that they were fulfilling the will of God. Yet, as @ivar commented, we cannot whitewash all violent commands of God from the OT.
We should also remember that God is not committed to our current ethical guidelines. He knows all the details and the future consequences of acts, and He may conclude that the path of least evil is to end the life of some people. Our perspective is limited to our current life, God views things relative to the eternity. What happens after a thousand years may not seem important for an individual living now but it matters for the future generations and even the person her/himself if we assume that there is a resurrection.
Edit:
I read a bit from the book of Judges this morning. In chapter 10, Israelites cried out to the Lord that He would save them from the violence of Canaanites. The answer of God was harsh (verse 14) “Go and cry out to the gods which you have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress”.
The lifestyles and decisions of our societies have caused much disorder and suffering. Is it wrong if God leaves these societies to meet the harsh consequences of their acts?
The same chapter 10 gives also some hope: when the Israelites repented and turned to God “He could no longer endure the misery of Israel”. So there is always the possibility to turn around (repent) and get forgiveness and help, for both individuals and societies.
From a purely human standpoint Israel had no right to conquer or evict anyone. I doubt that the Canaanites recognised God’s authority, and that can be seen with the Ghazzal strip to this very day.
The problem with human religion is it considers itself above human law and ethics, Both sides of WW2 claimed God’s backing. The God of the New Testament would not kill in this manner, or impose Himself on people to their extinction…
We are not here to cast judgement on Scripture or the actions of the past. It happened. Whether is was the full intention of God we may never know. Evidence would suggest that God does not stop people doing things in His name, like say, the crusades? the Witch hunts? The Inquisition?
Scripture has a place but it is not necessarily to condone the actions of Israel. Perhaps Putin feels he has a right over the Ukraine?
From a pragmatic point of view it would appear that Israel failed to eradicate both Baal and the Canaanites and not just because of Saul’s disobedience. It is also interesting to see how long Saul lived and ruled despite the claimed rejection of God. Just as the length of rule of many of the Kings did not reflect the biblical judgement of whether they followed God’s commands or not.
Perhaps Scripture teaches that we do not always know what God wants but despite that His will is done. Certainly Israel did not get a clean run as God’s chosen race. Do you think it possible that they were/ are mistaken?
Then I don’t think I believe in what you are calling morality, and I think it is the devil who would say he has the right to dictate morality to his followers.
In the morality I believe in, right and wrong is dictated by the long term effects upon those do those such things. And I am talking about logical effects of the things themselves and not due to how the lawgiver enforces his dictates. Because once again that is exactly how I would expect the devil to operate, demanding people do what he says because of the threats of what he will do to them if they don’t
Things are not right or wrong because God says so. God does things and tells us to do things because they are right and does not do things and tells us not to do them because they are wrong. And this is the difference between God and the devil.
Indeed. Here we can see an example of what I am saying. It is not about following a set of rules or dictates by someone who thinks they have the right to dictate such things. It is about what is best for people – what is best for these children.
Sure we can. We must! If we do not do so then we will find ourselves following the devil just because someone names it “God.”
People have been using the Bible to justify all kinds of evil for centuries. I don’t think the ability to twist thing in such a way is any kind of measure of morality.
There are people who think they speak for God, and thus they have done evil in His name for a long time.
And I think this is avoiding the fundamental question. Are people never that bad? I think they really are sometimes, and thus God would be doing the right thing to stop them when they do.
I don’t think suffering is the real issue. Again it is a matter of the long term well-being of those He loves. It is a matter of preserving our potential so that we can learn to do better.
I think you have it backwards. People want to hold God up high, at arms length so to speak, and it is God who comes down to our level where we are at.
Indeed. They make God say what they want, to serve their own interests and wield Him as a tool of power and rhetoric. And how do you tell which they are doing? Well devil is in the details – literally. A “god” of rhetoric who serves their own evil hearts is naturally going to start sounding more and more like the devil.
You need to read the New Testament much more closely.
