Might God call Christians to participate in a future genocide?

Posted on 08/04/12 52 Comments

Christians who endorse the biblical genocides (e.g. Joshua 6-11) are fond of pointing out that these were exceptional circumstances which were necessary for Israel to maintain her purity in preparation for her role to be a light to the nations. However, they aver, the time for genocide is now over. Today we are called to be heralds to God’s peaceable kingdom as represented in the suffering messiah.

To be sure, this view suffers from a rather bracing cognitive dissonance. (A light to the nations that protects its status by slaughtering civilian populations?) But I don’t want to criticize it for that problem here. (I’ve done that in many other contexts.) Instead, I’m going to point out that the Christian who believes God commanded genocide in the past should be open to the possiblity that he may command genocide in the future.

Why? Consider this passage from Revelation 19:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. ¹²His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. ¹³He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. ¹⁴The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. ¹⁵Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. ¹⁶On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

king of kings and lord of lords.

¹⁷And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, ¹⁸so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

Of course this is a highly symbolic exerpt from a piece of apocalyptic literature. But it can reasonably be interpreted as describing a future battle in which God and his armies — armies which may include human persons and human weaponry – will engage in an unmitigated slaughter of the defeated foe.

And this means that Christians who believe God commanded genocide for special circumstances in the past should be open to God commanding genocide for special circumstances in the future.

Now what does one do with this information? Really there are two options.

The first option is to accept this consequence and begin to prepare oneself mentally and physically for participation in a possible future genocide. Imagine, by analogy, that you might be called any day to climb the Matterhorn. If that were a real possibility you would begin to prepare yourself physically and mentally for that eventuality. Likewise, if a person believes God may command them to participate in a future genocide they should prepare themselves for that possibility. That means, among other things, working to overcome their emotional aversion to the slaughter of civilians in wartime so that when the time comes they are prepared to do battle and eliminate the infidel without mercy.

The second option is to reject the idea that God might command a future genocide by rejecting the claim that God ever did, or ever would, command a genocide.

Goldstein’s Ally

In ancient times the Jews fought back with everything they could against extermination.
In more recent times, in World War Two, the Jews did not fight back (in any organized fashion) and were almost eliminated from Europe…they would have been eliminated from the surface of the Earth if the Nazis had won.
But they weren’t, because the Allies fought back with everything They could against the exterminators…and this included leveling whole cities and killing every man woman child and animal through firebombing and other means.
In realiity many wish the Jews had not fought back in ancient times either, the would have been eliminated and, as Christopher Hitchens (who is now receiving his reward) said “we could have been spared the whole thing.” (GING, page 274.)
- Raymond Ingles
  
  The Jews were, um, very frequently conquering and invading in ancient times… that’s not quite the same thing as fighting back “against extermination”.
  - Blaze
    
    They were a slave people on the run, and surrounding cultures were not going to welcome them.
    
    They fought.
    
    But I bet you liked their strategy in World War Two didn’t you?
    - http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
      
      “They were a slave people on the run, and surrounding cultures were not going to welcome them.”
      
      Never mind what the Bible actually says in passages like Deuteronomy 13 and 20, Joshua 6-11 and 1 Samuel 15, that’s your story and you’re stickin’ to it!
      
      “But I bet you liked their strategy in World War Two didn’t you?”
      
      I don’t think the Jews had a “strategy” in WW2. But the Nazis certainly did. Is this your fumbling attempt to play the Nazi card?
    - Raymond Ingles
      
      Are you suggesting the Jews should have adopted the strategy of exterminating Germans, “men, women, and children”?
http://www.facebook.com/kevinmillerxi Kevin Miller

Fantastic piece, Randal. I couldn’t agree more that one of the key tasks facing Christians today is a major rethink of “divinely sanctioned” violence in the Old Testament. Just posted this to the “Hellbound?” Facebook page.
- randal
  
  Thanks Kevin. Stay tuned. I’ll be dealing with this topic at some length shortly.
Alex Dalton

