In my Bible classes, I often will come up with a topic that relates to what we’ve been studying, and I’ll ask the students to prepare to debate either side of a proposition related to what we’ve learned.
I thought this week’s topic would make for an interesting topic of discussion. Our students, like any group of students, really dislike group punishment. So now that we have completed most of our study of the Old Testament, I’ve got them working on debating the following proposition.
“God’s use of group punishment and group blessing in the Old Testament is inherently unfair.”
Groups in this case are families, cities, nations, tribes, even the whole world.
So, what do you say? What would be your criticism, defense, questions, examples or insight? What would you contribute to our discussion?
Group punishment is common in basic training. Among its purposes is to create a sense that we are not alone in our duties and responsibilities, but share them with others we are in community with, even though we may not yet see these others as part of our community. Through our shared sufferings, we will learn to see them as such or continue to suffer even more. Pressure is thus brought to bear on the “slacker” by the community, encouraging him to get his act together.
There are other elements involved in this, but the fact that God called out a people who were not a people to become his representative community on earth surely connects with this purpose.
When our family was traveling together in the car and our three girls were arguing in the back to the point where I reached my limit, I would say “I can’t resolve this in a way that will make you all equally happy. What I can do is to make certain you are all equally unhappy.” This almost always stopped the squabbling, because they didn’t like my way of establishing justice for all.
1 Samuel 15 (Saul is sent to destroy the Amaleks and is then punished for not doing the job properly) is one of the most frighten and troubling stories in the entire bible. I have never been able to integrate it into any coherent understanding of character of God.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
God, as the author and creator of all life, has the prerogative to take life when He sees fit to do so. A human life is precious because God has made it, but it is not so precious that it is above God’s authority. Human life is never “out of bounds” for God. Because of sin we are all going to die a physical death at some point. Why do we humans think that we have the right to arbitrarily draw a line wherein we declare that if a person dies on one side of that line then their death is somehow more natural, or understandable, but if they die below that line then their death is more “tragic” somehow?
I do not say this cavalierly at all. Death is painful, unpleasant and nasty, for those who actually go through it and for those left behind. However, that is not the question. The question is “did/does God do things that are unfair by using group punishment?”
I make the point because many associate pain and suffering with evil AUTOMATICALLY, and anyone who brings/allows pain and suffering is therefore evil (to people who think this way ).
But we are not talking about our feelings, or our desires, or what we would prefer, we are talking about facts, justice, fairness etc.
God is perfectly fair in taking anyone and everyone’s life if He so desires because He is the One and only author of life, and doesn’t HAVE to do anything (He is self-existant and does not need man to survive, but created man by His own choice).
It also was not fair that the Son of God, the spotless Lamb, should die in my place for the sins that I committed against God who is three times holy.
Mass punishment is entirely fair. Everyone sins; sin causes death; best thing to do is remove the sinner so that death doesn’t spread. It’s grace that’s inherently unfair.
And thank God.
This may be a bit of a stretch, but I’m reminded of an argument I heard not-too-long-ago for infant baptism. The idea was that in Acts and other parts of the NT, we see entire families becoming Christians at the same time and all being baptised. And that for pedobaptists, the family as the “little Church” is the basic unit rather than the individual. Granted, for pedobaptists, there is Confirmation for the individual. But you never find faith/salvation/etc. tied to Confirmation, though you do find it often tied to Baptism.
More on topic, though, it seems that community REALLY matters in the Bible (both OT and NT). Even though “the soul that sins shall die,” the prophet who refuses to call out the sinner has the sinner’s blood on his hands (to reference an Ezekiel passage).
Finally, I’m not sure God HAS to be fair. Is an unfair policy inherently unjust and unloving? I’m not necessarily sure it is.
I wrote some about this earlier, in thinking about the ethnic cleansing in the book of Joshua.
If we cannot (and must not) give up our firm convictions on individual justice, we must at least try to understand the ancient notion of collective identity. Nations and peoples were defined in terms of the strong personalities of their archetypes – Jacob, Esau, Anak, Amelek, Midian, Hercules, Romulus & Remus, etc. Sometimes their founders were even worshiped as gods. The cultures were very conservative, with their distinct character being passed from one generation to the next.
