You Asked: What about Violence in the Old Testament?

As a part of the Unbelievable series, we have made a way for listeners to text in questions concerning the sermon. Here is an abbreviated version of a question that we received regarding last week’s sermon:

What about violence and genocide in the Old Testament? There have been many instances of Israelites being commanded by God to kill people and cities… If these instances happened outside of the Bible they would be condemned the same way that the Crusades and Inquisition are. However, since they happened in the Bible, how are they justified? And if they are justified, how are the Crusades not?

This is a reasonable question. At first glance, there does seem to be an inconsistency between the observed actions of God in the Old Testament and the use of Scripture to condemn such acts as the Crusades. A cursory reading of the Old Testament will show many instances where God uses violence (directly or through an agent) against others. Why is this permissible? What makes God’s actions different than that of the Crusaders? I want to consider 3 reasons why the actions of the Crusaders are different than actions of God in the Old Testament:

1. The Crusaders are not God. In instances where God Himself inflicts violence on the earth (e.g. the flood, the plagues, etc.), we must affirm that He is rightly able to do so because God does not live according to the same parameters as us. Simply put, the rules that apply to us do not always apply to God. For example, God tells us not to steal. However, such a rule is not applicable to God since He owns everything. God is not able to “steal” something that already belongs to Him. Similarly, God tells us not to murder, and yet He is more than able to take life. Why? Because He is the Creator. His unique identity as Creator allows Him to bring an end to anything He has created, even for reasons beyond our understanding or knowledge. Thus, if God wills for a life to end, it is not beyond Him to do so. He simply is acting on an ability that is reserved for Him. It is also not hypocritical for Him to instruct us in one way while acting in another. No one would call me hypocritical for telling my daughter not to walk on the street while I do so myself. One would call that good parenting. Our distinct identities and abilities as father and daughter make such an enforcement not only right but good. God is no different. The Crusaders are not God. Their distinct identities as God and creation means that He is permitted to do things they cannot. And because He is without sin, we can trust that His actions are always right and good. Though God can take life, man cannot. The Crusaders sought to do things that were reserved for God alone.
2. The Crusaders didn’t belong to a theocracy. It’s one thing for God to directly cause destruction, it’s another when He uses a human to do so. For example, in the Scriptures, God uses Joshua to wipe out the Caananites. He commands Joshua to enter into the Promised Land and to kill anything that has breath. How is this different than the Crusaders? Are they not also claiming to be directed by God in their actions? Though it looks similar on the surface, the circumstances are not the same. A primary difference is that Joshua and the Israelites belonged to a theocracy. God was the immediate King over Israel. He not only ruled over them spiritually, but also as a nation. As King, God used Israel as His instrument to pronounce judgment over the world at that time. It was right for Joshua to obey the instruction of the Lord because God was his King, his Commander-in-Chief. However, God’s reign as King over the Israelites came to an end. There no longer exists a nation with borders ruled by God or one that He uses to pronounce judgment. With the arrival of the Church, God’s rule had no national, political or ethnic dimensions to it. Instead, the Church includes all people from everywhere. As such, the source of our beliefs and actions as Christians is not through ongoing, direct revelation from God, but through His final revelation in Jesus.
3. The Crusaders disobeyed God’s Word. The Crusades represent a collective disobedience to to God’s Word, not adherence to it. Christ’s teaching inform us that we don’t kill in order to spread the gospel, instead we are to die in order that the gospel would be spread. Much in the Bible would have to be overlooked by the Crusaders to justify their actions. There has never been an instance where Jesus has instructed the advancement of the Kingdom through force or violence. Instead, the arrival of the Messiah as a Suffering Servant, reminds us that the Christian church is called to emulate and obey Christ by pursuing and sacrificially loving those who do not believe. The Crusaders were wicked in their actions because they failed to obey the King’s will for the Church, and instead sought to do what was right in their own eyes.

Much more can be said on this topic, but hopefully this provides some initial thoughts. Also, a sermon preached at Seven Mile Road on Joshua and the battles for Canaan can be foundhere.

Photo Credit: Chris Stickley via Compfight cc