Randal: The first option is to accept this consequence and begin to prepare oneself mentally and physically for participation in a possible future genocide. Imagine, by analogy, that you might be called any day to climb the Matterhorn. If that were a real possibility you would begin to prepare yourself physically and mentally for that eventuality. Likewise, if a person believes God may command them to participate in a future genocide they should prepare themselves for that possibility. That means, among other things, working to overcome their emotional aversion to the slaughter of civilians in wartime so that when the time comes they are prepared to do battle and eliminate the infidel without mercy.
Alex: LOL. Right….I’ve taken up horseback riding and skydiving to prepare for this. Obviously God will expect us to have a feel for a horse, have overcome our fear of heights, and rapid descent. Its not like we’ll be changed physically or spiritually or anything when Jesus returns. We’ll just be mounting up on those flying horses and slaughtering peace-loving civilians. I’m also stocking pharmaceuticals and reading up on PTSD as I’m sure I’ll be suffering from that in heaven after the battle.
This is just great. When you write stuff like this, it helps me to understand why you’d co-author a book with Loftus.
Randal: The second option is to reject the idea that God might command a future genocide by rejecting the claim that God ever did, or ever would, command a genocide.
Alex: Along with that option comes the need to explain to us your views on why God inspired, or even allowed, the author of Rev. to use “genocidal” imagery with regards to the return of Christ.
That’ all for now….I’ve got some linen robes I need to start bleaching.
- http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
  
  Your comments come at a good time Alex. I’m just about to discuss this matter in significantly more depth. In the interim let me offer some quick preliminary comments on the two points you make.
  
  Your first point is a complete strawman. For the problem to arise one need not adopt a tendentious literalism according to which there will be horses et cetera at “Armageddon”. One simply needs to affirm that there will be a cosmic battle, that the saints will participate within it to the end of the complete eradication of those who are not saints, and that the battle could conceivably include instances of relatively close combat. Once one accepts all that as possible, then one has a reason to overcome the current resistance one has to killing other people.
  
  As to your second point, I recommend you read up on non-violent readings of Revelation. You might start with a book like Barbara Rossing’s The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation.
  - Alex Dalton
    
    Hey you said we should prepare physically and emotionally. What else did you mean by physical preparation? All joking aside though, you’re point is nonsensical. Presumably God can give us the capacity to understand and carry out His will. Do you try to prepare yourself mentally for the prospect of doing without sex in heaven? That’s a big loss. How about preparing emotionally for the prospect of some not making it to heaven? Surely a worse fate than dying in battle. Or are you a universalist?
    As to point 2., I’m more interested in why you think God would allow/inspire such “genocidal” language (a theological question) – not how some random author you send me off to interprets the book of Revelation. God knows I’ve read enough about that book.
    - http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
      
      Alex, we’re not talking about a post-resurrection eternal state here. We’re talking about events prior to the final state.
      I guess your response is: “If God wants me to participate in a genocide in the future he’ll empower me to slaughter everyone I need to slaughter.” That, however, smacks of the parable of the man who buried his talent in the ground rather than investing it to make it multiply. We all know what happened to him.
      So here’s your problem. If you think that possibly Christians will be called to do battle prior to the eschaton in which they will be commanded to conduct the total extermination of a population, then you ought to begin to address now your natural resistance to slaughtering human beings. On your assumptions of what it is to be Christlike, willingness to slaughter populations at the divine behest is Christlike (it was in ancient Canaan and it may be again), and thus preparing yourself for this kind of battle would actually constitute part of your sanctification.
      The fact that you are committed to such a contorted Christianity in which sanctification could include preparation for genocidal slaughter is a great reason for you to consider a non-violent reading of Revelation such as Rossing develops in her book.
      - Alex Dalton
        
        I guess we are in our regular bodies flying in the air on horses. LOL. I suppose we’re going to do a whole lot of damage to the armies of the world. And no, the bare possibility does not cause a problem for me if I see it as a highly improbable interpretation. Should I spend my life anticipating the bare possibility of every unlikely interpretation?
        But would I have a problem with it really? If I thought it was the correct interpretation? No. In fact, I’d probably enjoy it. Returning to Earth with Jesus, destroying armies of evil men sounds pretty awesome to me. Some of us are like David or Peter, Randal. Because the evil of this world angers me (as it does God), and I would have no problem destroying men that Christ has designated as wicked and worthy of destruction, makes me no less Christ-like. In fact, go actually read the Lukan version of the parable of the talents: “But those enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.” This is not the tender-hearted Jesus you’ve fashioned after your own likeness, Randal.
        
        http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
        
        It is interesting that you pull a reference to “armies of evil men” out of thin air when the text explicitly refers to “the flesh of ALL people”. Apparently you’re not even aware of your own discomfort with genocide as you attempt to recast the militaristic image of a population completely eradicated in terms of conventional warfare.
        Nor do you give any reason for thinking that it is “unlikely” that you may be called into close combat to eradicate a population completely, women and children included (not just “armies of evil men”). Simply declaring it “unlikely” doesn’t make it so.
        Finally, you seem unaware that conceding that you may be called by God to participate in a genocide is morally horrifying, even if you presently think it “unlikely”.
        
