But doesnt the justice of the biblical god in this situation look more like the most horrific of war crimes?
1. The "justice of the biblical god" is not the sole cause of the military action against the Amalekite warrior class in this case--it clearly includes the making of a final defense for Israel against an unusually malevolent and violent aggressor group.
2. The killing of the innocents is not the target of "justice" per se (just as damage to tents, clothes, or animals would not be). His "justice" actions were specifically directed against the warrior class and leadership--explicitly those that actually performed the acts of violence against Israel. Even in the main passage in 1 Samuel 15, the leadership seems to be the main focus, as the phrase "and destroy all he has" would indicate. Following this is a list of what is included, and it is a general list including people and animals.
3. The killing of the innocents would be an issue of mercy-killing (given the desert environment and situation we discussed above), and it is the least painful and least dehumanizing of possible outcomes--indeed, it is the course of action many people took themselves when confronted with similar alternative futures. The innocents were victims of the warrior class' choices, not victims of the biblical God and some evil Israelite exploitation initiative.
4. Label of 'war crimes' might be appropriate to this situation if it were done today with our modern resources and infrastructure. The 'justification' of the act in the biblical case derives from it being the more merciful/least painful of all available alternatives. In today's world, it would likely not be this.
But if the biblical god was indeed omnipotent, then it would seem he could have done many things rather than slaughter so many people. And if he couldn't have done anything else, wouldnt this show then that He is NOT omnipotent? (Arent we back to God is either good OR omnipotent—but not BOTH kind of arguments?)
The major problem with this is theological, concerning the omnipotence of God.
The omnipotence argument can be sketched out like this:
a. God can do all things
b. Accordingly, God could have resolved the issue by some other means that extermination of the group.
c. God DIDN'T use a different method than the one involving extermination.
Therefore either:
d. God is omnipotent, but cruel (because He chose extermination rather than other presumably less-violent paths)
or
e. God is not necessarily cruel, but He is NOT omnipotent either (because He couldn't come up with non-cruel alternatives)
This type of reasoning is generally irrelevant, because omnipotence normally doesn't 'play' in historical settings. God very, very, very rarely overrides normal historical causation in macro-level events. Another way of saying this, perhaps, was that He generally works in history, not on history. In this case, He:
1. He tried to convince the people, for a long time, of the dangerous consequences of combating Israel.
2. He waited patiently for centuries for them to change their minds about their violent anti-Israelite terrorism.
3. He apparently "convinced" some of them to emigrate to Israel and enjoy the blessings of His people.
4. He apparently waited until some Amalekites were away from the main body of the group (since they show up later in the biblical record, implying some survivors who were not involved in that battle)
He normally upholds the law of cause/effect and consequences. It is not a lack of omnipotence that is at work here, but rather the principle of God holding up the law of moral consequences (within social and cultural contexts of connections and community).
God binds Himself within His choices as well. He plays within the community rules He sets for others. These are self-imposed 'limitations', God's normal and preferred way of working in history is as a personal influence, although on occasion He will act as a judicial power (e.g., in judging the Pharaoh, David, Amalek, or Israel).
To discuss these issues in the context of 'omnipotence' may be close to being a category mistake (like talking about 'green ideas').
Credits and Sources:
Glen Miller: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
James Patrick Holding: http://www.tektonics.org/
Loading...
9:38"Genocide" and the Bible Part 16 Amalekitesby mdean1215410 views
All Comments