A couple of years ago I was speaking at a church in Washington, D.C. The senior pastor there is Mark Dever. Some of you - at least the graybeards - will know him. He was in this country [England] for quite a number of years, and has been over on occasion.
After the service, he said to me, "Don, I want to introduce you to someone." So he dragged me to the back of the church, and there was a woman. I don't think she'd mind if I told you her name. Her name was Claudia. Claudia was managing editor of probably Washington, D.C.'s most prestigious political weekly. And when he introduced me, he said to Claudia, "Claudia, tell Don how you got converted."
"Oh yeah," she said, "I got converted six months ago."
"How did that happen?"
"Well, I really was one of your quintessential postmoderns. I mean, I really did believe, that in our thinking, we are the product of our social environment. Good and evil depends on your point of view. And that depends, not only on your personal opinion, but also on the social construct, the individual interpretative community that you inhabit. Even something like the Holocaust, at the end of the day, well, obviously those being burned in the ovens, it was not a very good thing. But to the Aryan supremacists, it was a very good thing. The only difficulty was it didn't work. It didn't go far enough. It wasn't accomplished. It all depends on your point of view, you see. Who's to say who's right or wrong in any fundamental sense. But Mark and Connie [Dever's wife] invited me to this inductive Bible study on [the Gospel of] Mark. Because I liked texts, and I didn't know anything about the Bible, I thought I'd go along. I didn't believe any of it, but it was interesting."
And during the midst of this, she was posted for political reasons to Papua New Guinea, because of what was going on there. Toward the end of that stay, she discovered the story of a priest who had been arrested just about as he was to leave after 35 years of missionary service in PNG. Arrested for pedophilia. And it transpired, as she tracked the story, that he had sodomized something like 200 boys during the 35 years that he had been missionary in PNG.
And somehow this story got under her skin. It really troubled her whenever she started to think whether they'd ever have stable marriages, the fact that most abusers were themselves abused, what would they do, and when you think of the relationships, lack of trust, and what it might mean for Christian families down the road. It just got under her skin. And she came back, and told Mark about it.
Mark smiled and said, "Claudia, was it wicked?"
Claudia replied, "Mark, come on. We all know that in most cases where you have this sort of abuse, the abuser himself has been abused. Probably he himself is as much a victim as anything."
Mark replied, "Well, that's probably true. But the Bible says as much. 'The wrath of God is visited on the third and fourth generation of those who despise me.' The Bible insists that sin is social. There's very little sin that's purely private. The ramifications affect everybody. But that's not the question. The question is, 'Was it wicked?'"
And every time he saw her, he asked her the same question. "Hi, Claudia. Nice to see you. Was it wicked?" She'd come in the door for the Bible study in the evening. "Welcome, Claudia. Next chapter in Mark. Was it wicked?" Every time he saw her, "Was it wicked?".
It got under skin. She was losing sleep. She couldn't integrate this into her postmodern epistemology. She didn't know what to do with it. She woke up one night unable to sleep, getting angrier and angrier, and fussier and fussier, and finally she said, "This was wicked! This was wicked! This was evil!"
And then it dawned on her. If she had a category for wickedness, maybe she was wicked too.
And within weeks she had become a Christian.
Pages
▼
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Was it wicked?
From D.A. Carson:
Sure, religion and Christianity provide a framework to begin talking about morality, but it doesn't resolve the question of absolute moral boundaries (defining good and evil actions) because Scripture itself is unclear.
ReplyDeleteExample: it's a evil to take the lives of others who "unjustly". We call it murder.
However, in 1 Samuel 15:3 God instructs His people to attack the Amalekites and destroy their animals as well as their "children and infants". Isaiah provides a prophecy about Babylon, saying that God Himself will see to it that the Babylonians will fall by the sword and their "infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes". Similar destruction and pillaging occurred in the taking of Jericho.
Now, in an era where smart bombs were not available to leave large trails of carnage everywhere, one could easily avoid these sorts of casualties in wartime (and our American military takes great pains to avoid them).
Yet, here, it seems that murder was not just NOT condemned, but even commanded on numerous occasions.
So, on such a basic issue of morality as murder seems to be, Scripture can't even provide a consistent message, unless it's perhaps "don't kill unless commanded otherwise". If the latter's the case, how is a modern believer not certain that the Holy Spirit isn't prompting him or her to do just that?
Robert,
ReplyDeleteYou're missing an important premise that I'd like to see you argue for.
You have
1. Murder is the unjust (unlawful) taking of life.
2. God commanded the Israelities to kill the Amalekites.
But you have a hidden premise that you've left unstated. That is:
2a. God's command for Israel to kill the Amalekites was a command to murder them, i.e., take their lives unjustly.
Can you perhaps provide an argument for (2.a.)? It is, after all, the most important premise your argument needs to go through.
Paul, although certain cases might be made for mass casualties in times of war, I'm not sure how it can be considered "just" to deliberately target civilians, and infant civilians at that.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of God's law can an infant violate that would make them worthy of a brutal death at the end of a sword?
Sure, all are "guilty" before God, but if that's so, God's law to not commit murder is moot because "everyone" is guilty and worthy of death by such means. I could go next door and stick a knife into the chest of our neighbor's child and technically, it wouldn't be in violation of God's moral law if one's going to argue that the Amalekite infants were guilty.
