God's Morality and Justice

That is not what she is saying. She says the Canaanites were punished by God for their behaviour (of which child sacrifice was a part). The punishment was conquest through war. (I am speaking from her point of view here. I myself am still thinking this through. At the moment I am still not sure to what extent the Conquest can be seen as punishment.) The kind of war that was waged against them was herem warfare, instead of the more common war for personal enrichment. As you see, “more common” indicates it was one legitimate way of conducting warfare during this time.

As a comparison, it would be inaccurate to describe the allied strategic bombing campaign over Germany and the demand of unconditional surrender as the killing of German children as punishment for the German killing of other children. Rather, German actions caused an allied response. Which resulted in several things, one of them being the death of many German civilians.

Even if the Conquest is ahistorical, there is still the much later story about the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15.

Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded. Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned.

(Joshua 11:12-13, NIV)

Only Jericho, Ai and Hazor are said to have been burned.

Yes and no. With a late date exodus (around 1200) the Israelites would have appeared in the land during the transition from LBA (Late Bronze Age) to IA1 (Iron Age I). Regarding the pottery, there are continuities, yet also discontinuities: the proliferation of the collared rim jar and the absence of both decorated and imported pottery.

Add to that the spread of four-room houses and the absence of pig bones, and it is clear that a new ethnicity emerged in the highlands.

Yes. If I have e.g. a weak spot for alcohol, yet keep associating with drunkards, the blame is on me.

Good point. That is exactly what the Rahab-Achan story is about.

Amen. Gavin Ortlund gave a good example in a recent video. If you see Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star out of context, you could think he is a war criminal. But when you watch the whole movie, that would not come to your mind.

I can also imagine persons in 2300 AD complaining why people who ate animals from factory farms and who drove SUV’s could call themselves Christians. But then they should realise that if a church had started demanding vegetarianism and using public transport or bike from its members, it wouldn’t have been very successful. People are already struggling to keep the basics of Christianity. God knows how we will act, so he teaches us gradually. Add to that the fact that for certain things to improve, structural change has to occur.

I see your point. But to me the Conquest was a necessary step that had to be taken if the Messiah was ever to come. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if the Conquest had not happened. Without a land in which the Torah could be upheld, Christian morality would not have spread through the rest of the world eventually.

I can’t think of any other way of how this should have happened. And if the Canaanites wouldn’t have been conquered by the Israelites, the Philistines would have done it.

The Ten Words clearly prohibit murder. The other law codes explain the implications of this command. Deuteronomy 20 makes clear that the general approach to war should be to first offer the enemy terms of surrender. If denied, only the adult males can be killed. (In those times there was no difference between civilian and soldier.) The exception to this rule are the Canaanites and the Amalekites (Exodus 17:14). The destruction of these people was (and is) not a thing that should be done again.

Of course there is this weird passage:

When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

(Deuteronomy 20:19-20, NIV)

But the footnote gives the more accurate translation of the Hebrew, in my opinion:

Do not cut them down to use in the siege, for the fruit trees are for the benefit of people.

Dr. Jacob Wright comments:

We may conclude by taking a step back and considering the general nature of the war laws in Deuteronomy 20. Each treats the most critical points of combat: before a city is attacked, when a city surrenders, when it resists, and so on. The same applies for vv. 19-20, which treats a scenario in which the besiegers cannot expect a city’s imminent capitulation. For a field commander, this situation consistently poses the most challenging dilemma. When in want of an effective stratagem or ruse, should one wait out the siege and run the risk of soldiers deserting in order to tend to their farms? Or should one resort to a tactic that, while promising to deliver instant results, would have long-term detrimental effects on one’s own or the enemy’s LSS [Life Support Systems]? …

This first step, however, may seem small. Instead of focusing on fruit trees, the law could have proscribed much more extreme cases of ecocide, not to mention practices of slaughtering children or raping women. But precisely in its seeming triviality resides its juridical potential. Rather than mentioning all the possible sce- narios, the law censures the less drastic practice in order to include everything more extreme in its purview. Now if it is forbidden to resort to a tactic that severely jeopardizes a region’s LSS in order to precipitate an enemy’s capitulation, then it is by all means unacceptable to resort to mass destruction for the same purpose. Verses 10–14 already define when it is permissible to take human life, drawing clear lines between adult males, on the one hand, and women and children, on the other. Having addressed the licit use of lethal force, the chapter then continues to spell out restrictions on Israelite armies in vv. 19–20. The reason for this final prohibition seems to be that humans need these trees to survive. … This explains why the law allows only non-fruit trees (or trees no longer bearing fruit) to be chopped down, although it places severe restrictions on even this action. In formulating these restrictions, v. 20 argues according to “necessity,” a principle central to Just War doctrine.

