Board index ‹ Morality

[Hender Williamshot]

Since morality for mankind is based upon God’s own nature, then His moral standards for mankind would be identical to the moral standards of God. If God acted contrary to His moral standards for mankind, He would be acting contrary to His own nature.

God’s absolute authority or sovereignty is often cited as the reason God’s action may seem inconsistent with His moral standards for man.

How can authority result in God acting contrary to His own nature?

[jimwalton]

God never acts contrary to his moral standards for Himself or for humankind. You are right that if He did so, He would be in self-contradiction.

The appearance of inconsistency is not necessarily the reality of inconsistency. Sometimes people (though I am not accusing you) read the Bible too superficially, or they don't bother to understand much of any depth about the case at hand. But God is never inconsistent. It doesn't just pertain to his authority or sovereignty, but also to his righteousness and justice.

God's authority or sovereignty can never result in God acting contrary to His own nature. Again, that would be self-contradictory, and therefore impossible and an unwarranted conclusion. Any situation that seems to take us to self-contradiction is misunderstood.

[Hender Williamshot]

Can you think of any act that would be immoral for a man but would not be immoral for God?

If so, how does authority, sovereignty, righteousness, or justice excuse an act that is immoral BECAUSE the act is against God’s nature?

[jimwalton]

> Can you think of any act that would be immoral for a man but would not be immoral for God?

No, I believe that there is an objective morality that is consistent and congruous.

> If so, how does authority, sovereignty, righteousness, or justice excuse an act that is immoral BECAUSE the act is against God’s nature?

This question is only valid, I presume, if I answered "yes" above?

[Hender Williamshot]

Is genocide against God’s nature? If not, why would it be immoral for man if “objective” morality is based upon God’s nature?

[jimwalton]

> Is genocide against God’s nature?

Yes, genocide is against God's nature. That's why God never commands or endorses genocide. I'm sure we'll have this conversation, since you are aiming your debate. Let me initiate with an explanation, then.

1. The only time(s) that the Israelites were commanded by God to fight offensive battles (to conquer cities) was during the conquest. Beyond the land of Canaan, they were never commanded to expand their boundaries, build an empire, wipe out people groups, etc.

2. The goal of the conquest was not genocide, but occupation. Repeatedly the commands of God are to drive the Canaanites from the land (Ex. 23.30 as one example of many). More to the point, the Canaanites were first to be given an opportunity to surrender and become part of Israel (Dt. 20.10), and if they would not surrender, to engage them in battle.

3. It was God's intent to bless all the nations (Gn. 12.3 and others). It’s not the Canaanites as people that the Lord hates, but their godless perversions and lying religion. Dt. 7.5-6 is very clear that the point is truth, not genocide.

4. In those days the cities were fortresses surrounding governmental and cultic structures, not dwellings for the population. When commands were given to conquer cities, it was the rulers and soldiers the army was after, not the population. In the agrarian society of the Canaanite city-states, more than 90% of the people lived in the countryside as farmers, and less than 10% of the population lived in the cities. The cities were mostly fortresses and governmental centers. Almost exclusively, when a city was attacked, it was military action against military personnel and the rulers of the region, not against the general (and innocent) population. It was impossible, without nuclear weaponry, to wipe out all the citizenry. There was never an attempt to wipe them out.

5. The Conquest is not what many people imagine. Joshua cut a swath through the center of Canaan (Jericho, Ai and Shechem, Joshua 6-9), separating north from south. Gibeah surrendered (Josh. 9), and they were not killed. At that point an alliance of cities from the south attacked Joshua (Josh. 10), and the Israelites won. Now they controlled the southern hill country. Joshua then turned and attacked Hazor in the north and burned it (Josh. 11), and an alliance of northern cities attacked him. Joshua won, and all of the hill country of Canaan was now in Israelite hands. That was the extent of it (Josh 11.16, 23, etc.). They never gained the valleys and plains until under the monarchy, as nation-states attacked David and he won. There was no genocide.

Now let's talk about ancient Near-Eastern warfare. The "kill 'em all" speeches of the ancient Near East were a case of customary warfare bravado, and people in those days didn't take it literally. What it meant was: "Secure a total victory." The language is used in Josh. 10.40-42; 11.16-23; yet they readily acknowledge that it wasn't literally true (Judges 1.21, 27-28). On the one hand, Joshua says he utterly destroyed the Anakim (Josh. 11.21-22), but then he gives Caleb permission to drive them out of the land (Josh. 14.12-15; cf. 15.13-19). What it proves it that "kill them all" was an idiom of warfare that meant "We won a decisive victory." No people groups were being wiped out. This was pretty typical of the whole region in this era.

* Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that "the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent." In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
*Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making "Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)" and the "mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity)." Not true; just rhetoric.
*The "Bulletin" of Ramses II tells of Egypt's less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew "the entire force" of the Hittites, indeed "all the chiefs of all the countries," disregarding the "millions of foreigners," which he considered "chaff."
*In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II's son Merneptah announced, "Israel is wasted, his seed is not," another premature declaration. Not true, didn't happen, no genocide.
*Moab's king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of "Israel has utterly perished for always," which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.
*The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: "The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped."

In addition, we know that the people groups that Joshua claims were "utterly destroyed from the earth" continued on, such as the Anakim I have already mentioned. The same is true of the Amalekites of 1 Sam. 15 (the Amalekites were a people group for about 1000 years after being "totally destroyed"), and all of the Canaanite groups. The point was not to kill them all in a genocidal frenzy, but to win a decisive military victory over their armies and politicians, drive all rebels from the land, assimilate those who were willing, and to destroy the false religious practices that would corrupt the people of God.

