Genocide or Hyperbole?

[BorisGoodnewsenov]

I'd be interested in opinions on the usage of hyperbole in the Old Testament. Either conclusive or personal opinion. Particularly passages that refer to killing foreign women and children. I've noticed that some Christians take a lot of this literal to the letter (believing there's no apparent hyperbole). While I would agree that possibly not all references to killing women and children were not literal, that a number of non-believers will assume to suggest genocide and infanticide, I would say some of it is. An example might be the reference in Psalms 137 mentioning dashing the Babylonian little ones against a rock.

[verbatim]

BorisGoodnewsenov wrote:
After almost a year there is no one dare to answer this post so I’ll give a try.
In Genesis 22, God ordered Abraham to kill his own child. If God ordered you to kill your own child, would you obey Him? Why not? Sure, as a modern individualist you might not like that. But it's not quite that simple; this is a case of modern emotion overcoming a broader sense of what's at stake. Abraham saw an apparent contradiction: (1) God said "kill" Isaac and (2) God said Isaac will have many descendants. Abe drew an obvious conclusion--"God will raise Isaac back to life."...Then He said: "Take, please, your son, your precious one who you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, where you shall offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the peaks I will identify for you”.The OT passage itself focuses on Abraham's priority loyalty to YHWH--cf. Jesus' words in Matt 10.37: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me". As is standard practice with God, when we 'give up' the good things in our lives to Him, we almost always get them back again with blessings. The confidence of Abraham that Isaac would be raised from the dead IMMEDIATELY was clear in his words to the servants in vs. 5: He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." Abraham clearly expected God to either (1) stop him; or (2) revive Isaac within a matter of minutes or hours. One strain of Jewish tradition highlights Abraham's commitment and loyalty to YHWH, even in the face of his natural compassion for his son.
It is the same with our topic verse which is a hyperbole and need to be understand in proper context. Psa 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Compare to:
Mar 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
In a reverse context to dash the child to the stone is to brought the child to Jesus Christ who was the living stone and God will be happy for to them is the kingdom of heaven.

[Paidion]

I understand these statements in the simple grammatical sense, Boris. Many are unwilling to do so, because they (rightly) cannot believe that God would give such commands as dashing the children against stones, killing a people group because they were not kind to the Israelites, etc. Some justify this by suggesting that God has a "higher purpose" in carrying out these atrocities. Others explain it away by saying it's figurative language. To me both explanations are a stretch.

The way I deal with the problem is to suppose that sometimes, Moses, David, and others, misunderstood the revelation of God. However, my understanding does not wash with the fundamentalist community since, because of their belief in verbal inspiration of the Bible, all the words of the Bible which attribute such commands to God have to be true.

[Jepne]

I would love to hear more on the topic of genocide in the OT because Jesus taught us to love our enemies - which is contradictory to what God told the Israelites.

[steve]

God also required Israel to love their enemies (Ex.23:4-5/Prov.25:21-22). The anger expressed by the exile who wrote Psalm 137:8-9 may well reflect the bitterness of the writer, as it is more like a prayer than an oracle. Many of the prayers of the Psalms express the agony of the writer on his own terms. That's what makes them genuine.

It is obvious, however, in both testaments, that generosity toward one's own enemies, is not the same as forbearance toward those who are God's enemies. David wrote:

19 Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God!
Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men.
20 For they speak against You wickedly;
Your enemies take Your name in vain.
21 Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.
(Psalm 139:19-22)

Notice, these sentiments are not against David's own enemies (like Saul, Absalom and Shimei, whom David did not apparently hate). This Psalm expresses David's zeal for God and his taking God's side against God's enemies. Notice what David's complaint is about them: 1) they speak against God wickedly; 2) they take God's name in vain; 3) they hate God (not David); 4) they rise up against God. Because of this, David says, "I count them my enemies." In other words, they were not David's enemies. He counted them as his enemies, because they were God's enemies.

Apparently, love for our enemies does not preclude indignation against those who are God's enemies (see 1 Cor.16:22; Gal.1:8-9; 5:12; 2 Tim.4:14-15; Rev.6:19).

The few cases wherein genocide was commanded (i.e., the extinction of the Canaanites and the Amalekites) were not cases of Israel killing their own enemies, but of God using Israel to kill His enemies.