I sometimes wonder whether there is more to this than we like to think. Isn’t it curious that so much of what see as our own personal tastes, ideas, and opinions seem to fit key trends and movements (or counter movements) of our time? Even our personal individualism is an expression of a key American archetype. Most other cultures even today understand this better than we do, and hold individual Americans accountable for the actions of their country. Why shouldn’t they? We certainly benefit from our country’s actions – why should we not share the responsibility?
I am haunted at times when I find an old Indian arrowhead on my parents’ land. These are the artifacts of the people who were once here – peoples all but destroyed today. I can say it’s not my fault, but like it or not, I enjoy the lush beautiful land that their great grandchildren will never see. Is this just? Were the former inhabitants wicked enough to warrant their dispossession? If not, is there to be a reckoning? Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Interesting question and I’m looking forward to where this is going.
I think I heard Bill Maher raise this as one of his cornerstone questions in on of his trailers to his movie, “Religiousity.†I haven’t seen it as has not been playing north of Seattle. And of course the question of God’s injustice has been debated by every philosopher with statements like Voltaire’s, “If there’s a god, then he’s the devil.â€
But my question is there a difference between unfairness and injustice? I mean, can God be unfair and still be just? I think He can. There is an “overspray†of both His judgment and His grace. There are those who are evil that benefit from his mercy (like myself) and those who are good, but go down with the ship (meaning the family, nation or world). To the so-called “good” falling because the sin of others would certainly feel unfair.
There are some things that are in the mystery of God, which I can’t understand but I still trust Him. But I do believe the questions should be asked and discussed and not simply relegated to the nonbeliever. I’m looking forward to the great comments that I’m sure will come from those with more enlighten than myself.
In secular endeavors group rewards and punishments will consistently produce better results than individual rewards and punishments. There are times when individualism wins but over the long haul it looses badly. This is true in military groups, industrial operations, even your local fast food outlet.
But we are wired to be individualists. (From the fall?) And so we keep wanting to implement the perfectly fair reward and punishment system for individuals. It never works.
As I’ve heard many times and told my kids many times. Life isn’t fair and never will be. Get over it.
to Steve in Toronto:
I don’t say this lightly, but sin, and its effects, are absolutely horrific. It destroys and it would destroy everything if not for God’s grace.
I believe that this is where every believer needs to start, in the O.T. or at least they need to go there soon. The reason I believe this is that as one reads about the O.T. Law and Patriarchs one sees clearly what kind of punishment our sins actually warrant. Furthermore we see more clearly what Christ has truly saved us from and we see and understand the context of Grace.
We Western Christians tend to read the law in the O.T. that children who were woefully disobedient were to be stoned to death and we say “that is too harsh”. Instead we ought to say “yes, that is what I deserved when I was rebellious and nasty to my parents, but by God’s grace Christ has saved me from that punishment”.
In other words we judge God’s standards as being too harsh, when in fact we don’t understand how terrible sin and rebellion are, and how truly great God’s grace is. We take God’s grace for granted and think God wrong for punishing sin, when He has every right to do so.
As to the Amalekites, they were incredibly evil and for God to allow them to live and survive would have actually been unjust. Their presence in the land would have/was corrupting the Israelites and causing the downfall of many.
God gave the Canaanites over 400 years to live in the land, and they merely became more and more corrupt and evil. God even gave some of those tribes an extra 40 years as the disobedient Israelites wandered in the wilderness.
Don’t forget all the innocent ones who died at the hands of the Amalekites. Someone needed to speak for them. Saul failed to do so, and was punished.
I have to take the opposing view on this. It seems incorrect, in my view, to split the hair between unfair and unjust. Group punishment is in our time generally viewed as unjust (remember we are not talking about making everybody do extra push ups or go without desert, it is one’s life on the line).
Group punishment is generally used when there is no time to met out individual punishment. For example, one could stop the car and investigate and find out who really ‘started it’ with the kids in the backseat but this would take too much time and since the kids are not committing crimes (just being annoying) group ‘punishment’ is fine. Yet, in the case of actual crimes it becomes a more serious matter. No one, I think, would claim it to be just that the entire families of anyone guilty of murder should be sent to the chair. Or the entire hometown of a drug dealer should be sent to prision.
I have no doubt that the OT view of justice has a group element to it. I just think that we have developed better ways to punish crime than killing the entire family of the criminal.