        Alex Dalton
        
        Yeah, um, read vs. 19 where it states that those people have gathered to make war against Jesus and those he brings with him. Per the text, they are basically those who worship Satan, and so thoroughly that they actually defiantly oppose Jesus upon his appearance. Again – reading comprehension. On any reading of the text, the saints nowhere participate in the slaughter. They wear white linen, Christ has the garment dipped in blood. Many commentators have pointed this out, particularly bc this is an allusion to Isa. 63:1-3. Read vs. 15 and 21. Heck, are these even the saints with him? Or just angels? Reasons probably representative of the Word of God (see Isa. 11:4). why a literal slaughter here is unlikely? Because, as you concede, we’re looking at a highly symbolic vision here, where the sword identified as doing *all* the slaughtering, is
        This will now be the third time that I ask you why the infinitely tender-hearted God you’ve imagined would allow/inspire such imagery.
delleo

So what is the answer you have for the above argument?
Alex Dalton

This is also a false dilemma btw. Just because one “can reasonably” interpret this passage as describing a future battle, does not mean that is the only interpretive option here for those who accept God’s literal judgment of the pagan nations via war, in the OT .
- http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
  
  You’re failing to catch the argument Alex. The very fact that you’ve conceded this is a reasonable reading means that you’re committed to the view that somebody could reasonably seek to follow Christ by hardening themselves to their emotional aversion toward the slaughter of human beings based on their belief that they may be called up for service in this final battle.
  - Alex Dalton
    
    Randal, firstly I put it in quotes because I was conceding it for the sake of argument. Secondly, why in the world are you imputing an emotional aversion here? Who said anything about having an emotional aversion? One can read the OT wars as literal and just actions on the part of God, and also maintain that John’s vision is symbolic – putting emotional matters aside completely.
    - http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
      
      You don’t have any emotional aversion toward slaughtering human beings? Well I guess you’re ahead of the game then.
      - Alex Dalton
        
        Very poor reading comprehension as usual. The “emotional aversion” is simply a non-sequitur. Read what I wrote again – both times.
Elisabah

I pushed the link on Facebook and here I am. I read your piece. I don’t understand that way of thinking. I do understand that God’s judgment on sin was executed for all time and for all people in Jesus at the cross. That’s ALL people, for ALL time. He’s not mad at anyone, so there’s no need for any genocide. Don’t get it, and I don’t think is important enough a subject to make me want to get it. I’ll go away now. Shalom.
- http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
  
  This, I must say, is a strange comment. The argument is important enough to comment on, but not important enough to try to understand?
Mike Cheek

Randal,
I know when I first went to seminary I thought I would at last find answers to dilemmas such as holy war as described in Joshua. It turned out that if I was to explore this subject then *I* was the one who would have to write a paper on this subject. Well, I sought to do that and struggled with the topic and I got a “B” – the professor wrote in the margin he was disappointed in my work. I was more than a bit miffed as I felt like maybe the *professors* should have dealt with this issue up front – rather than tell me to try to answer it and then grade me!?! And then afterwards, no followup, no suggestion of a path forward on dealing with this subject. Sigh, alas. On the other hand, there are other seminaries that would have given me pat answers for all my burning questions, which would have been much worse. Be that as it may, overall I am very, very happy with the education I got at Fuller.
I think though a very important issue is whether the many passages on holy war can simply be excised from the Old Testament. Many Christians struggle or deal with this because they feel they *have* to. Like it or not, it’s canonical.
I believe you’ve sought to point out logically and/or theologically how these texts can not really be canonical or original. However, is there any other evidence, based on style, textual criticism, or something, that would justify such an approach? I’m not aware of anything (not that I’m an expert on such matters).
Jefferson excised the miracle scriptures from the Bible because they didn’t make sense. It would seem to me we have little textual or other justification to reject these passages. Besides – as you remind us with Revelation 19 – there are other passages of violence as well. where do we stop? The wedding feast in Revelation is rather gruesome.
Brevard Childs made the comment that when it comes to writing commentaries on Joshua, this assignment is typically given over to specialists in archaeology or Near Eastern history – and as a result there is typically little interaction with the theology of Joshua. This doesn’t help any.
Anyway, my point is that many / most Christians struggle with these passages because they see there is no legitimate or objective way to deny their canonicity. Right now, I think I have to deal with them and not eliminate them.
Well, I’ve run out of time, it’s late, and I have to stop. Cheers. – Mike Cheek
- http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
  
  Thanks for these comments Mike.
  
