Islam and The Violence of the Old Testament
Apr 23
In response to a Franklin Graham quote about the violence of Islam someone said to me:
Furthermore, I don’t find many texts in Scripture telling Christians it’s ok to go out and murder in the name of Christ. I’m tired of hearing Christians cow towing to political correctness with a “Christianity is just as bad” approach. Sinners finding an excuse to murder in the name of Christ is a whole different deal from sinners within a system that commands them to murder in the name of Allah.
I responded to that comment but then I decided to post it here to talk about these things openly. I am going to include one section of scripture for context but I just want to discuss some things here.
17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
Christian History
Here is the truth, if we are Christians and we believe the same God who was involved in the lives of the Hebrews is the same God of the New Testament then this is our history. If this is our history then we must deal honestly with this text. The question is how? If a nation was to do this today, we would call it evil and wicked, yet it seems that we easily dismiss or ignore this act because God okayed it.
So what do we do here? They were Midianites and they did try to destroy Israel, but what about the babies? What about the pregnant women, the nursing women? The elderly women?
Yet if a Muslim acted the same way, with the same perceived instructions from their god, we call that act wicked. I am really having a tough time understanding this or better yet reconciling this in my heart. Even if a group of Christians used this verse today to commit the same acts we would say they were wrong, but how could we? They can easily say this is what God said and if we denied that, that would open up the door to ask how do we know God ordained it then? I guess the question is does evil change throughout history? Is it redefinable? Anyway
The God of the OT
A very basic reading of the New Testament would pit the God of the Old Testament against the God of the New Testament. The God of the Old Testament had no problem instructing Israel to stone a woman who was caught in adultery. The God of the New responds totally different. The God of the Old Testament had no problem with War and even retribution (an eye for an eye) the God of the New says “do not repay evil for evil”.
Now we can say we are under a different way God deals with humanity or dispensation or age, but that would mean that God did change. We something wholly different from one Testament to the other. To say otherwise wouldn’t be fair. He responds differently and wants us to respond differently with one another. The only way to call Islam evil for their commands to destroy the infidels is to call some of the acts of Israel evil, that is if we are just looking at the acts at least, not who gave the command.
You know I am going to stop there, I have a few thoughts but they may be flushed out in the comments or by a new post, I am just rambling today about some things I am struggling with reconciling in my own mind and heart. God bless.
Lionel,
I find it easy to reconcile this with our all loving and powerful, and just God when you better understand God’s full purpose through Christ, which is still being manifested until after the resurrections and the coming age(s) of judgment have been completed. This understanding has also helped me to clear up some of those so called “contradicting text” between Calvinist and Arminians.
God reconcilling the world to Himself through Christ. This is indeed good news for all, even those who perished under the direct command of God in the Old Testament times (ages).
The concept that there are “voilent” verses in the Quran calling for death and destruction is untrue. —-The Quran allows for self-defense and these verses (so called “battle-verses”) are about figthting injustice and oppression IN SELF-DEFENSE.
Read for yourself—example below. I chose this example because those who want to perpetrate the myth that Islam is “evil” often quote these verses partially or incorrectly to bolster their arguments.
I am giving 3 different translations so you can evaluate for yourself.
Surah 002.-verse190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
These verses were revealed at the time the Meccan (Pagans) had driven the Muslim believers out of Mecca by persecution, then had brought the war to them in Medina, where they had escaped. The Muslims were fighting in self-defense.
Jon,
I don’t think this has anything to do with Calvinism/Arminianism, it has everything to do with violence in the scripture
Anon,
Thanks a bunch. How did you find this post? I hope others interact with you. Do you know what verses people use to argue about the violence in Islam? I used to do a little Christian apologetic but decided to not use that method. Thanks for interacting.
Lionel,
My point in mentioning that was that just as the troubling violence scriptures have been reconciled in mind so has the troubling contradictions presented in such heated debates have been reconciled in mind by the same understanding that I currently have regarding the scriptures. I can see how it may be taken to be out of line though. Sorry about that.
Jon,
No okay I get your response now. Sorry about that. I may disagree with your conclusion but I understand your statement now. Let me ask, would you please elaborate on some of my points in the post? Thanks.
@Lionel
“Do you know what verses people use to argue about the violence in Islam?”
Yes, Some refer to these verses as the “Battle verses”. The Islamophobic sites/individuals take these verses out of context, misquote, or partially quote them. —However, free Quran translations are on the net and anyone who bothers to check—-will be able to see the distortions. The three translations above are the generally accepted translations.
