Arguing the Affirmative: JOHN THE ATHEIST
Arguing the Negative: RANDAL THE CHRISTIAN
John’s Opening Statement
There are several genocidal texts from the lips of Yahweh, the biblical God. You see it reflected in Joshua 6:16–25; Deuteronomy 2:4–34; 7:1–6; and Numbers 31:7–18 (cf. Isa. 13:13–22; Ps. 137:7–9). In Deuteronomy 20:16–18 we read:
But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD [Yahweh] your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the LORD [Yahweh] your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD [Yahweh] your God. (NRSV)
In 1 Samuel 15:1–3 we read:
And Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD [Yahweh] sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD [Yahweh]. Thus says the LORD of hosts [Yahweh of Armies], ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’” (RSV)
The rationale for justifying genocide has fallen by the wayside among evangelicals since there can be no justifying it—not in an era that endorses the Geneva Convention, which condemns the killing of innocent noncombatants. Randal is one of these evangelicals, so I’ll let him make that case for me. All such attempts fail. They ultimately force apologists to embrace a cultural relativism.
That leaves two rationales for arguing against what these texts say. First, apologists are now arguing, by virtue of conflicting texts in the Bible and the lack of archeological evidence, that these genocides never took place as stated. The texts indicate that Joshua did not accomplish the genocide of the Canaanites. Just compare Joshua 10–12, where we’re told he did so, with Judges 1:21–36, where many of the Canaanites still lived in the land after Joshua died. Archaeological evidence also shows us that the geography of these texts reflects that of roughly the seventh century BC. Several of these cities did not exist at that time, or were destroyed much earlier.
Now I’m not one to argue with the evidence. In fact, there is a woeful lack of evidence for the Israelite exodus from Egypt and the Canaanite conquest. And it’s well known there are discrepancies in the Bible. What the apologists are doing is using biblical discrepancies (they’re all dead; they’re not all dead) in their favor. They are gerrymandering these texts and thereby undermining the Bible as a divine revelation from God in order to exonerate him, and I’ll leave it at that.
The second rationale apologists use is arguing that God never commanded genocide in the first place. Biblical scholars claim that what we see in these texts is a national origin myth used to solidify King Josiah’s claims to power over other nations in the seventh century BC. It was exaggerated rhetoric, they argue. Since the later conflicting texts were probably written during Josiah’s reign, Joshua becomes a type of Josiah and the narratives function as propaganda: the land is ours by divine right seen in the destruction of the inhabitants of an earlier time period.
There are problems with this argument, however. Although the archaeological evidence mentioned above is clear, it is equally clear that some cities were destroyed by the Israelites. What about this? And what can be said about Yahweh demanding the execution of women and children in Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15, along with the near genocide of the Benjamites in Judges 19–21? The rhetorical defense cannot exonerate Yahweh in these cases. And even if the number of noncombatants killed was exaggerated, how many women and children is Yahweh justified in having killed before it becomes immoral? Furthermore, even if these texts are rhetorical exaggerations, they have been used to justify genocides in the Crusades and the Nazi regime of the last century.
When it comes to polytheism and child sacrifice, Randal will probably defer to post-Josianic reforms that both defended monotheism and condemned child sacrifices to Yahweh. Now he has a choice to make because the texts about genocide also come from post-Josianic reforms. If Randal wants to be consistent, he cannot adopt these reforms with regard to monotheism and child sacrifice and subsequently condemn them when it comes to genocide. If he wants to maintain a progressive revelation, this heads in the wrong direction. Why would Yahweh backtrack like this?
Randal’s Opening Statement
“Did you know that Jonathan Swift, author of the beloved Gulliver’s Travels, anonymously published a tract in which he commended the mass slaughter of Irish children and the sale of their meat at market? Shocking but true! And believe it or not, he even had the gall to call it A Modest Proposal, as if there’s anything modest about mass slaughter and cannibalism! It’s all right there in black and white. You can read it for yourself. Swift commended genocide and cannibalism. Period.”
“My friend,” you reply, “I appreciate your fierce moral indignation, but I fear it is misdirected. Swift may have written a tract commending genocide, but that hardly means he really was commending it!”
I look at you in disbelief. “Well if he wasn’t meaning to commend it, then what do you suppose he was meaning to do?”
“He was being ironic,” you explain gently. “Sometimes irony is the most effective way to make one’s point. It is clear that Swift wanted to challenge the callous and unjust way the English aristocracy was treating the Irish peasantry, and he did so by satirizing their attitudes through a piece of radically ironic prose. This allowed Swift to challenge their assumptions more effectively than a straightforward attack on their unjust oppression ever could have done.”
I nod thoughtfully. “I think I see your point. So an author may state that something is the case when in fact the author does not really intend to state that it is the case. In fact, by affirming it he may actually be condemning it.”
