OT and War

mitchell · Wed Feb 11, 2004 - 20:16:03

Lee:" The Old Testament is clear in it's support of war when evil is dominating."

This quote is a carry over from the WMD thread. Lee has tried to use the presence of God sanctioned war in the OT as proof that war is sanctioned for Christians. But he neglects to pay attention to what kind of war is spoken of in a supportive way and what circumstances are at play in the OT. Those who point to OT war rarely show even basic understanding of its characteristics. Even in the OT war was seen as a spiritually contaminating enterprise. Consider the reason David could not build the Temple ,i.e., he was a man of war. More than the presence of evil was necessary for a war to be given divine support. And the other ingredience are absent in our time for Christians. These include the actual command of God for specific wars, the fact that God always used inferior military force -or none at all-, the fact that there is no "chosen nation" to defend or advance, the fact that God did not use his people to go to war on behalf of other nations. OT war no more provides a warrant for Christian behavior than does the presence of concubines in the lives of key OT characters justify Christian males having concubines today.

marc · Wed Feb 11, 2004 - 20:32:28

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Even in the OT war was seen as a spiritually contaminating enterprise. Consider the reason David could not build the Temple ,i.e., he was a man of war.[/quote]
And I would agree with this as an accurate portrayal of war, past and present. War is a horrible thing, resulting in senseless slaughter and the devaluation of human life. Morality is lost in the fog of war, and right and wrong become relative or at times virtually irrelevant. War is one of the most terrible plagues visited on the earth.

And yet it is impossible for a nation to survive if it refuses to consider that war is at times a necessity. And, evil as it is, God's choice that His people at times go to war is in itself a statement that war is not absolutely prohibited.

mitchell · Wed Feb 11, 2004 - 21:09:00

You and I work off different assumptions. I don't disagree that war may be necessay for a nation's survival. But God does not require any particular nation. They come and go. And Christians are not to be invested in the survival of a particular earthly nation. In the OT there was a nation with a very specific and indispensible redemptive purpose. God insured that the nation survived, sometimes by war. Now the nation with a redemptive purpose is not one that is geographically defined. In fact when its citizens go to war they usually end up killing each other and thereby disgracing the head of that nation who is Jesus Christ. Christians in warfare today is nothing like Israelites in warfare in the OT.

marc · Thu Feb 12, 2004 - 07:55:11

I don't know; this would seem to go beyond the idea of God not requiring any nation's survival and move into the territory of Him not desiring any nation's survival--or more to the point, Him desiring that no nation survive.

And I still cannot get away from the idea that God not only allowed but desired His chosen nation to participate in war (making this quite a different issue than concubines). No matter what kind of philosophies or theologies we work out to get around this, it remains a huge stumbling block to absolute pacifism--particularly when you have to consider that God's commands about how we treat each other individually were much the same in the Old Testament as they are in the New Testament (Jesus' "new command" was in fact a restatement of God's intentions from the beginning).

I have some other thoughts about individual pacifism, but am not sure that is the focus of this discussion, so I'll let it be for the moment.

The only other comment I would make is that the reason God often fought with inferior forces was not so that Israel would not appear to be a bully, but rather so they would learn to depend on God's strength rather than their own (see Judges 7 for instance, particularly v. 2). Also, I'm not sure this was an absolute. In Joshua 8, for instance, 30,000 Israelites destroy the 12,000 men and women of AI.

mitchell · Thu Feb 12, 2004 - 08:48:16

Marc, notice I have never argued for a philosophy of absolute pacifism, but defend a biblical pacifism. Alexander Campbell the pacifist always said that war is permissible at the command of God. But for us the command of God, like the mercy of God is embodied in Jesus Christ. We discern the relevance of the OT in light of Christ and do not shape Jesus Christ to fit the standards of the OT because Jesus is the full and final revelation of God. But I don't want to focus too much on the NT in this OT thread.