This is why I suggest Scripture is not real helpful when it comes to issues of morality: the moral laws can be suspended at any time for reasons unknown. God may have His "reasons", but He doesn't seem to care to share the reasons why, but rather we should be on the lookout for any command He gives that flies in the face of everything He's already told us.
"And then it dawned on her. If she had a category for wickedness, maybe she was wicked too.
ReplyDeleteAnd within weeks she had become a Christian."
That's my favorite part of the story.
Thanks for posting this Patrick.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteSo I take it that you don't have an argument for your crucial premise except to wax incredulous.
Sure, all are "guilty" before God, but if that's so, God's law to not commit murder is moot because "everyone" is guilty and worthy of death by such means. I could go next door and stick a knife into the chest of our neighbor's child and technically, it wouldn't be in violation of God's moral law if one's going to argue that the Amalekite infants were guilty.
That reasoning is about as bad as saying that since all murderers are judged guilty, then any person whoever, regardless of lawful authorization, can walk up to them in jail and shank them.
To add to what Paul has said, I'd like to know how Robert avoids the alleged problem he sets forth when he writes:
ReplyDelete"This is why I suggest Scripture is not real helpful when it comes to issues of morality: the moral laws can be suspended at any time for reasons unknown. God may have His 'reasons', but He doesn't seem to care to share the reasons why, but rather we should be on the lookout for any command He gives that flies in the face of everything He's already told us."
If you believe in any God, not just the God of Christian scripture, then that God may "have His reasons" that He doesn't explain to you. There's always potential for any God, not just Christianity's God, to command something that we don't understand. Does Robert only trust God if His reasons are known? Does he only trust other humans when their reasons are known? He never gives them the benefit of the doubt in a particular context because of their general trustworthiness? And since Robert refers to whether God "cares to share" His reasons, should we conclude that Robert's God does give Robert reasons for what He does? If so, Robert should give us some examples. Where has Robert's God communicated with him, and how can we verify that alleged communication? After all, Christians, including the Triablogue staff in particular, have argued in depth for their belief in the Divine inspiration of the Bible. Not only would Robert have to interact with such argumentation in order to justify his evaluation of Christianity, but he also ought to argue for his own understanding of God. Or, if he doesn't believe in the existence of any God, he should tell us where he gets his moral standards, like the ones he's applying to this discussion.
Maybe he'll claim that all he needs is to be able to think of a possible justification for his God to do what He does. Why, then, did he suggest that the Christian God should "care to share"? Thinking up possible justifications for God's actions isn't the same as God's "caring to share". And thinking of possible justifications for what God commanded in 1 Samuel 15, for example, isn't difficult. Perhaps more lives would be saved over the long run by making an example of the Amalekites. Perhaps allowing portions of the society to remain, such as children, would do more harm than good over the long term, since it would extend the memory of that society and its corruptions or would result in a future return of that society, for example. After all, 1 Samuel 15 even refers to the destruction of animals, so a desire for vengeance against human enemies doesn't seem to be all that's involved. Etc. Christians have addressed such issues many times, and Robert shows no knowledge of such discussions and makes no effort to interact with the relevant arguments.
Jason asks: "Does Robert only trust God if His reasons are known?"
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit confused by your question.
Do you mean:
a) do I trust God as He's revealed Himself in His word?
or
b) do I trust God as He reveals Himself to us today?
If the latter, the problem is that I don't claim to know infallibly what God's will is, and I don't trust anyone who says they do (Pope or otherwise).
If all I knew about my neighbor was that he was a devoted father and charitable man, you'd better believe I'd want reasons for going and slaying him in the middle of the night, and I'd want some form of evidence that proved he was a direct and immediate threat to me and/or my family (such as showing up at my door at 2am with an ax). Otherwise, I'd assume that that "interior prompting" was from Satan, not God. For us, yes, known reasons are necessary.
Now, if it's the former, that's a little more problematic. Were the soldiers who deliberately took the lives of civilian infants in the Old Testament privy to some sort of information given to them by God? Maybe, but Scripture doesn't allude to it, and you seem to be saying that their knowledge and those reasons are irrelevant anyhow. God commanded it, therefore it was "right".
If that is the case, I must conclude that God communicates to us in a different manner than He did to people (everyone, not just the prophets) in the days of the Bible. He spoke to them "clearly", while to us He doesn't. I think all of Christendom would agree, because if an American soldier slew an Iraqi infant with a bayonet because He believed God told him to, no one would believe him. Why is that?
Is it the nature of the request, or the clarity with which it was supposedly given?
You've asked a number of questions, all of which deserve more than a sound bite, but I'm trying to hone in on what you mean.
1. God's word states "you shall not murder." But the word "murder" is the Hebrew word ratsakh which refers to unlawful or forbidden killing. But why does Robert think killing the Amalekites is unlawful or forbidden killing?
ReplyDelete2. From Gary North:
"What is murder, biblically speaking? It is the slaying of a human being by someone who has not been authorized to do so as a covenantal agent.
"A member of the military can lawfully kill a designated enemy during wartime. In Old Covenant Israel, the man eligible to serve in God's holy army had to pay blood money to the priesthood at the time of the army's numbering, just prior to battle (Ex. 30:12-16). This was atonement money (v. 16). So fearful is killing, even as a member of God's holy army, that God mandated a special payment. While we no longer are required to pay money to a priest, the implication is clear: killing is a very serious matter.