  Wow, if a relatively “progressive” seminary like Fuller leaves you hangin’, what would have happened if you’d gone to The Master’s Seminary? Christians have a long way to go in dealing with these texts. Right now they remain, for the most part, the black sheep of the canon that nobody talks about.
  
  I would never suggest rewriting the canon. That would be the most disastrous and foolhardy response, in my view. As I’ve said before, in a work that is produced by a far greater intellect than yours, whether it be a film or book or anything else, you ought to be very careful about supposing that the creator was errant in including this or that. And that’s certainly true for anybody who believes that God superintended the writing and canonization of this particular set of writings.
  
  Bottom line: it is better to have an incomplete and inadequate answer than not even to raise the question just like its better to get a B on a difficult topic that nobody wants to touch rather than an A on a warm fuzzy topic that everybody is comfortable with.
  - Mike Cheek
    
    Randal, I have various thoughts, not necessarily connected, but which I will throw out. Please forgive if they’re a bit disjointed.
    I thought I read in another entry of yours that you were proposing that the references to genocide in places such as Joshua were later additions? At least I thought so, but now that I search your blog I can’t seem to find such a statement. That was why I brought up the subject of excising passages from the Bible to begin with. Ah well.
    However, I think you could follow up on this and make the argument that many Christians have in essence excised these problem passages by simply ignoring or forgetting them.
    On the other hand (in defense of the ordinary Christian) as I look around the church I attend here in Houston, Texas the folk in the pews have a lot more pressing concerns on their minds and hearts. Things that immediately grip and hold their attention.
    Such a defense is less effective for the theologians, who do have the time to reflect upon such things.
    Another thing that may come to bear is the American assumption of individualism. Most people who have ever lived think much more in terms of the group. If the group was evil and depraved, then the group was judged by God. And the group was punished by God. That assumption or worldview will need to be dealt with when considering these passages. (And by the way, is a Christian world view individualistic or group oriented? I daresay many Christians in this world hold to a group orientation. I must agree with you that it is very problematic to talk of a Christian world view. When a Calvinist talks of a Christian world view he almost surely assumes the American cultural assumption of individualism!)
    Just today I was reading on the bus into work TF Torrance’ “Scottish Theology” and I would like to quote what Torrance says about John Knox’ teaching: “God cannot be known at a distance, abstractly or dispassionately or without feeling his impact upon the knower… It hurts to know God – the man who really knows God suffers from him, is marked by God, is smitten down to the dust … But for one to know God … is to be renewed, and transformed into the image and likeness of God”
    I think there is a way in which to read these passages is to be hurt. Or at least it should. I think Randal what you’re really arguing for is that we really wrestle with God, that we fight with these Scriptures and fight with God over them. But to wrestle with God is to be hurt, to realize the great depravity of human sin and God’s intense opposition to our baseness and depravity.
    Regardless of how we seek to resolve these passages I think it will be a painful journey, at least it should be.
    - Mike Cheek
      
      One followup: I am just throwing the thoughts out above. No time to develop a carefully crafted essay. Gotta go to bed so I can get at 5:30 and catch the bus back into work.
      One other thought: To love is to be vulnerable to pain and hurt. And who loves the most? Surely it is God. So in some way his own awful decree is most painful to him.
      Briefly, my own approach is no doubt similar to the consensus view: we can only go forward in time, never backwards. What God did back then does not carry forward. As for the dudes in Revelation 19, it’s a bit different. Here it is an army, presumably evil and totally amoral, that is destroyed. No kids in this passage, I don’t think.
      Regards, Mike
    - http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
      
      Three points.
      
      First, it seems to me that if textual criticism reveals that a portion of scripture was a later addition to the text, that is quite irrelevant to the canonicity of that portion of scripture. As you know, the woman caught in adultery pericope seems to be a later addition to John 8. But our canons ended up with this text, and I think they did so for a reason. So I understand the final form of the text to be canonical (realizing that the edges are always frayed), and that obtains whether the text is John or Joshua.
      
      Second, you’re right that the Hebrews reflected a more collectivist culture over-against modern individualistic culture. And that can shape our reading of the text. But cultural distinctives like collectivism do not in themselves justify that which we identify as moral atrocities. By definition they cannot. Consider India’s abominable practice of widow burning or female circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa. Are there aspects of these cultures that could illumine these practices? Sure. But are there aspects of these cultures that could justify them? Never.
      
