The violence of the Old Testament - part 1

A smiting God

The word 'smite' is seldom used today, yet everyone seems to know its meaning. The reason they know is that everyone is aware, whether they've read the Bible or not, that a lot of 'smiting' went on in the Old Testament. And often God was the one doing the smiting.

Tissot: the taking of Jericho

Recent translations of the Bible don't use the word smite. But the perception that the Old Testament is full of violence, much of it ordered or carried out by God himself, hasn't gone away. New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins have made much of it, painting a picture of God as a violent and sadistic monster, promoting genocide

But it's not just the ignorant and the New Atheists who are disturbed by the violence of parts of the Old Testament. Many Christians are disturbed by it too. For some, the violence is intolerable, more than they can stomach. Their solution has been to reject the Bible as a source of truth and walk away from their faith. I have been tempted to do this myself at times.

And surely we should be deeply concerned when we read of God ordering the Israelites to slaughter every living thing in a city, including women, children and even the animals (Deut 20:16-18, Jos 6:21). Or when Moses is outraged on God's behalf because the Israelites have spared the women and children of Midian. (Num 31:7-19). What sort of God tells parents to have their unruly son put to death? (Deut 21:18-21) or orders the stoning of adulterers? (Lev 20:10)

Who hasn't winced when such passages have been the reading for the day? What Bible study leader or preacher hasn't wished they could avoid such passages in their teaching of the Bible? Isn't the Old Testament giving us a picture of a God that would feel familiar to the Taliban? Haven't such passages been the justification for so much blood shed and war in the name of God over the centuries?

Didn't that all change in the New Testament?

People sometimes have the idea that the New Testament is different to the Old. The harsh and violent God of the Old Testament has been replaced by the loving God of the New, as demonstrated in the totally non-violent life of Jesus, the Prince of Peace. But that isn't true, or not the full truth.

Plockhorst: The good shepherd

Jesus raised no army, his only recorded act of violence was his cleansing of the temple. He rebuked his disciples for wanting to call down fire on a village in Samaria (Luke 9:52) and told his followers that those who lived by the sword would die by it. He made no effort to defend himself against those who arrested and killed him.

But what are we to make of some of Jesus' parables, in which kings order their enemies to be slaughtered and vineyard owners have their disloyal tenants cut to pieces and destroyed? (eg Luke 19:27, Mark 12:9). What of the Book of Revelation, where we're told that in the last battle between God and the powers of evil, the blood of the slain will run as high as a horse's bridle? (Rev.14:20) And what of all the 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' of those excluded from God's presence? (Matt 13:42)

On the other hand we also have to take account of the many incidences recorded in the Old Testament of God's tenderness and compassion. There he is described as a God of loving kindness, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love (eg Psalm 108:4). He frequently rebukes the violent and stands in opposition to them (eg Gen 6:13, Jer 22:3) In fact it is the apparent inconsistency of God's attitude towards violence which is the crux of the problem.

What are we to make of the Old Testament, and the New Testament as well, when they seem to glorify acts which we feel are inconsistent with a God who is love? Is the God who calls on us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us really just a hypocrite?

Children of Cain

Before coming to any conclusion on these questions, let me make some general observations about violence.

Blake: Cain fleeing God's wrath

1. Human beings are naturally prone to violence. The first narrative in the Bible after the story of Adam and Eve is that of Cain killing his brother Abel in a jealous rage. And it goes on from there. The whole of human history is filled with war and acts of violence and brutality. Nations rise against nation, one tribe against another, one individual against a neighbour.

But even within the family, behind closed doors, husbands assault their wives (and sometimes vice versa) and parents beat their children, with or without some supposed justification. And even if we have never done these things ourselves, we aren't innocent of the impulse to do them. What weary parent hasn't had a strong desire to smack a child in anger and frustration, whether they believe in smacking or not?

And it's not just adults - leave a group of two-year-olds unattended for a while and it's likely that one of them will get into an aggressive tussle with another over a toy they both want. Five-year-olds are ready to play full scale war games with guns or swords made from whatever they can find.

Even animals seem to go beyond the necessary violence of finding food, and indulge in violence and blood lust for its own sake. Cats and killer whales both play with their prey before killing it. Troops of chimpanzees have been filmed hunting and killing other monkeys, apparently not just for food but for sport and social bonding.

2.When human beings aren't involved in violence and aggression themselves, they will watch it for entertainment. The Roman arena has been replaced today by film and video that is every bit as graphically violent. Even the modern sporting arena is often just a controlled form of the gladiatorial games, with commentators using terms like 'drawing blood' and 'thrashing the opposition'.

3. Strangely, running in parallel to this over the last two or three generations has been a strongly expressed public distaste for violence. Perhaps it is the result of two world wars, with their glut of carnage and horror, followed by the daily television images from the wars of Korea and Vietnam. Not that wars have ceased, nor even private and domestic violence, but the public view is that they ought to cease. Governments have been encouraged to legislate against all forms of violence, from bullying to boxing.

Parents no longer think it is 'educational' to take their children to see a hanging, as they did in the past. In fact, capital punishment has been abolished in many places as an act of barbarity not fitting a civilised society. Children's toys and games have come under scrutiny for their tendency to promote aggression and violence. Until recently, violence in film and television was also generally off-screen, implied rather than shown. Or it was given an R or X rating to protect children and the squeamish from viewing it. 

Perhaps this change in attitude lies behind the some of the more recent antipathy towards the Bible. A society which is trying to rid itself of violence of any kind does not want as its foundation a book which apparently promotes it. Even those who recognise that the norms of one society can't be applied unthinkingly to another from the past still feel that the Bible is out-dated, a relic of a more brutal age.

But the post-war, violence-intolerant generation seems to be passing. What was once R-rated is now shown on prime time television, and children see, read, even wear, graphically violent material. The push to rid society of all forms of aggression is countered by those who see the gains to be made by selling material that meets the human fascination for violence and gore.

This seems to be a recurring pattern throughout history. Following times of great conflict and brutality, a desire for a more peaceful, less aggressive society arises. Then after a generation or two, violence becomes more acceptable again.

Stamp showing Stalin and Mao Zedung shaking hands

4. It is often supposed that religion promotes violence, and a society free of religion would be more peaceful and tolerant. Certainly wars have been fought over religious issues, and many killed in the name of God. But Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot have shown us that atheism is no protection against violence and aggression.

5. It is also often assumed that the problems we have with the violence of the Old Testament is a due to our modern, enlightened attitude. But Augustine, back in the fourth century, found the Old Testament crude and barbaric, at least in his younger days. He eventually came to terms with it by learning to read it in an allegorical fashion, a method which is no longer used today. 

So what are our options?

One option for dealing with the problem of the violence of the Bible is to ignore the more violent passages and focus only on those that are peaceful and uplifting. Most of us do this in practice. English theologian John Hemer says this is " like making a study of Churchill and completely ignoring the fact that he was English. Violence is not peripheral to the Bible it is central, in many ways it is the issue, because of course it is the human problem."

In part 2 I will look at how we might come to terms with the violence of the Old Testament, or at least deal honestly with it without losing our faith.

(to be continued)

You may also like:

Reading the Old Testament part 7 - Is the Old Testament misogynistic?
Reading the Old Testament part 6 - Not-so-simple questions about the Old Testament
Reading the Old Testament part 5 - A simple set of questions to use when reading the Old Testament 
Reading the Old Testament part 4 - The Old Testament wasn't written in a day
Reading the Old Testament part 3 - Remember the Old Testament is old
Reading the Old Testament part 2 - Getting an overview
Reading the Old Testament part 1 - Know your history