I want to tackle the issue of one of the seeming differences between the Old and the New Testament, that of God encouraging the Israelites to go to war with their neighbours, to kill the people and to take their lands, frequently with God on their side. It’s a huge challenge to me to consider this, as it doesn’t seem to be the same sort of God we worship at first glance.
In really thinking about it, there’s no way I can dismiss war as ‘good’ or even ‘Godly’ so to speak, but I do see it as an important part of a big picture of Judaism and Christianity.
The Old Testament, and particularly the book of Joshua, tells of Israel conquering new lands, and killing the inhabitants in the process. One thing that sticks out for me in this is that it is clear that these countries were morally and ethically wrong. And by this I don’t mean pagan worship, though this was there too, but from what I’ve read (both in the Bible and elsewhere) they were nations that operated in the vein of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 19:12-13), countries rife with behaviour none of us would consider remotely acceptable by any standards. So although I still don’t like the concept of war in itself, the idea that God was reclaiming a land that was His anyway (as God and Creator) from a ‘sinful’ people and giving it to His people who lived by His moral standards, seems a lot more sound to me. And when the Israelites didn’t do the right things, and lived similarly bad lives, they had the land taken from them at God’s command, being overrun and enslaved by the Egyptians or Babylonians. Thus it went both ways.
Also, a lot of these accounts of war tell of the Israelites defending their own country. Just as we would not consider it ‘sinful’ or wrong to defend our own country, this isn’t such a difficult aspect of Old Testament warfare to comprehend.
The biggest thing that struck me though is that we consider this whole issue from the perspective of death being the end. But in terms of the rest of Christian theology, death is only a step on the journey. So when the Israelites killed their enemies, those who died moved on to the spiritual realm, and if they were living God’s way they moved on to heaven anyway. For those who died, they only moved on to the next stage of their lives more quickly than they would have otherwise. Of course there is likely to be pain and suffering for families, and I don’t pretend to make light of that factor, but when taken as a big picture the deaths of people, for whatever reason, become much less significant and wrong.
Of course this brings up one of the 10 Commandments from Exodus 20:13, which is “do not murder”, but from the original Hebrew it is clear this refers specifically to deliberate, premeditated murder, rather than all forms of killing. Obviously I’m not saying killing people is right, but that the absolute prohibition refers only to specific murder, and it does not preclude God from working in this way.
Another point that I think is important is the context of the Old Testament, when power was shown by military might, and this was an important part of a nation’s identity. The Israelites probably wouldn’t have listened to God very much if they remained oppressed and enslaved for their entire existence, as they would question where their God was. For God to work in these times, He also had to be a part of the times. I’m not saying that God changes His nature, but that He changes the way He works according to His purposes. Just as we change the way we act around different people, so God acts differently according to different needs. I think it's necessary to understand that in the militaristic Old Testament times someone was going to die, and it was simply a matter of who. These were times of conquest and warfare, and conflict was a given. It wasn't a question of whether there would be a war, but when, and who would win.
I think it’s also worth noting that Christianity isn’t all soft and cuddly, as is sometimes portrayed. When I really look into the Bible, I can see that Jesus was a hard man, overturning tables in the Synagogue, and saying “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). While He is described as a Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), and that is the ultimate aspiration of God and of Christians, Jesus recognised that war and conflict were an unfortunately necessary part of a world corrupted by sin and hatred. A parent may wish to have a home where love and peace rule, but at times strict discipline is necessary. That’s the best way I can describe the necessity of war at times. It’s undesirable, but necessary.
Having said this, many a war has been attributed to God in the past, and many leaders have claimed to lead a ‘holy war’, from the dark and distant past to only just recently. I don’t mean to justify these. Of course it’s always possible, but it’s also a good excuse for leaders of Christian nations to use to validate their actions.
Personally I hate war, and I’m quite sure God does too. But it doesn’t mean it’s not necessary sometimes and for good reasons. I would much rather peace, and will fight for it (excuse the pun), but I’m pretty sure God can have a good reason for fighting wars too.
Some Bible verses to check out on this topic: Joshua (all); Isaiah 9:2-7; Matthew 21:12-13.
2 comments:
Gregor, I can't help but feel that in this post you are justifying the killing of those who have a different moral code to your own. Please don't take me the wrong way- as always I am amazed and pleased by your moderation and thoughtfulness- but as you discussed the possibility that the killing of fathers, brothers, wives and sons by the Jews in the Old Testament was morally alright because they had morals which are abhorrent to us (and if they were good would go to Heaven anyway), I couldn't help but think of the fathers, brothers, wives and sons who were killed in the twin towers because they had a moral code that was abhorrent to those who did the deed.
I am sure you did not mean to support the actions of fundamentalists, but that is the thought that came to my mind.
-Cale
Hmmm fair point. I suppose the first thing I would say is that this is all a case of IF Christianity is right, THEN this. So with this case, if Christianity is right, then the actions of the Jews would be justified. Just as if the Muslim extremist's beliefs were right, then their actions would be justified. I'm not saying we can act on the assumption that what we believe is right, as that is how most wars occur, but that in a theoretical sense, if the Jewish (and hence Christian) God is true, then there isn't such an issue with them killing according to God's specific instructions. It's all hypothetical.
I'll also note that there's a very big difference between doing something because you believe it's right (as is the case with most fundamentalist actions) and having specific instructions from God, as recorded in the Old Testament. The book of Kings is a really interesting read to see the difference between when the Israelites did what God told them to, and when they did what they thought was right. It's very clear that there's a big difference between the two.
I think it's also fair to say that in early Jewish times, all nations were involved in wars with their neighbours, usually on the basis of conquest. Today, such an action is condemned, but back then it was acceptable, indeed expected. The Israelites had more 'justification' for their actions than their other neighbours, who did the same things with no or little religious or moral purposes. In this blog I don't mean to draw a parallel with modern times, but rather to look at how war could have worked in Israel in Old Testament times. Jesus very clearly preached love, acceptance and peace, although recognising this would not always happen.
But thanks Cale, you made a good point! I hope this made it a little clearer.
Post a Comment