“Exactly,” you nod with satisfaction. “Now you’re getting it. But listen, why don’t you address the Bible’s commendation of genocide rather than continuing on down a rabbit trail of how Swift attacked genocide through irony?”
“Maybe it isn’t a rabbit trail,” I reply. “Perhaps the same point applies to the genocidal portions of the Bible.”
“What?” You look at me incredulously. “Wait a minute; are you suggesting that when God said ‘kill all the Canaanites’ he didn’t really mean it?”
“That is possible,” I reply. “Think about it. How can you tell that Swift was being ironic?”
“A couple ways. First, if you know something of Swift’s character you can know that he would never commend a horror like genocide. Second, you can also see his concern for justice in his other writings. But how is that relevant to the Bible’s genocides?”
“Let’s take your first point. One of the ways we know about God is through general revelation. Through general revelation people know that God is the most perfect and loving being there can be. Now with that in mind, it surely is very reasonable to think the most perfect and loving being would never have commanded the genocide of Jews in Nazi Germany or of Tutsis in Rwanda. But then could he really have commanded the genocide of Canaanites in ancient Palestine? I’d say that’s pretty doubtful.”
“So you’re using reason to reject the Bible?”
“Not so. Rather, I’m using my moral intuitions as a guide for reading the Bible. And the fact is that every Christian does that. I also use the Bible itself as a guide to its own interpretation, and that brings me to my second point. If we assume the Bible is, like Swift’s writings, ultimately the product of a single author, then just as we should interpret some sections of Swift’s canon in light of others, so we can interpret some sections of the Bible in light of others.”
“Such as . . . ?”
“Jesus’s life represented a systematic deconstruction of the in-group/out-group distinctions that make genocide possible. He embraced the poor, the adulterer, the tax collector, the child, the Samaritan, and every other disenfranchised person from the out-groups of history. At the same time, he challenged the authority and status of those who were so confident that they were in the in-group, such as when he declared, ‘You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven’ (Matt. 5:43–45). Jesus’s whole ministry was directed against the in-group/out-group dichotomies that make evils like genocide possible. And Jesus said that if you have seen him you’ve seen the Father (John 14:9).
“With all that in mind, it may be that the genocidal actions are best interpreted as an ironic depiction of evil similar to Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. Or there could be other ways that God intends the text apart from a straightforward commendation of genocide. But however I read them, in light of the God of love and mercy revealed in Jesus Christ, I cannot read them straight.”
John’s Rebuttal
Randal claims it’s possible that God was condemning genocide through irony. But his analogy breaks down because there are three significant differences between the God of the Bible and Jonathan Swift in A Modest Proposal that make all the difference in the world. First, Jonathan Swift was not condemning cannibalism. He was condemning the exploitation of Irish children. The full title to his book is: A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public. Second, no one in Swift’s day took cannibalism seriously. Third, no one believed Swift’s words were divinely inspired, so no one ever attempted to obey what he proposed. By contrast, the God of the Bible exacerbated child exploitation with his so-called “satire” because it was written in an era when genocide was not morally questionable. Believers have likewise obeyed the Bible precisely because it’s considered divinely inspired. It was obvious to everyone that Swift was writing a satire, whereas this is not the case at all with the God of the Bible. Randal’s moral intuitions have merely caused him to once again reject the Bible.
Randal’s Rebuttal
It is not a foregone conclusion that God did, in fact, command genocide. Consider the following example.
So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD . . . had commanded.
Joshua 10:40 (emphasis added)
Many scholars have argued that passages like this should be interpreted hyperbolically, not unlike the sports commentator who reports, “The Yankees killed the Dodgers.” That conclusion is reinforced by the apparent inconsistency of Deuteronomy 7:2–3 that commands the Israelites to wipe out all residents of Canaan even as it warns them not to intermarry with the Canaanites. Moreover, even if we accept that the text does narrate a genocide, that doesn’t mean it is the message for us. For instance, Douglas Earl interprets Joshua 1–11 as an attack on the in-group/out-group contrast that makes genocide possible.[9] To this end, he points to the pivotal place of Rahab, an outsider who, contrary to the dictates of Deuteronomy 7:2, is brought within the group even as Achan, an insider, is cast out. The bottom line is that no Christian need accept that the Bible commends genocide.
John’s Closing Statement
In the Bible it says God commanded genocide. But since Randal insists on using biblical inconsistencies in his favor, think instead about this: What modern society would accept genocide as a moral lesson unless it was, strictly speaking, on the boards? Genocide was not morally questionable in the ancient world.
Randal’s Closing Statement
A Christian need not believe God ever commanded genocide. There are different ways to read texts, and God could have appropriated human texts into his Scripture with purposes very different from the original authors. Nobody said these passages are satirical, but they need not be read straight. That’s the point.