cms@gatech.edu (01/23/91)
Tonight, during my Bible study class at Church, we were discussing the war in the Persian Gulf against Iraq to free Kuwait. During the course of the discussion, I asked the following question: Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek," yet there are instances when Jesus Himself did not turn the other cheek, such as the incident in the Temple, when He physically drove out the money changers with a whip made of cords. He didn't turn the other cheek then. Yet Jesus is the Prince of Peace. This is my question: If I am an American soldier, and I'm sent by my President to fight and possibly kill Iraqis, as a Christian, can I kill Iraqis and be true to the Gospel? The answer of some people in the room was "no," the answer of others was silence, and my own personal answer was, "I don't know." It's a hard question and I didn't expect an answer. But I was surprised by what the minister teaching the class had to say. (He was a minister in another church but decided to become an Episcopalian and is in the process of becoming a priest.) When we were discussing the Old Testament, I said, Jesus told us to love the God of the Old Testament, the One who told us to go into battle, to kill the Midianites, for example, men, women, and children. Now, his response was: God didn't really tell them to kill the Midianites, men, women, and children, smashing little babies heads against walls, etc....God didn't tell them to do that, that isn't what God is all about. I said, the Bible says, God told them to go out and kill the Midianites. He responded, No, God didn't tell them that; these people were using God to justify their actions. They said, "God told me to do this," even though God really didn't; they were just saying God told them to kill people to justify their actions. I must confess, I was shocked. How do I know where in the Bible God is really speaking and when people are just putting words in his mouth? This minister responded, Well, whenever the prophets say, "Thus says the Lord," that's God speaking. Now, Numbers 31 is what we're talking about here specifically. It says, in the first verse, "The Lord said to Moses, 'Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites, and then you shall be taken to your people.'" Now, here, God is clearly speaking through Moses. Later on, however, I will admit, that when Moses tells the soldiers to kill the women who have had intercourse with a man, but save all the girls, this statement is not prefaced by any "thus says the Lord" idiom. Later still, in verse 25, we have a "the Lord said to Moses" phrase consisting of the divvying up of booty and the counting of captives as part of that booty. In 25:16-18, earlier, the Lord said to Moses, "Treat the Midianites as enemies and crush them, for they have been your enemies by their wily dealings with you as regards Peor and as regards their kinswoman Cozbi, the daughter of the Midianite prince, who was killed at the time of the slaughter because of Peor." Now, we practically beat this issue to death on trm a while back, and I've always been bothered by this, but the interpretation that God never actually ordered us to kill the Midianites, that this was just a ploy used by certain people to justify their actions, is new and shocking to me, and I can't bring myself to go alone with it. I have a red letter edition of the NT, meaning, of course, that the words of Christ are written in red. I've never seen a Bible in which the words of God in the OT are written in blue, for example, but, if such a Bible existed, this minister seems to suggest that every time the phrase "thus says the Lord" comes from the lips of a prophet, the subsequent words should be written in blue, and all other words supposedly spoken by God should be kept in black. What do y'all think? Very confused and truly and honestly seeking the word of God as manifest in the whole Bible, OT and NT, I remain, Yours in Christ, Cindy Smith SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER A Real Live Catholic in Georgia Deeply steeped in the Roman Tradition, Strongly awakened in the Anglican Tradition, A Catholic Christian who apologizes for the redundancy in this line... [If you don't believe that God wanted the Midianites killed, you need not posit that people were using God consciously as an excuse. If you assume that people at the time were not ready to hear all that God would eventually have to say, several alternatives are possible. E.g. God may have been concerned with keeping Israel pure from contamination by paganism, and the people may simply have been unable to conceive of this being implemented in any way other than killing them all. This could imply either that they misheard what God had to say, or that he actually gave commands that would now be considered bloodthirsty because more subtle alternatives were not yet possible. --clh]
vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) (01/25/91)
> Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 23-Jan-91 Re: War in the > Persian Gul.. cms@gatech.edu (4911) > Now, his response was: God didn't really tell them to kill the > Midianites, men, women, and children, smashing little babies heads > against walls, etc....God didn't tell them to do that, that isn't what > God is all about. I said, the Bible says, God told them to go out and > kill the Midianites. He responded, No, God didn't tell them that; > these people were using God to justify their actions. They said, "God > told me to do this," even though God really didn't; they were just > saying God told them to kill people to justify their actions. I have a real problem with this, and another passage from scripture supports the "normal" reading of the "kill the Midianites" passage. In I Samuel (that's as specific as I can be right now...near the front), Samuel seriously rebukes Saul for not carrying out to the letter the instructions of the Lord. Saul was to utterly destroy all the people and animals who were doing something wrong (idol worship, I think). Saul, however, decided to sacrifice some animals to God and keep the rest, or something. This is where the "I desire obediance more than sacrifice" verse is. Anyway, I think the Bible does teach that sometimes death and destruction is the only way to preserve something else (Israel, in this case) from being corrupted. The Lord does not have patience forever, as witnessed by the flood, Sodom & Gamorrah (spelling?), the pagans Elijah had executed, et. al. Well, that's my opinion...nobody asked for it, and everybody got it! I love this country... Jesus is Lord, Vince Mulhern
jbridges@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Jim Bridges) (01/26/91)
I recommend that you read "Jesus as Teacher" by Henry Burton Sharman. He
has done much scholarship on what Jesus had to say. This involves much
sifting out of verses inserted in the New Testament by those who were
apparently trying to further their own narrow interests - instead of trying
to pass on what they heard.