Topher
“I have to take the opposing view on this. It seems incorrect, in my view, to split the hair between unfair and unjust. Group punishment is in our time generally viewed as unjust (remember we are not talking about making everybody do extra push ups or go without desert, it is one’s life on the line).
Group punishment is generally used when there is no time to met out individual punishment.”
Group punishment makes a team pull together. Employee of the month awards are a great example of how not to do rewards. If you have 20 people some will figure out they will never get it so why try. Which drags down the entire group.
I’ve seen the individual reward punishment model make a few people feel great and destroy the moral of the group over and over again. On factory floors, in programming teams, or just getting something done on a volunteer basis.
Again, life isn’t fair.
1 Samuel 15:3’now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and does not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
Can any of the commenter’s honestly tell me that if they found this verse in the Koran they would be horrified and take it as evidence of the absolute barbarity of Islam?
I refuse to believe that the murder of infants is anything but a heinous sin (and yes I have been forced to adjust my doctrine scripture accordingly).
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
I think it’s quite possible that we’ve lost the necessary cultural context and force with which to interpret those stories. When they were written, when they were real lessons, there were certainly facts extant that were common knowledge about them that the stories didn’t contain – just like every book about George Bush won’t necessarily contain 8 years worth of jokes to the extent that he’s an idiot (all cross-referenced with facts and video and analysis), we shouldn’t expect that the cultural stories of a people so vastly removed from us in time, place, and semiotics are going to line up with our lives in some prophetic way.
For this reason, I think all attempts to explain them are fairly pointless, unless we start with the most ancient sources on them and develop a heuristic scheme of interpretations so we can see how understandings of these passages have changed. The best we can do is guess – luckily, if they mattered, God would preserved their meaning for us, right?
I don’t like the question/assertion. I would offer the following counter-assertion:
“Your complaint about the inherent unfairness of group punishment and group blessing in the Old Testament is inherently individualistic in a manner that is contrary to biblical teaching.â€
Two other thoughts on the discussion:
I think it begs the question, “what do you mean by ‘fair’?”
By making this assertion, I think an equivocation is at play: an inappropriate overlap of the idea of “fair” as meaning “equal” (as in parity) or “impartial” (as in equity), with the idea of “fair” as meaning “just”.
If we mistake justice as being the same as parity or equity, then we don’t understand justice.
Taking another direction:
If, by saying “[that] is inherently unfair,” you mean that, if God were a just God then He wouldn’t do that,” then you have just undermined the possibility of atonement.
The greatest example of group punishment/group blessing in the whole of Scripture is the cross. If the righteousness of one man cannot “fairly” be applied to all that he represents, then Christ died for nothing and God cannot “fairly” accept the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of your sin.
For the “punishment” end, I would suggest a careful reflection on Zephaniah 2:1-2 in context, using Luke 13:1-9 as an “intertext”. That could work, I reckon.
This question touches on a very troubling topic. Yes, it’s a given that whatever God does is right, just, and fair (depending on your definition of fair). So if he metes out group punishment, it’s just. But I have to take that completely on faith. To me, group punishment and reward is inherently unfair. Maybe I’m just too individualistic to grasp this…
Dear Sir,
My response to your proposition would not focus on unfairness. Anyone who has lived long enough to observe life at any level would concur that ‘life is unfair:’ a slower seal swimming to the beach after sating its natural hunger is overtaken by a Great White primarily because the seal is slower than the next; an infant with a debilitating disease is born to a family with four perfectly healthy siblings; a pedestrian crossing a rain slicked street is cut down by a passing vehicle because the wet tires hydroplaned atop the water; each of these examples can be seen as ‘unfair.’ But most of us ‘get over the unfairness’ and continue on with life.
I think the rub occurs at two other points of your statement: 1) God – who, for those who prefer Him to be benevolent – is assumed to be ‘fair’ but in reality violates most human expectations of ‘fairness;’ and 2) group punishment/blessing. We exist in a culture that wants to believe that you should suffer for your sins, but I should not suffer for your sins. And, I should benefit from my righteousness, but you should not benefit from my righteousness.
But I think once we begin to grasp the truth of who God has revealed Himself to be, we stop expecting Him to maintain a human sense of fairness. God is sovereign as He is benevolent. Therefore He transcends human categories of fairness. As K.W. Leslie wrote: ‘. . . It’s grace that’s inherently unfair. And thank God.’