The framers of these laws not only recommend restraint but also recognize the need for written rules to guide military conduct in the heat of battle.

War and Wanton Destruction: A Case Against Anti-Assyrian Polemics in Deuteronomy, 456-458.

No other nation at the time had such laws of engagement. It was revolutionary.

So, again, herem warfare was only to be applied to two people groups. After that, it should never be done again. Catholics could argue that the Pope has the authority to call for such a war again. But for Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura that can’t be the case. The New Testament is clear about that.

The God of the New Testament used the Romans to crush Judaea in the Jewish War. But he also warned them through Jesus. Christian Jews escaped to Pella.

The Canaanites could have converted (like Rahab) or moved away. They knew what had happened at the Red Sea and in the Transjordan. But instead they attacked the Israelites and their allies (Joshua 10:1-5, 11:1-5).

The Jewish War is different of course. Christians were (and are) not going to be God’s soldiers, so here God used the Romans to punish the Jews.

I think the Israelites were sometimes mistaken. Quite often, actually. But I do not think those mistakes are reflected in the Bible. I suppose that is where we differ.

For example, certain communists would argue that the laws against stealing or moving a boundary mark were just means to protect the bourgeoisie.

What I am trying to say is that when we start to question certain parts of the Biblical presentation of God, we go down a slippery slope. We end up being the arbiters of what is good and evil. And that is often determined by the values of our current age and culture.

Because it could also be the other way around. Marcion claimed that the God of the New Testament was the real God, and the god of the Old Testament was not. But why can’t it be the other way around? Perhaps the strong warrior God is the real one, and the Bible sometimes got that wrong and presents a weak god.

Perhaps the worldview of Nietzsche is correct, that to become an Übermensch is what really matters. The weak deserve to be conquered and destroyed. Power is the only thing that matters. À la Andrew Tate.

So my issue is, if we think we can decide which parts of the Bible are “real” and which are not, we can’t judge people who go into the other direction.

2 Likes

Thanks. Here’s another area I puzzle over–Ezekiel, where he says that we should not say that the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and their children’s teeth are set on edge, seems to make a moral statement against that. It’s interesting how the ANE view places blessing and cursing on the children, rather than the individual involved. The contradiction is difficult for me to fully understand, if I were to take the Scripture as a unified whole.

1 Like

No i do not. And you do not have the binding truth.

Inspired does not mean dictated.

Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of Scripture?

The Old Testament is Israel getting to know God and establishing itself as a Nation. They are not always in tune with God. Judaism assigns all things to Gid. It claims that God makes people rebel or conversely guides people to do certain things. (The exhile for instance). Judaism does not believe in free will. That is a problem if you are going to accept all that the Old Testament teaches or records.

Richard

The thing that seems like a real backhanded element of God’s love that is fairly consistent throughout the Bible is his love for himself.

That he would command us to worship him and that we would find joy in doing it.

1 Like

There are contradictions in the Bible that can’t be whitewashed but that offer us, as God’s beloved children, the opportunity to use the contradictions and difficult pericopes to ask new questions and find new ways of understanding what God means by justice and mercy – not what we, as human beings, mean by justice and mercy.

It’s frightening to take the step of asking questions about the biblical texts, and until Jesus came along, I’m not sure that many individuals had the courage to step outside the bounds of their cultural or familial religious teachings. There’s always the fear that you’ll be punished, struck down, sent to hades, or be forced to watch your family suffer for the “religious crimes” you’ve committed.

The paradigm shift that was introduced by the Jewish teacher known as Job, and refined by Jesus son of Joseph, was Divine Forgiveness. The great mystery of God’s forgiveness appears, at first glance, to be almost unjust in its inclusiveness, permanence, and lack of vengeance. Yet it’s the glue that holds us together as we try to move forward in our goal of better expressing our love for Mother Father God.

Jesus loved and trusted God with all his heart, all his mind, all his soul, and all his courage. So if we really want to double down on the challenge of trusting Jesus, there’s really no option except to try to understand what Jesus meant by Divine Forgiveness, not what our fellow human beings mean by it.

Because Jesus’ Forgiveness is a present reality, not a future reality, it means that God creates a space around each us in which we can ask questions and stumble along with our hopes, our mistakes, our learning, and our relationships without any fear that God is going to judge us according to human laws and religious beliefs (including biblical texts that reflect human concerns and desires, not divine concerns).