Marc, you're right that "the reason God often fought with inferior forces was not so that Israel would not appear to be a bully" but there is repeated rejection of superior force in the OT because it displays a lack of true dependence upon the strength of God. That is one reason I have so little regard for the national motto, "in God We Trust."

"God's commands about how we treat each other individually were much the same in the Old Testament as they are in the New Testament." As Christians there are not distinctive moral standards, one as individuals and another corporately. That distinction is foreign to the NT text. When we act corporately we act as church, not as worldly nation.

Mere Nick · Thu Feb 12, 2004 - 10:11:47

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (mitchell @ Feb. 11 2004,8:16)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]OT war no more provides a warrant for Christian behavior than does the presence of concubines in the lives of key OT characters justify Christian males having concubines today.[/quote]
RATS!!!

Also, it seems to me that to be consistent in pacifism one must also be an anarchist.

Nick

boringoldguy · Thu Feb 12, 2004 - 10:53:24

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (mitchell @ Feb. 11 2004,8:16)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]OT war no more provides a warrant for Christian behavior than does the presence of concubines in the lives of key OT characters justify Christian males having concubines today.[/quote]
Once when I was doing some internet research for a class on the Song of Solomon I stumbled across a website that advocated "Christian Polygamy."

It was interesting, I guess, but I wasn't convinced.

mitchell · Thu Feb 12, 2004 - 15:02:03

BOG, I think I came across the same site. Life is complicated enough. Who would want to negotiate with two wives?

Nick:"Also, it seems to me that to be consistent in pacifism one must also be an anarchist."

You may be right. And a good case for Christian anarchism has been made by Jacgues Ellul in his book Anarchy and Christianity. He is a great thinker and had an interesting life. He was active in the French resistance against Hitler.

admin · Thu Feb 12, 2004 - 18:18:32

Mitchell,

The argument that if we take one practice from the Old Testament, we must take them all is the same that is used by those who believe that certain Christians groups are sinning by using instruments in worship.

I happen to believe that from the beginning of civilization, war has at times been necessary. It is a horrible thing. A scary thing. But, if it will protect our families from evil, I am willing and so are many others. The other option is possibly allowing someone to harm my family, my wife and my little boy. I don't believe God expects me to stand by and not be violent--if violence is the only way to stop the wolf from hurting my family. I am to be the defender of my family.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and non-violence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.

mitchell · Thu Feb 12, 2004 - 19:55:12

Lee:"The argument that if we take one practice from the Old Testament, we must take them all is the same that is used by those who believe that certain Christians groups are sinning by using instruments in worship."

That is a simplistic slant on what I actually argued. I offered several reasons why war in the OT does not provide a warrant for Christians in warfare. You haven't addressed any of them.

Lee:"Bonhoeffer participated in an assassination attempt against the head of the Third Reich ."

Yes, I mentioned that earlier. It was certainly not one of his best moments. His thinking was better than his living at that point. But we all have points in our lives where the same thing can be said. Have you actually read any of Bonhoeffer's books, Lee?

Lee:"As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and non-violence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.

admin · Thu Feb 12, 2004 - 22:50:53

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and non-violence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.

mitchell · Fri Feb 13, 2004 - 09:23:00

Lee, again we drift from the theme of the thread. But I accept part of the blame.
Lee:"I got the Dr. King quote from Dr. Rubel Shelly at http://gcm.ibelieve.com/content.asp?CID=17396. I'll ask him where he found it, though it's all over the Internet. Mitchell, are you saying that Dr. King did not say that? "

What I'm saying is that I haven't been able to find it and it doesn't seem consistent with some of his other writings. The only mention of Hitler I've found in King's writings is found in his "Letter From the Birmingham Jail" and it doesn't resemble the one you cited. As for it being all over the internet that doesn't mean a thing. Lots of quotes from the "Founding Fathers" are floating around that aren't really from their writings. People quote from secondary sources who in turn quote from secondary sources who fabricated the quote.
I'd just like to know where the quote is found in King's writings so I can see it in context, if he did, indeed, say it.