This is all meaningless. It’s in our sacred scripture which most Christian’s believe was inspired by God. That is why it is troubling. Violence is there from cover to cover and on the lips of Jesus.
Sure but how does this change anything about this specific issue? We can’t just whitewash the things we don’t like about Jesus as hyperbole and accommodation. That is not following Jesus.
Are you implying there is some moral standard external to God?
Hm, maybe it’s better if we look at specific examples. However, yes, after going through the Euthyphro dilemma in discussing with my kids, I do think that there is a standard of morality external to God–that might does not, I think, make right. Thanks.
I brought up several by Jesus above. The NT has its fair share of violence.
I don’t think either solution to the Euthyphro dilemma is true. I think it presents a false dichotomy. One side makes morality arbitrary and the other diminishes God to god.
“God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value." I view logic and reason in the same capacity.
Just wanted to add this quote by Feser. I’m reading a book of his on 5 arguments for God’s existence that I’m really enjoying:
“Divine simplicity [entails] that God’s will just is God’s goodness which just is His immutable and necessary existence. That means that what is objectively good and what God wills for us as morally obligatory are really the same thing considered under different descriptions, and that neither could have been other than they are. There can be no question then, either of God’s having arbitrarily commanded something different for us (torturing babies for fun, or whatever) or of there being a standard of goodness apart from Him. Again, the Euthyphro dilemma is a false one; the third option that it fails to consider is that what is morally obligatory is what God commands in accordance with a non-arbitrary and unchanging standard of goodness that is not independent of Him… He is not under the moral law precisely because He is the moral law.”
Thanks. I think that that is a good point. However, I think you would agree that that doesn’t de facto mean that the Scripture we read or choose, is true.
To quote George MacDonald,
i. If it be said by any that God does a thing which seems to me unjust, then either I do not know what the thing is, or God does not do it…Least of all must we accept some low notion of justice in a man, and argue that God is just in doing after that notion
Yes you are correct. I think scripture corrects scripture at times (punishing children for sins of their parents) and Jesus does as well (Moses allowing a certificate for divorce). I also think there is a canon within the canon pointing to Jesus. So I am not of the blindly believe all of it inerrancy crowd. But it is still sacred Scripture and this theme is everywhere.
So I can’t just hand-wave dismiss some passages as OT violence. I want to 100% but humility means I have to allow God to be God and consider he might cast judgment and punishment on people and nations at times. Most Christian’s have believed the flood and plagues were real throughout history. Those who reject them are the outliers.
A careful look at the Bible shows the theme of justice and God punishing sin from cover to cover and on the lips of Jesus. Many people have a mistaken notion that the OT and NT depict a different God. They do not on this issue unless you selectively ignore much of the NT and forget the NT covers a short time period whereas the OT covers thousands of years. God smites two Christian’s in Acts and brings horrific judgment on the temple (Mark 13) and the imagery in Revelation with Jesus as the star is the most violent in the whole Bible. I could go on but God punishing sin is just a reality in Christianity.
It does–but I still greatly appreciate books like “The Great Divorce,” and Macdonald’s work, which seems to point to a more corrective view on punishment, than a vindictive role. I am not sure I could sign on to my own church’s statement of faith any more, in terms of Scriptural integrity in that respect.
I might be a universalist and I might not. In the former case all punishment is corrective but I’m not opposed to non-corrective punishment. If someone were irredeemably evil, then I am all for retributive justice being served. There are some really nasty and cruel people in the world I would shed no tears for. I do not think finite crimes warrant eternal torment but annihilation is another option. In the end, these decisions aren’t ours to make, only to think about. God is just and merciful.
I’d say God’s retributive side is dwarfed by his mercy. I would like it phrased differently but as scripture went before being corrected, sins lead to punished children to the 3rd and 4th generation but God shows faithfulness to a thousand generations of those who love him. Neither seems ethical but it does express that God is a God of love and mercy in a backhanded way.