"A man can defend his household against an unauthorized criminal invader (Ex. 22:2-3). He is the head of his household: a covenantal office. This is not self-defense as such; it is the defense of a legitimate sphere of authority, the home, by one charged by God through the civil government to take defensive action. But this right is never said to be universal in the Bible; it is limited to the protection of one's family.
"A man can participate in the execution of a criminal convicted of a capital crime. 'At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you' (Deut. 17:6-7).
"In Old Covenant Israel, there was an office called the blood avenger, which was the same as the kinsman-redeemer. This was the man who was nearest of kin. When a man accidentally killed another, he had to flee to a designated city of refuge. If the blood avenger caught the suspect en route, or outside the walls of that city, he was authorized by civil law to execute the suspect (Num. 35). This office no longer exists because cities of refuge were an aspect only of Mosaic Israel.
"When a corporate crime was so great that God's negative sanctions threatened the entire nation, the state could authorize corporate executions. The example here is the national sin of the golden calf. The Levites' lawful slaying of the 3,000 men after the golden calf incident removed the corporate threat (Ex. 32:28). But they had specifically been called into action by Moses, the God-inspired head of the civil government. Moses deputized them prior to their judicial action.
"Under holy warfare conditions, a Mosaic priest was authorized to kill someone who was committing a moral infraction so great that it would have brought bloodguiltiness on the entire community. The primary example here is Phinehas' execution of the copulating couple during the war with Midian. The visible mark of the displeasure of God was the plague that had broken out immediately prior to Phinehas' action. This plague stopped after he executed the couple (Num. 25:6-14). The same was true of Samuel's execution of Agag: he was a prophet, and it took place under wartime conditions (I Sam. 15:33).
"The point is, in each case, the distinguishing mark of the right to execute an enemy of God was the holding of a covenantal office: military, head of household, witness, deputy, or wartime priest or prophet. That is, the authorization to execute a transgressor under the Mosaic covenant was ordained by God and revealed in His law."
3. David Payne comments:
ReplyDelete"As with ch. 13, the modern reader’s sympathy tends to lie with Saul, not because of his lies, but because he wanted to save a man’s life. It is important, therefore, to realize from the start that Saul had no humanitarian motives whatever - that is not the point at issue. The issue, as the biblical author sees it, is whether a king of Israel was willing or not to obey God’s instructions as given through a prophet. Obedience is the key virtue (22); but Saul had displayed arrogance (23). The livestock evidently attracted the greed of Saul’s troops, and no doubt of Saul too. It is less clear why Agag’s life was spared, but probably Saul saw some political or financial advantage in it, and hoped to negotiate a deal with other Amalekite groups.
"The Amalekites were old enemies of Israel (2), and their whole way of life was a threat to the Israelite people. They had some cities, but for the most part they were nomads, brutally raiding and plundering farms and livestock, especially on the southern borders of Israel. Their very existence was thus a permanent threat to Israel, and stern measures were essential and justified. The Amalekites were a wicked people (18).
"The command in God’s name to destroy the Amalekites totally (3) made use of what is called in English a ‘ban’, a custom practised occasionally both by Israel and its neighbours. This religious vow of total destruction was not frequently employed, not even during warfare, and there were always special reasons for its use. Notice how careful the Israelites were to make sure that another tribe, the Kenites, were not harmed along with the Amalekites (6). The fact that even livestock were included in the ‘ban’ shows that there was a sort of sacrificial aspect to it; in a sense, killing humans and animals was a way of handing them over to God. The people who were so wicked must be eliminated as a threat, and they and all their belongings were, by the ‘ban’, handed over to Yahweh. It was greed, not kindliness, which caused the ‘ban’ to be broken (9, 19)."
4. John Walton elaborates:
"The 'ban' is sometimes chosen as the English word to represent the concept of total destruction that is commanded here. Just as there were some types of sacrifices that belonged entirely to the Lord while others were shared by priest and offerer, so some plunder was set aside as belonging solely to the Lord. Just as the whole burnt offering was entirely consumed on the altar, so the ban mandated total destruction. Since the warfare was commanded by Yahweh and represented his judgment on Israel’s enemies, the Israelites were on a divine mission with Yahweh as their commander. Since it was his war, not theirs, and he was the victor, the spoil belonged to him. Although the divine warrior motif occurs throughout the ancient Near East, the herem concept is more limited - the only other occurrence of the term is in the Moabite Mesha inscription, but the idea of total destruction is also in the Hittite material. The best analogy for us to understand herem is to think in terms of radiation. A nuclear explosion would destroy many things and irradiate much more. The abhorrence and caution with which we would respond to that which has been irradiated is similar to what is expected of the Israelites regarding things under the ban. If radiation were personified, one could understand that once something was given over to it, it was irredeemable. It was this condition that Saul exposed himself to by not following the instructions for the ban. Although peoples outside the land were exempt from this, God had singled out the Amalekites for destruction because of their acts against God’s people (15:2)."
