The God of the Bible is often charged with gross immorality, especially for ordering entire nations to be destroyed in the Old Testament. He commanded Israel to cleanse Canaan of its immoral, idol-worshiping nations after the Exodus, and in 1 Samuel 15 he instructed them to destroy Amalek completely, “man and women, child and infant, oxen and sheep, camel and donkey.” So is there really God-ordained genocide in the Bible?
This post is the first of at least two I will write on the genocide question. I will begin by working out a more careful definition of the question. We know what genocide is, of course: it is the attempt (successful or not) to eliminate an entire race, tribe, or nation of people. It is murder writ very large, involving many co-participants in evil and resulting in the deaths of many.
There is no hiding what God told Israel to do. The question is whether God or the Bible are free of the guilt we attach to genocide.
I do not propose to answer that question now. I believe there is an answer, but I will save that for the next post (and possibly beyond). The first task is to reflect on what makes genocide the extreme evil that it is, for that sort of definition is essential to the next steps.
For example, one thing that makes genocide so evil is the sheer numbers of deaths that result. In Rwanda, the dead numbered in the hundreds of thousands; in the Holocaust, they totaled many millions. For humans to choose to kill that many is unspeakably wrong. A believer in the Bible must be prepared to say how God could be free of blame for ordering thousands to die.
Genocide is also wrong in that it:
Originates from a heart of hate
Involves a desire to dominate
Ignores justice and mercy toward the victims
Targets its victims indiscriminately, without respect to guilt or innocence, age, status in life, sex, or ability to defend themselves or to be aggressors themselves
Generally entails taking the law into one’s own hands
Is oriented against the ultimate establishment of justice and mercy in the land
Provokes severe terror
Forces huge hardship (massive displacement, refugee situations, economic hardship that may extend as far as nakedness and famine)
Tears apart families
Seeks to systematically destroy not only individuals (in large numbers) but also their cultures or ways of living
Rends the conscience of the perpetrators
What did I miss? It’s easy to overlook things when one tries to systematize in this way. That is essentially the question for today’s post, and you’re welcome to extend my list by adding comments. Even from this, clearly there is something about genocide that is more wrong, and more obviously wrong, than just about anything else in human experience. Yet we who believe in God continue to hold that he is holy, good, and just. How can we do this?
I am setting up the question today, not answering it, but I will preview the manner in which I’ll be answering by offering a partial response to the first point raised here: the sheer number of deaths. My overall approach will be to treat each of the bulleted points separately first, and then later to integrate those treatments into a combined closing response. Therefore, for now, I’m separating out the matter of the number of deaths from the other listed issues. My first look is not at the way they died, or the terror that accompanied it, or any of the other related aspects, but at just the number of those who died. Can God be free of blame in calling for so many deaths?
Let’s be very realistic about this. On that matter, if God has a problem, it’s far worse than just these genocides. From the very beginning, from the time of the Fall, God has watched over the deaths not of thousands or millions but billions. Some have lived long lives (by human standards); some have been cut off very early by disease, malnourishment, neglect, injury, or violence. Every victim of genocide was destined to die, even apart from such violence, for every human who lives is destined to die.
So we have three options in assessing this. Either:
God is wrong and morally culpable (blamable) for his actions as God concerning all the deaths in history, and genocide is just another instance of this (though possibly a special case due to other factors already named); or
God is not wrong (and therefore not morally culpable) for his actions concerning all the deaths in history, except for genocide, which is a special case for one or more of the reasons named in the bulleted list above; so he remains morally culpable in the case of the OT genocides; or
God is not wrong (and therefore all not morally culpable) for his actions concerning all the deaths in history, and he is also not morally culpable with respect to the other bulleted items in the list above; so God is not morally at fault for the OT genocides.
The three options are very different, yet they have something very important in common; and for today’s purposes, it’s what they have in common that matters. You can take your pick of any of the three, and no matter which one you choose, inevitably you will have to see that the issue is not the same for God as it is for humans. There is no way it could be the same. We have not looked on the death of every human that has ever lived. God has. If we consider God’s role in these genocides the same way we do humans’, then we are virtually guaranteed to get it wrong, for God’s role and relation to the events is not the same as ours.
We need to think through these differences. We humans have an automatic, reflexive reaction toward mass killings. God’s position being different, that reflexive reaction is inadequate to apply to him without at least further reflection.
That last point bears repeating, I think. This whole matter is laden with emotion, and rightly so, based on tragic experiences around the world over the last century and more. I respect that depth of emotion, and will continue to do so. But I will also lead us to consider whether those feelings tell the whole story with respect to God’s actions in the Old Testament. The question must be asked that way, because as we have seen, the issue for God is not the same as it is for humans. The question is not whether it’s different for God, but how it is different for God, and whether that makes a difference.
It also bears repeating that I have not yet begun to answer the questions raised here. I haven’t begun to assess God’s culpability with respect to the moral categories on the bulleted list, because I wanted to focus first of all on the fact that if there is a God, then God is not like us and we cannot treat this issue as if he were. This is hardly special pleading, for God (if there is a God) cannot be like us. In fact, as I have already said, if God is guilty at all, he is even more guilty by reason of presiding over the death of billions.
So I think it may be premature even for commenters to start in with other answers, because it’s so crucial to get the question defined clearly first. I would prefer it if we could all focus our comments on defining the question for now. We’ll start working on answers soon enough. Follow the series links above or below to continue in this investigation with me.
By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.
Copyright, Permissions, Marketing
Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.