      Finally, I like the way that you describe us wrestling with the passages, like Jacob wrestled with the angel, I suppose. I think there are reasons these texts are in the Bible and wrestling with them in community is a great way to find out.
physphilmusic

This is a false dilemma. Even if God had never commanded genocide, and one accepts the impossibility of Him ever commanding it, it is still possible that we might have to engage in war in the future due to various reasons, from economic to political. Do we have an obligation to prepare for a war? Is there an obligation for everyone to start military training? I would answer “no”, because the threat of open, full-scale total war with other nations (for a country like Canada or the US) is significantly less than the threat of other more pressing problems. Just because there is a real possibility of something occurring, that doesn’t mean that we have an obligation to prepare for it.

Similarly, although it might be true that there is real possibility of God calling Christians to participate in a mass war in the future, how would you rate that possibility compared to the possibility that a Christian has to help the poor, weak, defenseless, and the “enemy”? How about the possibility that a Christian has to lead a virtuous life such that it is an effective witness for the Gospel. Surely the possibility of the latter events are higher; no, in fact, God has already commanded us to do that, while He has not given any commands for Christian warfare. Hence we have a more important obligation to prepare ourselves to engage in empathy, compassion, and basically doing good deeds. Such preparation trumps any need to condition oneself to become emotionally immune from slaughter of civilians.
- http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
  
  Your comments actually work in favor of the argument.
  
  Let’s start with your first paragraph. You are right, there isn’t an obligation to prepare for a hypothetical war generally. And it is a good thing too. You see, training for a war requires the deconstruction of the overwhelming aversion non-psychopathic people have toward killing. Overcoming the aversion to kill other people has an enormously destructive impact on the human psyche.
  
  But let’s consider for a moment that it is possible Christians will be called to participate in a genocidal slaughter in the future. This would mean that those who had an aversion to participation would be less fully Christ-like than those who had no aversion. And thus, if it is possible that we may be called to participate in a future genocidal slaughter, then it is in fact actual that the more Christ-like people are those who are prepared to slaughter entire populations in the name of God without remorse.
  
  This brings me to your second paragraph. As you point out, this vision of Christian discipleship is fundamentally contrary to what it means to be a disciple of Christ.
  
  Thus together these points suggest that this could not possibly be the right way to envision what it is to be a faithful disciple of Jesus.
  - Jerry Shepherd
    
    Hi Randal,
    
    Those who had an aversion to participation would not be less fully Christ-like than those who had no aversion. But it would be less fully Christ-like to be unwilling to obey the command despite the aversion.
    
    Also, if Christ himself wages the war, then so-called followers who would refuse to join him would, indeed, be un-Christ-like. Holier than Christ!
    
    Blessings,
    Jerry
  - Alex Dalton
    
    Wow. Nevermind the fact that the passage is most likely symbolic, or the fact that, even if interpreted literally, Jesus is the one mentioned as doing the slaughtering. Let’s just skip right over that because if we take that into account we can’t have another accusatory blog post. We’re then told of the enormously destructive impact on the human psyche that preparation for a literal participation in the slaughter of the wicked would have. OR – the proponent of such a view might just trust that God will prepare them supernaturally (like he would have to do for them to fly through the air on horses, etc.) if this occurs, and focus on the actual commands of Christ. Next we’re told that those who didnt’ prepare for the slaughter would be less fully Christ-like. Right, we are less fully Christ-like bc we have not prepared the possibility of a very unlikely interpretation of scripture. Those who do not skydive on horseback are also less fully Christ-like. Randal’s last sentence is actually in direct contradiction with his own dilemma. He presents the future Christian participation in genocide as a possible interpretation of Rev. 19, but here tells us it is impossible that this is a biblical aspect of faithfulness to Christ. All in all, this is just very sloppy, and it is definitely a false dilemma. As I have shown, a third option is to reject the idea that God might command a future genocide by demonstrating that Randal’s reading of Rev. 19 is erroneous.
  - physphilmusic
    
    Yes, your point is correct that if Christ eventually commands genocide, people who haven’t prepared for it will be less Christ-like than others. But that doesn’t undermine my point, because I was asking – what is the probability of Christ issuing such a command, compared to the probability of Christ issuing commands which are more in line with conventional ideas of being a disciple of Christ (such as doing good, going to church, praying, etc.)?
    
    I am saying that there are a myriad of possibilities of what Christ can command or be if we want to become “Christ-like”. Some of those possibilities flat-out contradict each other, in terms of skill sets: it’s possible that Christ might call us to participate in genocide, but it’s also possible that Christ might call us to prevent a genocide. For the former you need to overcome an aversion to killing. For the latter you need a strong aversion against killing, in order to motivate you. Now you are right that we have to prepare for what Christ might command us to do. But since there are contradictory possibilities, we have to prepare for those which has a higher probability. So the question is, with regards to the next decade or so, which is more probable:
    1. Christ commanding us to do genocide
    2. Christ commanding us to prevent genocide
    3. Christ commanding us to help the poor, spread the Gospel, serve in the church, pray, etc.?
    