5. Finally, see Steve's comments here.
Robert wrote:
ReplyDelete"If all I knew about my neighbor was that he was a devoted father and charitable man, you'd better believe I'd want reasons for going and slaying him in the middle of the night, and I'd want some form of evidence that proved he was a direct and immediate threat to me and/or my family (such as showing up at my door at 2am with an ax). Otherwise, I'd assume that that 'interior prompting' was from Satan, not God. For us, yes, known reasons are necessary. Now, if it's the former, that's a little more problematic. Were the soldiers who deliberately took the lives of civilian infants in the Old Testament privy to some sort of information given to them by God? Maybe, but Scripture doesn't allude to it, and you seem to be saying that their knowledge and those reasons are irrelevant anyhow. God commanded it, therefore it was 'right'. If that is the case, I must conclude that God communicates to us in a different manner than He did to people (everyone, not just the prophets) in the days of the Bible. He spoke to them 'clearly', while to us He doesn't. I think all of Christendom would agree, because if an American soldier slew an Iraqi infant with a bayonet because He believed God told him to, no one would believe him. Why is that? Is it the nature of the request, or the clarity with which it was supposedly given? You've asked a number of questions, all of which deserve more than a sound bite, but I'm trying to hone in on what you mean."
There are some questions we asked you that you still haven't answered, and you could have answered them even if some of my comments were unclear to you. And I don't see what's supposedly unclear in what I wrote.
Nobody argued that we should assume that God has commanded something without sufficient evidence. And the Bible doesn't refer to an "interior prompting" as the means by which God commanded what He did in 1 Samuel 15. Rather, a message is delivered through a recognized prophet (1 Samuel 3:19-21), a prophet who had performed authenticating miracles in a context in which Israel had been receiving ongoing revelation accompanied by authentication for centuries. To compare such a situation to "interior promptings" and an American soldier who claims without evidence to have received communication from God is ridiculous.
If you want us to believe that the Israelites had no evidence of communication from God or that we have no evidence for the Divine inspiration of the Bible, then you'll have to argue for those positions rather than just asserting them. The Bible frequently refers to authenticating miracles and other forms of evidence, including specifically in the context of Samuel's ministry. And we today have evidence for the Divine inspiration of scripture. Neither we nor the ancient Israelites have had only "interior promptings" to go by, and our circumstances aren't comparable to those of the American soldier you describe.
Again, you suggested earlier that God should "care to share" His reasons for doing what He does. Many thousands of people die of starvation, in earthquakes, etc. every year. Has God given you His reasons for all such events? If not, do you believe in and trust God anyway? If you don't believe that there's a God, then where are you getting your moral standards?
To answer Jason's questions:
ReplyDelete"Does he only trust other humans when their reasons are known?"
It depends on what they're asking of me. If what they're asking contradicts my ideas of morality, then yes, I need reasons, even if they have a track record of honesty for many years. I honestly can't think of anyone for whom I would kill or steal without a reason, but then again, I can't think of anyone who would ask me to do such a thing.
"He never gives them the benefit of the doubt in a particular context because of their general trustworthiness?
Again, it depends what they're asking. If they're asking something I believe to be morally neutral, like driving somewhere to meet them for reasons unknown then sure, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If they're asking me to throw an infant in an oven, then the first question that pops into my mind is "why". Is this not reasonable?
"And since Robert refers to whether God 'cares to share' His reasons, should we conclude that Robert's God does give Robert reasons for what He does?"
If only He did! No, He doesn't share with me His reasons for what He's doing, but then again, I don't claim to know that this or that event is something He's actually "doing". Is the Haiti earthquake "His doing"? You may think so, but I don't necessarily see that. Short answer is that I don't see God interacting with the universe at the same minute level you do. He doesn't cause earthquakes, tsunamis and floods. He doesn't time traffic lights so someone can get to their destination quicker. He doesn't find people parking spaces. Does this mean I don't think He's omnipotent? No. He could theoretically do anything. However, when I look around, if everything I see is "His doing", what sort of conclusions should I draw about Him? Even the Bible seems to allude to Satan's power over this world (2 Corinthians 4:4, John 12:31). The evidence seems to bear that out, don't you think?
Robert,
ReplyDeleteWhile you have shifted topics a bit throughout this thread, I think I've got the core aspect of your dilemma: you don't trust the God of the Bible. You trust yourself to come up with proper moral judgments, and when they conflict with what you see in Scripture, you opt to remain with your own moral concepts.
In terms of strict argument, there's nothing wrong with doing that; you're just saddled with having to justify your moral position without using Scripture. Thus, I could counter your entire argument by going on the offensive and simply asking you "How do you justify the premise that murder is wrong in the first place, such that you could say God is guilty of it?"
If you instead wish to pursue an internal critique and claim a self-contradiction within Scripture, then you must submit to Scripture's definitions of the terms (and others have already pointed out how there is no internal contradiction here--the contradiction is between Scripture's definitions and *your* definitions, which means you really are stuck with an external critique and you must justify your position too).
In any case, one thing that I would like to help clarify in defense of Scripture, is based on what you ask here:
---
However, when I look around, if everything I see is "His doing", what sort of conclusions should I draw about Him?
---
This depends a great deal upon how long you observe God. Consider a chess analogy. It may look like a player is giving up a lot of material on the board such that you think him a poor player, until the trap is complete and you've lost the game. Suddenly, the loss of material turns from something that is indicative of poor strategy to a brilliant sacrifice studied for years.
