As I write this article, it appears that Troy Davis will be executed within a few hours. He will join countless others, including Osama bin Laden, who have been killed legally. Chief among the many questions raised by such killings is whether -- and if so, how -- violence can serve as a legitimate instrument of justice. Contemporary debate about this question echoes the diverse and conflicting perspectives within biblical texts regarding the use of violence as a potential force for good. What, if anything, can these texts teach us today?
Attitudes in biblical texts regarding violence are complex and, at times, irreconcilable. In the Jewish Bible/Old Testament, God not only permits violence but also commands people to commit it (e.g., Deuteronomy 20). Even more troubling is the divinely sanctioned and ordered genocide (Deuteronomy 20). The breadth of this extermination (called the haram) is made clear when God's command to slaughter the Amalekites includes exterminating men, women, children, infants, oxen, sheep, camels and donkeys (1 Samuel 15:1-3; cf. 15:18-35).
One can rightly claim -- especially given Feuerbach and Durkheim -- that such texts reveal much less about God and much more about people and their tendency to legitimate violence by ascribing it to divine decrees. George Bernard Shaw said it well: "God created us in his image, and we decided to return the favor." This recognition does not, however, dismiss the ugly portrait of God in such texts nor the manifold ways in which people have sought to use such texts as warrants in their violence against others.
On the other hand, many Hebrew Bible texts either seek to limit or forbid violence. The Israelites are instructed to first offer terms of peace to any town against which they intend to fight (Deuteronomy 20:10). The psalmist declares that YHWH's soul "hates the lover of violence (hamas)" (Psalm 11:5). God forbids King David from building a temple since David has "shed much blood" and "waged great wars" (1 Chronicles 22:6-10).
The attitude toward violence in the Hebrew Bible thus appears schizophrenic. As in most cases, the Bible provides ammunition to people on both sides of the debate. The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) forbids killing (lo tirzah) (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), but the same Hebrew term (rzh) is used to describe capital punishment, an act permitted elsewhere in the Torah (Numbers 35:16, 17, 18, 19, 30). God is opposed to violence, but regularly punishes the violent with violence (e.g. Genenis 6:13; 9:6). God seems to use violence as an instrument of justice.
So too do other biblical characters. Moses' first act as an adult, as described in the Book of Exodus, is to kill:
"One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and saw their forced labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his kinsfolk. He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand" (Exodus 2:11-12).
It is unclear if Moses tried to kill the Egyptian, but it is clear that he was willing to injure him in order to protect a Hebrew slave, that his attack was premeditated and that he tried to conceal it -- both before and after the fact. Refusing to be neutral in this conflict, Moses sides with the vulnerable and acts violently against the oppressor. It is perhaps not a coincidence that God later calls Moses to enter a national conflict and (once again) side with the oppressed slaves and against the oppressive slave owners.
Ambiguity about the use of violence exists even within Jesus' life and teachings. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus forbids any form of violence. Rejecting lex talionis ("an eye for an eye"), he offers instead a law of loving the enemy, insisting that a person not resist an evildoer, but rather turn the other cheek, give one's garment away, go two miles and give to everyone who begs. Lex talionis, intended to minimize the cycle of escalating violence, fails for Jesus because it does not end the cycle.
The radical nature of Jesus' command to love the enemy is evident in its general neglect by most Christians. After Tony Campolo preached on this text the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001, a man from the church came up to him and declared, "This is not the time to be quoting Jesus!" In many cases such as this it is "progressive/liberal" Christians who are the true biblical literalists, and "conservative" Christians who interpret the Bible most liberally. In proscribing violence, Jesus gives no qualifiers, exceptions or caveats. It is not a coincidence that references to Jesus in Just War Theory are virtually nonexistent.
Jesus' sermon was a catalyst for Leo Tolstoy's critique of Russia's military and practice of capital punishment. In his religious autobiography, "A Confession" (1882), Tolstoy expresses horror over the use of violence by the Russian state in "the name of Christian love." Two years later (in "What I Believe") he describes his own conversion as the moment when he realized that when Jesus said "Resist not evil" (Matthew 5:39), Jesus actually meant what he said. Tolstoy delivered his fiercest critique in "The Kingdom of God Is Within You" (1894), a book banned in Russia for obvious reasons:
"We consider it the duty of every [person] who thinks war inconsistent with Christianity, meekly but firmly to refuse to serve in the army. ... If you believe that Christ forbade murder, pay no heed to the arguments nor to the commands of those who call on you to bear a hand in it."
Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly influenced both by "The Kingdom of God Is Within You" and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Gandhi notes, "I came to see that the Sermon on the Mount was the whole of Christianity for him who wanted to live a Christian life. It is that sermon that has endeared Jesus to me." For Gandhi, the
"message of Jesus ... is contained in the Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole. ... If then I had to face only the Sermon on the Mount and my own interpretation of it, I should not hesitate to say, 'Oh, yes, I am a Christian.' But negatively, I can tell you that in my humble opinion, what passes as Christianity is a negation of the Sermon on the Mount..."
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. found in Gandhi and the Sermon on the Mount concrete strategies for nonviolent resistance. King's nonviolent tactics are well known. Less familiar, since we celebrate only those aspects of heroes with which we're comfortable, is his consistent application of Jesus' teaching. On April 4, 1967 (one year to the day before to his death), King gave his Speech on Vietnam, outlining his opposition to the war. He pointed out the glaring hypocrisy in the American public (and press) who praised him when he promoted nonviolence among blacks in the inner cities, but "cursed and damned him" for demanding that his own government be "nonviolent towards little brown children in Vietnam."
New Testament scholar Richard Hays finds this anti-violence message not only in the Sermon on the Mount, but throughout the New Testament: "...from Matthew to Revelation we find a consistent witness against violence and a calling to the community to follow the example of Jesus in accepting suffering rather than inflicting it."
Yet, on (at least) one occasion Jesus did use physical violence. Mark's Gospel records this episode:
And after [Jesus] entered the temple, he began to cast out the ones selling and buying in the temple, and he destroyed the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of the ones selling doves, and he wasn't allowing anyone to carry goods through the temple. And he was teaching and saying to them: "Is it not written, 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples/nations'? 'But you have made it a den of bandits' (Mark 11:15-17).Discomfort about Jesus' violence here is evident in how later Gospel writers edit the story. Luke's version is quite tame compared to Mark; in the former, Jesus only does one thing: He drives out those who sold. He neither drives out those who bought, destroys tables and seats, nor prevents people from carrying things (cf. Luke 19:45). Luke may not describe Jesus' overturning of tables since the Greek word Mark uses (katastrefō) often means "destroy." The word is used at least 11 times in the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible (LXX) to describe God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Neither Matthew nor Luke portray Jesus physically "messing with people." But in Mark, Jesus "casts/throws" people out and prevents people from carrying anything. We are told neither how Jesus accomplishes this nor if he hurts or injures anyone in the process.
Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran? : NPR
The Bible and violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scholar compares violence in Koran, Bible - Articles of Faith ...
Troy Davis' execution 'ungodly' say pastors - Under God - The ...
As God’s son, Jesus had the right to inflict punishment as merited as he did at the temple. Jesus was a perfect man and did not sin while on earth so the action he took in the temple was correct. If his actins were incorrect it would have meant that he had sinned and his ransom would never been accepted by his father. Any injustice committed by man can and will be undone by God.
What is of more serious concern, however, is the fact that God’s war – Armageddon is still future where as described in Revelation 14:19, many will die because of their error: “And the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and he hurled it into the great winepress of the anger of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress as high up as the bridles of the horses, for a distance of a thousand six hundred furlongs.”
Human actions cannot be compared to God’s. To God belongs the life of every person on earth so God has the right to give and take life. The real issue involved here is whether humans acknowledge that God as sovereign over the earth has that right.
As sovereign, God deeded the right of tenure of the land in Canaan to Abraham’s seed by an oath-bound covenant – see Genesis 12:5-7. As such, God decreed, not just eviction for the Canaanites, capital punishment upon those found meriting it and He had the right to implement and enforce the execution of the decree.
That God was justified in destroying the Canaanites found full confirmation in the conditions that existed in that land. History bears out that fact. The Edomites, is an example of what happens to those who oppose God’s covenanted people and his will. By their vicious opposition the Canaanites forfeited title to the land it had held by divine warrant as shown in Joel 3:19 “As regards Egypt, a desolate waste it will become; and as regards Edom, a wilderness of desolate waste it will become, because of the violence to the sons of Judah, in whose land they shed innocent blood.”
The real issue is why we turn to a mythical figure and ask "do we acknowledge the primacy of that mythical figure? "
Ridiculous.
If clicking the links does not launch the blog, copying and pasting the URLs into the browser address bar might. In addition, Huffington Post comment post display appears to include extra hyphens in the text. These hyphens, if inserted into the URLs, might alter the URL and cause “Page Not Found” errors. Comparing the pasted URL with the original might reveal such occurrences. If the blog still does not launch, trying at a later point might achieve better results.
Anyway, not to believe in or not to acknowledge God as supreme is your choice and consequence.
