Killing the innocent (2)
There are non-believers and non-believers just as there are people that call themselves Christians and those that call themselves Christians. Shaped and graced by God some non-believers are willing to give the Bible a fair hearing and that’s the best we can and should expect for now. (Though they have no commitment to God he has a commitment to them—compare Isaiah 45:1-4.) Some non-believers couldn’t care less and just like to hear themselves talk. Some of us that profess faith are tarred with the same brush. This kind of people is all mouth, we have moral opinions on a million things we haven’t bothered to reflect on.
The Hebrew word herem is often rendered "devoted" ("put under the ban", NEB) and it means that the thing under consideration (person, possessions or a people) is withdrawn from normal profane use. It comes exclusively under God’s direction. It’s often used in a war setting but in passages like Deuteronomy 7, 13, 20 and Leviticus 27:28-29 where God introduces this, we’re dealing with exceptional cases. In some cases all the inhabitants were "devoted" to destruction (Leviticus 28:29) and what couldn’t be destroyed (gold and silver, for example) was given to the Lord to deal with as he saw fit. Battles were not normally conducted to exterminate. You can see this by reading biblical texts and seeing that strict laws were laid out on how warfare was to be conducted (a sort of Geneva Convention millennia ahead of its time). For example Israel was forbidden to deforest an area or to abuse prisoners. All this you can read for yourself. But I mention it to make the point that strict rules of warfare sat alongside some awful acts of judgement (the ban). And bear in mind that the ban was an act of judgement by God. (It would take us too far afield to discuss exceptions to the ban, like Rahab and her family.)
Yes, but isn’t that the very point? What right has God to punish innocent children? But God does not punish innocent children! There is no suggestion in any of these texts that God called for or carried out the punishment of innocent children. That he put them to grief and had them killed is not the same as punishing them, because the Bible insists that God does not punish the innocent nor does he approve of it. Punishment is aimed at the guilty and the innocent children are not guilty! Joshua’s slaying of innocent children is not vicious cruelty, bitter vengefulness, gleeful sadism or "punishment". He carries out the will of God and that will stands or falls with God’s character and purposes. For some more discussion on this clickhere.
But what difference does it make to the little children that are killed whether they are being punished or simply being killed—they suffer the same fate. Well, the children may not be able to tell the difference but that doesn’t mean there is none. The difference between "punishment" and "suffering" is the difference between day and night. Children that suffer when a criminal parent is jailed are not being punished even though they hurt terribly just the same. See the further discussion elsewhere.
Moving on, look, what if there is such a thing as "sin" and what if it is a monstrous force/power/influence that threatens the entire human race, and even now ravages the entire human race? Many non-believers impatiently dismiss such talk but what if it’s true nonetheless? What if Jesus Christ really does underscore that truth? And what if the ban was one expression of God’s dealing with sin in a special way at a special time and under special circumstances for redeeming purposes?
A world of licentious and cruel idolatry, a world that worshiped gods that served only their lusts and pleasures and used humans only to glut their evil natures faced incoming Israel. (I dounderstand that gods didn’t exist and that they were the projections of morally skewed and crippled minds—but Canaan was absorbed with idolatry.) God took the view that these nations had forfeited the right to go on influencing the world and used Israel to carry out capital punishment. We might not agree with God’s assessment or his way of dealing with them. We might wonder if he was so concerned back then why he isn’t as concerned now. Maybe we don’t know as much as we think about what God is doing right now. We do understand that there are times when reasonable and patient people have taken the lives of serial killers. Whether we hold to capital punishment or not is another question but we need to admit that not all advocates of capital punishment are rabid or deranged beings. But in additional to all that, maybe there is more to the existential moment when God called for the ban than we’re able or willing to allow. Israel was always susceptible to wicked and unclean idolatry and the ban had a purpose to serve there also. Israel was to bring light and salvation to the entire world and their national origins took that into account.
I do understand that non-believers will not accept the notion of "sin" but what if is exists and is as cosmically destructive as the Scriptures teach it is? Accept that as true for the moment and see if it doesn’t make a difference as to how we view the biblical narrative. If we are going to sit in judgement on a biblical matter it won’t do to rip it out of its setting and test it in some foreign context.
Ask yourself this. What kind of book keeps a record of its leading character calling for the slaying of children? What kind of God would call for the killing of innocent children? Good question. What kind of God would call for the killing of witches? What kind of God would call for the killing of adulterers and sons and daughters who insist on making havoc of the home? What kind of God would call for the killing of anyone?
Well, we can understand him calling for the killing of murderers but the killing of innocent children? Yes, but why did he call for the killing of witches and rebellious kids and idolaters? We would expect some moral justification for the killing of anyone (even a developing human that’s in the womb?). In wartime, decisions are made and those who make them know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are going to be killing innocent people, including children. Yes, but these are the casualties of war; they aren’t viewed as enemies. [I'm not justifying war at this point; I'm simply saying that even those who engage in wat know the difference between "enemies" and "innocent bystanders". Do you think God thought babies were enemies when he put certain cities at certain times and under certain circumstances under the ban? Are we think God is do stupid that he doesn't know what we know? I know it can be difficult but even non-believers must credit to God (presuming there is one) some moral sensitivity if they are going to give the biblical witness a fair hearing. Remember, it's the Bible that tells us of these things so there must be more in it all than meets the eye. Think noble things of God, even if it's only for the sake of arguiment.
But the "ban" isn't the only difficulty believers face, you understand! What do we do with scores of texts where God says he sent drought and famine and pestilence on a nation? Do we think it’s easier to explain Joshua 6:21 and Deuteronomy 7:2-5 than Amos 4 or Habakkuk 1 or Jeremiah 4? Does it make any difference if God kills a child with a sword thrust or with thirst? Before we attempt to convince non-believers that God isn’t evil when he takes the life of an innocent child we need to persuade ourselves that he isn’t evil when he does that.
Believers bob and weave all over the place to try and get God out of the trouble they think he's in when he slays children and/or upright people. It's no surprise that non-believers criticize the biblical God in this realm when believers have their doubts about him when it comes to the death of innocents. The truth is, when it comes to personal statistics I come across more protest from non-believing believers than non-believers. But if we believers stumble at Joshua 6 we should fall flat on our faces at Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 33, Ezekiel 9 and the book of Nahum.
No comments:
Post a Comment