    It’s clear that Pr(1)<<Pr(2) (ontologically, I think so, and epistemologically, virtually certain – I would need a super crazy amount of proof if someone comes up and proclaims that "Christ has commanded us to commit genocide!"). Pr(3) is close to 1, because Christ has actually commanded that, and there seems to be little possibility of HIm rescinding that command. So that is why, while yes, God MIGHT call Christians to participate in a future genocide, there is little obligation for us to prepare for it.
    
    So it is true, a person who doesn't prepare for a future divinely commanded genocide might eventually become less Christ-like than one who does. But the question here is: what is the probability expressed in that "might"?
  - physphilmusic
    
    (to repost my garbled message below)
    …
    It’s clear that Pr(1)<<Pr(2) (ontologically, I think so, and even more epistemologically – there would be a humongous burden of proof for a person who says to me that God has commanded us to kill anyone). As for Pr(3), that is close to 1, or even 1 itself, because Christ has already commanded us to do that, and there seems to be little possibility of Him rescinding or suspending that command in the near future.
    
    Hence while it is true that a person who doesn't train himself to become used to killing MIGHT become less Christ-like, eventually, than someone who does, the issue is what is the probability associated with that "might". I would say that a person who does train himself to overcome an aversion to killing would have a greater probability, overall, of becoming less Christ-like compared to one who doesn't, because he might be duped into committing a murder without God actually commanding it, due to his psycopathic tendencies.
Jerry Shepherd

Hi Randal,
Before I read the comments you have already received on this one, for now, I’ll just share my initial reaction.
You’ve suggested there are only two options; but I would suggest a third. There is no need to prepare myself for participation in the hypothetical genocide. In this age (dispensation? though I am by no means a dispensationalist), God has called those who align themselves with him to live pacifistically; i.e., no retaliation, no tit for tat, no use of violence, no taking vengeance into one’s own hands. In the OT, this was not the case. There, the attitude was more along the lines of “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition (see Ps 144:1; 149:6). Neither directive or attitude in either dispensation is to be seen as morally inferior or superior to the other. For Joshua to wage a genocidal war against the Canaanites at God’s command is not morally inferior to the Christian’s not doing so in obedience to a different command from the Lord in this dispenation.
If, indeed, there is a futuristic fulfillment to Rev 19, and the saints of God are called upon to join the Lamb in his war, I am confident that the necessary preparations will be taken care of at that time. The only preparation necessary in this dispensation is that of and an absolute unquestioning commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Blessings,
Jerry
Pingback: Christian moral schizophrenia and psychopathy
logos

where in rev 19 does a saint actually kill anyone or anything?

“Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The WORD of God.”

“Rev 19:15 And out of his MOUTH goeth a sharp sword…”

“Eph 6:17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

“Matt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

seems like you got your wires crossed somewhere along the way.
- Jerry Shepherd
  
  Hi logos,
  On Randal’s behalf (and I think he and I are agreed to at least some extent on this), it seems like the clear implication of there being “armies of heaven” following him is that they too are involved in the slaughtering operation.
  Also, if you were hoping that your assortment of quotations actually communicated a particular thesis, let me assure you that the thesis didn’t really come through. You’ll need to provide a statement that explains what your point is.
  Blessings,
  Jerry
  - logos
    
    “Rev 19 19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.”
    
    seems very clear that the beast and false prophet were thrown in the lake of fire, and “THE REST were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse.” I don’t see any room for “implications” here.
    
    sorry if I was unclear, the “sword” is the word. while it is possible these events in Rev 19 are literal, it seems that they are meant to be taken figuratively. However, the Word, the Gospel of Jesus, is divisive:
    
    “Matt 13:30 Let
    both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the
    harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be
    burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
    
    make no mistake, “the wages of sin are death.”
    
    I still don’t see any saints committing genocide.
    - Jerry Shepherd
      
      Hi logos,
      
      Thanks for the reply. Three things.
      
      (1) I certainly agree with you that there is no explicit statement in Revelation 19 that says the armies following the rider on the white horse participated in the slaughter. But I do think that it is a reasonably inferred implication. After all, that’s what armies are for. As well, there are a number of places in Scripture where the leader of an army is said to be the one who performed a certain action, while the army was certainly involved as well. For example, in Joshua 10:28 we read that “Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors.” It stretches credulity to think that Joshua was the only one fighting. Likewise, in Revelation 19, I think it’s a stretch to think that the armies of heaven were not involved in the slaughter.
      
      (2) Revelation is certainly a symbolic book. But the symbolism cannot be severed from the story line. Every once in a while someone comes along who does what you have done and suggests that the “word” in Revelation 19 is simply Jesus’ oral or written words and that the slaughter is only symbolic. Some have even tried to argue that the chapter is describing acts of evangelism. But these suggestions never take the whole book, or even the whole chapter into account. And I know of no reputable scholarly commentary on Revelation that takes that approach. It takes a hermeneutical contortionist’s acts to turn the account in this chapter into anything other than an act of violence.
      
      Blessings,
      Jerry
      - logos
        
        1. regarding joshua and makkedah, it seems you are mistaken:
        
        “Joshua 10:9 After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. 10 The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.”
        
        it is clear that “Israel” took makkedah, not just Joshua because the text says as much. Rev 19 doesn’t say anything about the armies of heaven slaughtering anyone. seems like you are really reaching on this one.
        
        2. I’m willing to accept the possibility that the events in Rev 19 are literal, as I said above, but I tend to view Rev 19 in the same way that I view the parable of the wheat and tares. yes, at some point there will be judgement, but it will be spiritual. the wheat and tares is a picture of this spiritual judgement.
        
        Jerry Shepherd
        
        Hi logos,
        
        But that is just my point. Joshua 10 is a narrative account that provides much more detail than a single 11-verse section in Revelation 19. Part of the narrative can talk about what the Israelites did, but in summary fashion it can talk about what Joshua did. I think this latter is the case in Revelation 19. Again, what do you think the armies of heaven are for? You just aren’t paying attention to the details of the text. Jesus is not fighting by himself; he is leading an army. The statement in v. 15 that “he will rule them with an iron scepter” was earlier made in the book with reference to the saints (2:27). In verse 19 the kings of the earth “make war against the rider on the horse AND HIS ARMY.” Do you think we are to understand that in response to this attack the rider on the horse fights but not the rest of the army? Your portrait of the scene lacks credibility.
        
        Do you really think the wheat and tares is only representative of a spiritual judgment? A symbolic statment to be sure — but nevertheless symoblic of physical literalities.
        
        Blessings,
        Jerry
        
        logos
        
        again, you are adding to the text. in Joshua, it clearly states that “Israel” fought in battle unlike Rev 19 where it clearly states that the rider on the white horse killed “the rest of them.” we know that Joshua didn’t take makkedah all by himself because the bible says so. your position is based on an assumption not scripture.
        
        there is an infinite difference between Joshua and the King of kings. Joshua needed Israel, but the King of kings doesn’t need an army. do you really find it hard to believe that the King of kings, the Lord of lords, could dispatch His enemies all by Himself??
        
        as far as the wheat and tares picture, it does represent something literal as does Revelation. but, do you think that all us people are suddenly going to morph in wheat and tares? or do you think that maybe the tares represent non-believers and the wheat represents believers?
        
        Jerry Shepherd
        
        Hi logos,
        
        I’m not adding anything to the text. The problem is that your reading doesn’t take into account all the details of the text. I certainly agree that the King of Kings doesn’t need an army. But you are failing to deal with the very scriptural statement that there is an army! Again, on your construction, what is the army for? As a parallel, the King of Kings can also reign all by himself. But that doesn’t keep Scripture from stating that we will reign with him (Matt 19:28; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 2:27; 5:10; 20:6; 22:5). Your argument holds no weight and fails to read the text for all it’s worth.
        
        No, of couse people will not morph into wheat and tares. And of course, the tares stand for non-believers and the wheat for believers. But do you suppose that the wheat and tares stands only for the spiritual part of non-believers and believers? Or do they not stand for the entirety of the whole person, body and soul? This is the kind of problem you run into when you use the word spiritual very loosely without further specfication.
        
        Blessings,
        Jerry
        
        logos
        
        what specific details is my reading not taking into account? the text clearly states that the “Rider on the White Horse” “killed the rest of them.” there is no mention of the army killing anyone, sorry, but it’s just not there. it is what it is.
        
        so if the “wheat and tares” symbolism isn’t literal, isn’t it possible that the symbolism in Revelation might also be just that, symbolism? that doesn’t make the parable of the wheat and tares any less true. wheat is harvested, and tares are burned, that is literally true. believers will inherit eternal life, and nonbelievers will inherit death. that is the order. the wheat and tares represent something greater. just like the symbols in Revelation represent something greater.
        
        obviously my understanding of Revelation and it’s meaning is immature at best, and open for correction by those more knowledgeable than myself. however, the only precedent you’ve set is that when parties are involved in conflict, as in the case of Joshua and Israel, scripture will address them specifically. as we know, in Revelation, the only party named as an active combatant is the “Rider on the White Horse.”
        
        so what are christians meant to prepare for? a “genocide” that is carried out not by christians themselves but by the “Rider on the White Horse.”
        
