Several years ago, while on vacation in Israel, I went to Mount Carmel, the traditional location for the epic showdown between Elijah and the priests of Baal recorded in the Old Testament.
I congratulate Peter Wilson on his thoughtful article. While I generally agree with him, I have the following observations:
1. With few exceptions, God kills, or at least permits the killing, of each of His children. Death is part of God's plan; we are not supposed to live forever. Usually we are taken one at a time, but sometimes God causes (or permits) entire populations to be taken at once. This happened, for example, at the time of the Flood when all of mankind had become corrupt, save only Noah and his family. The reason murder is a sin is not that death, in and of itself, is evil; it is that man arrogates to himself a perogative that belongs to God or to the state. I suspect that the primary reason modern Christians are bothered by Old Testament (and, to some extent, New Testament--see the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5) stories of God's vengeance is the involvement of God's people in the killing. For example, the story of the killing of the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 would probably be less offensive to modern Christian sensibilities if God had simply sent down fire from heaven to consume the prophets, rather than commanding (or permitting) Elijah to do the job himself.
2. For humans to live together in a state of order, laws must exist, and enforcement mechanisms must be established, which must include, in extreme cases (such as war or the apprehension of dangerous criminals), the taking of human life. One of the hallmarks of the modern state is that it assumes a monopoly over the taking of human life. In cases where the state is weak, hopelessly corrupt, or non-existent, individuals may be left with no recourse but to enforce the laws themselves or to revolt. The Icelandic sagas provide a good example of a society where enforcement of the laws was left to individuals or clans. One approach to the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal is to look at Elijah as a patriot revolting against the corrupt regime of Ahab and Jezebel.
3. Modern states can generally afford to maintain extensive prison systems, which make it possible to enforce laws primarily through the incarceration of criminals. Many ancient states couldn't afford that luxury, and so were forced to resort to other means--including the death penalty--to enforce their laws.
4. 2 Nephi 29:13 states that the Lord "shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it." This suggests that every nation has some portion of the truth, which is reflected in its laws, customs, and beliefs. The Children of Israel during Old Testament times enjoyed significantly greater acess to the truth than did their neighbors, but the truth they enjoyed was less than the truth that was proclaimed by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. The restoration of the Gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith brought additional light and knowledge to the Earth, and the ninth Article of Faith assures us that the Lord "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." So all nations and religions at all times have some access to the truth, but that access (including our access as members of the "only true and living church" on earth) is limited and imperfect.
5. Political and moral views evolve over time. Just as my children are horrified by some of the political and moral views my grandparents held, my grandparents would be horrified by some of the political and moral views my children hold. Over the past 200 years or so, the general trend has been towards more tolerance and less moral responsibility. Who is right? All of us are wrong, of course, to one degree or another. If and when we get it right, and our social and political institutions conform to ultimate divine standards, we will be translated. In the meantime, it would behoove us all to look at the attitudes and behavior of our ancestors, including our spiritual ancestors whose record is reflected in the Old Testament, with humility and sympathy, and with the hope that our descendants will look at our attitudes and behavior with the same spirit.
As you pointed out, in the most troublesome cases in the Old Testament, divinely decreed violence requires human violent action to carry out. Because humans are notoriously bad at understanding what God is telling them (even the best see through a glass darkly), it seems to me like there is risk here that something is misunderstood or misrepresented and then goes horribly wrong.
Consider the standard command to utterly destroy all the tribes that live in the promised land that is repeated in the Torah (e.g., Deuteronomy 20:17, Deuteronomy 7:1-2). What is described here is not necessary but rogue acts of violence in a lawless society like the Icelandic sagas. This is one people wiping out another people, with explicit instruction to repress merciful instincts (Deuteronomy 7:2). The Old Testament itself seems conflicted and uncomfortable about these “destroy all that breathe”-type commands. Matthew Lynch’s book Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God provides a good overview of this topic.
My essay assumes that readers will experience some level of discomfort and culture shock when encountering violent or intolerant episodes in the Old Testament. A more central point I was trying to make in the essay is that reading the Old Testament reminds us that a tolerant society (i.e., a society that allows religious freedom) is by no means a given, and it is a privilege to live in one.
