I don’t think we need to look to the New Testament to defend an anti-war stance. This weekend I was reading Deut 9 where God is admonishing the Israelites not to think of their victory in war as something that was a result of their own righteousness –sort of the very antithesis of the “sin in the camp” reading. In Deuteronomy 9, God makes it clear that defeat in war was a form of God’s punishment upon the inhabitants of Canaan. By requiring that the Israelites not take any booty and by requiring that they destroy everything and everyone, God purifies the act of war as a form of justice and mercy. War fought in this manner does very little to benefit the victor. By practicing total destruction, the cycle of revenge is eliminated –there is no one left who will act in revenge. When Canaanite observers see that the Israelites practicing war as without receiving benefit, they will be much more likely to believe that war with the Israelites is a punishment from God and it gives them the opportunity to repent. The whole idea of inflicting consequences for poor behavior, is to encourage the offender to change his actions, if not his attitude. The consequences that are imposed are not to the same degree as the true consequences for such actions, thus they are an act of mercy. When I read the story of Achen, I realize the grace God has extended to me and my family because I have experienced the benefit of conquest without experiencing the consequences of that greed. I also realize that there is a time limit to God’s grace, that if I and/or my family do not repent of our greed, we will experience the God’s judgement.
hewhocutsdown
· 1 year ago
For me, that's still a bit of a stretch to make, and not one I'd be willing to admit to anytime soon. Even Greg Boyd's multi-blog series on violence in the Hebrew scriptures (inspired/enacted by God), while having some good points, is a far cry from a seamless idea.
Great article though, and thank you.
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
Which part is the stretch -the Old Testament having an anti-war stance, war used as a form of justice, or war as a means of mercy?
hewhocutsdown
· 1 year ago
d. all of the above. Some more so than others: the justice bit is pretty clear-cut, the mercy bit less so, the anti-war bit really depends.
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
There are quite a number of Old Testament stories which highlight God’s anti-war inclination. Here are a few examples: God sends a plague to stop David from taking a census. The census would have given David information about how large an army he could raise in order to conduct military aggression. Samuel reminds the Israelite people about the consequences of having a king. A king would require a standing army and would likely perform military aggressive actions. By not having a king, it is much less likely that the Israelites would be involved in war. The book of Judges covers military campaigns over several hundred generations. The books of Samuel cover the military campaigns for about two or three generations. The Israelites were involved in more war over the two generations of Saul and David than they were during the entire book of Judges. God saves the Israelites from their invaders without violence on their part in the stories of Sennacherib surrounding Jerusalem, Gideon and the Midianites (Gideon does use violence after the initial battle, but there is no indication that God instructed him to do so), and my personal favorite –Elisha asking God to blind the armies of Aram. There are numerous instructions in Deuteronomy that limits armies. And the prophets were continually condemning their kings for the alliances they made with the local political powers. The Israelites were not to use horses and chariots. The kings were to ride on donkeys. Anyone who was afraid, or had a new wife, or house were excused from military service. These admonitions might have been written much later in the history of the Israelites however, they do reflect what God was doing in previous generations like Gideon, Isaac, and Abraham. Abraham and Isaac had considerable holdings while they lived in Canaan. We know that Abraham had the capability for war since he rescued his nephew Lot from Kedorlaomer, but he chose not to keep the traditional booty. He also chose to live where others chose not to live, either the Canaanites or his nephew Lot. He was a man of peace, blessed by the king of Peace. Isaac, in a similar way, refused to defend the wells he had his men dig. Moving until there was no competition for the well he dug. God renews his promise to Abraham with Isaac after Isaac has refused to use violence to defend his right to water in a dry land.
Ted
· 1 year ago
If I might interject here, I think there's a difference between (correctly) identifying a narrative trajectory of not being in charge (of which Jesus' renunciation of the sword is the culmination) and a fully-orbed "anti-war" position in the OT. I agree with our friend that the latter is a stretch.
I do think we need the revelation of Jesus as a lens to correctly identify that trajectory as well as a way of narrating that trajectory as God's true intention all along. It's like watching Fight Club for the second time; once you know the twist at the heart of the story, it's hard to believe you didn't see it before. The clues are everywhere.
Sara
· 1 year ago
Another excellent alternative OT reading! It reminds me of some thoughts I wrote down last fall on my blog. http://preview.tinyurl.com/5fw6ka
Sara
· 1 year ago
BTW, I like the title. Good advice. I think I'll choose a good Belgian wheat ale as my modus operandi. :)
Peggy
· 1 year ago
Ted,
This was very interesting (and I got here from Kingdom Grace), especially in light of the series that Scot McKnight is doing on "wrath" and a question he received from parents of a young girl who was shocked at the entire Achan episode. The comments on that thread were, um, interesting, to say the least.
All Comments
The whole idea of inflicting consequences for poor behavior, is to encourage the offender to change his actions, if not his attitude. The consequences that are imposed are not to the same degree as the true consequences for such actions, thus they are an act of mercy.
When I read the story of Achen, I realize the grace God has extended to me and my family because I have experienced the benefit of conquest without experiencing the consequences of that greed. I also realize that there is a time limit to God’s grace, that if I and/or my family do not repent of our greed, we will experience the God’s judgement.
Great article though, and thank you.
God sends a plague to stop David from taking a census. The census would have given David information about how large an army he could raise in order to conduct military aggression.
Samuel reminds the Israelite people about the consequences of having a king. A king would require a standing army and would likely perform military aggressive actions. By not having a king, it is much less likely that the Israelites would be involved in war. The book of Judges covers military campaigns over several hundred generations. The books of Samuel cover the military campaigns for about two or three generations. The Israelites were involved in more war over the two generations of Saul and David than they were during the entire book of Judges.
God saves the Israelites from their invaders without violence on their part in the stories of Sennacherib surrounding Jerusalem, Gideon and the Midianites (Gideon does use violence after the initial battle, but there is no indication that God instructed him to do so), and my personal favorite –Elisha asking God to blind the armies of Aram.
There are numerous instructions in Deuteronomy that limits armies. And the prophets were continually condemning their kings for the alliances they made with the local political powers. The Israelites were not to use horses and chariots. The kings were to ride on donkeys. Anyone who was afraid, or had a new wife, or house were excused from military service. These admonitions might have been written much later in the history of the Israelites however, they do reflect what God was doing in previous generations like Gideon, Isaac, and Abraham.
Abraham and Isaac had considerable holdings while they lived in Canaan. We know that Abraham had the capability for war since he rescued his nephew Lot from Kedorlaomer, but he chose not to keep the traditional booty. He also chose to live where others chose not to live, either the Canaanites or his nephew Lot. He was a man of peace, blessed by the king of Peace. Isaac, in a similar way, refused to defend the wells he had his men dig. Moving until there was no competition for the well he dug. God renews his promise to Abraham with Isaac after Isaac has refused to use violence to defend his right to water in a dry land.
I do think we need the revelation of Jesus as a lens to correctly identify that trajectory as well as a way of narrating that trajectory as God's true intention all along. It's like watching Fight Club for the second time; once you know the twist at the heart of the story, it's hard to believe you didn't see it before. The clues are everywhere.
This was very interesting (and I got here from Kingdom Grace), especially in light of the series that Scot McKnight is doing on "wrath" and a question he received from parents of a young girl who was shocked at the entire Achan episode. The comments on that thread were, um, interesting, to say the least.
In case you're interested: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=3858
We could have used you over there a couple of weeks back, bro. ;^)