God promised Abraham that he would multiply his descendants and would give to them ‘the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession’ (Gen.17:5-8; Ex.6:2-4). The liberation from slavery in Egypt was an act of redemption, but it was also a step towards the fulfilment of that promise: ‘I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians… I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob’ (Ex.6:6-8). It is, moreover, a land of material abundance, flowing with milk and honey, and if the people ‘walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them’, they will enjoy prosperity and security, God will make them fruitful and multiply them, and he will walk among them and be their God (Lev.26:3-11). The echoes of the creation narratives are unmistakable: the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham is in some way a renewal of creation, a new start for humanity.
But the means by which the promise is fulfilled are brutal in the extreme: the plagues of Egypt, the destruction of Pharoah’s army, the violent suppression of idolatry and opposition within Israel, the looting, expulsion and slaughter of indigenous people groups. Following the golden calf incident, for example, the Levites ordained themselves ‘for the service of the Lord’ by killing three thousand men - their brothers, companions, and neighbours (Ex.32:25-29). When the Israelite army, having killed every male of the Midianites, took captive the women and children, Moses was furious:
Have you let all the women live? Behold, these, on Balaam’s advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves. (Num.31:15-18)
The problem is that episodes such as these are not marginal or incidental, they form a core part of the story. The God of the New Testament, whom Jesus taught us to address as ‘father’, is the God who instructed Israel to ‘destroy all the peoples that the Lord your God will give over to you’ (Deut.7:16) in order to fulfil the seminal promise to Abraham. The only real justification given is that the conquest of Canaan was God’s judgment on its inhabitants because they had defiled the land by their iniquities - and Israel would suffer the same fate if they did not keep the commandments (cf. Lev.18:24-30; 20:22-23).
So two questions. First, does this somehow need to be included in our understanding of who God is? Is this the God we believe in when we say we believe in the God of the Bible? Is it enough to recognize that God judged the Canaanites through violent means just as he would later judge Israel itself and other nations (see also Can a Christian support war)? Paul Hartigan’s comments about the ‘God of the Bible’ should also be read here.
Secondly, do we make this part of our story or do we keep quiet about it as the church has usually done? Is it better to keep the cupboard door shut on this skeleton? I have wanted to go back to Abraham, who was called by God to be blessed and to be a blessing to the nations of the earth, as a starting point for understanding mission, but it’s a bit disconcerting when you follow the story through. Obviously in Christ the people of God is no longer defined as a geopolitical entity, but does that allow us simply to excise these incidents from our corporate memory?
I really appreciate your cove
I really appreciate your covenantal understanding of scripture, Andrew. I been considerably aided by it through the years of my own study, especially remembering that God’s promise to Abraham is also a promise to the world. Abraham receives God’s blessing so that he might use him to bless the world. God’s words, ‘I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you, I will curse’ needs to be understood in light of God’s purposes to redeem the world. So when we see nations opposing Abraham, opposing his descendants, what those nations are truly doing is opposing the redemptive purposes of God, which he takes incredibly serious.
I do have a problem with the label ‘God of the OT’ and ‘God of the NT’. God is ever so free with his grace and mercy throughout the OT and Jesus has incredibly hot words of judgment and condemnation in the NT.
To answer your questions then, 1) we definitely have to include these passages in our understanding of God. As difficult as it is sometimes, I think we enter into more difficulty if we throw them away. I think we are seen as disingenuous and dishonest about our text. I think we need to be honest about it as well. I was communicating with a skeptic just the other day about this issue and I confessed, ‘Yes, I have asked, “But, God, why the children? Why the women?”’ Part of the story is the struggle, it is the ‘what’s going on here?’ questions.
2) Consequently, it needs to be part of our story. At a certain level, it is disconcerting. Yet, when I meditate on all that God was doing for the world, its not that I’m then comfortable with the slaughter, but I’m able to put it in the context of God looking to do good for the world and not letting anything opposes his loving and gracious purposes.
But then again . . .
I’ve already scribbled some thoughts on the subject (A God of violence) on the ‘The God of the Bible/andrew’ post. Looking at this thread again, I wonder if the question (‘does this somehow need to be included in our understanding of who God is?’) needs to be rephrased - or another question added - ‘does this need to be included in our understanding of who man is?’
If the Israelites in their desert wanderings were like us - middle-aged, mild-mannered, western liberal intellectuals, we might feel horrified at the carnage inflicted - not least on each other (Exodus 32:27-29). Maybe the story tells us more about the Israelites - who already had a track record of provoking God, and in the incident mentioned, had raised provocation to a new height (the worshipping of the golden calf at the very moment when God was preparing His covenant through the 10 commandments).
Maybe there is something to be learned about the heart of man - and the long-suffering of God in the story. The God who had delayed execution of the original warning of death through disobedience in the garden, and who apparently responded to Moses’ intercessory plea on their behalf - offering himself as the one on whom the curse might fall.
I wonder if in the emergent church musings, whether the pilgrimage from evangelicalism has jettisoned too much of the baggage of a theological awareness of sin, and awareness of the holiness of God. I wonder what others think?
P.S. My apologies to Whitewave - I really thought your subscriptions were some kind of send-up!
A God of violence?
I am very new to this forum, so forgive me jumping right in.
I have never struggled with a God of Violence, I can not disconnect from a basic belief, that all actions and thoughts have consequences. For Good or Evil.
The God of violence is a part of my core belief about God. I accept God for who He is. I don’t judge him, understanding is something very different. I don’t have all the answers but I trust in the goodness of God
I don’t think we should hide this part of the story from anyone. I can not make anyone believe in Jesus, though I can hinder them. I need to respect their ability to accept or reject certain aspects of the Bible, even as they pursue Jesus.
Maybe I am silly to trust in Jesus when I don’t understand him and he does not act like I want him to.
Thank you
Tim
Violence is in the eye of the beholder, in this case - Man
I sat across a table this date with a man who describes himself as an agnostic. At this point, he is unshakeable in his beliefs, or lack thereof. The "violence" of the Old Testament is an obstacle, and you’ve heard this before: "How can God allow (this or that) to occur" and "How can a God of love allow violence against human beings?"
The violence and inhumanity of the "victims" somehow is overlooked by those who profess such statements, although the nations’ histories of evil are clearly written in the Bible’s plain text and in secular history.
Another matter seemingly forgotten is that all, including each of us, belongs to the Creator.
That concept might be kept in mind by those who proclaim they do not believe the Creator could banish unbelievers and sinners to hell.