I also want to inform that since 9/11, Muslim leaders, scholars, government officials, organizations and individuals have condemned terrorism and continue to do so.
I hope you do not mind if I give some background about these “battle verses”…….
In 622 CE, is the Hijra(migration)— and the start of the Muslim calender. It comemorates the escape of the Muslims from Meccan persecution. The people of the nearby community of Yathrib/Medina welcomed the Muslims and some of them converted to Islam.
The Meccans were not happy about this, they attacked the Medina community in 624 CE (battle of Badr). then again in 626CE in the Battle of Uhud. —a peace treaty was declared (treaty of Hudaibiya) which the Meccans voilated and voided—and that is when Mecca fell (630 CE) (the Meccans surrendered)
Lionel,
Remember in the Old Testament times, God used physical things to represent spiritual truth. So when you read of the commands to kill or utterly destroy people, it is to represent God’s way of dealing with sin in His human creation. For He will utterly destroy and consume all sin by His “fire judgment”. In the Old Testament this “fire” came to consume physically. In the New Testament we now can understand the spiritual significance. Why would God say that in times past (before the age in Christ) that He did not count their sins against them but it is now calling all men to repent. So it becomes more understandable that God would allow this type of destruction when you better understand God’s purposes and different demonstrations during different ages. They were not destroyed in the past to latter be resurrected and then tormented for awhile and then destroyed again. Where would the justice and impartiality of God be in that?
Jon,
Thats a good question. Anyone want to touch on that?
Anon,
I agree with your first paragraph, also thanks for the reference. I am not as strong on the context of these verses but this does shine light on the instances of violence in the Quron.
Lionel,
This is quite a soul-searching post in many ways. But I wouldn’t say that God has changed. Rather, his dealings with humanity have.
Interesting enough, God is described as gracious and so on in the OT. But yes, we have to deal with what amounts to genocide at the command of God.
But then we come to Jesus and the NT and the renewed people of God, in the in-breaking of the kingdom reality.
But it remains a challenging reconciliation for me as well.
T.C,
If His dealings with people change than I have to believe so has He. This is multi-faceted. Someone talked about this is a spiritual picture of dealing with sin and it is a good answer but one that still doesn’t deal with the reality. Even more important I still argue that what prevents a group of Christians from employing such a practical hermeneutic today and go on a genocide rampage in the name of God?
T.C,
If we say God was speaking only to them (Israel) then they could say well that is a buffet style hermeneutic because the same people pick verses out of the OT all the time to make applications and even give guidance. If we say well that was OT then we have to say that this is two totally distinct plans and that the OT is pretty much irrelevant in the life of the believer today.
Lionel,
What many see as “violence” in the OT, was simply the outworking of God’s justice, never an act of malice.
From a New Covenant perspective, that “violence”, as some see it, was voluntarily born during those terrible hours prior to and on the cross of Calvary, born by God, Himself. He condescended to became incarnate, in other words, came as a man, to suffer as a man, to live sinless as a man, to die as a man, to satisfy His own justice, once and for all. “It is finished!”
Aussie J,
I definitely don’t disagree with the justice aspect, the reference was more towards Islam and justice, the extremeist feel the same way that their god is being just. If I look at those who God poured His vengence out on like infant males by the hand of sinners (Israel) we can’t say that Islam is “wicked” for their acts, they just used different technology.
Lionel,
To say that God changes is to say that God has a need to change. But why does all this require God to change?
And neither do I want to accept a buffet style hermeneutic. There must be another way.
T.C.R,
I would say that could be murky; however, God has changed His mind in the past about things that seem to be going in one way in the past but turned out a different way in the future. There are a few instances in scripture where this seems to be possible in the flooding of the world is one place. God regreted that He made man and decided to destroy them all, He later decided to save them
But that could be a long discussion.
I would not say that God has changed, but that the Covenant has changed. The nation of Israel was prevented from immediately entering the promised land due to unbelief and disobedience, we also learn from other texts that the sins of the Amorite were not yet full, so God dealt with Israel in the wilderness for their unbelief and disobedience and then deatt with the sinful Cananites by judging them with His then chosen instrument the nation of Israel. So we see God using the situations and circumstances to train and correct His people and at the same time to execute judgement on others whose sins had finally recahed their full measure. Interestingly God’s mercy and long-suffering towards sinners was evident in His waiting until the Cananites sins had reached full measure before executing His judgement upon them. Now the terms of the New and Better Covenant are in place and now God’s wrath has been poured out upon Christ so God no longer uses one group of people to execute His judgement against others as He is waiting for whosover will to come to repentance since His wrath and Judgement has been satisfied by the person and work of Christ. No longer instruments of God’s wrath and justice since Christ work is complete and comprehensive, now God’s children will be minister of reconciliation and love, not destruction and wrath.
