The presence of violence in the Old Testament often leaves us confused and troubled. What is most concerning is divine violence—violence that God seemingly orchestrates or commands. Individual passages may be dealt with in later papers, for now I want to equip the reader to handle any biblical passage they come across containing violence.
In his book, The Destruction of the Canaanites: God, Genocide, and Biblical Interpretation, Christian professor, Charlie Trimm, lays out four ways of dealing with Old Testament violence. I trust that a discussion over these four methods will provide clarity: (1) rethink God, (2) rethink the Old Testament, (3) rethink our interpretation of the Old Testament, (4) rethink our understanding of violence.
Keep these initial points in mind. The New Testament too includes acts of violence, murder, wrath, and judgment (e.g., Acts 5). Albeit the New Testament is generally less graphic when recording these acts. Second, we ought not to conclude that God approves of every violent event recorded in the Old Testament simply because it is contained within the Old Testament. Third, remember that we are dealing with a completely separate culture from our own.
(1) Rethink God. We could avail ourselves the trouble of dealing with violent passages by surrendering our concept of a good and loving God. Such an approach cannot be seen as a solution, not only because it is utterly inconsistent with the biblical data, but also because it is equivalent to the belief that God does not exist. No one believes in an unloving god. Hence to give up God’s loving nature is to give up belief in God. Therefore the first method fails.
(2) Rethink the Old Testament. We could directly undercut the issues of divine violence in the Old Testament by abandoning the Old Testament itself. Or perhaps not in its entirety, but only in certain respects. For instance, possibly the most common application of this second method is to classify the violent accounts as historically unreliable. One may claim that these events never occurred or that they at least did not occur in the manner of the biblical account. Then the question becomes, why did the authors record the violent accounts as they did (at all)? Well, perhaps they were simply mistaken or they intentionally recorded misinformation for some unknown purpose. Either way, the event, as it was detailed, never happened.
Rethinking the Old Testament by challenging its historicity is highly problematic. First, it contradicts divine inerrancy and inspiration (i.e., considering the Bible as God’s Word). By taking this approach, scripture would not be true in all that it teaches nor could it be viewed as God’s Word, for it is impossible for God to inspire false teachings and misinformation. Second, it would require strong evidence to reject one aspect of a historical account while maintaining others, lest one fallaciously discards one historical aspect simply due to personal preference.
Another way to solely reject the violent accounts in the Old Testament is to claim that the ancient Jews misunderstood God’s commands. The violence occurred, but God did not command these acts of violence. In fact, he disapproved of them. For example, perhaps Israel was only permitted to take the land that was conquerable without using force. Or perhaps God gave certain commands metaphorically, which the Israelites took literally. This view does not seem like a feasible path to take since God never rebuked the Israelites for misunderstanding Him. If the Israelites had misunderstood the command, is it not likely that God would have rebuked or even stopped them?
The last way one could rethink the Old Testament is by reading it through the lens of Christ. Since Christ is God incarnate, we look to him (the New Testament) to sort out what is true and consistent with God’s nature. And since Christ practiced nonviolence, God must be nonviolent. Thus the Old Testament accounts of divine violence are rejected. This tends to be an appealing view. Of course, we should not hesitate to look to Christ for knowledge of God. According to Paul, in Christ dwells all mystery of the knowledge and wisdom of God (Col 2:2-3). However, after investigation, this solution to divine violence is most problematic. Consider the conflicting reality that Christ affirms the Old Testament through prophecy and reference. He explicitly affirms it in Matthew 5:17-18:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Even to greater extent in Luke 24:44:
He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’
Far from affirming a Christ-centered view, to reject parts of the Old Testament would be to contradict Jesus’ own words. If one accepts Jesus, they must also accept the Old Testament. Therefore rethinking the Old Testament does not provide a sufficient solution to the concern of divine violence.
(3) Rethink our interpretation of the Old Testament. The third approach is much more reasonable than the previous two. It states that while the narratives may appear violent, careful interpretation shows them to be far less violent than initially perceived. The goal on this view is to explain away divine violence in a manner that is ethically unproblematic and preserves biblical orthodoxy. The first tactic is to downplay instances of violence by referring to them as strictly militaristic (i.e., not involving civilians), entirely nonlethal, or as banishment. According to Hebrew scholars, it is entirely possible that words like “destruction” and “war” were used to refer to the destruction of idols and religious items, not persons. If this is true, this would provide a tremendous solution to our concern.
The other way to explain away divine violence is by reconsidering the literary genre. Perhaps the authors were speaking in hyperbole, metaphor, or symbolism. There was no literal command to kill, instead these were mere figures of speech used to convey theological truths. This approach does hold merit. Consider sayings like “all the lands” or in Joshua 6:21, “they devoted all in the city to destruction.” Is it true that literally every person was destroyed? This appears to be a clear sign of hyperbole. The difficulty arises in distinguishing between what is hyperbolic and what is historical. The other difficulty is to potentially commit the fallacy of shaping the text into something that it is not. Regardless, what is undeniable is that ancient writers tended to exaggerate historical events, especially in military victory. I find that our consciences can rest at ease knowing, although these events are described in such horrific terms, they likely did not occur as horrifically as we interpret the text.
(4) Rethink our understanding of violence. The final view challenges our understanding of the ethics of violence, particularly divine violence. The crucial question is, does God have morally sufficient reasons for commanding and orchestrating violence? I argue that he does.
As the Creator of the cosmos, does God not have the right to freely give and freely take life? As Job 1:21 says, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised.” After God rebuked Job for speaking out against Him on account of the horrific suffering he endured, Job concluded, “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know” (Job 42:3). In this first approach, the morally sufficient reason is God’s sovereignty.
Second, recognize the deep sinfulness of man. Ancient cultures fervently engaged in extensive sexual immoralities and idolatry to varying degrees. Instances of divine violence are therefore demonstrations of divine judgment; they are not unprovoked grudges. Divine judgment oftentimes connects with the fulfillment of God’s promises to the people of Israel, showing Him to be a faithful God, and the separation of Israel from pagan religions, showing Him to be a loving Father. Furthermore God is known to have given objects of divine judgment time to repent (Gen 15:16; Rahab; Jericho; Nineveh)—a display of mercy. It seems God is well within his rights as Maker and Judge to dictate when and how He imposes judgement. Let us not forget that God judged Israel too, which shows His impartiality. Lastly, do not think that judgment is unique to the Old Testament, for Christ Himself will judge (Jn 5:22, 9:39; 2 Cor 5:10; Mt 25:41,46). After considering these points, I would argue that just judgment provides a morally sufficient reason for enacting violence, and thus, divine violence should not be thought of as unethical.
To summarize, I believe the third and fourth views can be intertwined to satisfactorily respond to divine violence. When we consider that the violent events recorded in the Old Testament are likely exaggerated or hyperbolic in some respect, it deflates our emotional and intellectual concerns. Coupled with God’s morally sufficient reasons for commanding or orchestrating violent acts, the Old Testament can be read with a clear conscience. I would encourage the reader to reflect on these views as they encounter violence in the Bible.
Comments