The Coherence of Christian Ethics, Part 2

Biblical Ethics: Violence

In the book of Psalms, there are a number of imprecatory psalms, in which the psalmist calls on God to smite his enemies. The most infamous of these is Psalm 137, which ends by saying, “O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us. Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!” (137:8-9). Critics argue that this psalm teaches that murdering babies is an ethically good thing, which is morally repugnant. However, we must remember that psalms are not theological ethical treatises; they are poems, and need to be interpreted according to their literary genre. In Psalm 137, the psalmist, a member of a brutally oppressed people group, is in raw emotion crying out to God for relief from their oppression, crying out for their oppressors to “get a taste of their own medicine.” God validated this anguished cry by having this psalm included in the book of Psalms. This does not at all mean that the book of Psalms teaches that killing babies is a morally good thing for God’s covenant people to do. 

The Old Testament Law frequently commands the death penalty, even for sins that seem to be less serious than murder (Num 15:32-36; Ex 21:17, 22:18-20). This seems to contradict Jesus’s teachings that Christians should love their enemies (Matt 5:43-48) and never use violence. However, this is not a direct contradiction. It is an example of God calling His people to higher moral standards at a later point in salvation history. In the New Testament, God’s covenant people are no longer identified with a particular ethnic nation, but are instead a transnational, voluntary community. Thus, while these sins still merit expulsion from God’s covenant people (in the form of excommunication), capital punishment should no longer be carried out. It might seem extreme that the Old Testament Law commanded the death penalty for crimes like adultery and idolatry. But we must remember that the Old Testament Law was not just concerned with preserving the social order, as the laws of modern nation states are; it was concerned with preserving the covenant relationship between a Holy God and His people. Thus, all egregious moral crimes needed to be dealt with by removing the perpetrator from among God’s holy covenant people. 

Probably the most commonly criticized moral command in the Old Testament is God’s command to destroy the nations of Canaan (Deut 7:1-2). Critics argue that such a “genocidal” command could not possibly come from a good God. However, it is a misinterpretation to call God’s command to destroy the nations of Canaan a “genocide.” While most translations translate the Hebrew term herem as “totally destroy” or something like that, this is misleading, since herem actually means something along the lines of “remove from human use.” To harem a physical object could sometimes mean to destroy it, but it could also mean giving it to the priests to use in the sanctuary. To herem a people group did not mean to kill everyone of a particular ethnicity; it meant to destroy that people group’s identity by killing its leaders, destroying its religious shrines, and depopulating its cities.  To herem a city and “leave none alive” did not necessarily mean killing everyone in that city; it meant the city was depopulated, by its people either 1) being killed, 2) fleeing, or 3) becoming part of the Israelites.  Thus, Rahab and her family being allowed to live (Josh 6:22-25) was not an exception to the herem, since she gave up her Canaanite identity to join the Israelites. The Israelite conquest of Canaan was not a genocide, but was an ancient war like any other. ^[1]John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), pages 169-232. 

Biblical Ethics: Women

There are a number of instances of horrific violence against women in the Old Testament, such as the story in the book of Judges of a concubine getting gang raped to death and then dismembered (Judges 19). Some critics point to this as supporting violence against women. However, a description of sinful behavior in a narrative does not in any way entail approval of that sinful behavior by the biblical author. The entire point of the book of Judges is that, in the absence of godly leadership, Israel sank deeper and deeper into spiritual and moral depravity. The story of the concubine’s death takes place at the end of the book of Judges, as an illustration of just how deeply depraved Israel has become. Clearly, the biblical author is presenting this instance of violence against women as a horrifically evil act, not as something to be imitated. 

The Old Testament Law allows an Israelite soldier to take a female prisoner of war as his wife, as long as he first gives her a full month to mourn her family, and truly treats her as his wife, not as a slave (Deut 21:10-14). Critics have claimed that this law promotes sexual violence against women. But the purpose of this law was actually to protect women. Throughout all of history, up to the present day, the rape of women in conquered cities by invading soldiers during war has been a common, widespread practice. This Old Testament Law outlaws this horrific practice by requiring a soldier who desires a captive woman to wait an entire month first, and then to treat her honorably by marrying her. While this law does not reflect an ultimate New Testament ethic, which forbids war in the first place, it was very progressive for its time. 

In a number of passages in the Old Testament prophets, God likens Israel metaphorically to an unfaithful wife, and declares that He will “strip” her and allow her to be “raped” by invading armies (Jer 13:22-26; Ezek 16:35-41, 23:22-49; Hos 2:9-10). Some critics argue that this teaches men to literally use such sexual violence against women. But such an interpretation is unwarranted. This is merely an example of the fact that the prophets often use extreme, shocking, hyperbolic language and imagery in an attempt to get their audience’s attention and to make them realize the seriousness of their message. They are not at all suggesting that this is how women should actually be treated. In these passages, it is always the foreign armies, not God, which “rape” Israel; God merely “strips” Israel, making her vulnerable to them. This is a metaphor for God removing his protection from the nation of Israel, allowing foreign armies to conquer her. It is completely unreasonable to think that this metaphor teaches men that it is good to use sexual violence against women.