Just my two cents worth.
Hutch,
Good stuff brother. Though many may disagree with such a dichotomoy/system. Especially for those who fell Israel has every right to the land as God’s covenant people.
Yeah, unless people understand that we are under the New Covennat and what the New Covenant entails they will not come to the biblical understanding of who and what The True Israel of God is in this New and Better Covenant and by extension will not arrive at a biblical eschatology.
If I may say,
I was pondering on the issue of texts such as Numbers 31 and thinking on what actually went down in comparision to what often happened in other nations where taking others captive occurred.
One thing I noticed was that God didn’t intend for the soldiers to rape the women as other nations did, but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives ( Numbers 31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have violated this command (Lev 15:16-18).
Also, while it is true that God gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, they were to treat their wives with respect. The women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Those who did not marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Exodus 21:26-27, Deuteronomy 23:15-16).
For more information on the issue, one can go to “Slavery laws in the Old Testament” ( http://www.rationalchristianity.net/slavery_ot.html#rape ) and “Good question…What about God’s cruelty against the Midianites?” ( http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html ) and “Good question…shouldn’t the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes?” ( http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html )
For me, I cannot help but see some form of Mercy for the children killed seeing all the drama they were forced into by evil actions…and by the same token, there’s also the issue of what the word “genocide” really means. For when reading the Word, it seems clear that destruction of other groups was because of their rebellion and according to God’s special purposes—not because of their ethnicity. “Ethnic cleansing” and genocide refer to destruction of a people due to their ethnicity, like saying “I’m black, you’re white…therefore, I need to kill you…”
As it stands, God wiped out his own people in droves throughout the book of Numbers—with them being told repeatedly that they were not to think that being an ethnic Jew alone meant that they were above being taken out…..as many times, they thought otherwise/oppressed other groups—and punishment came upon them, even if it meant being persecuted by their enemies and being sent into exile.
With tthe destruction of the Canaanites, there were multiple people groups in the land of Cannan (i.e. Ammonites, Amalekites, Moabites, Midianites, Philistines, etc)–and more often than not, all united in thought concerning religious ideals/practices—from beastiality to rape to incest and many other things…including sacrificing of children regularly to the gods/molestation of them as well as a form of “worship” to the Lord…
Beyond the genocide issues, one must consider the Flood/all the babies that were killed there alongside parents. Were they also killed for issues of sin…or was it for other reasons? Just thinking out loud…
Additionally, it should be argued that just because it happened in that time when GOD CLEARLY commanded it cannot be used by others today to say that God told them to do the same…..unless, of course, Gods dealings are the same way as before with a THEOCRACY as many try to do.
When it comes to the cultural concerns people faced who were being killed, some wonder how can the Old Testament tell of a God who kills women and children (while we are told in the New Testament, “God is love”. Can they be the same God when several verses tell us, “God does not change”? How can there be a God of opposites? (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17)
There are many times where I’m forced to realize that we cannot see things from His perspective; we cannot know how long He had to bear with these wicked groups of people. We are not told everything about His dealings with them, so we don’t know to the extremes He went to warning them to save them. We only see the end result: women and children were put to the sword without regard. But we must remember that everything God does is true to His character. He is Merciful, knows all and acts justly—and His timing is perfect.
Imagaine putting ourselves in God’s place for a moment. You try tried to reveal yourself to mankind and want them to enter into a loving relationship with you, as you already have for them. Some are highly interested, some partially while others have no interest whatsoever and rebuff every attempt you make at reaching them.
The uninterested are so given over to wickedness that their lives corrupt others, which is what the Canaanites were. They were heavily involved with bestiality, and even children were entirely given over to it!!!! If this weren’t bad enough, they worshipped devils–and had sex on the altars as part of their worshipping rites. Moreover, these people regularly took little babies and threw them into fires in the name of religious sacrifice. All of this is bad enough to warrant their extermination by a Holy God, but they were bent on dragging Israel into their cesspool (ex. Remember Balaam and how he showed the Moabites how to destroy Israel by sending beautiful women into their midst and seducing them….Numbers 22-24, Numbers 25, Numbers 31:1-18).