When Christ was executed on the cross, it looked like everything He stood for was a complete waste. If you stopped your observations before the third day, you'd never realize His ultimate triumph.
Christianity is an eschatological religion. Scripture never says that *THIS* (our current environment) is the end, but rather that it is the means to the end. Thus, Christianity is built on the premise that in the end, everything will make sense. And, since I hold to the greater good defense, I also believe that on that Day we'll at least start to see how much *better* God's triumph is than it would have been otherwise (although given our finite limitations, we may never fully comprehend it).
Thus, it boils down to this. God says "trust me" and I do. You, however, apparently don't.
Peter writes: "I also believe that on that Day we'll at least start to see how much *better* God's triumph is than it would have been otherwise"
ReplyDeleteI think implicit in your statements is that there *must* be a superior good over any apparent evil commanded by God even if it's never revealed in our lives what that greater good is. Therein lies the essence of your faith.
Am I correct in that? If so, I think it's a respectable enough position if it's held in regards to one's own personal tragedies. I can see instances where an apparent suffering ended up becoming an opportunity for personal virtue in a person's life, for example.
I think caution is necessary here, though.
I think it's one thing to say that a personal tragedy brought about an opportunity for increased virtue or faith for oneself. It's quite another to be grateful for the imposition of avoidable suffering on others because it may have brought some gain to oneself.
ROBERT SAID:
ReplyDelete"I think it's one thing to say that a personal tragedy brought about an opportunity for increased virtue or faith for oneself. It's quite another to be grateful for the imposition of avoidable suffering on others because it may have brought some gain to oneself."
Among other things, this objection assumes that living under pagan depravity in the ANE wasn't already a condition of suffering.
Robert still hasn't justified his suggestion that what God commanded in 1 Samuel 15 is wrong. Rather, he keeps telling us what he believes without justifying those beliefs. He keeps bringing up analogies that aren't analogous, like killing "a devoted father and charitable man" based on an "interior prompting". The issues are whether a commandment such as we see in 1 Samuel 15 can be consistent with God's character and whether it's probable that the commandment of that passage came from God. Robert hasn't directly addressed either issue. In contrast, we've discussed some possible reasons why God would command such a thing consistent with His character, and we've argued in depth for the Divine inspiration of scripture, which includes 1 Samuel 15.
ReplyDeleteRobert writes:
"No, He doesn't share with me His reasons for what He's doing, but then again, I don't claim to know that this or that event is something He's actually 'doing'. Is the Haiti earthquake 'His doing'? You may think so, but I don't necessarily see that. Short answer is that I don't see God interacting with the universe at the same minute level you do. He doesn't cause earthquakes, tsunamis and floods. He doesn't time traffic lights so someone can get to their destination quicker. He doesn't find people parking spaces. Does this mean I don't think He's omnipotent? No. He could theoretically do anything."
Why did God create one universe rather than another, given that He knew what would result? Has He explained to you why He doesn't prevent starvation, earthquakes, and such or why He hasn't done more to lessen the negative results of those things? If there is a God, then He's made many moral decisions that He hasn't explained to you, including on matters where what He's done could be interpreted as evil. A rape, murder, or theft could be allowed to occur for good or bad reasons. Theists in general, not just Christians, frequently trust God without knowing the reasons behind His moral judgments.
It's easier to think up scenarios in which you wouldn't trust another human, especially if the scenario involves something that seems highly unlikely to be justified ("throwing an infant in an oven", etc.). But it's more difficult to dismiss the trustworthiness of God, particularly given His right to end any life at any point in time and His freedom from human corruption and human motives.
Part of the problem here seems to be that you've dismissed without sufficient reason the explanation for God's action that 1 Samuel 15:2 gives us. Even if we assume your assertion of the innocence of infants in every sense (assuming their innocence in only one context wouldn't be enough to lead to your conclusion), we would still have to ask whether the infants in 1 Samuel 15 are being killed as a punishment to them. That's not what the text says. The animals mentioned in the passage aren't being killed for their own sins. Is it your position that God can't even end the life of an infant as a punishment to somebody else? God isn't free to take the life He gave?
God could have more than one reason for doing something, and He doesn't have to explain any or every reason to us. But even if we were to limit ourselves to the reason given in 1 Samuel 15:2, I don't see why such a reason, accompanied by evidence that the commandment came from God, wouldn't be sufficient to trust God in His giving of such a commandment.
Jason writes: "Robert still hasn't justified his suggestion that what God commanded in 1 Samuel 15 is wrong"
ReplyDeleteIf you go back to my original post, my intent was not to necessarily assign nefarious intentions to God but to highlight the moral ambiguity of Scripture and how it's not always helpful in defining the parameters of a moral action. As I stated, "it doesn't resolve the question of ... moral boundaries".
So okay, as you say, it's not always a moral evil to target civilian infants. Under what circumstances is it acceptable, then?
Say I'm an American soldier in Iraq. When is sticking a sword into a civilian infant not "murder", per se? Are such actions never permissible to those living under the New Covenant? Is it because God's not clearly speaking to us as He was in the days of the prophets?
Scripture doesn't help us here. It's okay in one instance, but not in another.
What marks the difference?