That leaves me to consider group punishment/blessing. Was it fair that Achan’s extended family died because of his individual sin at Jericho (Joshua 7.20ff)? No, it was not fair by the preferred human definition. But what group affect did it have? Lessons were learned; the fear of God was re-established; cleansing of the group occurred; historical precedents were set (e.g., Isa65.10/Hos2.15); God’s holy expectations for His people were maintained; etc. Was it fair that Joseph’s murderous, lying brothers should benefit from the wise insight granted him from God? No. But what group affect did it have? An entire clan – and therefore a nation – was preserved through an epic famine (Gen45ff).
At this point I would prefer to bring the Cross into the discussion, but you established the parameter of the proposition within the context of the First Covenant. Therefore, I think my cursory response to your proposition would be: ‘Its not about what is fair/unfair. It is about a sovereign God acting as He chooses to achieve His greater purposes through the groups He chooses to use.’
Now, after having participated in this group discussion, I have been individually punished with a headache, which is most unfair.
Yours,
Lee
Topher,
Distinguishing between critical and non-critical issues when considering punishment is a valid distinction. From God’s perspective as it is presented to us in scripture, our situation is much more critical than we can ever imagine. We are engaged in a spiritual battle of epic proportions, and God pulls out all the stops to discipline and prepare his people to first of all become a people, and second to do what is necessary to fight the battle.
I can’t say that I fully understand what God was doing when he commanded the slaughter of innocents in the Old Testament. But it is clear with Christ that the terms of the battle are now to be fought through the weakness of the weapon of love. And it requires even more discipline, courage, and commitment to fight in this way. I would much rather take my sword and cut people in two. The stakes are every bit as high as they ever were I think, and the war never more dangerous, but we are called to confront it through seeking to become an earthly image of the heavenly community, and to die together if called to do so.
It is still together that we are blessed, and together we are punished, is it not? And fairness is not even something we can judge it seems to me. Either God is good or he isn’t. If he is good, then the fairness of his judgment will only be known when we are with him face to face.
Glenda
“To me, group punishment and reward is inherently unfair. Maybe I’m just too individualistic to grasp this…”
Yes it is. God never said he was “fair”.
Yes you are. And so are we all. Which is why we need the cross. As MS points out every now and then.
I would suppose that God used mass punishment/reward with Israel as a group because His covenant was with Israel as a group. Therefore, their sanctification was in the context of their…uh…groupidness. His covenant with us is more one-on-one, methinks, as are His opportunities for sanctification. Although, not always.
A couple of years ago, my sister revealed something our mom had once told her about her discipline philosophy. My sis was always getting into trouble, and my brother wasn’t too far behind. I was the oldest, stable, good kid. Apparently, my mom was afraid of showing favoritism, so when one of us did something wrong, she resolved to be equally upset with all of us. As the “good kid,” it sure made for some conflicting messages throughout my childhood. Although, come to think of it, I seem to accept the general unfairness of life more easily than most!
Ed Eubanks,
This is a class exercise in debate, so I’m a bit confused by your suggested assertion.
Your assertion undercuts free and open debate and defends the Christian position. I have many non-Christians in the classes and I want the Christians to take the non-Christian position. It is a free and open debate on a major issue between Christians and their critics. Judging the opposition in the assertion to be debated seems inappropriate.
peace
ms
BTW- Those of you who believe our human notions of fairness are undependable guides to ethical decision making should help us understand what people were to do before they were able to consult the Bible.
How will the Mayan be judged? On his conscience- which has an undependable concept of fairness- or on God’s?
peace
MS
If any of us judged a family like Achan’s family was judged, we would be prosecuted for mass homicide. How do we defend the difference without special pleading?
Lets all keep in mind that The Bible is full of verses that says stuff to the effect that ‘God repents of the evil he would have done you’. So, the idea that God… doesn’t just bless or punish us, but also almost sort of punishes us and then doesn’t – is Biblical.
Remember, drinking this in through culture leads to an understanding of Scripture that explains things very differently than we Christians try to develop by isolating every verse we don’t understand and trying to find it instructive and personally meaningful to us.
For those who have problems with God commanding Saul to exterminate the Amalekites. Please flip forward to the Book of Esther, and examine the pedigree of Haman. You will find that he is descended from the surviving Amalekites, and from the cradle was fed by his mother with tales of the perfidy of the Jews. He grew up to plot the destruction of the Jews, and nearly succeeded.
