God’s Ethics

This is supposed to be a justification and explanation of the God’s ethics in the Old Testament

by Dennis Smith on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 1:57pm
The Author’s answer to his own question “Did God Order the Killing of Babies” is yes, he did, but it was okay! Anyone who can be horrified by the genocide of man yet blink and turn a blind eye to the genocide of God is just not taking the biblical narrative seriously. If you read this in the news and the name of the perpetrator was not “God” but “Gaddafi” any rational, feeling human being would be revolted to the point of vomiting. However somehow because it is in the bible and the perpetrator is God, it’s okay. What sort of warped ideas must you accept and must become part of your psychology for them to justify God’s behavior in the Old Testament. You just can’t possibly be treating it as a “real” event. There must be some mental and emotional abstraction and distancing taking place.

The God of the Old Testament on the one hand condemns the actions of the worshipers of “pagan” gods then does the same thing himself. Perhaps these deaths were not performed on his altar but as the author makes out, they were a “sacrifice” to a holy and righteous God because of sin. That makes it okay. Once again you must accept the presuppositions of the bible about God and the reality he has supposedly created in order to then accept the portrait of God the bible draws. We are then told that we cannot understand or accept that reality in the bible, indeed the reality in which we supposedly still live, unless we first accept the God who created that reality. Once gain we are dancing around a circle. The problem is that no matter how fast and sprightly you dance it is still a circle and does not lead to the truth.

It isn’t just the Old Testament. Any believer who accepts the Bible as the very Word of God, inspired, inerrant and infallible must accept this portray of the Old Testament God and carry that same portrait into the New Testament for indeed the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New are one. In fact, if you believe the doctrine of the trinity, Jesus is the incarnation of the God of the Old Testament. Jesus as the Son was fully and completely “on board” with the actions of the God we see in the Old Testament. No slight of hand of asserting the one in three and the three in one, one God in three persons can slip past this conclusion. Even if one was to question that association, indeed that identity, Jesus has enough words of judgment of his own. The Jesus who, writing in the dirt, encourages the Pharisees to “cast the first stone” and then sends the woman caught in adultery away with a simple, “go and sin not more” hides the executor of the Final Judgment riding on the White Horse, wearing a white robe soaked in the blood of his enemies.

So concludes the author himself.

“Those who reject the ethics of God’s destructive activity in the Old Testament, to be consistent, must reject Jesus and the New Testament. Over and over again, Jesus and the New Testament writers endorsed and defended such activity (e.g., Luke 13:1-9; 12:5; 17:29-32; 10:12; Hebrews 10:26-31). The Bible provides the only logical, sensible, meaningful, consistent explanation regarding the principles of retribution, punishment, and the conditions under which physical life may be extinguished”

I believe he has made his case but the verdict is not what he intended.

Did God Order the Killing of Babies?
by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Skeptics and atheists have been critical of the Bible’s portrayal of God ordering the death of entire populations—including women and children. For example, God instructed Saul through the prophet Samuel to “go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Samuel 15:3-4, emp. added). Other examples include the period of the Israelite conquest of Canaan in which God instructed the people to exterminate the Canaanite populations that occupied Palestine at the time. However, if one cares to examine the circumstances and assess the rationale, the Bible consistently exonerates itself by offering legitimate clarification and explanation to satisfy the honest searcher of truth.
The Hebrew term herem found, for instance, in Joshua 6:17, refers to the total dedication or giving over of the enemy to God as a sacrifice involving the extermination of the populace. It is alleged that the God of the Bible is as barbaric and cruel as any of the pagan gods. But this assessment is simply not true.

If the critic would take the time to study the Bible and make an honest evaluation of the principles of God’s justice, wrath, and love, he would see the perfect and harmonious interplay between them. God’s vengeance is not like the impulsive, irrational, emotional outbursts of pagan deities or human beings. He is infinite in all His attributes and thus perfect in justice, love, and anger. Just as God’s ultimate and final condemnation of sinners to eternal punishment will be just and appropriate, so the temporal judgment of wicked people in the Old Testament was ethical and fair. We human beings do not have an accurate handle on the gravity of sin and the deplorable nature of evil and wickedness. Human sentimentality is hardly a qualified measuring stick for divine truth and spiritual reality.

How incredibly ironic that the atheist, the agnostic, the skeptic, and the liberal all attempt to stand in judgment upon the ethical behavior of God when, if one embraces their position, there is no such thing as an absolute, objective, authoritative standard by which to pronounce anything right or wrong. As the French existentialist philosopher, Sartre, admitted: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist…. Nor…are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior” (1961, p. 485). The atheist and agnostic have absolutely no platform on which to stand to make moral or ethical distinctions—except as the result of purely personal taste. The mere fact that they concede the existence of objective evil is an unwitting concession there is a God Who has established an absolute framework of moral judgments.

The facts of the matter are that the Canaanites, whom God’s people were to destroy, were destroyed for their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12; Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28). Canaanite culture and religion in the second millennium B.C. were polluted, corrupt, and perverted. No doubt the people were physically diseased from their illicit behavior. There simply was no viable solution to their condition except destruction. Their moral depravity was “full” (Genesis 15:16). They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved state, with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be terminated—just like in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for years, but was unable to turn the world’s population from its wickedness (Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9). Including the children in the destruction of such populations actually spared them from a worse condition—that of being reared to be as wicked as their parents and thus face eternal punishment. All persons who die in childhood, according to the Bible, are ushered to Paradise and will ultimately reside in Heaven. Children who have parents who are evil must naturally suffer innocently while on Earth (e.g., Numbers 14:33).

Those who disagree with God’s annihilation of the wicked in the Old Testament have the same liberal attitude that has come to prevail in America just in the last half century. That attitude has typically opposed capital punishment, as well as the corporal punishment of children. Such people simply cannot see the rightness of evildoers being punished by execution or physical pain. Nevertheless, their view is skewed—and the rest of us are being forced to live with the results of their warped thinking: undisciplined, out-of-control children are wreaking havoc on our society by perpetrating crime to historically, all-time high levels.

Those who reject the ethics of God’s destructive activity in the Old Testament, to be consistent, must reject Jesus and the New Testament. Over and over again, Jesus and the New Testament writers endorsed and defended such activity (e.g., Luke 13:1-9; 12:5; 17:29-32; 10:12; Hebrews 10:26-31). The Bible provides the only logical, sensible, meaningful, consistent explanation regarding the principles of retribution, punishment, and the conditions under which physical life may be extinguished.

REFERENCE
Sartre, Jean Paul, (1961), “Existentialism and Humanism,” French Philosophers from Descartes to Sartre, ed. Leonard M. Marsak (New York: Meridian).

Genocide of the Amorites

2 responses to “God’s Ethics

  1. Pingback: Resources for 1 Samuel 15:3 - 4

    • I’m not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. The resources simply serve to prove the point. There is a great deal of killing ordered and sanctioned by God in the OT. That killing includes not only men but women and children, even infants. It is ordered and wholly and completely approve by God. How does one justify that sort of bloodletting??

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s