Test to see if I know how this comments works.
 

I greatly enjoy the economics and the theology at your site.

You had said --
God did NOT say to Joshua, "I want you to lead your men and annihilate the city before you, and by the way, I just laid out a general command for the rest of eternity."

What about this line of reasoning?
God DID say to Joshua, "I want you to lead your men and annihilate the city before you, and by the way, I just laid out a general command for the rest of eternity."

This is how it works:
God shows us eternal realities by shadow in the Old Testament (e.g., sacrifices are the shadow and the crucifixion is the reality).

Joshua's annhilation of the enemies of God's people is a shadow of the eternal reality of the destruction of God's enemies at the end of history (for instance as described in II Thessalonians 1:6-10).

That is, at the end of history, God's people will return with their King and destroy the wicked. In that sense, the command is reflects a reality that has been the same throughout history. This deals with the charge of relativism.

Why shouldn't Christians conduct "holy war" by the sword now? Because now that Jesus has arrived, we don't need to deal in shadows, we speak of the reality of the destruction of God's enemies which is "at hand" at Jesus' second coming.

We're given an example of this with a comparison of Luke 9:54-56 -- where Jesus rebukes the apostles for wanting to call down the end of history upon their enemies immediately -- with Luke 10:1-16 -- where Jesus reflects upon the woes upon Chorazin and Bethsaida for rejecting the gospel preached.

Christian war is now conducted by gospel preaching. Sometimes, those who hate God hear the Word and "change sides". Those who reject that message have only the expectation of far worse than befell Joshua's enemies.

Charlie Perkins, Pastor
Prescott Presbyterian Church
Prescott, AZ
 

Mr. Perkins,

That's an interesting take. I think you're right, that even the "short term" actions of God have eternal significance and reflect universal truths.

And I also agree that Jesus may have been a pacifist His first time here, but when He returns that won't be the case.
 

Assuming that it's true God's enemies deserve death and also assuming God does not subscribe to the non-aggression axiom, or at least not one we'd easily recognize, could you explain in what sense a child could be anyone's enemy and thus deserve to be killed by any moral standard? Not only to be killed, but to have their deaths be a source of pleasure to the one doing the killing? (Ps. 137:9)
 

Nfactor13,

Well for one thing, that is the psalmist talking, not God. And in a future post I will offer some thoughts on how God could possibly have ordered them to kill infants.
 

Remember Mark Twain's "War Prayer"?

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

*God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!*

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
 

See theological voluntarism, Pufendorf, Locke.
 

Thanks for the response. I didn't know what you meant by "the Bible is the inspired word of God" since people mean many different things by that phrase. But if you are going to exempt Ps. 137 as being just one guy's opinion, and possibly not a very good opinion, why do you accept the accounts of Joshua and other places as being an expression of divine will, not merely the common attribution of military victory to your favorite deity? Remember that God never claims to have chosen Israel because they were morally superior to everyone else.

And on the moral question, it sounds like, in your view, genocide is not so much immoral as it is a poor tactical choice. Pre-Messiah, it works just fine; post-messiah, but pre-advent, not the best idea, so let's cool it; but then we'll be back at it once the timing is right again.

This is about as encouraging as getting Gary North to support one's efforts at creating a free society, knowing that he's going to support killing all the homosexuals and wiccans once he's got some power. In the meantime, he'll support being a pacifist, I assume. Am I misunderstanding your position? (Or his?)
 

Of course another take on all this is that God DOESN'T tell us to kill anyone, but that we - of whatever creed - love to find justification in convincing ourselves that HE does.

I love all of the "God's on our side" and "God commands that we slaughter others" rationalizations by which we foist on God blame for our own actions.
 

What about this line of reasoning?
The Israelites slaughtered a lot of people because they wanted to grab their land.
Then they made some shit up about how they "had" to do it, 'cause otherwise they'd have a really bad conscience.
 

"by which we foist on God blame for our own actions."

Blame? You are begging the question.
 

You are begging the question

Not. You just have a tough time reading between lines. My view is fairly clearly that IF there is a God, He does not want us - or tell us - to slaughter our enemies.
 

nfactor13 asks:

could you explain in what sense a child could be anyone's enemy and thus deserve to be killed by any moral standard?


By the moral standard of the imputation of sin

That is, by the moral standard of every person including all children (descended from Adam by natural generation) as covenantally represented (by Adam in this case).

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
. . . .
17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Cf. also I Corinthians 15:
21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

A common objection to this truth is "that's not fair". If it is not fair for God to impute/reckon Adam's condemnation to his descendants, then it is not fair for God to impute/reckon the second Adam's righteousness to those who hold to Him by faith.

According to the Bible, God created man as a morally represented being.

Charlie Perkins