God, in His wisdom/mercy, knew the only hope was to crush these wicked groups by the hands of the Israelites themselves. Again, we cannot understand God’s wrath through the eye of human experience. Our wrath is meant to destroy the one who has offended us, but God’s is meant in one way or another to bring life. It’s like the protective love a mother has for her baby…..and just as it is an act of Mercy to place an unrepentant murderer to death, so it’s the same with God. OT wrath is simply a different manifestation of the same love in the NT
People often want a unchanging Moral Law to exist, but I have a hard time seeing this in scripture. If it does exist you could possibly make a strong argument that things like incest and polygamy are not on that list. I guess I am more comfortable reconciling things like violence in scripture and morality by asking what does God want from ME. He may have wanted other things from other people in times past, but at this point in the history of His revelation what does He want from me. Putting a spear through two fornicators was something that in the past at that specific time pleased Him. And like you wrote, if anyone were to do this today it would be regarded as evil, and rightly so. But at this point in history we are to live according to grace of the Gospel of Christ. Praise God for that. As blessed as Israel was to be the people of God in a physical sense, I am so much more grateful to be one of His spiritual children.
Gabe I have two problems with soemthing you said.
How do you come to this conclusion? What biblical hermeneutic do you employ to say that that is what God wanted then but wants something different now? Secondly what about a group of people who only have the Old Testament?
Next you said:
Please do explain. Put yourself in the shoes of a 5 year old male of Midian during this time frame and please explain to me “love”. Whats loving about seeing your little sister put in chains (or some obstructing mechanism) your preganant mother sawed in half with a sword and your dad decapitated? Then after that is done you are taken somewhere else and then you and your brother are chopped in half, just because you are a male (there has to be some age of innoncence)
Gabe,
The pick and choose law is my problem. Not only that, even those who believe the 10 commandments are God’s unchanging moral law, have modified the Sabbath.
I originally posted as “Gabe”, but seeing that there are two Gabe/Gabriel’s posting I will continue to post now as “gheter” for the sake of clarity.
I have a problem with picking and choosing laws as well, I hope my comment didn’t suggest that this is what is needed.
I wonder, is your viewpoint in asking and responding to these things hypothetical or is it genuine? Situations from Israel’s past can be discussed, but I think if you jump to the end of time you will have the most defining situation to examine in respect to how we view God and issues of violence and morality. At the end of time all without Christ will be physically destroyed and eternally/spiritually damned. This will be violent physically but the horror of spiritual judgment will far exceed an physical violence that will take place. How we view God in light of this future judgment (is He just in doing so?) will then put perspective on how we view events that have occurred in the past.
It was genuine Gheter,
The reason is in the opening quote in the post. To say that Isalm is somehow inferior to Christianity because of the violence of Allah is very disheartening given the fact that Christian history (if we believe Israel to be in that history) is just if not more violent.
To be clear, I’m am not the poster “Gabe”——as I go by Gabriel
I agree, Islam is not in inferior because of it’s violence, it is evil because it rejects the true God. Agreed?
Gheter,
I choose wrong over evil, but that could be a matter of semantics
Is Satan evil or wrong? Both? Not arguing, just curious where you’re coming from.
Also, is God just in the future violence and judgment against the ungodly. If so, is He also just in the past violence and judgment against the ungodly.
Gheter,
Satan is evil. I have to think about your second point. I may be arguing that God didn’t endorse such crimes (nor do I believe that innoncent children will be destroyed when Christ returns)
I apologize for the barrage of posts, but I find these issues intriguing and important.
So, after reading your most recent post, are we talking with the premise that the Bible is true or is that potentially in question?
Once that is answered:
-Why distinguish between the word evil to describe Satan and the word wrong to describe others who have rejected God?
-What standard would you use to potentially argue that these occurrences were “crimes” and then how would you biblically support the idea that God did not endorse those actions.
-Regarding children, it is clear that in certain cases God ordered that children be physically killed. I really don’t have an issue with God in this regard. Why? Because everybody dies. You die at 2 yrs or you die at 80 yrs, you still die. What truly matters is what happens to ones soul when they die, and I think the issue of what happens to a child’s sold when they die is a different discussion and should not interfere with weather God is just in judging wicked people. Thanks for your honest discussion of these issues, I think it is good for the body.