You have to start with an open mind on this to get anything out of it. The
first thing to realize or understand is that Christianity is a religion
ABOUT Jesus. To Sharman, the interesting thing was - what was the religion
OF Jesus? This includes how he felt about being called Son of God and
so forth.
By and large, the Churches have not accepted legitimate scholarship of the
Bible. As a result, they have to deal with many inconsistencies in it and
can spend a lot of time trying to justify things that make no sense.
The book is probably out of print. You may have to look in used bookstores.
I have one at home that I got many years ago. If you have trouble finding
it, I will see if I can help - assuming you're really interested.
He also has another book, "Records of the Life of Jesus" in which he does
a parallel study of the synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke. These tend
to record events and history, whereas John attempts to convey an experience.
As far as the Old Testament goes, Jesus acknowledged it as the tradition
in which he grew up but he strongly stressed that his message went way
beyond anything there. Consider (rough wording - you can look it up)
these words from the Sermon on the Mount.
You have heard that it was said to them of old times, an eye for
an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
But I say unto you, resist not evil.
Startling words, are they not? What do Christians make of these words?
They, of course, must be taken in the context of all else that Jesus
said but he also cautioned people not to try to "put new wine in old
wineskins". For this will cause the bag to burst! You will find much
evidence that Jesus was talking about a paradigm shift. For example,
Among those born of women, there is none greater than John (the
Baptist). But even the littlest in the kingdom of heaven is
greater than John.
John was a good man - maybe a little harsh, but a fine man and greatly
admired. Hence this was saying a great deal.
In closing, you may appreciate the words of Gilbert Keith Chesterson,
English author:
The problem with Christianity is not that it's been tried and found
impossible, but that it's been found difficult and therefore not
tried.
Good luck in your search for the truth.keith@uunet.uu.net (Keith McIntyre) (01/26/91)
In article <Jan.23.03.13.23.1991.1591@athos.rutgers.edu>, dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: > > Tonight, during my Bible study class at Church, we were discussing > the war in the Persian Gulf against Iraq to free Kuwait. During the > course of the discussion, I asked the following question: Jesus said, > "Turn the other cheek," yet there are instances when Jesus Himself did > not turn the other cheek, such as the incident in the Temple, when He > physically drove out the money changers with a whip made of cords. He > didn't turn the other cheek then. Yet Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Before anyone jumps to conclusions on the following statements, none of what is said means I support any specific action or side in the war. Personally I am unsure of God's will on this war and am praying for His will to be done. Deuteronomy 12:29-32 states pretty clearly that God was destroying the previous inhabitants of Canaan for their sin. He was also warning the Israelites not to do the same thing. Jeremiah contains multiple warnings from God that He would destroy the Israelites by the means of another nation. He also states that any nation that turns from Him will be brought down (sorry I don't have my concordance handy so I can't quote chapter/verse in Jeremiah). The Babylonians were used by God to destroy Israel and take them into captivity the first time. Hebrews states the God is the same yesterday, today and always. Many people believe that the actions of God in the OT were just that, OT and not New Testament. Luke 19:41-44 quotes Jesus Himself saying that Israel would be destroyed in a horrible fashion because they refused to recognize Jesus. This did happen (and is documented by Josephus) around 70 A.D. or well into the New Testament period. The Romans were the chosen instrument of destruction that time. Personally I am most concerned about the country I live in, not Iraq or Kuwait or whoever. I believe that it is "a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31) Modern American Christianity chooses to ignore the wrathful aspects of God even though they are very plain in the Scriptures. God could be using the Allies as a tool of destruction against Iraq or He might not be. Our concern as a nation is to make sure God does not use an instrument of destruction against us because we did not recognize Jesus.
spok@MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (John Ockerbloom) (02/03/91)
Our moderator writes, regarding the slaughter of the Midianites and other peoples: >[If you assume that people at the time were not ready to hear all that God >would eventually have to say, several alternatives are possible. E.g. >God may have been concerned with keeping Israel pure from >contamination by paganism, and the people may simply have been unable >to conceive of this being implemented in any way other than killing >them all. This could imply either that they misheard what God had to >say, or that he actually gave commands that would now be considered >bloodthirsty because more subtle alternatives were not yet possible. >--clh] If it was a case of mishearing, though, one of the people who misheard was the narrator of Joshua, who states explicitly that God had commanded the slaughter of everyone in the area: "Joshua conquered the entire country; the mountain regions, the Negeb, the foothills, and the mountain slopes, with all their kings. He left no survivors, but fulfilled the doom on all who lived there, just as the Lord, the God of Israel had commanded." -- Joshua 10: 40 [NAB] "The Israelites took all the spoil and livestock of their cities as their booty; but the people they put to the sword, until they had exterminated the last of them, leaving none alive. As the Lord had commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua acted accordingly. [...] For it was the design of the Lord to encourage them to wage war against Israel, that they might be doomed to destruction and thus receive no mercy, but be exterminated, as the Lord had commanded Moses." -- Joshua 11: 14-15,20 [NAB] Since a biblical narrator is speaking directly here, denying these statements implies denying inerrancy. This presents a dilemma for many people. I'm afraid that I can't make sense of the other alternative our moderator offers, that God did issue these commands "because more subtle alternatives were not yet possible". I presume that the statement "with God, all things are possible" was just as true at that time as it was when Jesus said it, and indeed it is not too difficult to think of alternatives which would have kept Israel just as free from paganism as it was after its army reportedly killed every last inhabitant of Canaan. John Ockerbloom -- ========================================================================== ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu ...!uunet!cs.cmu.edu!ockerbloom ocker@yalecs.bitnet (forwarded) 4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217