I congratulate Peter Wilson on his thoughtful article. While I generally agree with him, I have the following observations:
1. With few exceptions, God kills, or at least permits the killing, of each of His children. Death is part of God's plan; we are not supposed to live forever. Usually we are taken one at a time, but sometimes God causes (or permits) entire populations to be taken at once. This happened, for example, at the time of the Flood when all of mankind had become corrupt, save only Noah and his family. The reason murder is a sin is not that death, in and of itself, is evil; it is that man arrogates to himself a perogative that belongs to God or to the state. I suspect that the primary reason modern Christians are bothered by Old Testament (and, to some extent, New Testament--see the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5) stories of God's vengeance is the involvement of God's people in the killing. For example, the story of the killing of the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 would probably be less offensive to modern Christian sensibilities if God had simply sent down fire from heaven to consume the prophets, rather than commanding (or permitting) Elijah to do the job himself.
2. For humans to live together in a state of order, laws must exist, and enforcement mechanisms must be established, which must include, in extreme cases (such as war or the apprehension of dangerous criminals), the taking of human life. One of the hallmarks of the modern state is that it assumes a monopoly over the taking of human life. In cases where the state is weak, hopelessly corrupt, or non-existent, individuals may be left with no recourse but to enforce the laws themselves or to revolt. The Icelandic sagas provide a good example of a society where enforcement of the laws was left to individuals or clans. One approach to the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal is to look at Elijah as a patriot revolting against the corrupt regime of Ahab and Jezebel.
3. Modern states can generally afford to maintain extensive prison systems, which make it possible to enforce laws primarily through the incarceration of criminals. Many ancient states couldn't afford that luxury, and so were forced to resort to other means--including the death penalty--to enforce their laws.
4. 2 Nephi 29:13 states that the Lord "shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it." This suggests that every nation has some portion of the truth, which is reflected in its laws, customs, and beliefs. The Children of Israel during Old Testament times enjoyed significantly greater acess to the truth than did their neighbors, but the truth they enjoyed was less than the truth that was proclaimed by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. The restoration of the Gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith brought additional light and knowledge to the Earth, and the ninth Article of Faith assures us that the Lord "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." So all nations and religions at all times have some access to the truth, but that access (including our access as members of the "only true and living church" on earth) is limited and imperfect.
5. Political and moral views evolve over time. Just as my children are horrified by some of the political and moral views my grandparents held, my grandparents would be horrified by some of the political and moral views my children hold. Over the past 200 years or so, the general trend has been towards more tolerance and less moral responsibility. Who is right? All of us are wrong, of course, to one degree or another. If and when we get it right, and our social and political institutions conform to ultimate divine standards, we will be translated. In the meantime, it would behoove us all to look at the attitudes and behavior of our ancestors, including our spiritual ancestors whose record is reflected in the Old Testament, with humility and sympathy, and with the hope that our descendants will look at our attitudes and behavior with the same spirit.
Randy Muhlestein
South Pasadena, California
Randy,
Thank you for your kind comment.
As you pointed out, in the most troublesome cases in the Old Testament, divinely decreed violence requires human violent action to carry out. Because humans are notoriously bad at understanding what God is telling them (even the best see through a glass darkly), it seems to me like there is risk here that something is misunderstood or misrepresented and then goes horribly wrong.
Consider the standard command to utterly destroy all the tribes that live in the promised land that is repeated in the Torah (e.g., Deuteronomy 20:17, Deuteronomy 7:1-2). What is described here is not necessary but rogue acts of violence in a lawless society like the Icelandic sagas. This is one people wiping out another people, with explicit instruction to repress merciful instincts (Deuteronomy 7:2). The Old Testament itself seems conflicted and uncomfortable about these “destroy all that breathe”-type commands. Matthew Lynch’s book Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God provides a good overview of this topic.
My essay assumes that readers will experience some level of discomfort and culture shock when encountering violent or intolerant episodes in the Old Testament. A more central point I was trying to make in the essay is that reading the Old Testament reminds us that a tolerant society (i.e., a society that allows religious freedom) is by no means a given, and it is a privilege to live in one.
Best,
Peter