The Problem of War
Many of the hardest questions that come up when you read the OT concern the role of fighting and killing. In the book of Joshua these questions loom especially large. Why so much killing? Why would a God of compassion and mercy command his people to behave like this?
Philip Jenson addresses these questions in a Grove booklet (see www.grovebooks.co.uk) called The Problem of War in the Old Testament. His conclusion is that the OT’s approach to war is complex, ambivalent, conditional and incomplete. War is presented in a number of different ways. Sometimes God does the fighting for Israel and Israel only needs to trust. At other times Israel fights with God’s assurance of success. Fighting is seen as necessary, but later we’ll see that a fighting king (David) is not allowed to build the temple. Success in war is seen as conditional on a number of factors including trust in the Lord and a society and leadership marked by justice. The coming of Christ changes the situation, not least because the people of God are no longer defined by race or land, but by faith in Christ.
Let’s be clear: fighting and death are seen as a terrible evil. But when it comes to the invasion of Canaan they are seen as a necessary evil. What is at stake is whether God’s people will stay true to him, or will be absorbed into the pagan culture of Canaan and lose their identity. Will true faith in the one true God continue, or will it be critically compromised by the worship of pagan gods? That takes us some way towards understanding what is going on here, though there is still an element of what Calvin called God’s ‘incomprehensible counsel’. There is much of God’s will we don’t understand.
But there is one other thing we can say. Ultimately what is at stake is whether the people of God will survive in order to produce Jesus, the Messiah, who will bring about the salvation of the whole world. In the overarching storyline of the Bible that is the crucial question.
Leave a Comment
3 Responses to “The Problem of War”I don’t get it?
What is recorded in the Book of Joshua is the annihilation of entire races by God. I don’t quite get your point about “necessary evil”, that is a man made concept to justify sin. If God is God then it cannot be evil by definition.
For me these records bring out several disturbing concepts.
1. Christianity like many other faiths is ultimately fear based. If the Israelites did not trust God, they died.
2. A “master race” concept. Every man, woman and child that were not Israelites was “put to the sword” in these records. It was made absolutely clear that it was God’s will for this to happen (Joshua 11:20)
So where does compassion come in? Or is this a man made concept that goes against God’s will? Is this why we still have war because we don’t kill every man, woman and child in a conflict?
I am great disturbed by the book of Joshua.
I’m disturbed by the book of Joshua, too. As you say, it raises some really difficult issues. Here are some thoughts. As far as ‘necessary evil’ is concerned, I think that death is presented in the Bible as an evil, but that sometimes it is necessary in order to bring about a greater good. The supreme example would be Jesus’ death on the cross. Having said that, I think we, as fallible humans, have to be incredibly wary of thinking we know when those occasions are, and it wouldn’t be true to say that the end always justifies the means.
The right kind of ‘fear’ of God in the OT isn’t just being afraid of punishment. It’s about respect and reverence as well. It’s also about recognising the fact that we owe our allegiance to God as our creator and as the giver of life. There is a sense in which we ought to be afraid of rejecting the one who gives us life. We ought also to fear falling on the wrong side of justice. But having said that, the God of justice is also a God of compassion, mercy and forgiveness. The people of Israel had ample opportunity to respond to God’s love with loyalty and love of their own.
While Israel are ‘the chosen people’, God often reminds them that they weren’t chosen because they were better than any of the other nations. In fact, they are often reminded that if they persist in behaving as badly as the rest of the nations, then they will lose the Promised Land, which is eventually what happens. The privilege of being the chosen people comes with huge responsibilities.
Finally, I don’t have a great answer to the ‘genocide’ question. It is definitely a tough one and I am still working on it. The fact that there are people like Rahab who are saved makes me wonder how many others like her there were. There at least seems some opportunity to come over and join God’s people.
Here is a useful piece by RC Sproul:
Providence and Evil
“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13).
Undoubtedly, the problem of evil is the most enduring attack leveled against Christianity. Skeptics say an all-powerful God cannot also be good since He does not stop the wicked. Moreover, they contend, if God is good, He cannot be omnipotent because a good deity would never allow evil if He had the ability to stop it. This is a difficult issue, and we will not be able to understand it fully before Christ’s return. However, Scripture does give some guidance on this subject.
Any biblical answer to this question begins first with the recognition that the Lord certainly does ordain evil acts. While Scripture tells us the Creator is perfectly good and never does evil Himself (James 1:13), many passages indicate that God uses wickedness (for example, 1 Kings 22:23; Ps. 105:23–25). Nor can we deny the Almighty’s omnipotence. God could stop evil in every case if He so desired (Gen. 18:14a; Mark 10:27). For reasons not always evident to us, the Lord sometimes determines it better to allow sin than to stand in its way. Sometimes He deems it good to permit evil.
God ordains evil without being liable for it. Yet evil in itself is not the Lord’s ultimate purpose. Rather, God ordains evil in order to further His ultimate, good plan. Evil acts themselves are always evil, but His plan and goal are praiseworthy. Somehow the Lord permits deeds that He hates because this wickedness finally contributes to our good and His glory (Rom. 8:28; James 1:2–4).
God’s ordination of wickedness for a good end is clearest in His use of the evil motives of the Jewish and Roman authorities to crucify Jesus and fulfill His good plan for His people (Acts 2:23). The Lord’s use of our intentions and deeds, good or evil, in order to fulfill His ultimate, laudable ends is known as the doctrine of concurrence.