That endangerment of the Hebrew patrimony is the true cost of Saul’s Sin.
1Sa 15:16-23 KJV Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on. (17) And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel? (18) And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. (19) Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD? (20) And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. (21) But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal. (22) And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (23) For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
tigger: What is the argument for not exterminating entire people groups today if they practice a non-Christian religion? I’m quite serious.
North Korea practices Collective/Group Responsibility and Collective/Group Punishment. With a vengeance. Collective Responsibility is more common in Asian cultures than Western.
ooh ooh! call on me! The OT is also a story of Jesus. God did what He needed to do to insure the branch of Jesse. God’s ways are higher than our ways. If we decide to exterminate a culture we are “Playing God” . If you chose to judge God that is up to you, but He will judge you, for sure, so keep your sword in the sheath so as not to go against His will. God’s judgment is good even when to us it seems wrong. We are not empowered to exterminate any one, group nor individual. He is empowered to do as He wills.
willoh:
So is there no rational coherence to Christian ethics? As in, a person can use reason and conclude that we should teach our children “It is always bad to exterminate a whole race of people.” Or we teach children to say “It is OK for God exterminate a race of people to bring Jesus into the world- even though God is omnipotent and didn’t need to kill anyone to bring Jesus into the world- but it is always wrong for us to kill a whole race of people, even if there are very bad people in that race?”
I’m looking for how the Christian responds to the charge that our ethics are incoherent on this issue, but we play the God card to make them coherent.
peace
ms
What a great question. Group punishment and blessing runs throughout the scriptures from beginning to end. The first instance I see is when God punished the human race for Adam’s sin. Is this “unfair”?
How do we put aside our cultural lenses to answer this? Or do we need to put it aside at all?
Michael, are you going to share your answer to this question?
iMonk – Rationale for not exterminating would start with something along the lines of
Mat 5:43-48 KJV Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. (44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. (46) For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? (47) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? (48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Paul amplifies this idea in Romans:
Rom 12:14-21 KJV Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. (15) Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. (16) Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. (17) Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. (18) If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. (19) Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (20) Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. (21) Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
My personal thinking on the Old Testament is that the Israelites had a positive command from God to enter Canaan and subdue it for the Glory of God.
In our current era we have a positive command from our LORD and Savior not to use force to avenge ourselves, our families our church. In a modern context we as Christians are required to provide water and food even to someone like Osama bin Laden, if we encounter him thirsty, hungry or naked. See Mat 25:31-46
Scott:
Maybe.
But I prefer the traffic
I haven’t read the other comments, so someone may have already said this, but I have noticed that most people are upset over group punishment, but not so much over group blessings. Most of us will not turn down rewards that we didn’t do anything to earn, but we scream bloody murder if we are punished and don’t personally deserve it.
Individualism is part of the American psyche, but even with that we aren’t totally able to get away from the group mentality. “WE believe in individualism here.” I think it is in the human spirit to want to be connected to others.
Michael- you asked
“I’m looking for how the Christian responds to the charge that our ethics are incoherent on this issue, but we play the God card to make them coherent.”
Frankly I am unsure that we CAN answer the argument. I think we Christians simply have to take the hit, because, in the end, our ethics really ARE conditioned on special revelation, aren’t they? If we say they aren’t, then where is New Covenant theology? (I’d like to hear your reflection on that question.)
I have empathy for the flummoxed unbeliever who asks this question, and I want to give them a soft, gentle and “coherent” answer, if I can. But the questioner’s heart has to be examined (however imperfectly) as well. It’s a two-way process.
At some point, “coherency” really does break down and I don’t know if it is possible to completely redeem it (by the world’s standards).
At some point, also, we have to introduce the concept of how GOOD GUYS get to suffer right alongside the bad guys.