So there’s no danger in looking carefully at the Bible and asking if particular passages honestly reflect what God wants us to know. We’re going to make mistakes in the process, but that’s okay because God forgives us if we pick the wrong passages as we try to find the right signposts to guide our human lives. This is why Jesus asked us not to be afraid.

We can learn as much from the parts of the Bible that don’t teach us about God’s forgiveness as we do from the parts that lift us up and help us draw closer to the Heart of Mother Father God.

The flip side of forgiveness, which is rarely talked about, is that forgiveness involves an ongoing conversation between your inner self and your God. God sees your mistakes and God also sees how you decide to handle your own mistakes. God has an opinion on your choices, and gives ongoing feedback, as any loving parent does.

It’s the “ongoing feedback” that many people really don’t want to hear about.

One step forward, two steps back. God expects this. We can show our love for God by continuing to try to understand the deepest mystery that exists.

Not that it’s ever easy.

1 Like

I think this (apparent) contradiction can already be seen within the Torah. After the Kadesh rebellion, only the children are allowed into the Promised Land.

Then there is the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’ ”

Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. He warned the assembly, “Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.” So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents.

Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the Lord has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: If these men die a natural death and suffer the fate of all mankind, then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the realm of the dead, then you will know that these men have treated the Lord with contempt.”

As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households, and all those associated with Korah, together with their possessions.

(Numbers 16:23-32, NIV)

By their own decision, they bring death upon the ones they are responsible for.

Yet the sons of Korah did not die (Numbers 26:11). Apparently they did not support their father in his rebellion.

1 Like

Yes, that’s a tough one–how can the little ones participate? It’s very much an ANE viewpoint. I guess we are not as strong as we think we are. I’m horrified by that idea of children dying, as I am sure you are; but I very much understand how their most treasured portions are their children. It’s a hard one.

Thank you for your discussion. (Dank u. My grandpa spoke Dutch, but sadly, we didn’t learn much “Loof den Heer, mijn Ziel,” is something he would have understood well.)

2 Likes

Richard, like you, I have strong beliefs that I’ve acquired through the yrs. (Thank you for your help!) I love discussing God and related issues, but struggle when I am feeling pulled apart and analyzed without first asking me for clarification… as there were many assumptions made… So 1st clearing those up, would seem to take forever… anyway, is there discussion rules of etiquette that I missed? It is ok to tell someone, in so many words, that they are wrong? Thanks again…

3 Likes

@Jen57 Thank you for your discussion. I apologize if any of my notes appeared critical. You have thoughtful observations. I can certainly learn from everyone.

Thank you.
Randy

1 Like

Randy, Thank you! Very gracious of you!. I guess it is kind of a different culture in here than I am used to…? I’ve been very involved in another large online forum for over 7 years, and I guess it just has a different way of doing things… Also, I guess I get mixed messages in here. That I am not to directly disagree, or challenge people in here… especially established members? Or maybe because Im new I can’t do that? Kind of like getting into an exclusive club? Anyway…

1 Like

I do not know who the long standing members are, as I am new here. But, being long standing means what they are special somehow and shouldn’t be questioned?

Additionally, I think an assumption was made. When I mentioned the viewpoints that I’ve read about those that bring God down to human level, or that is what I see happening, I was mostly talking about those outside of this forum, as I am new here. So, at that point I hadn’t but read just a few responses on here. If you read what I said, I mentioned the responses I read (here, which were just a few by that time) and then other viewpoints as well (outside of this forum).

1 Like

I hope I didn’t leave this impression with anything I said! Because it’s not right!

Please, challenge away!

If anyone seems to enjoy more status than average, it’s because they will actually take challenges seriously if evidence can be brought to bear. They tend to be those who have been no strangers to changing their own minds to follow the evidence.

3 Likes

People need to look at what the bible shows instead of what they think it says. God chooses people who are imperfect. Jacob the schemer, A chosen people who are rebellious and fickle, even David cannot resist a beautiful woman. God does not demand the perfection that Paul and others seem to promote. God works with what He can find and gets the job done despite the human failings. It is humans who demand perfection and restrictions that God does not condone. God forgives. It is humans that claim to know what God requires or wants and God quietly says that His ways are not our ways. We spend lifetimes trying to fathom what is so simple. Live! Try your best. Love God and people and you will get by. And if you make a mistake? God forgives! All the rest is peripheral

Richard.

