The violence of the Old Testament - Part 3

This is part 3 of a series. See Part 1 and Part 2

Human-initiated violence in the Old Testament

In part 1 we looked at the human propensity towards violence. While the level of violence in a society ebbs and flows over time, it is never absent. Those who would not think of taking part in violent activity themselves may still watch violence or read about it as a form of entertainment.

Human nature hasn't changed, and much of the violence described in the Old Testament (not to mention the New Testament) is evidence of that. The Bible chronicles life as it is, not as it should be. Life in the Ancient Near East was hard and brutal, tribes and nations went to war with each other and families squabbled then as frequently as they do now. Much of the violence that is recounted in the Old Testament is initiated by sinful human beings. Often such violence is condemned, by the writers and/or by God (eg Psalm 11:5, Proverbs 3:31, Malachi 2:16) But not always. 

Persian warriors

As I've mentioned before, the fact that some activity is recounted in the Old Testament doesn't necessarily mean that it’s being approved. Unless a commentary is added by the writer, the reader is left to decide for themselves what the significance of any particular event might be. Sometimes a violent episode is recounted to demonstrate how bad things had become (the events of Judges 19, for instance). 

That's all very well. But what of the violence that seems to be specifically commanded or carried out by God? If we're not going to pretend it doesn't exist, and we're on shaky ground suggesting that God's words of command have simply been added by the human authors of the texts, (see part 2) what are we to make of it?

The violence of the Old Testament - Part 2

(Thursday thesis)

This is the second part of a series on violence in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Part 1 can be found here. And yes, I know it's not Thursday, I'm posting this late.

Two options that don't work

Ignoring the violence of the Old Testament isn't an option for several reasons. First, it suggests that we’re afraid of what conclusions we might come to if we did face it. We’re afraid that our image of God and the way he works might have to be revised in ways that we’re not comfortable with. We’d rather stick with the censored Bible and the blurry image of God we’re familiar with.

But living in fear of discovering the truth isn't healthy, psychologically or spiritually. It puts us constantly on guard against anything that might disturb our carefully constructed version of truth. It means that our faith is not really placed solidly on the God of the Bible, but on an idol of our own construction. We’re creating our own cannon of books and passages that are acceptable to us.

If the God of the Bible really is a cruel and sadistic monster, as the New Atheists suggest, then we should be right to reject him as they do. But not bothering to find out whether it’s true or not seems bizarre. Hoping that it isn't true is not faith but wishful thinking.

Ignoring the violence of the Old Testament also ensures that we live in fear of other people questioning us about it. We’ll find ourselves unwilling to invite people to church or our Bible study group if we know that one of the ‘difficult’ passages from the Old Testament is going to be read. We’ll avoid suggesting that people read the Bible for themselves, or point them only to the New Testament. We’ll look embarrassed and give a half-hearted answer when we are questioned about difficult passages. Fear will kill our desire to evangelise, or lead us to offer a short and sweetened version of the gospel.

Ignoring the violence of parts of the Old Testament means that we’ll have no biblical way to understand the violence in the New Testament or in the world around us. The crucifixion will be a jarring aberration in an otherwise peaceful landscape. The final judgement scenes in Revelation will seem out of place. The lavender-scented version of the world that comes from our edited Bible won’t match up with a reality where war, brutality, rape, domestic violence, murder and a host of other evils are on display daily.

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?

Paul – not our role model

(Monday musings)

The apostle Paul is often put forward as an example for all Christians to follow in sharing the gospel with others. And when it comes to his love for Christ, his obedience, his courage and his commitment, he is certainly a great example.

But I wonder if Paul is really the best guide for the ‘average’ Christian to be urged to follow when it comes to delivering the message of the gospel. Paul was a single man with (as far as we know) no dependents. His occupation (making tents) could be carried out anywhere. His Roman citizenship gave him the right to go anywhere in the Roman Empire, and to some extent provided him protection. He was free to travel from place to place.

As a former Pharisee, Paul had a well-respected theological education and the skills to expertly interpret scripture. He was trained to lead, teach and write.

More importantly, as an Apostle, Paul had a very specific calling to be an evangelist which followed his dramatic conversion on the Damascus road. Clearly he was well equipped for the role, or perhaps we should say, the Lord had wonderfully prepared him for it.

The problem with Paul being held up as an example is that few of us can identify closely with him. We may have families. We have jobs that may not easily be transferred from place to place. Our theological education is limited (though we can certainly always learn more.) We may not have leadership skills, speaking skills, or the ability to teach. And most of us have not received a clear calling to be evangelists. We are all called to be witnesses of what we have seen and heard and know of the Lord Jesus.

The risk is that, in comparing ourselves with Paul, we feel inadequate for the task we think we’re called to do and give up. What we really need to know is what Paul had to say to the Christians he was writing to about how they were to go about being witnesses to Christ. He didn't ask them all to join him in his travels. What did he tell them to do? What were they to say to the people around them? How were they to demonstrate the good news of the gospel to their neighbours? The answers to these questions, rather than Paul himself, are where we will find our guide to being witnesses.