1 – first thing to comes to mind is the closest I can remember Jesus coming to the subject (in John 9), the disciples see a blind man and wonder if he’s blind because of God’s punishment on his family – Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
2 – group punishment/blessing is absolutely necessary in the physical reality that God created – a world where the actions of creatures can affect each other – picture the fantasy world where rain would only fall on half the people walking down the street (a world God could have created, but chose not to)
3 – “If the man were sure God did it, the thing he ought to say would be, ‘Then there must be something about it I do not know, which if I
did know, I should see the thing quite differently.’ But where an evil thing is invented to explain and account for a good thing, and a lover of God is called upon to believe the invention or be cast out, he needs not mind being cast out, for it is into the company of Jesus. Where there is no ground to believe that God does a thing except that men who would explain God have believed and taught it, he is not a true man who
accepts men against his own conscience of God. I acknowledge no authority calling upon me to believe a thing of God, which I could not
be a man and believe right in my fellow-man …
“The justice of God is this, that–to use a boyish phrase, the best the language will now afford me because of misuse–he gives every man, woman, child, and beast, everything that has being, _fair play_; he renders to every man according to his work; and therein lies his perfect mercy; for nothing else could be merciful to the man, and nothing but mercy could be fair to him. God does nothing of which any just man, the thing set fairly and fully before him so that he understood, would not say, ‘That is fair.’ Who would, I repeat, say a man was a just man because he insisted on prosecuting every offender? A scoundrel might do that. Yet the justice of God, forsooth, is his punishment of sin! A just man is one who cares, and tries, and always tries, to give fair play to everyone in every thing. When we speak of the justice of God, let us see that we do mean justice.”
- George MacDonald
4 – Last, but not least, there is the speculative explanation – I can’t say I believe it yet because I haven’t seen the Scripture explained clearly enough to me – but it offers a fascinating reason why Israel had to wipe out complete races (man, woman & infant) in the land of Canaan. Not something I’d try to defend in the public square at the moment but the references include (Gen. 6:1-4, Num. 13:13, 32-33, Duet. 2:11, Deut. 3:11, Sam. 21:19, II Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6-7). If the “sons of God” is defined the same as it is Job 1:6, & 2:1, then it would make sense that (a) if the devil could pervert Adam & Eve’s bloodline, then the promise of the Messiah would be impossible, and (b) if this was what was happening, God using his chosen people (and specifically using men like Caleb and David, both ancestors to Jesus) to completely wipe the “nephilim” off the face of the earth would make a lot of sense. (I’m not a conspiracy theorist really, I just went to a really wierd Sunday school class once).
I think this is definitely one of the areas where the reality of Jesus changes things. Hooray for progressive revelation.
In Genesis, God sends the Hebrews into exile partially because the sins of the Canaanite people hadn’t reached their full. The post-Wilderness conquest of Canaan was partially due to God’s promise to give the Hebrews that land and partially as punishment to those nations. The total holy war of the Conquest really was a one-time thing. In every other case, the Hebrews were supposed to be a “light to the world.” Granted, it takes several centuries (and another exile) before God really moves beyond being Israel-centered to being more universal.
By the time Jesus comes around, it’s revealed that the Kingdom isn’t (yet?) a restoration of the Davidic Monarchy, but is something spiritual. And the Apostles are eventually led to include all the nations in the Kingdom.
The point is, the rules changed. As Jeremiah says, the New Covenant is “not like the covenant I made with your fathers when I brought them out of Egypt.” Just because God commanded the Israelites to do something doesn’t mean he wants Christians to do the same thing. Different time, different situation, different Covenant.
Oh, and a little addendum. Can God change the rules again? The Moslems (and others) would say “yes.” But we Christians believe the canon is closed. No more changing of the rules while we’re on this plane of existance.
Just thought of this passage – Here we see Christ explaining why it is not a good idea to remove the tares before harvest time. I’ve always suspected that some of the tares become good seed during the growing season but there isn’t any good support for that suspicion in the text.
Couple more thoughts – One of the reasons given is to avoid damaging the good seed while it is growing which would affect the yield. Second application of this to combat is the number of lives changed, destroyed and ended, think for a minute of Europe’s lost generation, the men who died during WW 1, and again in WW 2.
Mat 13:24-30 KJV Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: (25) But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. (26) But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. (27) So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? (28) He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? (29) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. (30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
The whole of Christian religion is focused on the fact that there has to be a “group punishment” of the human race. All are destined for Hell, except those redeemed by the Son of God. It is hard to say it, but otherwise we have the squishy “God is Love” argument that most of the world believes.
Now, that said, I think that group punishment of a nation only applies to the Biblical Israel in the OT. If people choose God, either through free will or election and Sovereign Monergism, then they are individuals and not part of the whole for a Nation. And it is obviously wrong and non-scriptural to do as many Fundies do and believe America is analogous to OT Israel.
Please share how your students answered your proposition!