We look at these things from our perspective and, no, they don't make sense. But this is a spiritual war with things going on we are not able to comprehend. Satan could not stop God's plan to provide a way for fallen man to be reconciled to God. Once Jesus paid the price for what we truly deserve, the attacks changed from defense to offense... now Satan infiltrates the church and corrupts it from within.
God's ways make no sense until seen from the spiritual aspect. But most just want to show why they should not be held accountable to God's word... no big surprise that the true meaning is rarely found.
"Satan could not stop God's plan to provide a way for fallen man to be reconciled to God?" Why doesn't God just stop Satan and put an end to it?
God's ways make no sense; period. Take a look at the hundreds of thousands of people that Joshua killed at the directive of God; men, women and children - even cows. Yet you place your faith and your dependence on a God that would sanction such murder and genocide. You blindly follow and don't question; that is no way to live.
Very true. I had the very same problems with a "loving God" not only allowing, but directing the killing of men, women, children, etc. If God was all powerful why, as you said, allow Satan to do such evil in the world. For this reason, and many others, I was on the verge of abandoning any belief in any god. I challenged God, told him that either He shows me why these things must be, or stop bothering me. Then, through various ways and different people He did show me.
I question, I never stop questioning. But He never stops answering. If anyone... and I mean ANYONE... really wants to know the truth and will seek it with both an open heart and open mind, the truth will be found. Unfortunately most people DON'T want to know the truth. Then they would be accountable for their actions... and that does not conform to our "it's not my fault' mentality.
When God first made everything, there were only two people on the planet so it was impossible for them to kill and commit violent acts before turning away from Him.
Up here in Canada we have had our share of confessed, depraved individuals, who very few would shed a tear for if they faced the death penalty. But for me those few individuals can rot in jail, rather than risk an innocent person being executed.
As for Ms. Davis's post about the pro/anti war debate, that question is more difficult. Indeed today what do we as citizens of the world do about the death of protesters in Syria and Yemen?
A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.
"Almost all the restrictions upon the beneficence of the law came not from the law itself, still less from the spirit of the law, but from the selfish turn which was given to it by the later Rabbis.
The law said, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour ;' 'Thou shalt hate thine enemy,' was an unauthorized addition.
'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' Did this authorize revenge? It was really the enforcement of equal justice, a legal preventative for the oppression which would have made light of the maiming of the poor and helpless.
The law of the cities of refuge recognized, no doubt, the blood feud; but it mitigated it.
The Hebrew laws of war, at least in the Deuteronomic legislation, are singularly mild'.
As to strangers, we may contrast the alien law of Athens in its prime, which allowed all foreigners to be banished or sold into slavery, a law actually put in force in the days of Pericles, when 5,000 persons not of pure Athenian blood, who had crept upon the registers, were banished or sold as slaves, with the words of Deuteronomy, at least two centuries before," The Lord 'loveth the stranger ;' 'The stranger that dvvelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself."
William H.Fremantle, The World As the Subject for Redemption,1895 Longmans,Green&Co,
"
For the law can make nothing perfect; Jesus through the Holy Spirit brings forth a Better Way.
Hebrews 7:11 New King James.
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
But war as a means to an end is generally wrong. And war that is entered to get vengeance is generally wrong too. But every case should be studied one by one.
Last but not least, we must understand that both Moses and Jesus were human, therefore they had a violent and peaceful sides like every one of us, because we live in a world of relativity. What made them both so great is that they actively chose their actions in accordance with who they are and what they stand for. We should strive to make more decisions that way.
Anyway, nice article, I enjoyed reading it thoroughly! And we need more people to write critical articles like this about faith, religion. Because that's what gets us thinking and hopefully choosing our way of doing things.
Thank you.
"Nothing was ever made perfect through the Levitical law of the Old Testament." - Hebrews 7:11
Thank You.
Hebrews: 7:11 - New King James
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
Hebrews: 7:11 - New Century
11 The people were given the law[c] concerning the system of priests from the tribe of Levi, but they could not be made perfect through that system. So there was a need for another priest to come, a priest like Melchizedek, not Aaron. 12 And when a different kind of priest comes, the law must be changed, too.13 We are saying these things about Christ, who belonged to a different tribe. No one from that tribe ever served as a priest at the altar.14 It is clear that our Lord came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses said nothing about priests belonging to that tribe.
Apparently, law appears Biblically suggested to effectively show humanity how far from the goal humanity is. The Bible also appears to suggest that it takes a “change of heart”, apparently Biblically associated with restored relationship with God, to regain the capacity for appropriate decision-making that results in peace and prosperity.