The ultimate goal was that God would have a people, set aside for relationship with Himself, that he could covenant with to reveal Himself to and redeem them from sin. All comers, Israeli and foreign, man and woman, slave and free, were welcome. All rebellious, wicked, and deceivers were not.

As you can see, the label "genocide" misleads. The call to "kill 'em all" was language of victory, not genocide. "The moral of the story," as Dr. Paul Copan says, "is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality."

The plan of God was a three-stepped plan, with each subsequent step only being necessary if the first two failed.

STEP 1: Incorporate the Canaanites into Israel as full members of the community, and worshippers of the true God. There was no reason to wait until the Day of the Lord to have the people worshipping the true God (Zech. 14.16-20; Rev. 22, et al.). The Lord will take any who come to him; the invitation is always open, and no sincere seeker is refused. Any Canaanite who surrendered would become part of the Israelite community.

STEP 2: Lacking surrender, the object of the army was to drive the Canaanites from the land, not slaughter them (Ex. 23.30-31; 33.2; 34.11, 24; etc.). Let them go somewhere else to live, and let Israel have the land that was theirs to possess. Anyone who would leave was free to go.

STEP 3: If they won't surrender, don't want to join you, and refuse to leave, the only option is to engage them in battle. The land belonged to Israel, not the Canaanites. But the point was still not genocide, but to kill the soldiers, supplant the rulers, and take possession of the land. The civilians were not harmed.

God communicated in the language of the culture, their typical Near-Eastern warfare rhetoric. Everyone in their era knew what it meant: secure a total victory. We need to read the text through ancient eyes, not through modern ones of a different culture, era, and language.

Nor was there any genocide of the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15). The Amalekites were a nomadic group spread over thousands of square miles. You'll notice in 1 Sam. 15 that Saul is waiting in 1 ravine and conquering 1 city. What he is doing is trying to remove the center that holds the Amalekites together so that they become dispersed and innocuous, not to commit genocide.

So I can conclude decisively that genocide is against God's nature, and that's why he never commanded it and never expected it.

> If not, why would it be immoral for man if “objective” morality is based upon God’s nature?

Therefore, this question is moot since I answered affirmatively.

[Hender Williamshot]

I appreciate the thorough response, but I wasn’t focusing on genocide by men at God’s command. I’m attempting to compare acts by men to acts by God if both are governed by the same morality, which is based upon God’s own nature.

So, when I asked if genocide was against God’s nature, I was thinking more of the Great Flood or entire cities destroyed by fire from heaven.

To avoid debating the definition of genocide, let’s just say the killing of large groups of people including infants and small children.

I assume you believe this act would be immoral for man.

I assume you believe this act would not be immoral for God.

The question I have is what exempts God in this scenario from the morality that is supposedly based upon His own nature?

[jimwalton]

> So, when I asked if genocide was against God’s nature, I was thinking more of the Great Flood or entire cities destroyed by fire from heaven.

OK, well, a little more clarity from the get-go would have helped, but here we are. Neither the Great Flood nor the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were genocidal acts. The Great Flood was not a global destruction but rather an extensive regional judgment of a group of guilty people. So also, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not genocidal, because there were many Canaanite cities that were not affected by the judgment. This destruction in particular was aimed at particular groups of people who had been guilty of capital crimes.

With regard to the Flood, we have an assessment from God that the population had fallen below the line of redemptive action (Gn. 6.5). The statement is obviously hyperbolic, but we are to understand that no one was innocent. Their society had collapsed to the point of total moral toxicity. Even the children were caught in the web of perversion. We have even seen examples in our world of ISIS parents training their toddlers to hate and their children to murder. We have seen examples in Somalia of terrorists training children as assassins. We have seen cultures where even the children are neither safe nor innocent.

The same is true with Sodom and Gomorrah. We start learning in Gn. 13.13 that the population as a whole were corrupt. An effort that could have changed their hearts and direction happened in ch. 14, but there apparently was no change and Abraham refused association with them (Gn. 14.22-23). In Genesis 18 we hear Abraham pray that if there are even 10 righteous people in the cities, would God spare them, and God agrees. The destruction shows that there were not. This is not genocide, but appropriate judgment for a society that had become incorrigible. For a judge not to act in a situation irredeemably depraved would be unconscionable.

[Hender Williamshot]

Just to avoid any confusion, is it your position that infants had committed capital crimes and were beyond redemption?

[jimwalton]

You can't be serious. Infants had committed capital crimes? It's not possible, so you're using the question to trap me, assuming, then, that the infants were not guilty of execution. What you seem to be neglecting in your trap is the inevitable deleterious effect of the environment in which these infants would grow up, raising them in the evil of the culture. As infants they are already exposed to these personalities and detrimental factors. Our own studies of psychology show us how even infants are negatively affected by such negative environments, whether drug or alcohol abuse, hallucinogenic substances, physical child abuse, child sexual abuse (even as infants), exposure to violence and fighting... We have no idea what these environments were like other than what we are told in the Bible, but we do know of environments in our modern world where the social and parental structures have collapsed and even the infants are affected by evil.

Just to avoid any confusion, how many infants are you claiming were caught up in this allegedly immoral act of God, and on what do you base this analysis?