Ironically, teenagers and politicians alike look at fairness in the context of groups. But it is always “unfair” for the group not to have the same things or opportunities, and only when they side with the downtrodden. No one or no group ever points out when they get the upper hand and have something that someone else doesn’t have – no one ever sees that as “unfair”.
They will be debating this next week. I doubt they will have any scintillating insights, but you never know.
One non-Christian student really did have an interesting observation on the group punishment of Sodom and the mercy for 10 righteous that was pleaded by Abraham. I think that’s quite a hopeful story in all of this, because it juxtaposes God’s justice in punishing a group and his willingness to show mercy to individuals.
I think that a lot of Christians really want to “solve” this, and I don’t think you can. God is on the hook. He orders children to be killed. You can’t miss that. But you also have to ask “What is the nature of Biblical revelation?” and the answer is that it reveals Christ, a perfect balance of judging the world/saving the world, judging individuals and saving individuals.
Job put God on the hook and left him there. But Job also said he believed that the God who had permitted the death of his children, etc was also the God who would stand by him as an advocate.
He never solves this, but he moves to a kind of resolution on “What kind of God is there for me?” and clearly the answer to that is not the God who destroyed Achan’s family, but the God who sacrificed his own completely innocent son.
I think there’s an existential truth in the Bible that we need to grasp. God isn’t yearning to show us this side that kills whole cities or the whole world in Genesis 6. He is yearning, passionately, the lay all judgement on Christ and most of all to lay all of my judgement on Christ.
Perspective Question: When is God’s action ever not about “Group?”
Anyone who can point to one example where God acts, in any manner, solely for the sake of an individual wins a $10 Amazon gift card.
Michael can judge. He seems to like doing that
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
I think God acts for individuals all the time, but that’s from the perspective of the individual. With the true Biblical perspective, God’s purposes are always beyond the individual, and in his “people.”
Ultimately, what God does is for himself, and this is why there is no conflict between God-centeredness and love.
My real tension in this issue has to do with the basis of ethics, particularly as we describe them to children.
Why was it right for anyone to raise a weapon to kill a child? Ever? How can we have coherent ethics if we actually attempt to explain that?
If Christian ethics are unreasonable and incoherent precisely because we’ve spent so much time explaining them and coming up with theological answers, I want to know how we answer a child’s question: would it be right for God to tell my daddy to kill me like he told Abraham to kill Isaac?
Note this is different than God killing Isaac. This is a question of the ethics of Abraham, and how you explain ethics.
Further, I’ll suggest- though I am not signing on to this- that it is more coherent to say that killing children is always wrong than it is to explain why it’s sometimes right. I’d prefer to deal with my idea of the nature of scripture than actually have a theory of how I can tell my son that it’s ok to kill your child if God tells you too.
Chew on that. This is the kind of stuff I love to toss out in discussions. Let us talk about it. Don’t take down names and turn us in for being heretics.
The Chinese don’t think twice about group punishment or blessing. In fact, they think that individual salvation, blessing and punishment is illogical. I think it comes from seeing themselves as part of the greater whole and therefore influential toward the greater whole.
The issue of the ethics of Abraham is an interesting one. Today we read about Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son and react in horror that he would consider it, but in his day, child sacrifice was practiced to appease gods. So perhaps the point of the story of Abraham is God turning the ethics of the day away from that practice, and to point to God’s solution which involves a substitute to be reconciled to God. I doubt that those who followed Molech ever heard Molech say “you don’t have to sacrifice your child to me today”. So the story of Abraham is revolutionary, in the ethical context of the day.
The ethics of group punishment remains, however.
I’m curious– do anyone believe that God ordered Saul to *sin,* with the command to exterminate the Amalekites?
I guess we can call it “special pleading” to say that while we (Christians) should not exterminate whole groups of people today, God was right to command it in specific circumstances in the OT. However, doesn’t God inherently have the *right* to such “special pleading,” because He is *God*?
*does* anyone believe, I mean… it’s apparently too late at night for me to be typing!
“Let us talk about it. Don’t take down names and turn us in for being heretics.”
OK. Did they have to kill off the women and children to prevent revenge killings down the road? And they road might be centuries long.
In the west we seem to have tended away from the concept of long term family / tribal based revenge. But it is alive and well in many parts of the world. Especially in the Middle East. At least to my untrained eyes.