The Israelites had no personal grievance against the Canaanites, since they had never had any contact with them. They were a society so corrupt that God could not allow them to continue and so He told Israel to displace them and leave none that breathes. God was judging that society, as He had previously destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. God has that right. The Israelites' attitudes toward their own enemies (e.g., the Egyptians) had nothing to do with it.

The Amalekites were a similar case. Though they actually did attack Israel, making themselves their enemies, in the days of Moses, yet it was God who said, "I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven...the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation" (Ex.17:14-16). Thus, in the generations after Moses' time, it was the Lord (not Israel) who bore the grudge against the Amalekites, and told Saul, four-hundred years later, to wipe them out—something Saul and Israel had no particular interest in doing. It was God's war. Israel was the instrument of judgment on that society, just as the waters of the flood had been the instrument of God's judgment on the antediluvian world.

These were the instances of genocide in the Old Testament: the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the wars of Canaan and Amalek. In two cases, God did the deed directly by miraculous means, in the other two, God used Israel as the instrument. There seems more no reason to believe that the Israelites were misinterpreting God's intentions in the latter two cases than in the former two.

In no case was God asking the Israelites to violate the general rule of kindness toward their personal rivals.

[Jason]

Steve, I understand the distinction you've made between loving one's own enemies and not loving God's enemies, but I'm still not sure we should base this on a Psalm of lament. In fact, Jesus said we are to do good to our enemies because God is gracious and kind to HIS (paraphrasing Matthew 5:43-48). Should we treat God's enemies with less love than he does? Wouldn't that put us in disagreement with God? Many of us have been His enemies and were turned from our ways by loving Christians. I realize that we should pray against the actions of evil people, but personal indignation toward them because they are against God is to make a serious judgement call about their ability to turn in the future. What if that indignation and lack of kindness prevents them from coming out of the darkness?

[Jepne]

If God wants us to love our enemies, would He not show us by example - the best teacher? Jesus is the exact representation of the Father and he asked the Father to forgive the enemies of God who murdered him. All sin is sin against God as well as man. Our personal enemies are also enemies of God.

Saul, Absalom and Shimei were God’s enemies as well as David’s:

Absalom rebelled against his father and the king, becoming God’s enemy – David didn’t kill him because he was his son and he loved him.

Rebellious Saul was an enemy of God and David, but David would not touch him because he was ‘the Lord’s anointed’.

As for Shimei, David thought the Lord had told Shimei to curse him, and cursing the king is an affront to God. David said he thought the Lord would repay him (David) with good if he put up with it – that is why he did not retaliate.

I was always taught Israel was the instrument of judgment, wiping out even the women and children; I have seen adopted children looking up their birth parents and the results seem to bear witness to the adage, “Blood is thicker that water.” But, I do wonder if the writer of those accounts was only interpreting those slaughters to have been God’s will. In this day, killing civilians is against all our laws, as well as conscience.

* * * * *

1 Cor.16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema . . .

Gal.1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

‘Accursed’ and ‘anathema’ are translations of the same Greek word which, according to Strong, means:

1) a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept
1a) specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place
or,

2) a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction
2a) a curse
2b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

If the second definition be the one Paul intended, this would be where we get permission to blast unbelievers with threats of hell and damnation, and where Luther got permission to kill Anabaptists. Was Paul cursed “without hope of being redeemed” or “doomed to destruction” by God or the Christians of his day? Apparently not, because from what he says in verse 12, that it was only by revelation that he has the Gospel, God had hope for him and did not destroy him.

What should our attitude be toward those who preach a false Gospel in our day? I would think these people are to be set aside and disfellowshipped as in the first definition above; we should refuse to listen to their false teachings, and warn others.

I interpret Jude to teach us to simply say, “The Lord rebuke you” if necessary, and not get into railing accusation.

9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment (KJV “railing accusation”), but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”

* * * *

Ga 5:12 I would they were even cut off <609> which trouble you.

<609> in all other uses refers to physical objects - feet, an ear, a rope - being cut off. He is talking about circumcision being required by the Judaizers, and according to the ESV, he says:

12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

2 Tim.4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.

This sounds like he will simply reap what he sows.

15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.

Yes, we should beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

We all were enemies of God before He drew us strongly enough that we became His. I’m glad He didn’t wipe us out!