Robert,
ReplyDeleteLike Jason and Peter have already noted, you're bouncing back and forth between a couple of different things:
1. At first, it sounded like you were taking issue with 1 Sam 15. If that's the case, then we have to exegete 1 Sam 15. For starters, we have to look at 1 Sam 15 as the original author intended the original audience to understand it. Pursuant to this, I quoted some OT exegetes commenting on the passage above.
2. Then I thought you were asking about Biblical morality and ethics. Particularly in regard to war. Again, if this is the case, we have to look at the historical and cultural background of the ANE. And we have to look at what the Bible teaches on the topic. In this respect, I referred you to Steve's post dealing with Deut 20 which is often regarded as the locus for this question.
3. Next you seemed to be asking about how God can allow suffering and evil in the world. Jason and Peter have made some poignant remarks to you about this already. You could also read other posts here on Tblog about the topic. Just poke around or do a search. Or we could recommend good articles and books for you as well.
4. Also, you seem to have a sub-question or two about other issues such as the perspecuity of Scripture, the charismata (e.g. whether God continues to speak to us today in the same way he spoke to the ancient prophets), and the relation of the OT to the NT. Each of these would take quite a considerable amount of time for us to work through with you. It'd probably be more beneficial to you to read a good book on these. I'm sure others can recommend good articles or books if that's what you're asking.
5. I think your latest comment jumbles these issues together (again).
In my opinion, I think you'd do well to re-read Jason, Peter, and Steve's comments to you. And I think you'd do well to look at the comments I've made above. Not at all because they're my comments but rather because I quote some at least thought-provoking words from folks like Gary North and John Walton, and also refer you to a good post Steve wrote on the ethics of a war a few years back. I think these would help you.
So okay, as you say, it's not always a moral evil to target civilian infants. Under what circumstances is it acceptable, then?
Say I'm an American soldier in Iraq. When is sticking a sword into a civilian infant not "murder", per se? Are such actions never permissible to those living under the New Covenant? Is it because God's not clearly speaking to us as He was in the days of the prophets?
Scripture doesn't help us here. It's okay in one instance, but not in another.
What marks the difference?
For one thing, your example assumes the American military is under God's rule in the same sense that ancient Israel was. But this isn't the case. God hasn't made a covenant with America in the same way he has made a covenant with ancient Israel.
For another thing, Christians today likewise aren't a theocratic nation like ancient Israel was. For instance, we don't have a physical land to call our home and to defend against foreign nations.
Robert wrote:
ReplyDelete"If you go back to my original post, my intent was not to necessarily assign nefarious intentions to God but to highlight the moral ambiguity of Scripture and how it's not always helpful in defining the parameters of a moral action. As I stated, 'it doesn't resolve the question of ... moral boundaries'."
In your first post in this thread, you wrote:
"Example: it's a evil to take the lives of others who 'unjustly'. We call it murder....Yet, here [in 1 Samuel 15], it seems that murder was not just NOT condemned, but even commanded on numerous occasions."
And in your second post, you wrote:
"Paul, although certain cases might be made for mass casualties in times of war, I'm not sure how it can be considered 'just' to deliberately target civilians, and infant civilians at that....God may have His 'reasons', but He doesn't seem to care to share the reasons why, but rather we should be on the lookout for any command He gives that flies in the face of everything He's already told us."
You said that 1 Samuel 15 seems to involve murder, which you defined as unjust killing. You still haven't justified that claim. And you suggested that the passage "flies in the face of everything He's already told us". You haven't justified that claim either. And claims like those don't just suggest ambiguity on the part of scripture. Rather, they suggest that scripture is contradictory and evil.
And while you initially said that "I'm not sure how it can be considered 'just' to deliberately target civilians", you now say "okay, as you say, it's not always a moral evil to target civilian infants". If you were making the latter statement in agreement with me, then you've changed your position. If you were making that statement only for the sake of argument, then agreeing with me for the sake of argument doesn't justify your initial claim. I've argued for my position. Where's your argument for yours?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Say I'm an American soldier in Iraq. When is sticking a sword into a civilian infant not 'murder', per se? Are such actions never permissible to those living under the New Covenant? Is it because God's not clearly speaking to us as He was in the days of the prophets? Scripture doesn't help us here. It's okay in one instance, but not in another. What marks the difference?"
You're asking questions that have already been answered, and you keep failing to interact with the answers already given. See what we said above about God's freedom to take life, having evidence that a commandment came from God, trusting God when we don't know His reasons, etc. Even without a commandment from God, it's not difficult to think of scenarios in which taking the life of an infant or somebody else who's relatively innocent would be justified. If destroying a facility that manufactures a particular product would save millions of lives, but an innocent janitor is in the building at the only time when the building could be destroyed, then taking the life of the janitor could be justified. We often have to make such choices.
Your question "What marks the difference?", accompanied by "Scripture doesn't help us here", doesn't make sense in light of what 1 Samuel 15 tells us. The passage mentions God and a message from Him. It also mentions a prophet whose reliability had been publicly demonstrated (1 Samuel 3:19-21). You don't think the involvement of God and authentication of a message from Him "help" us and "mark a difference"? Would you put an instance involving an American soldier in Iraq who claims to have followed an "interior prompting" (to use the language of your earlier example) in the same category as 1 Samuel 15? That's irrational.
And the same sort of questions you're asking us could be asked of you. You keep ignoring those questions when they're applied to your own belief system. We could ask you "what marks the difference" when you trust God without knowing His reasons with regard to why He created this universe rather than another one, why He allowed the recent earthquake in Haiti, etc. You keep making demands of other belief systems that you don't make of your own.
