Statement of the Problem
Christian Hofreiter writes:
“Genocide in the name of God is not merely an academic issue or a phenomenon of the distant past. When fighters of the so-called Islamic State (IS) advanced across northern Iraq in the summer of 2014, members of religious minorities were often faced with a stark choice: convert or die. The Yezidi inhabitants of the hamlet Kocho, like many others, refused to abandon their ancestral religion. As a result, on August 15, 2014, at least one hundred unarmed men and boys were brutally murdered. The village’s women and girls were abducted, with many being sold into slavery, raped, or forced to marry IS fighters. Attentive readers of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian ‘Old Testament’) are confronted with a disturbing question: Could it be that similar acts once occurred at the behest of the God of the Bible? Several biblical passages certainly seem to suggest so. For many believers—and non-believers—these texts challenge the coherence, plausibility, and trustworthiness of the religious tradition to which they belong. Many devout Jews and Christians, whose moral sensibilities have been shaped by the horrors of the Holocaust and other twentieth-century genocides, might wonder how a good God could ever have sanctioned such behavior, let alone commanded and commended it. For many Christians, there is an added tension as these texts seem to contradict what they understand to be central aspects of Jesus Christ’s teachings, such as love for enemies, non-retaliation, and the command to forgive.”
Analysis of the Problem
This issue can be articulated in terms of three propositions that seem mutually exclusive:
- P1. God is good.
- P2. The Bible is true.
- P3. Genocide is atrocious.
The tension arises because, according to the Bible, God appears to command and endorse acts of genocide, creating a conflict between these propositions:
- If P1 (God is good) is true, how can P3 (Genocide is atrocious) be true if God, who is good, commands it? This would imply that genocide, in this context, cannot be considered atrocious, which contradicts our moral understanding.
- If P2 (The Bible is true) and accurately records God’s commands, then how do we reconcile this with P1 (God is good) and P3 (Genocide is atrocious)? If God is truly good, and genocide is truly atrocious, how can we understand the Bible as true when it portrays God commanding genocide?
- If P3 (Genocide is atrocious) is true, then how can P1 (God is good) be true if God commands genocide? A good God would not command something so morally reprehensible.
These propositions seem to be in direct conflict when considered together, creating a theological and moral dilemma that has prompted various interpretations and responses among scholars, theologians, and believers since ancient times.
Perspectives on Offer
The various approaches to this dilemma can be grouped into two categories: Uncritical (not directly addressing the conflict) and Critical (engaging directly with the conflict).
Each perspective tends to focus on at least one of the propositions P1-P3. By “target,” I don’t necessarily mean rejecting the proposition outright; rather, it may involve questioning, reinterpreting, or challenging traditional assumptions about how that premise should be understood.
1. Uncritical Readings
- Reject the Bible Wholesale (targets P2): One straightforward approach is to dismiss the Bible as the writings of ancient, primitive people rather than the inspired word of God. This view interprets violent stories as reflections of cultural norms of nomadic tribes, not divine commands. This perspective is often held by secular scholars and critics who do not view the Bible as divinely inspired.
- Accept the Bible Without Question (targets P3): Another approach is to accept these stories at face value, without questioning or attempting to reconcile the violence with modern ethical standards. This perspective treats the Bible as entirely accurate and divinely sanctioned, regardless of the moral implications. This view is often associated with more conservative or fundamentalist Christian groups, although even within these groups, rejecting P3 is challenging.
2. Critical Readings
- Marcionism/Marcionite Dualism (targets P1): This view, originating with Marcion in the early church, argues that the God of the Old Testament is distinct from the God of the New Testament. More recently, figures like Andy Stanley have suggested that Christians should focus on the New Testament, downplaying or reinterpreting the Old Testament.
- Divine Accommodation / Progressive Revelation (targets P2): This approach suggests that God’s commands were shaped by the cultural and moral understanding of the ancient Israelites. The violence in the Old Testament reflects the limitations of that time, not God’s ultimate will. This view sees a progression in divine revelation, culminating in the non-violent teachings of Jesus Christ. Modern proponents of this perspective include John Walton and Gregory Boyd, who argue that God’s commands in the Old Testament were adapted to the cultural and moral context of the people, with the full expression of God’s nature revealed in Jesus Christ.
- Divine Command Theory (targets P3): This view, held by thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin, posits that God, being perfectly good and sovereign, has the right to judge and destroy sinful nations. According to this perspective, the violent commands in the Bible are morally justified as acts of divine judgment. Contemporary proponents include philosophers and theologians like William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler.
- Allegorical or Theological Interpretation (targets P2): Some, like the ancient theologian Origen and modern thinkers like Randal Rauser and Peter Enns, argue that the violent stories in the Old Testament are not literal history but symbolic or allegorical. These stories are understood as conveying theological truths rather than recording actual events. Rauser suggests that these narratives reflect Israel’s understanding of God rather than literal actions sanctioned by God.
- Hyperbolic Language (targets P2): Scholars like Paul Copan and Richard Hess propose that the language used in these texts is exaggerated for rhetorical effect, a common practice in ancient Near Eastern war accounts. Phrases like “utterly destroy” were not meant to be taken literally but were instead a way of describing military victory. This view acknowledges that something happened but argues that it wasn’t as extreme as the text might suggest.
- Spiritual Interpretation of the Conquest (targets P2): Michael Heiser offers a unique perspective, interpreting these violent commands as part of a spiritual battle. He suggests that the focus of these stories is not just on physical conquest but also on a spiritual war against beings like the Anakim, who were seen as descendants of the Nephilim.
Conclusion
These different perspectives offer various ways to grapple with the difficult and sometimes troubling narratives in the Old Testament. Not all of these views are mutually exclusive; some can be combined to offer a more nuanced understanding. While there may not be an easy answer to the challenges these texts present, this does not mean there is no answer at all. One point of consensus should be that using these texts to justify violence, injustice, or oppression is a profound misuse of Scripture and goes against the character of God. Nevertheless, the very term “genocide” and its application to these biblical texts warrants careful consideration and definition.