"Terry M. Gray" wrote:
> >
> >>2.holy war/genocide -- Are you familiar with intrusion ethics--the
> >>idea that the final judgment intrudes into this present age? On this
> >>point, if the final judgment and destruction of the wicked is just,
> >>then so is this divinely commanded judgment against the Canannites. I
> >>don't think there is any Biblical warrant for such activity today,
> >>but I don't have a problem with it.
> >>
> > I have a problem with it (i.e., with military holy war) &
> >the vast majority of the Christian church, which has (formally at
> >least) adopted either a just war or a pacifist position, also
> >rejects it.
>
> George,
>
> I think you may have misunderstood me here (due most likely to my
> awkwardly phrased sentence). I'm not saying that I don't have a
> problem with it today--today is the day of grace and the free offer
> of the gospel and there is no theocratic state that enforces the
> divine judgment. What I was saying was that I don't have a problem
> with what happened in the Old Testament. God was executing righteous
> judgment against the Canaanites. It is analogous to what will happen
> at the final judgment when God will destroy his enemies and reward
> his people.
I think there are problems with this approach.
1st, we ought to recognize that the endorsement of holy war in the
OT is limited. It is to be waged only against "Amalek and the seven
nations [of Canaan]", not just against any non-Israelite people. So it
isn't a program for world conquest &c.
Still, the extermination of women & children &c is pretty hard to
swallow. Most of us would probably like to think that if we'd been around
back then we would have opposed such practices but that's because we're
bringing ~3000 years of theological, ethical, &c development with us. By
2002 Christian standards we can say that they're bad, but by the standards
of that time they were pretty standard procedure & even - noting my initial
qualification - _relatively_ enlightened.
Rejecting the holy war, extermination &c today _only_ because
there is "there is no theocratic state that enforces the divine judgment"
is dangerous. It leaves the opening for fanatics - Cromwell &c - to say,
"There isn't a theocratic state now - but there will be when I get done!"
& I think that the idea of God's destruction of his enemies at the
last judgment is problematic, & at least needs some nuances. Even if we
leave aside (as I don't) the universalistic _ta panta_ passages in the NT,
I think the idea of hell as God simply giving the godless what they want -
i.e., to be without God - is preferable to the flames & pitchforks
picture. (Cf. Lewis' _Great Divorce_.) & I think of the story told about
Lincoln when one of his advisors criticized him for his generosity to
enemies. "You ought to destroy your enemies" the man said. Lincoln
replied, "When I make my enemy my friend, am I not destroying my enemy?"
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 07:43:58 EDT