Robert said:
ReplyDelete---
I think it's one thing to say that a personal tragedy brought about an opportunity for increased virtue or faith for oneself. It's quite another to be grateful for the imposition of avoidable suffering on others because it may have brought some gain to oneself.
---
That's not what I was getting at. My point is that a greater good will result because of the evil actions than would have attained without them, regardless of how they affect any particular person individually--including myself. That is, the worst possible things imaginable could occur to me such that it definitely does not help *ME* in the least and in no way could I ever possibly think that *my* circumstances are better than they would have been; yet, the ultimate end for *everything* is better off than it would have been otherwise.
In short, the whole is greater than the parts. To give some very loose analogies: a NASCAR driver may blow up his engine fifty feet from the finish line, completely destroying his car but winning the race by coasting across the line first, instead of pitting on the final lap to keep the car repaired and finishing tenth. The evil of losing the car engine and having to rebuild it is far outweighed by the good of winning the race and getting more sponsorship money, etc.
Likewise, there are people who exist on the earth right now who were begotten due to rape or incest. Their origins were from an act of evil that was in no way good for the woman; yet for the one who would not otherwise exist, it is better that this evil did occur than that it had not occurred, since to exist is better than non-existence.
Similarly, there are people who have married widowers, who then have children who would not have existed had the original wife not passed away. There are children who are killed in car accidents at the age of five years who never grew up to become Ted Bundy. Their death at 5 was evil, yet it prevented a greater evil from occurring.
The examples could be multiplied, of course. And human beings are limited in the sense that we do not know what the alternate futures/histories would/would have produced. But Christians trust that God does that which is the most good, for His purposes.
And since ultimately it's for His purposes, that which happens for the most good need not necessarily mean the most good for *us* as particular humans--although for Christians, He has promised to make us heirs and therefore Christians do have His word that the ultimate end for Christians will likewise be good.
Jason writes: "You don't think the involvement of God and authentication of a message from Him "help" us and "mark a difference"?"
ReplyDeleteLet me try this once more and I'll let you all have the last word, although I really don't think I'm being that obtuse.
The fact that God commanded the infant slaughter in Samuel may indeed indicate that the act was moral (for the sake of argument).
The problem is that because the mitigating circumstances were not revealed in terms of what made it moral (beyond the fact that God commanded it), we cannot derive a moral framework to determine when He may be commanding
similar actions today.
I can't really put it any simpler.
Now, you asked how I derive a system of ethics. It's a fair question. I could answer, but the difference is that I'm aware it's a fallible approach to these things so I'm not sure how useful it would be.
Robert said:
ReplyDeleteThe fact that God commanded the infant slaughter in Samuel may indeed indicate that the act was moral (for the sake of argument).
The problem is that because the mitigating circumstances were not revealed in terms of what made it moral (beyond the fact that God commanded it), we cannot derive a moral framework to determine when He may be commanding similar actions today.
1. God says in 1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction [herem] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Herem is also seen in 1 Sam 15 vv 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, and 21. Thus, what's central in 1 Sam 15 is the concept of herem. Walt Kaiser explains what it is: "[A] distinctive Old Testament concept known as herem is present. It means 'curse,' 'that which stood under the ban' or 'that which was dedicated to destruction.' The root idea of this term was 'separation'; however, this situation was not the positive concept of sanctification in which someone or something was set aside for the service and glory of God. This was the opposite side of the same coin: to set aside or separate for destruction."
2. However, God doesn't command ancient Israel to execute herem on all peoples in the Bible. For example, in the very same passage where God commands Saul to execute herem on the Amalekites, he doesn't command them to execute herem on the Kenites (1 Sam 15:6). If not all or even most peoples in the Bible are to be given over to herem, I wonder what makes you think herem might be used to justify, say, an American Christian soldier killing an enemy's infant in a war? If God doesn't command herem on all or even most, then why assume God would command modern Christians to execute herem? In other words, why assume herem is more the rule than the exception, so to speak? Why assume God "may be commanding similar actions today" rather than "he probably isn't commanding similar actions today"?
3. What's more, I could be wrong but I think you might be proving too much. I mean even if it were possible for a Christian soldier to use herem to justify his act of killing a baby, then, unless you'd also allow he should devote himself to the destruction of the entire peoples of this infant as well as their animals, he wouldn't be carrying out herem and he'd thus displease God - just as King Saul displeased God when he didn't kill all the Amalekites but spared King Agag and the best of their animals. I could be wrong but I don't think you're suggesting the allowance of such an extreme in the argument.
4. On the one hand, we can agree God commanded herem which, as you say for the sake of argument, is moral. But on the other hand, we agree murder is immoral. However, as Paul pointed out to you in the first response to your original comment, and which unfortunately I don't think you've adequately responded to: "But you have a hidden premise that you've left unstated. That is: 2a. God's command for Israel to kill the Amalekites was a command to murder them, i.e., take their lives unjustly." Why do you think this is so? Why do you think herem amounts to murder?
Of course, I agree there are other questions we can ask. But since I don't think you've adequately addressed these foundational questions, I don't see how we can really move much further ahead.