So you are speaking of something we literally cannot do rather than something we are not “allowed” to do.

Definitely!.. there is…

  1. Our own morality. As opposed to the one being pushed by those using some kind of religious rhetoric.
  2. There is the one I defined in my post (here it is again).

His nature according to who? Regardless, I don’t buy into that sort of rhetoric either. I don’t believe God is constrained to do what is good. That would make Him less than we are (less good really), and frankly more like a force of nature than a good person (i.e. like pantheism). I believe God chooses to do good because He wants what is best for the well being of those He loves.

I hope you find some of the things you’re looking for on BioLogos. There are always many challenges here, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences.

We do not have the full information, so yes.

Richard

It is, but why is that a problem? I think we have done a huge disservice to the texts by mining them for data points in order to create some kind of systematic theology instead of starting with a coherent reading narrative theology and then asking how the text fits in the story and mission of God and interpreting it through that lens.

3 Likes

I have the words of Jesus (see below) and you should if you don’t want to remain ignorant and continue to spread easily corrected misinformation. But if you are fine with that, carry on. As noted, there is plenty of judgment and violence in the New Testament., I cited a significant amount of it and the words of Jesus and will reiterate them below. As usual, you ignore the details of scripture and direct words of Jesus and offer generic platitudes about scripture.

No one said It did.

Perhaps. And perhaps if you chose to actually dialogue with it and the words of Jesus presented we could both learn something?

I could accept parts of that over simplification but none of that means what scripture intends to teach is false. It could be but none of that follows. Maybe you can provide me with a model of inspiration? Also, Jesus was in tune with God and he says similar things and attributes the destruction of the Temple to God (Mark 13). Lots of suffering, death, torture and forced slavery. If God can do that, he can order the slaughter of the Canaanites. There is plenty of violence and judgment in the NT. Do you think Jesus just told people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek and look at the lilies of the field?

I do not, but when my Lord and Saviour does, who am I to correct him? Listen to Jesus or follow the Sola Richtura interpretation of the Bible because he doesn’t like it when God punishes a sinful people? Just because there are problems with some OT material does not mean we get to reject whatever we want. I cited verses above:

" 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.

Add in Revelation (pick your own violent passages), the two killed in Acts, the end of the Ten Minas parable in Luke 19: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

I am not a Bible-ian. I am a Christ-ian. I follow Jesus so let’s talk about what Jesus actually said in addition to all the fluffy stuff people limit him to. The NT/OT violence distinction is mostly made up. Why is Jesus wrong? Or how am I interpreting all this stuff incorrectly? The devil is in the details. Generic platitudes don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Just for further understanding, do you think that moral standard always existed external to God? Or was it a product of His free creation?

I don’t tend to think God is forced or chooses to do what is good. I believe what God does is good. I also believe God wants what’s best for those he loves and that is good by definition. If God punishes sinners that is also good to me. But we can agree to disagree on the semantics.

This is probably true of everyone at times. But many of us bring different understandings of scripture and have different life experiences guiding us, so we will often talk past one another. Online discourse is often very impersonal as well.

This is a discussion forum so while everyone should be gracious, I would expect pushback on many issues. Talking requires a conversation and not everyone agrees with one another on every issue.

Yes, Ezekiel changes it.

It is a problem to me because of Jesus and what he says. I can just disagree with Jesus on the warhorse in Revelation (because that was written by someone else) and accept Jesus on the peace donkey in the Gospels. But if Jesus was God incarnate, His words are the belle of the ball. In so far as the Gospels accurately depict them, they are my standard, Am I wrong on this? The same violence and judgment can be seen in Him or he accepts it as reality. So clearly “dismissing” OT violence in light of this is self-defeating.

1 Like

Methinks you do not actually understand what I write. And I have never questioned Christ’s teaching, However, you do seem obsessed with destruction and death. You see the punishment but overlook the salvation. Judges is a cycle or Israel falling away, being punished and then a Judge being raised to save them. The judges do not come because the people deserve it, They come because God relents. The restoration is not because the people deserve it because God gives them yet another chance. The Exodus is because God hears the cries of people suffering.

I may focus too much on forgiveness , but you focus too much on punishment and death…

Richard

You may be correct there because I see one giant red herring and still no actual dialogue on the scripture that, in my mind, stands against your statement that “The God of the New Testament would not kill in this manner, or impose Himself on people to their extinction.” Jesus had no problem with it and I have to question your general knowledge of what is actually in the NT.