        Jerry Shepherd
        
        Hi logos,
        
        Here are two very important details you’re not taking account of:
        
        (1) The armies of heaven follow the rider on the white horse (19:14). There is war that takes place between the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, versus the rider on the horse and his armies. Do you suppose the armies of heaven are there as only non-combatants? What are armies for?
        
        (2) Earlier in the book, Jesus promises those who overcome that they will rule the nations with an iron scepter, that they will “dash them to pieces like pottery” (2:27). It seems entirely plausible to see that warfare of the saints in Rev 19 as the fulfillment of that promise.
        
        Let’s go with this much for now.
        
        Blessings,
        Jerry
        
        logos
        
        1) Revelation 19 doesn’t say that “there is war.” what it does say is “I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies,
        gathered together to make war against him that sat upon the horse, and
        against his army.” they were gathered to make war, in other words, they hadn’t made war yet but were intending to. that is when the beast and false prophet were taken or seized and “the rest were killed with the sword of him that sat upon the horse.”
        
        2) I’ll give you the John Wesley commentary Rev 2:26-27:
        
        “By works — Those which I have commanded. To him will I give power over
        the nations — That is, I will give him to share with me in that glorious
        victory which the Father hath promised me over all the nations who as
        yet resist me, Psalms 2:8-9.
        
        And he shall rule them — That is, shall share with me when I do this.
        With a rod of iron — With irresistible power, employed on those only who
        will not otherwise submit; who will hereby be dashed in pieces —
        Totally conquered.”
        
        http://chatbible.com/revelation/2-26.asp
        
        we, as believers, share in Christ’s victory, but it was Christ who actually “ran and won the race” on our behalf. bottom line, Revelation 19 does not say that the saints will commit genocide against anyone.
        
        logos
        
        sorry about the format on the John Wesley commentary.
        
        Jerry Shepherd
        
        Hi logos,
        
        I appreciate the attempt, but it smacks to me much of sophistry for me. I believe there’s a war portrayed in the passage.
        
        As for John Wesley, he’s one of my heroes. But exegesis was not one of his fortes.
        
        Blessings,
        Jerry
Gene

Randal,
I’d like to ask a question: What exactly would be the moral difference between God commanding to kill just one vs. a whole village?

The word genocide reveals something about our perspective regarding the survival of a particular race or people – we have sympathy for extinction.

But now suppose that God commanded Americans to go in and kill some Nazis to save a few Jews. Is that immoral?

Likewise, suppose the violent commands were direction only to harm the militants of these cities, would that be different?
- http://www.randalrauser.com/ Randal Rauser
  
  “now suppose that God commanded Americans to go in and kill some Nazis to save a few Jews. Is that immoral?”
  
  No. The claim “God has commissioned me to kill Nazis to save Jews” is different in kind from “God has commissioned me to kill and mutilate infants (through sacrifice preparation) to honor him.”
  
  I’d consider the former claim as possibly true, but not the latter.
  
  As for the difference between intentionally killing one child and killing a large group of children because of their ethnic or religious identity, the concept of genocide recognizes that the crime in the latter case is not simply a cumulative list of individual killing. The intention to wipe out people in virtue of their religious or ethnic identity constitutes an atrocity all its own.
Heisenberg

Third option: the Judeo-Christian faith is a man-made invention, and the Bible represents the theological and political agendas of a tribal country that existed thousands of years ago.

When God says something is moral, is it because morality exists apart from God and God is on the side of morality? In that case, God would never command you to kill someone else for the sake of taking their real estate, because murder and theft are immoral.

Or is something moral because God says it is moral? In that case, God could command you to rape and kill a baby, and it would become a moral command. Morality, therefore, would not be an absolute, as it would be completely at the whims of God — or worse, subject to believers’ interpretations of what “God’s will” is. That’s absolute insanity.

I believe that commanding believers to kill non-believers is an immoral order. If God is truly omnipotent, why couldn’t he get his message across without massive bloodshed? If God could write on stone tablets for Moses, why couldn’t he write his message in the skies with clouds, or write his words on the mountains of many lands? Why did people have be slain in ignorance for the sin of not being born Jewish?
Pingback: On William Lane Craig’s defense of the Canaanite genocide (Part 4)