Gheter,
I will attempt to be as honest as I possibly can, again I want to preface my responses with saying these things are struggles not things I am totally sure of.
1. The bible being “true” could mean a few things. If you mean 100% right that is where I would have the problem. For example I don’t believe that it is ever right to take the life of a child or a pregnant woman. There are times in the bible (Numbers 31 being one) where this seems to be endorsed by God. I don’t know if that is right. I believe the event to be true as it relates to its historocity though. A reason is that there were many nations who were practicing this type of work, do we say God endorsed that also? What about Bosnia? or Rwanda? or Sudan? I believe that to be evil so I don’t know how I can say this isn’t evil, unless of course God really did say it, so I wrestle. Not to mention if we follow the bible you would have to believe a group of slaves were wrong to rebel against their masters, even to the point of doing it violently. I say that is wrong, if a man has you against your will (regardless of who sold you there) you have every right to fight for your freedom, even until death.
2. One could be ignorance the other rejection. For example slaves often rejected the religion of their masters (Christianity) so did Indians. Some of this could have been out of ignornace (justifiable ignorance I might add) not evil. I believe ignorance to be different than evil.
3. I sort of answered this in one, but I can’t “biblically”, this is why I talked about the inner witness. I can’t see how something today is wrong and wicked when the same events 3000 years ago are not.
4. I don’t know how clear that is. And if it is clear (and I am sure the victims didn’t see it that way) how do I now know that genocide today is not “clear”. When can I call it wicked?
So those are my opinions right now.
Lionel,
My turn to be honest… I don’t know you, or what you believe, or why you believe what you believe. But it appears that you are bringing many presuppositions to the table that are outside of the word of God. If I’m reading you right, in point #1 you infer that God is wrong, in certain cases, in what He called for and accomplished through Israel. Keep seeking brother. It is a dangerous road to travel when you are unable to accept the word of God as true and the actions of God as supremely holy and just.
Lionel,
I also belive that all of God’s actions are holy and just especially with the understanding that God may use these past events to ultimately draw all men to Christ. I believe God is currently using and in the future will use these past events for His creation to learn from and be corrected/chastised/judged by in the coming age(s) of judgment. Also the angelic beings are learning from how God is dealing with humans. God knows how to draw each and every human that He has created whether they be unborn fetuses, mentally impaired, innocent children, etc. God’s mercy endures throughout the ages (forever).
I can’t stress enough for you to restudy aion/aionios as it relates to “eternal damnation/condemnation/judgment. The same “fire” is used to judge us presently and all others in the coming age(s) – “lake of fire”. God’s judgment is always for purification not for simple revenge or through unforgiveness. This would not agree with the God of mercy and love described throughout scriptures.
I really do believe that when (if) you come to this understanding, then it will surely help to clear up a lot of the confusion you seem to have over God being loving and soverign but yet commanding certain acts of “violence” in the past. This will also help to explain why this all loving, powerful, all knowing God would create some beings that He knew would contiue to reject Him and thus be tormented throughout this present life as well as in the coming age(s) of judgment.
Why would God desire to create beings to torment them eternally?
Does God somehow joy in tormenting His own creation (clay)?
This makes no sense when you really think about it, therefore it must be something wrong with your current or past understanding of scripture. Restudy!!! The scriptures are a true witness when discerned correctly. There are no contradictions and the same main messages are being proclaimed throughout the old and the new which are (in part):
– God’s creation and the fall
– His ultimate plan of reconciliation of all things through Christ
– establishment of a New Creation through Christ by the complete eradication of sin and death (both physically and spiritually) in all things whether things in heaven or on earth
BTW:
Hope this comment may at least stir you up to more study of the scriptures even if we still do not come to agreement on everything!!!
Lionel,
Stay encouraged as you continue to seek more of God’s truth!
Persecution comes to all who truly love and seek to know God and His son Jesus Christ.
Gheter,
It is true I am bringing many presuppositions outside of the word of God; however, it is a presupposition to believe that every stroke in the bible is “inspired” by God. I will admit it does make for murky conversations especially with protestants/evangelicals, in which I would in past label myself as. I don’t know if it is dangerous unless your presuppostion is right and my presupposition is wrong, but none the less they are both presuppositions. So I can’t say that I called God “wrong”. I called Israel wrong and God may or may not have been involved with the massacre (regardless it is a massacre). So I do believe God’s actions are “holy and just” I just don’t know if what I read are “His actions”.
You can read some of my older stuff at http://www.blackandreformedministries.wordpress.com