BTW, Robert, although it doesn't directly address your question, you might be interested in reading the following D.A. Carson article which attempts to offer six guidelines for determining "what parts of the Bible are binding mandates for us, and what parts are not?":
ReplyDelete1. As conscientiously as possible, seek the balance of Scripture, and avoid succumbing to historical and theological disjunctions.
2. Recognize that the antithetical nature of certain parts of the Bible, not least some of Jesus’ preaching, is a rhetorical device, not an absolute. The context must decide where this is the case.
3. Be cautious about absolutizing what is said or commanded only once.
4. Carefully examine the biblical rationale for any saying or command.
5. Carefully observe that the formal universality of proverbs and of proverbial sayings is only rarely an absolute universality. If proverbs are treated as statutes or case law, major interpretive and pastoral errors will inevitably ensue.
6. The application of some themes and subjects must be handled with special care, not only because of their intrinsic complexity, but also because of essential shifts in social structures between Biblical times and our own day.
Of course, you'll have to read the article for his explanation of each point.
Patrick, thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
ReplyDeleteYou did ask "Why do you think herem amounts to murder?"
I'll leave it with a quote from Dr. Charles Wellborn .
"Take, for example, the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, more accurately translated as “You shall do no murder.” The commandment clearly places an extremely high value on every individual human life. “Murder” can be defined as unjustified killing. Here, the application of the moral law takes on complexity. What actual circumstances “justify” the taking of human life? The answer to that question has been the subject of debate and disagreement through the centuries. Earnest Christian believers have looked at thorny issues such as the killing of enemies in wartime, capital punishment, abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and self-defense, all of which arguably involve the taking of life, and have reached widely different conclusions."
Hence, my original post.
If Scripture provided clarity regarding all of these issues, there wouldn't be so many divergent conclusions among earnest believers.
The fact that no one here can even answer whether plunging a sword into a newborn infant in wartime (an easily avoidable action) is technically "murder" or not simply underscores my point. (Wouldn't the more ethical thing be to take the infant as one's own? If not, how does one make categorical denunciations of abortion?)
"Is it wicked?"
Who the heck knows.
Next topic.
Robert said:
ReplyDeletePatrick, thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
No problem. I hope they're helpful though.
You did ask "Why do you think herem amounts to murder?"
I'll leave it with a quote from Dr. Charles Wellborn .
"Take, for example, the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, more accurately translated as “You shall do no murder.” The commandment clearly places an extremely high value on every individual human life. “Murder” can be defined as unjustified killing. Here, the application of the moral law takes on complexity. What actual circumstances “justify” the taking of human life? The answer to that question has been the subject of debate and disagreement through the centuries. Earnest Christian believers have looked at thorny issues such as the killing of enemies in wartime, capital punishment, abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and self-defense, all of which arguably involve the taking of life, and have reached widely different conclusions."
Hence, my original post.
Of course, Dr. Charles Wellborn's quote might explain your reason for asking the question in the first place, but it doesn't explain or answer why one thinks herem amounts to murder. That's one of the most foundational questions here.
If Scripture provided clarity regarding all of these issues, there wouldn't be so many divergent conclusions among earnest believers.
Hm, unfortunately, it sounds to me like this statement commits the logical fallacy of denying the consequent:
P1: If P, then Q.
P2: Not Q.
C: Therefore, not P.
P1: If Scripture provided clarity regarding the morality of warfare, then there wouldn't be so many divergent conclusions among earnest believers.
P2: There are many divergent conclusions among earnest believers.
C: Therefore, Scripture doesn't provide clarity regarding the morality of warfare.
But there could be many divergent conclusions amongst earnest believers for reasons which may not have anything to do with the morality and ethics of warfare, etc. For example, there could be many divergent conclusions because most believers don't know how to interpret the Bible well enough. I'm not necessarily saying this is the case here but I'm just offering a possible alternative explanation.
To take another example, a Catholic might argue along similar lines:
P1: If the Bible is perspicuous without the Magisterium, then there wouldn't be so many denominations.
P2: There are many denominations.
C: Therefore, it must mean the Bible is not perspicuous without the Magisterium.
The fact that no one here can even answer whether plunging a sword into a newborn infant in wartime (an easily avoidable action) is technically "murder" or not simply underscores my point.
ReplyDeleteWell, on the one hand, I acknowledge it's a difficult question. But on the other hand, I think we're coming into this with a lot of assumptions owing to things like the time and place we live in. That's one reason why I've been harping on what I've been harping on above.
Also, I say this respectfully, but I wonder if it's not a bit tendentious to ask the question the way you've asked it here and above (e.g. "whether plunging a sword into a newborn infant in wartime (an easily avoidable action) is technically 'murder' or not"). It is, after all, the very point of contention. It begs the very question at issue.
(Wouldn't the more ethical thing be to take the infant as one's own? If not, how does one make categorical denunciations of abortion?)
From some people's perspective, maybe it does seem like the more ethical thing to do. But from God's perspective - God who commanded herem - that's obviously not the case. After all, God judged Saul for sparing Agag and the best of the animals. Ultimately, however, when push comes to shove, given my finite, limited perspective - a perspective made more limited by the noetic effects of sin, my fallen, sinful nature, etc., I'll always defer to God. Again, ultimately I do trust God is simultaneously more just than I am as well as more merciful than I am.