christianne · Fri Feb 13, 2004 - 09:58:21

Here is a link showing that MLK quote:

http://www.pbs.org/opb/bonhoeffer/man/

Maybe this will help?

mitchell · Fri Feb 13, 2004 - 10:09:42

Sorry, it doesn't. Still no reference. Context is everything.

marc · Fri Feb 13, 2004 - 19:49:17

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (mitchell @ Feb. 13 2004,07:09)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Sorry, it doesn't. Still no reference. Context is everything.[/quote]
Could you explain, then, the type of context that would negate the assumed meaning of this quote?

mitchell · Fri Feb 13, 2004 - 23:07:59

Marc, I can think of several. But speculation is pointless when it can all be made clear simply producing a real source from King's writings. The quote may be genuine but it is certainly not characteristic. I've read a fair amount of King. I saw that Land from the Southern Baptists used the same quote to suggest King would be supportive of the war in Iraq. Not a chance. He willingly lost friends to opposed the war in Viet Nam.

marc · Fri Feb 13, 2004 - 23:46:32

While my best guess would also be that Dr. King would not support the war, I'm not sure that the context of the quote would go very far in determining this. I was hoping you had some idea of where this quote comes from. It seems, on the surface at least, an interesting quote that says something about King's attitude toward those who favored segregation.

One thing though about the Viet Nam comparison--whether these comparisons are valid on the whole or not, they wouldn't seem to have much to do with the point being made concerning this quote, since the point being made by those using it has to do with the evil of an individual--Saddam--a factor that wasn't present in Viet Nam.

mitchell · Sat Feb 14, 2004 - 09:44:54

Marc, I question whether the quote is genuine. But my guess is that the quote is either a fabrication from a secondary source that has been has unknowingly been passed on and on or it is taken out of context. The simple fact is that countless remarks made by King that support nonviolence, not just as a method useful in some situations but a value rooted in Jesus Christ.

"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."
Martin Luther King Jr., Accepting Nobel Peace Price, Dec. 10, 1964

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."
Martin Luther King Jr., December 11, 1964

marc · Sat Feb 14, 2004 - 10:21:44

If you've googled this, then you've probably found the quote was popularized after its use on a PBS page about a Bonhoeffer film. As of yet, I haven't found the original source for the quote, but I'm still looking.

Jim Abb · Mon Feb 16, 2004 - 21:43:20

As an aside to this conversation, finding the actual quote in context can make a difference. A certain TV talking head quoted the New York Times once as being anti-Christian. The quote came from a book reviewer summarizing the content of a book. Now it is true that the statement appeared in the NY Times, but in context it was not the position of the paper or the reviewer but that of the author of the book being reviewed.
It's like people who love to quote "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Now that is in the scriptures, but without the rest of the verse one does not realize the statement is being condemned.
So context, even of a seemingly straightforward quote, can be very important.

Jim

Tue Feb 17, 2004 - 06:37:19

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Feb. 13 2004,7:49)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Sorry, it doesn't. Still no reference. Context is everything.[/quote]
Could you explain, then, the type of context that would negate the assumed meaning of this quote?

[/quote]
Whaaa?

This sounds distressingly enough like "negated assumed-context-related program activities."

The one who doesn't have context is hardly in a position to demand context from an objector.

- Bob

marc · Tue Feb 17, 2004 - 19:33:32

Actually, Mitchell answered this question quite well, but I do agree that I use stilted language and too many qualifiers on this board. I don't think I've ever been quite as, well, careful about trying to make sure my words weren't taken to mean something other than what I intended.

Anybody have any progress on finding the origin of the quote, btw?

Christian Forums

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

OT and War

mitchell

marc

mitchell

marc

mitchell

Mere Nick

boringoldguy

mitchell

admin

mitchell

admin

mitchell

christianne

mitchell

marc

mitchell

marc

mitchell

marc

Jim Abb

marc

Recent Topics

Login:
Password:
Login for: